Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 66082	2006-02-10 06:46:00	WFTWE #193....Sottise....Three prime candidates for this one....	Billy T (70)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
429019	2006-02-11 07:59:00	With respect Billy, and I realise you're musing but, what utter BS. It requires no more analysis nor further discussion than that. Sorry Murray, I may have been musing but it is not BS. Had there been proven illegal activity, the money would have been forfeited as the proceeds of crime., One of the great features of our legal system is the presumption of innocence, the principle that a citizen is deemed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof of guilt lies with the Crown. A defendant is not required to speak, even in his own defence, if he does not wish to. He cannot be forced to incriminate himself, and at the appropriate level there is a fundamental right to be judged by a jury of his peers. It is a civilised system, and although not perfect, it is far better than any system that presumes guilt and places the onus of proof on the defendant. Mistakes are made but it is frequently said in its defence, words to the effect that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. On that basis, and having been judged by a jury of his peers and found not guilty, the surgeon is deemed to have committed no crime. Whatever we may think about his motives, naivety, stupidity or culpability, he is deemed innocent by the State, and as such they have no claim to any money derived from his sale of Telfast, beyond the rightful claims of the Inland Revenue Department. Some members of the public, such as yourself for example, may feel outraged that he retains his profit from the sales, but the alternative would be unconscionable. As for your views beetle, I can't follow your logic. I followed the instructions on the rear of the infringement notice and made use of the option offered to provide an explanation in mitigation, I did, and that explanation was accepted. That is the same rule that would apply to you should you find yourself in similar circumstances, and in that event, if you use your brain rather than your emotions you will find that there is indeed one rule for all of us. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
429020	2006-02-11 08:10:00	Where did emotion come into it? practice what you preach Billy T. We may not all be saints but we do know when justice is not served. :illogical beetle	beetle (243)
429021	2006-02-11 08:20:00	Heh, Its a simple fact that the man was selling a product then he knew to be used for the manufacturer of a dangerous drug, He done the deed the same as the man cooking the "P" . His argument that he never realised should have been dismissed outright for the rubbish it is, The only issue needing debate was how long he should go to prison for . The fact he is a doctor and stupid (like many crims) is irrilivant, Do the crime, get your hands chopped off and thrown on a boat back to China . And lets not continue to pretend ths gear was shipped to China, why would anyone bother with that risk when the market in NZ is begging for the raw products, His sales went 300m down the road, were cooked up and on the street the next day . If it had gone international then those monitoing our borders would have jumped on this months ago . Overall the entire charade is a disgrace to NZ and a disservice by everyone involved, The doctor, the judge, the cops and the Jury .	Metla (12)
429022	2006-02-11 08:45:00	How many people are going to let him operate on them now that they know how stupid he is? Aren't doctors supposed to be inteligent?	Greven (91)
429023	2006-02-11 09:12:00	Guilty of sin - nice act for the court but anyone not even working in medicine would have realised they were for the manufacture of P. I recall hearing the person who was buying the pills 'fled' the country..........I wonder if in reality he is sleeping with the fishy's in the Hauraki. His testimony would have been interesting.	sam m (517)
429024	2006-02-11 09:30:00	OJ, Wacko - crazy as a cut snake - Jacko, the guy who flushes the evidence down the loo or intimadates witnesses, all legal because a court of law found them, not guilty as charged. Then to turn it around, we have Arthur Alan Thomas. All the things that have been done, but they haven't come to the attention of authorities yet, not illegal, because a court of law has not found the acts illegal. You also know, as well as I, that any case can turn on a technicality, or the wim of a juror in a tired and grumpy room, for example. So, if we take the specious arguments out of it Billy, there ain't much left. It's BS, a plain and simple observation. Now I might read your reply, although I'm not sure it exists :D	Murray P (44)
429025	2006-02-11 13:19:00	My old employer TVNZ did a "once-over-lightly" on this case, as in so many others nowadays . On the basis of that alone, anyone would've doubted any doctor could be so naive . Certainly I did . But after the verdict, I heard a Radio NZ interview with his boss, an eminent Auckland Hospital surgeon who'd testified for the defence . This wasn't a man who'd bend the rules . He explained convincingly why he believed the doctor was so naive - trained in Communist China, where illegal methamphetamine use was unknown . He'd worked enormously long hours in the hospital since coming to NZ, and when he wasn't working, he was studying . He was quite unworldly with no outside social life or general news knowledge . His boss believed he simply didn't register there was a methadine manufacturing problem here . He also praised his character, saying he was a kind & generous person (He'd earlier loaned a tenant a huge sum of money with no security) but once again - naive . The whole department was on his side, according to this surgeon, who hoped the district health board would give him his job back . Now my experience of medical ethics/politics has shown me that no doctors who have suspicions that a colleagues is involved in illegal drug-related activities will touch him with a 10 foot pole, let alone defend him in court or want him back . They're too concerned that some of the bad publicity may rub off on them . So perhaps the armchair jury should remember the old warning about courts & and a very brief version of evidence hear over a whole day . The real jury heard it all . They're ordinary people like you & me . And they're the ones who believed him enough to find him Not Guilty .	Laura (43)
429026	2006-02-11 20:29:00	So If i go next door, hack someone up with an axe then claim I didn't know it was a bad thing I can get off the charge? I'll kep it in mind next time I get a speeding ticket, Uh Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do 300km/h, Im a commie. Muhahahaha. Ship him back to china, and beat the judge with arubber hose, Its still perverted justice and a sham.	Metla (12)
1 2