Schapelle Corby or "Bali Nine" (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan A]

Could you possibly be more spastic?

And for fucks sake. Its spelt "assertion". Obviously grammar isnt highly regarded within UWS marking criteria.

Smart comments like that really make me angry. Not because it's my university, but because UWS is very strict on grammar, presentation and word limits.

 

[absolution*]

Tip for Jonathan A: Though i realise you study at UWS, dont fight with retards over the internet. It wont get you anywhere.

 

[Meads]

ouch! im scared of uni students :S lol

 

[Korn]

i cant believe people would rather 9 dead then just one

If there guilty why should they get off while an innocent person dies just so more lives are kept???

 

[soha]

If there guilty why should they get off while an innocent person dies just so more lives are kept???

no one said one corby was innocent and the 9 was guilty
in the case that they were all guilty the 9 and corby
id rather see corby dead then 9 people
but if they all innocent then kill corby
either way no one deserves to die if they are innocent
but IF we had to choose..then id rather one die over 9

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Could you possibly be more spastic?

And for fucks sake. Its spelt "assertion". Obviously grammar isnt highly regarded within UWS marking criteria.

Well I am pretty rough around the edges when it comes to grammar, spelling etc. However usually before submitting work i'll do a spell check, make sure the grammar's right.
This was just a post on the interent tho, don't carry on so much about it wanker

 

[absolution*]

This was just a post on the interent tho, don't carry on so much about it wanker

Sure thing. But recognise that the fact that this is the internet does not make up for your extreme shitness. Haw haw.

 

[spell check]

hey look i'm french

je m'schappelle corby

 

[shortie_689]

i cant be bothered to read all 5 pages but was there ever an answer to why it was such a weird closing date if so wat was it

 

[katietheskatie]

i cant believe people would rather 9 dead then just one

that is the deadset fucking dumbest comment i have read all day.

honestly i wouldn't want any of them to die, no matter what they've done. but assuming that the bali nine were guilty and schapelle corby was innocent, would you honestly rather have her die when she's done absolutely nothing?

the whole schapelle corby thing frustrates me so badly. i know they have to let the case run its course in indonesian courts, but the chance of her being let off is pretty much slim to none. it's fucked.

 

[paper cup]

hey look i'm french

je m'schappelle corby

really funny. like, I'm rofling all over the place now.

that is the deadset fucking dumbest comment i have read all day.

honestly i wouldn't want any of them to die, no matter what they've done. but assuming that the bali nine were guilty and schapelle corby was innocent, would you honestly rather have her die when she's done absolutely nothing?

the whole schapelle corby thing frustrates me so badly. i know they have to let the case run its course in indonesian courts, but the chance of her being let off is pretty much slim to none. it's fucked.

it's the law in indonesia. if they disobeyed the law there they should face the according punishment - it's not like they're the only ones. I know that in Australia such punishment would be unacceptable, and that corruption is rife, but the point that should be stressed is, she didn't commit the crime in Australia . there's no way they can alter the law just because some foreigner started bawling her eyes out about how it's not fair and yeh she doesn't deserve it but the local Indonesian drug smugglers do. it's a developing country, people are bent on survival, it's not like in Australia where we have to pay people to go to school and have babies (sorry, that's in Europe, but you get the point).
if she's guilty, she should serve the sentence. of course, if she's not, then like you said, the situation is fucked. but much worse has happened.

 

[soha]

that is the deadset fucking dumbest comment i have read all day.

honestly i wouldn't want any of them to die, no matter what they've done. but assuming that the bali nine were guilty and schapelle corby was innocent, would you honestly rather have her die when she's done absolutely nothing?

the whole schapelle corby thing frustrates me so badly. i know they have to let the case run its course in indonesian courts, but the chance of her being let off is pretty much slim to none. it's fucked.

how the fuck is it?
im saying..i cnat believe people would rather kill 9 human beings...then just one
if i had to choose based on them both guilty..then id kill one person as apposed to 9..?
how is it stupid..make smore sense to take one life...not NINE?

 

[paper cup]

how the fuck is it?
im saying..i cnat believe people would rather kill 9 human beings...then just one
if i had to choose based on them both guilty..then id kill one person as apposed to 9..?
how is it stupid..make smore sense to take one life...not NINE?

um...seeing as you don't have any authority to impose those sentences (thank god)....ever heard of rule of law...it means all people are equal before it...so it makes no sense to execute the one girl and have the nine go free.
and there are mitigating factors as well....

 

[soha]

no one said one corby was innocent and the 9 was guilty
in the case that they were all guilty the 9 and corby
id rather see corby dead then 9 people
but if they all innocent then kill corby
either way no one deserves to die if they are innocent
but IF we had to choose..then id rather one die over 9

i said..incase you people didnt read...that
IF WE HAD TO CHOOSE..?.. which is what this thread is asking..
i would rather have one die over 9
AND NO ONE DESERVES TO DIE IF THEY ARE INNOCENT....but if they were both guilty and you had to choose then kill one ..not nine people

 

[tattoodguy]

jonathan - so ur saying their is no burdan of prooof for police to search your house? they can search houses randomly? they need a warrant? what do they have to prove in order to get a warrrant?


you acknoledge under the law -- police can only search you if they have reasonable suspician etc if they violate this rule dont u think they should be fired?
Shouldnt there be consequences when the police abuse their power.

As i todl u before, i was searched for pretty much no reason - shouldnt that officer be punished? Shouldnt there be laws in that case to fire police for this misconduct?

I think thats why corruption flourishes, because we dont believe criminals - the polices word always over rides that of an alledged criminals -- which is unfair, because police can lie like any other citizen. and when they do things wrong, they are not punished reasonably -- that just invites them to become more and more corrupt.

I think police mostly only get busted when the other officers dob them in - and since their partners could be corrupt as well that doestn happen. Thats why we have so much corrupition, we dont have the systems in place to stop them.

Jonathan - ur opinion is police have a very important job with obviously special responsibilities. Why when when they commmit crimes or abuse their power or are corrupt, arnt they treated as very serious offenders.

Using government powers to abuse citizens and to create injustice - thats equivelent to murder or pedofelia etc. Police abusing their power is one of the worst crimes in my opinion. Do you think we let them off too easily?

Do you acknoledge police get special treatment under the law?

I showed u that case, where an officer was on alot of charges for sexual assult and he was given bail- i dont think the gang rapists and other people on serious charges would get bail.

Find the information about the macdonalds thing - if they detained someone and they are totally innocent - dont u think the police officer should be fired?


I think there has been cases where officers have turned informants and dobbed their mates in and then all the officers turn on that dude and victimise the informant? have you heard of such a thing?

if so why? what do police have to hide?

 

[tattoodguy]

me - In Western australia there was some footy players who alledgedly i think had a phone call with an underworld figure, why should the police make that public and make comments to pressure them into answering questions.

you - Firstly, no law prevents this becomming public if it's true. I would also draw your attention to the openness of the criminal justice system, it is your right to have your case public, because the people should see what the state is doing. AND, the police cannot force any admissions from you, that again would be inadmissable evidence.

But im saying the police try and pressure people in to them helping by making things public, why even implicate them, espeically when the police think the footy players are innocent - if you are innnocent and u tell the police u dont want to talk, that should be the end of it.

It should be your right to decide if you want to talk to the police unless u are charged or whatever, the police are using manipulation to bully civilians. You dont have any problem with that?

I dont care if crimes have been commited its up to individuals to decide to co operate with police or not.

Did u see the thing with jeff fenech what happend there?

with the bulldogs footy scandal - was their something about leaking of information? Why did it take the police so long to clear people, having a cloud over alot of people - that caused alot of problems.

you siad police are skilled? and professional ----- ur a funny guy.

Every single crime commited in this country is just a representation of the police not doing their job.

So forgive me if im not very impressed by the work the police do.

 

[Jonathan A]

jonathan - so ur saying their is no burdan of prooof for police to search your house? they can search houses randomly? they need a warrant? what do they have to prove in order to get a warrrant?


you acknoledge under the law -- police can only search you if they have reasonable suspician etc if they violate this rule dont u think they should be fired?
Shouldnt there be consequences when the police abuse their power.

You answered your question.

They are usually repremanded. It's like any workplace, if you make a mistake, generally you wont be dimissed, however deliberate acts are dealt with seriously, especially in the police.

As i todl u before, i was searched for pretty much no reason - shouldnt that officer be punished? Shouldnt there be laws in that case to fire police for this misconduct?

Pretty much no reason - this in my opinion does not justify the sacking of police officer. If you are so out there with anger toward police, why didn't you question the officer? There are laws, and as I said, contact the PIC and they will advise you, yet you wont because you know either you were in the wrong in the first place or the officer's actions were justified.

I think thats why corruption flourishes, because we dont believe criminals - the polices word always over rides that of an alledged criminals -- which is unfair, because police can lie like any other citizen. and when they do things wrong, they are not punished reasonably -- that just invites them to become more and more corrupt.


You didn't answer my question on whether you know about corruption review and it shows you avoid my questions. And I will add to this police get it tougher than you mate.

I think police mostly only get busted when the other officers dob them in - and since their partners could be corrupt as well that doestn happen. Thats why we have so much corrupition, we dont have the systems in place to stop them.

Evidence? Many people file claims to the police for review. I can tell you this straight out, my father was in the Internal Affairs and Special Crime Division of the Police for a while. Every complaint is thoroughly reviewed, even small things.

Jonathan - ur opinion is police have a very important job with obviously special responsibilities. Why when when they commmit crimes or abuse their power or are corrupt, arnt they treated as very serious offenders.

THEY ARE! It's just you don't see that, because you have an assertion that wont change.

Using government powers to abuse citizens and to create injustice - thats equivelent to murder or pedofelia etc. Police abusing their power is one of the worst crimes in my opinion. Do you think we let them off too easily?

DO you think that I have answered these questions?

Do you acknoledge police get special treatment under the law?

Yes, it's called an aggravating factor and it increases the severity of their punishment.


I showed u that case, where an officer was on alot of charges for sexual assult and he was given bail- i dont think the gang rapists and other people on serious charges would get bail.

Think again. Many people get bail, not all cases are reported in the Law Reports let alone in the media.



I think there has been cases where officers have turned informants and dobbed their mates in and then all the officers turn on that dude and victimise the informant? have you heard of such a thing?

if so why? what do police have to hide?

I have heard of such thing, and why do they hide, because those officers have committed an offence and like many criminals, they would pretty much hide.

 

[Jonathan A]

me - In Western australia there was some footy players who alledgedly i think had a phone call with an underworld figure, why should the police make that public and make comments to pressure them into answering questions.

you - Firstly, no law prevents this becomming public if it's true. I would also draw your attention to the openness of the criminal justice system, it is your right to have your case public, because the people should see what the state is doing. AND, the police cannot force any admissions from you, that again would be inadmissable evidence.

But im saying the police try and pressure people in to them helping by making things public, why even implicate them, espeically when the police think the footy players are innocent - if you are innnocent and u tell the police u dont want to talk, that should be the end of it.

And it is. That's not to stop police from asking you questions, searching you by law, and asking others who are willing to talk.


It should be your right to decide if you want to talk to the police unless u are charged or whatever, the police are using manipulation to bully civilians. You dont have any problem with that?

I do have a problem with that, it's not allowed in courts or in questioning.


I dont care if crimes have been commited its up to individuals to decide to co operate with police or not.

I agree

Did u see the thing with jeff fenech what happend there?

with the bulldogs footy scandal - was their something about leaking of information? Why did it take the police so long to clear people, having a cloud over alot of people - that caused alot of problems.

Many of these matters are before PIC, so I'd rather not comment until an investigation is complete.

you siad police are skilled? and professional ----- ur a funny guy.

Thanks mate, and you're even funnier. I should just make one post and copy and paste that evertime you comment or ask me a question as it is the same thing only you probably use Auto-Summarise option on MS Word.

Police ARE skilled and are professionals. Most police have 3 years uni under their belts plus extensive crisis training and skilled to deal with tough situations you wouldn't be prepared to handle. You don't make sense at all.

I can't speak for all police, but my father i know has two university degrees in policing and criminal justice and other degrees including a PhD from overseas. Many police also hold law degrees, nursing degrees and other degrees from various disciplines. The NSW Police are a fune bunch of men and women who serve and protect and they do it bringing down criminals and that's what annoys you. So you refer to pre-1994 events which have been dealt with and the courts have said case closed, but you use them as your basis. Mate you are quite shameful. What's ironic is the police have taken an oath to defend people like you in the face of danger.

Every single crime commited in this country is just a representation of the police not doing their job.

So forgive me if im not very impressed by the work the police do.

Arguably, and I really don't think you want me to throw in my essays on top of essays for why crime occurs. Where do I begin with why crime occurs. In fact how do we define crime. Just to show you your silliness. A strict legal interpretation of crime is that it is an act which is an offence (either by common law or statute), some can go further as to say it would require the court to state this actually occurred. So who brings this to court, the Crown, on arrest by the police. Of course its because of police a crime is punished, how else are crimes taken to court?

 

[KFunk]

EDIT: bah, I dunno. I'm too tired to make choices.

 

[townie]

i think Corby's brother might be the one smugling drugs, and she's just covering for him