Andrew Drummond Gets a Hard-On

I think I've got this right:

The Guy in ADs article committed no offences in Thailand. However it was discovered that he had convictions in the UK and for this he was deported.
Andrew Drummond hails this as a victory against "perverts" and thrown his metaphorical hat in the air. Fair enough.
AD then invites anybody to send him names of people and he will investigate them to see if they fall into the same category as the subject of the article.
No evidence of any kind is required to inform on people and send their details to this self-righteous, self-appointed Witchfinder General - any "suspicion" will be more than enough he assures us, for AD to set his "contacts" on to them.

Well, I'm not sure I approve of that, but at least it's good to know we can sleep safely at night knowing that AD will protect us from people who are doing nothing wrong. The kind of people that AD will save us from having to take a .38 to, as he says himself.


But on the other hand, imagine if somebody was running a boy prostitution racket within a bar, kept some very dodgy company indeed, and even acquired a criminal record in Thailand - there's would be absolutely no way that Andrew Drummond would step down from his moral high ground to defend you, is there? Especially since every time you solicited an "off" fee at your "bar" you were probably aiding and abetting an illegal act. A purely hypothetical situation of course, because AD would never get involved with people like that, would he?

I'm quite sure he will appear here to explain the apparent double standards, which of course are perfectly acceptable in British "journalism" .

Similar Threads:

• Interesting story by Andrew Drummond
• Drummond's anti-gay slur
• Andrew Drummond writes about Sawatdee Gay Thailand
• Article Referring To Andrew Drummond's Appeal Win
• Andrew Drummond's Blog

[thonglor55]

Is there something wrong with being self righteous?

[Aunty]

Well finally, it looks like someone is taking out the trash. And a good thing too.

Almost all countries prohibit immigration or tourist visits by foreign nationals who fail the 'good character' test, i.e., those convicted of criminal offences that carry lengthy terms in jail. Why should Thailand be any different? No convicted paedophile, drug-dealer, fraudster, violent thug etc., would be allowed into the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc., and neither should they be allowed into Thailand. And if they are found there, they should be booted out.

[Beachlover]

Hear, hear, Auntie!

And I have a few names I will be sending to Mr. Drummond.

lol... what...so will LMTU be sending us reports of mouthwatering orgasmic steaks, happy hour pints and gorgeous weather from Blackpool now? Think of the drugs he'll have to take to make the UK feel as heavenly as Pattaya for him.

I wish you were in the Italian government lol
The legal system doesn't really allow to send someone back to their country of origin if they committed a crime in another country where they would go through a trial (fair or not) and spend their time in a local jail - unless there are specific agreements between countries.

I wish Italy would do some agreements with other countries in order to send back all the foreigner criminals after trial and sentence. In that case we'd save loads of money, we'd be sure they'd actually spend the whole time in jail and not get out after a year as it happens here and we'd have no need to build new jails as they would be more than half empty once all the eastern europeans, middle eastern and africans are sent back.

Besides, we shouldn't rely on Immigration officers to refuse access to countries for criminals.. we should expect our countries not to issue passports or to seize them for good and throw the fuckers to rot in some skanky jail.. Of course we can't do that because all the left winged sissies would soon scream HUMAN RIGHTSSSSSSSSSS

So in the end, victims of rape, child abuse or homicide have less human rights than paedophiles, rapists and killers. Welcome to Europe.

Well finally, it looks like someone is taking out the trash. And a good thing too.

Almost all countries prohibit immigration or tourist visits by foreign nationals who fail the 'good character' test, i.e., those convicted of criminal offences that carry lengthy terms in jail. Why should Thailand be any different? No convicted paedophile, drug-dealer, fraudster, violent thug etc., would be allowed into the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc., and neither should they be allowed into Thailand. And if they are found there, they should be booted out.

[giggsy]

[quote="TotalNewbie"]I wish you were in the Italian government lol
The legal system doesn't really allow to send someone back to their country of origin if they committed a crime in another country where they would go through a trial (fair or not) and spend their time in a local jail - unless there are specific agreements between countries.
quote]
[youtube:1pluv8rg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Gn7TEEB-M[/youtube:1pluv8rg]

[Beachlover]

I wish Italy would do some agreements with other countries in order to send back all the foreigner criminals after trial and sentence. In that case we'd save loads of money, we'd be sure they'd actually spend the whole time in jail and not get out after a year as it happens here and we'd have no need to build new jails as they would be more than half empty once all the eastern europeans, middle eastern and africans are sent back.

That's a ridiculous suggestion. How does sending a criminal back to their home country to serve their sentence ensure the sentence is actually served? By sending them abroad, you're basically losing control of what happens to them... how the hell do you know Nigeria will jail the criminal you sent back to them for the full duration of the sentence? What if they don't agree with the sentence handed out?

Many countries differ in their laws, values, harshness of punishment and tolerance.

If they've done a crime in your nation, you need to carry out the sentence and THEN send them home.

With this kind of thing it's not about money. It's about ensuring the sentence is carried out.

Besides, we shouldn't rely on Immigration officers to refuse access to countries for criminals.. we should expect our countries not to issue passports or to seize them for good and throw the fuckers to rot in some skanky jail.. Of course we can't do that because all the left winged sissies would soon scream HUMAN RIGHTSSSSSSSSSS

So in the end, victims of rape, child abuse or homicide have less human rights than paedophiles, rapists and killers. Welcome to Europe.

What?! So you expect every country around the world to withdraw and refuse to issue passports to anyone who's ever had a criminal conviction?

Criminals have rights too you know? Once someone's served their sentence, they're free to go as long as they don't pose a significant threat to the public.

You talk about preventing, I was talking about someone committing a crime say IN Thailand and being sent back to where they are from to serve the sentence in jail (if that's how you say it in English).

At the moment it is not allowed by international law unless the govts find a special agreement ad-hoc.

The legal system doesn't really allow to send someone back to their country of origin if they committed a crime in another country
Of course it does. Thai law allows the government to prevent anyone it deems undesirable from entering -- just like the laws of every country everywhere else in the world.

Prevention is better, don't allow them to get out of the country in the first place. I didn't say they shouldn't do it, I said it is best to keep them from expatriating.

Besides, we shouldn't rely on Immigration officers to refuse access to countries for criminals

Why not? Controlling who gets in and who doesn't is their job

.. we should expect our countries not to issue passports or to seize them for good and throw the fuckers to rot in some skanky jail.

We are not talking people who are on the lam. We are talking of people [i]who have been convicted of crimes and already served their sentences.

I was.

Awww Beachlover relax a bit! Did I suggest this should apply to every country in the world? I specifically mentioned Italy and maybe I did that because I actually know the differences in legal systems and how sentences are enforced and because I live here? Come take a look if you want.

Besides, are you not aware of monetary bilateral agreements between Governments that aim to get a country to do a certain thing in favour of which they will receive money?
Lybia has been getting a lot of money from Italy lately and SURPRISE SURPRISE Lybia is blocking those clandestine ships that used to arrive in the south of Italy every single day.

That's a ridiculous suggestion. How does sending a criminal back to their home country to serve their sentence ensure the sentence is actually served? By sending them abroad, you're basically losing control of what happens to them... how the hell do you know Nigeria will jail the criminal you sent back to them for the full duration of the sentence? What if they don't agree with the sentence handed out?

Many countries differ in their laws, values, harshness of punishment and tolerance.

If they've done a crime in your nation, you need to carry out the sentence and THEN send them home.

With this kind of thing it's not about money. It's about ensuring the sentence is carried out.

Besides, we shouldn't rely on Immigration officers to refuse access to countries for criminals.. we should expect our countries not to issue passports or to seize them for good and throw the fuckers to rot in some skanky jail.. Of course we can't do that because all the left winged sissies would soon scream HUMAN RIGHTSSSSSSSSSS

So in the end, victims of rape, child abuse or homicide have less human rights than paedophiles, rapists and killers. Welcome to Europe.

What?! So you expect every country around the world to withdraw and refuse to issue passports to anyone who's ever had a criminal conviction? Criminals have rights too you know? Once someone's served their sentence, they're free to go as long as they don't pose a significant threat to the public.

Certain crimes, most definitely. It's not that I think they shouldn't just travel. I also think they should never set foot outside of jail, EVER AGAIN.
I'm not saying someone who stole a dildo from your closet. I'm talking rapists, paedophiles and killers. To me there should be nothing but LIFE SENTENCE for these criminals.

I see the dim-witted villagers are out with the flaming torches and pitchforks again.

My advice would to be to take a little sedative followed by a long hard look in the mirror.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - be careful what you wish for - many (most?) of your relatives, friends, workmates, and neighbours at home would put a 40/50/60/70yo man who goes into gogo bars and picks up 18yo boys into the same category as those which some of the more hysterical posters here would want to see lynched, shot, hung, castrated, jailed for life etc.

In the relatively short time that I have contributed to this forum it has struck me that there are many petty jealousies and vendettas between the expat contributors in particular - and LMTU had already indicated in this thread that there a lots of names he alone will be only too happy to supply for investigation.

No good will come of this, none at all - it will result in you all fighting like rats in a barrel while the newspapers stand back and rub their grubby little hands in glee, writing about how the names of "hundreds" of suspected "perverts" have been put forward.

Time will tell.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: