Soulboy said:Lancet Fluke said:Was behind the policy of murdering drug adicts, it certainly happened under his government. I'm sure lots of people on here will argue that he isn't in any way culpable though.
But you said he was guilty. And that's a legal term.
So what you're saying is that you heard he was responsible for things... Ah, that explains it then. Isn't it a shame the legal system doesn't work in that far simpler way?
Lancet Fluke said:Soulboy said:But you said he was guilty. And that's a legal term.
So what you're saying is that you heard he was responsible for things... Ah, that explains it then. Isn't it a shame the legal system doesn't work in that far simpler way?
Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, your argument over mere semantics doesn't get around the fact that our owner was the head of a government who oversaw the mass murder of drug addicts, right across the country. I'm sure my use of English is of far more importance to you though.
sweynforkbeard said:I'm sure I'm not the only one on here that wishes for a similar harsh line to be taken with our UK drug dealers. The amount that Boots charges for my eye drops and pince nez cleaning fluid is scandalous.
Soulboy said:sweynforkbeard said:I'm sure I'm not the only one on here that wishes for a similar harsh line to be taken with our UK drug dealers. The amount that Boots charges for my eye drops and pince nez cleaning fluid is scandalous.
If I was in charge they'd be first up against the wall...
PS Have you tried Specsavers?
Soulboy said:Lancet Fluke said:Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, your argument over mere semantics doesn't get around the fact that our owner was the head of a government who oversaw the mass murder of drug addicts, right across the country. I'm sure my use of English is of far more importance to you though.
Don't get me wrong mate, I'm with you on this one.
We all know when people are "guilty", it's obvious. Eyebrows meet in the middle... eyes too close together... who they associate with...
Why bother with trivialities like a trial or evidence? Just hang the fuckers!
Oh, and as you're arguing the point, it wasn't drug addicts, it was drug dealers. And it was the army that carried it out. The same army that overthrew him. You see where I'm going with this one...?
Lancet Fluke said:our ex owner was the head of a government who oversaw the mass murder of drug addicts
Lancet Fluke said:Soulboy said:Don't get me wrong mate, I'm with you on this one.
We all know when people are "guilty", it's obvious. Eyebrows meet in the middle... eyes too close together... who they associate with...
Why bother with trivialities like a trial or evidence? Just hang the fuckers!
Oh, and as you're arguing the point, it wasn't drug addicts, it was drug dealers. And it was the army that carried it out. The same army that overthrew him. You see where I'm going with this one...?
To be honest, to pick you up on your very first point, guilty doesn't necessarily have to be a legal term at all. It can just mean that you are responsible for something. I never suggested that he should have been thrown in jail or hanged without a trial but just that I was far from comfortable with the club being owned by someone who oversaw such a policy. Is it ok with you that I am uncomfortable with something or does that just make you go fucking crazy with indignation? It can be very difficult to make people like Thaksin stand trial. It was drug addicts and drug dealers who were murdered, it was well before he was over thrown and Thaksin's goverment was happy to publicise the war on drugs policy while these murders were taking place.
PhuketBlue said:Lancet Fluke said:our ex owner was the head of a government who oversaw the mass murder of drug addicts
The action was against drug dealers not drug addicts.
Lancet Fluke said:Soulboy said:Don't get me wrong mate, I'm with you on this one.
We all know when people are "guilty", it's obvious. Eyebrows meet in the middle... eyes too close together... who they associate with...
Why bother with trivialities like a trial or evidence? Just hang the fuckers!
Oh, and as you're arguing the point, it wasn't drug addicts, it was drug dealers. And it was the army that carried it out. The same army that overthrew him. You see where I'm going with this one...?
To be honest, to pick you up on your very first point, guilty doesn't necessarily have to be a legal term at all. It can just mean that you are responsible for something. I never suggested that he should have been thrown in jail or hanged without a trial but just that I was far from comfortable with the club being owned by someone who oversaw such a policy. Is it ok with you that I am uncomfortable with something or does that just make you go fucking crazy with indignation? It can be very difficult to make people like Thaksin stand trial. It was drug addicts and drug dealers who were murdered, it was well before he was over thrown and Thaksin's goverment was happy to publicise the war on drugs policy while these murders were taking place.