Well if she was asked why the drugs were in her case, when the airport staff found them and she didn't have a good reason, she is guilty, that would take about 5 minutes in my book. Why should a trial last for days on end, the defence pulling out dozens of witnesses to say "oh she was such a good child" or "she has been suffering from stress" blah de blah. If you ask me our country could learn something by reducing the length of court cases.

 

Everyone knows if you get caught smuggling drugs in this part of the world what the consequences are, ignorance is not an excuse anymore.

 

Perfect answer :thumbup:

 

Whether she received a "fair trial" is an irrelevant side issue, the fact is she was caught with drugs in her suitcase and they didn't appear there by magic so there is no real case to answer

i actually agree with b.a.baracus on this one. i don't think she should be killed though but do think she should definitely have to stay in laos with a big sentence. especially when the tax payers are gonna be paying for her to be in the uk in a prison which will no doubt be 10x better than a laos one.

 

it also makes me sick how she got impregnated on purpose just to escape the death penalty. what a vile woman. when that baby grows up and finds out that it's only here so that it's mum could get out of a prison in laos it'll no doubt be furious about it and feel absolutely no worth.

Perfect answer :thumbup:

 

Whether she received a "fair trial" is an irrelevant side issue, the fact is she was caught with drugs in her suitcase and they didn't appear there by magic so there is no real case to answer

Of course it's not irrelevant you fool. A fair trial is the only way of establishing whether she really was caught carrying drugs. Call me old-fashioned but I still believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". A 30 minute trial is not enough to prove someone guilty, particularly if the defendant has no opportunity to make their case or cross-examine witnesses.

it also makes me sick how she got impregnated on purpose just to escape the death penalty. what a vile woman. when that baby grows up and finds out that it's only here so that it's mum could get out of a prison in laos it'll no doubt be furious about it and feel absolutely no worth.

The way she got pregnant is still open to question. You may have your own ideas but I shall keep an open mind until I see some concrete evidence. If she did get pregnant to avoid the death penalty, can you blame her? Are you really saying you wouldn't do whatever you could to avoid facing the firing squad? And to repeat what I said earlier, her trial was originally due to take place in August 2010 so the fact that she is pregnant in August 2009 would have been irrelevant.

Of course it's not irrelevant you fool. A fair trial is the only way of establishing whether she really was caught carrying drugs. Call me old-fashioned but I still believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". A 30 minute trial is not enough to prove someone guilty, particularly if the defendant has no opportunity to make their case or cross-examine witnesses.

 

Before someone goes to a country it is their responsibility to do research on the laws, customs, judicial system and so on before they go and if they don't like the system then don't buy the airline ticket, I would not go on holiday to Saudi Arabia for instance as I like a drink and have no desire to go to jail and get 100 lashes, the trial she got is Laos' legal system, it wasn't unique to her so by entering passport control on her own free will she is accepting the laws and customs and judicial system of that country

Before someone goes to a country it is their responsibility to do research on the laws, customs, judicial system and so on before they go and if they don't like the system then don't buy the airline ticket, I would not go on holiday to Saudi Arabia for instance as I like a drink and have no desire to go to jail and get 100 lashes, the trial she got is Laos' legal system, it wasn't unique to her so by entering passport control on her own free will she is accepting the laws and customs and judicial system of that country

Your confidence in the police in a Communist state would be touching if it wasn't so dangerous. There have been plenty of cases in the UK and other democracies where evidence has been planted. Why are you - and others - so ready to believe the authorities in this case?

 

I wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia for two main reasons. First, it's boring. Second, it's practically a fascist state. I would consider going to Libya because there are some interesting sights to see. I would just have to accept that I wouldn't be able to drink alcohol while I was there. I'm not aware of any cases where tourists have alleged that alcohol was planted on them in Libya.

The way she got pregnant is still open to question. You may have your own ideas but I shall keep an open mind until I see some concrete evidence. If she did get pregnant to avoid the death penalty, can you blame her? Are you really saying you wouldn't do whatever you could to avoid facing the firing squad? And to repeat what I said earlier, her trial was originally due to take place in August 2010 so the fact that she is pregnant in August 2009 would have been irrelevant.

 

i can blame her yeah. she's not even gonna be able to care care of that kid cos she's gonna be in prison so she was selfish to do that. and it's not as if she just suddenly got arrested for nothing, she was carrying drugs to another country so she's only got herself to blame.

i can blame her yeah. she's not even gonna be able to care care of that kid cos she's gonna be in prison so she was selfish to do that. and it's not as if she just suddenly got arrested for nothing, she was carrying drugs to another country so she's only got herself to blame.

But you're still assuming that the evidence from the Lao authorities is wholly reliable. The UK authorities initially said that Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack. We now know that he probably died as a result of internal bleeding after being attacked by the police. Why are you so quick to assume that the Lao authorities are telling the truth?

Dear CHRIST at how Daily Mail some of these replies are. I expected a lot better of some of you...

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that Samantha was very very foolish to take drugs to a country, even though the drugs were not her's and she has said repeatedly she was made to take them under duress. But to be at a point where we're treating her as scum of the earth for not getting sentenced to death, to be feeling 'sick' to see her smiling because she escaped death? Given that she was made to take these drugs under duress and faces the possible consequence of death for it, she was in a lose-lose situation. Yet we're judging her so harshly for taking the only way out, artificial insemination?

 

And it quite frankly makes me sick that we're treating an issue of life or death as something with which to apply that most ghastly and parochial of phrases 'at the taxpayers' expense' to. I don't know if any of you have actually BEEN to Holloway Prison but it isn't exactly the Ritz...

The way she got pregnant is still open to question. You may have your own ideas but I shall keep an open mind until I see some concrete evidence. If she did get pregnant to avoid the death penalty, can you blame her? Are you really saying you wouldn't do whatever you could to avoid facing the firing squad? And to repeat what I said earlier, her trial was originally due to take place in August 2010 so the fact that she is pregnant in August 2009 would have been irrelevant.

 

SHE has said how she got pregnant, SHE told her mother she got pregnant on purpose with the help of another prisoner. Trial date irrelevant - good old British press wheels crank into motion once "pregnant" mentioned, as if the ability to get pregnant makes her innocent and helpless.

 

and yes I would do anything to avoid the firing squad - namely NOT taking drugs into any country, never mind one that very publically has the death penatly for drug smugglers.

"under duress" well you would say that - but she still made the choice to knowingly take drugs in her bag into that counrty.

 

Why do the British think they don't have to take responsibilty, and bleat when the government don't come running to save them?

 

and yes Tyron - at the risk of making you further sick and myself sound like a very grumpy old cow - I do look at the "cost to the taxpayer"

and maybe when you have actually paid a bit of tax, seen each month a third of your wages disappear, and know that it is being used to fund the, maybe not luxurious, lives of such people.

Of being expected to celebrate the return of a drug smuggler so we can spend many hundreds of thousands of pounds on supporting her and the bast*rd child she is carrying.

The lofty ideals of youth fade quickly in the reality of life.

 

Edited August 9, 200915 yr by ICR

i dont know the facts, so ill refrain from comment. IF she was being coerced under duress ...and we dont know the facts, then that has to be taken into account.

Dear CHRIST at how Daily Mail some of these replies are. I expected a lot better of some of you...

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that Samantha was very very foolish to take drugs to a country, even though the drugs were not her's and she has said repeatedly she was made to take them under duress. But to be at a point where we're treating her as scum of the earth for not getting sentenced to death, to be feeling 'sick' to see her smiling because she escaped death? Given that she was made to take these drugs under duress and faces the possible consequence of death for it, she was in a lose-lose situation. Yet we're judging her so harshly for taking the only way out, artificial insemination?

 

And it quite frankly makes me sick that we're treating an issue of life or death as something with which to apply that most ghastly and parochial of phrases 'at the taxpayers' expense' to. I don't know if any of you have actually BEEN to Holloway Prison but it isn't exactly the Ritz...

 

She would say that though Tyron - She has ahown from her actions that she cares for no one but herself by getting pregnant in jail, by smuggling drugs, by showing no remorse so of course she is going to say someone was forcing her to do it, every criminal blames everyone but themselves, "wasn't me guv" , if she was being forced into it she should name who it was so that there is evidence that she was but until then she just seems a scumbag using self preservation and self pity

 

Your doe eyed innocence of youth snd idealism is fine but what you keep forgetting or overlooking is that someone has to pick up the tab and that will be taxpayers like myself, its fine for you to have a fluffy bunny attitude to everything in the world but it is me that is picking up the tab with your grandiose socialist thoughts, when you start paying tax and see it wasted on the likes of her, immigrants, Crazy Chris and so on your attitude will soon change

i dont know the facts, so ill refrain from comment. IF she was being coerced under duress ...and we dont know the facts, then that has to be taken into account.

Precisely. And following what passes for a justice system in Laos we still don't know the facts. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some people airing their prejudices.

SHE has said how she got pregnant, SHE told her mother she got pregnant on purpose with the help of another prisoner. Trial date irrelevant - good old British press wheels crank into motion once "pregnant" mentioned, as if the ability to get pregnant makes her innocent and helpless.

 

and yes I would do anything to avoid the firing squad - namely NOT taking drugs into any country, never mind one that very publically has the death penatly for drug smugglers.

"under duress" well you would say that - but she still made the choice to knowingly take drugs in her bag into that counrty.

 

Why do the British think they don't have to take responsibilty, and bleat when the government don't come running to save them?

 

and yes Tyron - at the risk of making you further sick and myself sound like a very grumpy old cow - I do look at the "cost to the taxpayer"

and maybe when you have actually paid a bit of tax, seen each month a third of your wages disappear, and know that it is being used to fund the, maybe not luxurious, lives of such people.

Of being expected to celebrate the return of a drug smuggler so we can spend many hundreds of thousands of pounds on supporting her and the bast*rd child she is carrying.

The lofty ideals of youth fade quickly in the reality of life.

The reason I state it as being such a horrific phrase is as it reduces all issues to one - money. And barely any money at that. Yes, the newspapers will publish the big numbers to sell copies, but think about it realistically - how much of your tax money probably goes to the prison service? Not much I'd imagine. Probably about 5p per pound at the VERY most (and even that's probably pushing it a lot...). Now with the amount of prisoners that we have...well, you're probably unlikely to even personally reach 10p from your taxes going to the woman, if any actually does. Hence my dislike of the phrase 'taxpayer's expense', as in reality it makes barely any difference - and frankly, I'd shell out 50p to save the life of someone who seems to be in a very lose-lose situation to me. You and Craig may both say 'oh of COURSE she would say that', but we have no idea what she could have been in for had she refused to take the drugs - and let's face it, if drugs of this nature are involved, it's not exactly going to be duress of the 'please would you kindly take this package through a country where you'll get the death penalty if you're caught with it?' type, is it? :lol: I doubt it would have occurred to her as being much of a choice...

 

She would say that though Tyron - She has ahown from her actions that she cares for no one but herself by getting pregnant in jail, by smuggling drugs, by showing no remorse so of course she is going to say someone was forcing her to do it, every criminal blames everyone but themselves, "wasn't me guv" , if she was being forced into it she should name who it was so that there is evidence that she was but until then she just seems a scumbag using self preservation and self pity

 

Your doe eyed innocence of youth snd idealism is fine but what you keep forgetting or overlooking is that someone has to pick up the tab and that will be taxpayers like myself, its fine for you to have a fluffy bunny attitude to everything in the world but it is me that is picking up the tab with your grandiose socialist thoughts, when you start paying tax and see it wasted on the likes of her, immigrants, Crazy Chris and so on your attitude will soon change

I'll deal with the Crazy Chris and immigrant point another day, but even when I am paying tax I don't think I'll automatically go all Daily Mail in my outlook :P And the point about 'smuggling drugs' is moot if it actually WAS under duress...I wouldn't show remorse for what someone had forced me to do, as I wouldn't be the one culpable! And your first point automatically assumes the criminal is guilty - why don't we go the whole hog and remove the appeals process? Of COURSE they're not going to want to be found guilty, eh, so why bother? :rolleyes: And, as I said, it's going to have been serious duress for this nature of smuggling - naming and shaming is a lot easier said than done given the fear she'll probably have of this person... And anyway, we don't even know if she HAS named the man or not. She wasn't exactly given a chance to do so at the trial, and there's no prospect of a retrial that we can see...

The reason I state it as being such a horrific phrase is as it reduces all issues to one - money. And barely any money at that. Yes, the newspapers will publish the big numbers to sell copies, but think about it realistically - how much of your tax money probably goes to the prison service? Not much I'd imagine. Probably about 5p per pound at the VERY most (and even that's probably pushing it a lot...). Now with the amount of prisoners that we have...well, you're probably unlikely to even personally reach 10p from your taxes going to the woman, if any actually does. Hence my dislike of the phrase 'taxpayer's expense', as in reality it makes barely any difference - and frankly, I'd shell out 50p to save the life of someone who seems to be in a very lose-lose situation to me. You and Craig may both say 'oh of COURSE she would say that', but we have no idea what she could have been in for had she refused to take the drugs - and let's face it, if drugs of this nature are involved, it's not exactly going to be duress of the 'please would you kindly take this package through a country where you'll get the death penalty if you're caught with it?' type, is it? :lol: I doubt it would have occurred to her as being much of a choice...

I'll deal with the Crazy Chris and immigrant point another day, but even when I am paying tax I don't think I'll automatically go all Daily Mail in my outlook :P And the point about 'smuggling drugs' is moot if it actually WAS under duress...I wouldn't show remorse for what someone had forced me to do, as I wouldn't be the one culpable! And your first point automatically assumes the criminal is guilty - why don't we go the whole hog and remove the appeals process? Of COURSE they're not going to want to be found guilty, eh, so why bother? :rolleyes: And, as I said, it's going to have been serious duress for this nature of smuggling - naming and shaming is a lot easier said than done given the fear she'll probably have of this person... And anyway, we don't even know if she HAS named the man or not. She wasn't exactly given a chance to do so at the trial, and there's no prospect of a retrial that we can see...

You're right to raise the question of how much it actually costs us. The amount of money paid by each taxpayer for her upkeep is considerably less than one penny per year. So the idea that she is proving to be a huge burden on the British taxpayer is utter nonsense.

You know, being all "liberal" and whatnot is all well and good, but this is a clear an "open and shut" case as there is IMO... And Brian is right, why the fukk should a trial necessarily last for days, weeks or months when the authorities have acutally CAUGHT her out with the sh!t in her possession... "I was coerced!!", yeah, well, sorry it's bloody easy to say that when you get caught out, and it's incredibly difficult to prove one way or the other... I can believe that Ian Huntley coerced Maxine Carr a damn sight easier than coercion in this case.... I mean, she was thousands of miles away from the gang who supposedly "coerced" her, she could just as easily have gone right up to the authorities as soon as she got off the plane and started naming names... "Guy X in Amsterdam forced me to take this package for Guy Y in Laos....", she'd've been a star witness and likely put into witness protection, Guy Y would be the one facing the firing squad, and probably more arrests would've followed in Europe...

 

No, I'll tell the way it probably played out - Guy X in Amsterdam - "Hey, dont worry if you get caught, just say we coerced you.. You're a Westerner, your liberal, do-gooder Govt will step in and save you, they wont let you be put to death....". And how right that turned out to be.... We've been had by a manipulative bunch of international criminals, of which Samantha is in all likelihood a willing accomplice.... Perhaps she shouldn't be put to death, but she should certainly be serving out a whatever sentence in Laos prison, end of.....

 

And we totally miss the point here - IE, how DARE this Govt step into this situation where they refuse to stand up to America and tell them that they cant extradite a man with Aspergers who would never be able to cope with life in Supermax Prison, and they had no problems stepping up to the plate for a bunch of convicted fraudsters either who were almost certainly conscious of their actions..... Hypocrisy much....? <_<

i dont know the facts, so ill refrain from comment. IF she was being coerced under duress ...and we dont know the facts, then that has to be taken into account.

 

hmmmm so as you or I have not been present or privy to all documentation/ investigations or been witnesses to any of the events for all the threads on this board we will not be commenting on them? Because anything we discuss in here is hearsay isn't it? We don't actually know the facts on any national / global events do we?

 

Precisely. And following what passes for a justice system in Laos we still don't know the facts. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some people airing their prejudices.

 

I prefer the word opinion. I am entitled to my opinion on this and many other matters.

 

I am also, I feel, entitled to an opinion, if not an actual say, on what my taxes are spent on.

You know, being all "liberal" and whatnot is all well and good, but this is a clear an "open and shut" case as there is IMO... And Brian is right, why the fukk should a trial necessarily last for days, weeks or months when the authorities have acutally CAUGHT her out with the sh!t in her possession... "I was coerced!!", yeah, well, sorry it's bloody easy to say that when you get caught out, and it's incredibly difficult to prove one way or the other... I can believe that Ian Huntley coerced Maxine Carr a damn sight easier than coercion in this case.... I mean, she was thousands of miles away from the gang who supposedly "coerced" her, she could just as easily have gone right up to the authorities as soon as she got off the plane and started naming names... "Guy X in Amsterdam forced me to take this package for Guy Y in Laos....", she'd've been a star witness and likely put into witness protection, Guy Y would be the one facing the firing squad, and probably more arrests would've followed in Europe...

 

No, I'll tell the way it probably played out - Guy X in Amsterdam - "Hey, dont worry if you get caught, just say we coerced you.. You're a Westerner, your liberal, do-gooder Govt will step in and save you, they wont let you be put to death....". And how right that turned out to be.... We've been had by a manipulative bunch of international criminals, of which Samantha is in all likelihood a willing accomplice.... Perhaps she shouldn't be put to death, but she should certainly be serving out a whatever sentence in Laos prison, end of.....

 

And we totally miss the point here - IE, how DARE this Govt step into this situation where they refuse to stand up to America and tell them that they cant extradite a man with Aspergers who would never be able to cope with life in Supermax Prison, and they had no problems stepping up to the plate for a bunch of convicted fraudsters either who were almost certainly conscious of their actions..... Hypocrisy much....? <_>

First let me make it clear that I agree with you in the Gary McKinnon case. He should not be extradited to the US. The government are wrong to say that the extradition should go ahead.

 

But I still think you are wrong about Samantha Orabator. You say that it is an open and shut case. How can you possibly say that when she hasn't had anything like a fair trial? You say that she was caught in possession of drugs. Has that been properly tested in court? No it hasn't.

 

I assume you agree with me that people like the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were stitched up. So, if you believe that the UK authorities are capable of fabricating evidence, why do you place so much faith in the Lao authorities?

 

Maybe she is guilty. But I cannot possibly say that she has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I am also, I feel, entitled to an opinion, if not an actual say, on what my taxes are spent on.

 

I agree... Christ knows we pay bloody enough in taxes.... I as much resent my taxes being spent on giving this criminal a relatively cushy life as much as my taxes being spent on Iraq, Afghanistan or bloody pensions/bonuses being paid to scum like Fred Goodwin..... <_<

 

But I still think you are wrong about Samantha Orabator. You say that it is an open and shut case. How can you possibly say that when she hasn't had anything like a fair trial? You say that she was caught in possession of drugs. Has that been properly tested in court? No it hasn't.

 

Oh come on... Are you seriously trying to say that the airport security didn't actually catch her in possession of the drugs in her luggage at the airport.....? :lol: Well, how the fukk could they tie her to the drugs if they didn't...... Your argument has absolutely no logic..... She was caught red handed with the drugs, did they somehow miraculously materialise in her luggage.... Bollocks, someone had to put them there.... And if she stated that she herself packed her case, then, sorry, that's an admission of guilt right there as far as I'm concerned.....

 

Why the hell do people like you assume that Brits can somehow 'do no wrong' while abroad....? Her sh!t dont smell of rose petals and jasmine mate......