Well we expect that The ABC to be full of pot smoking lefties but this story is very sad indeed. Sad because you can’t possibly think that any journalist would be so stupid to do drugs in Singapore. Sad to that this man’s drug of choice is Meth-amphetamine (and what a nasty drug that is) and sad because our tax dollars are being spent to pay for a lawyer to defend someone so obviously guilty.
Peter Lloyd.
July 18, 2008 – 7:43PM
ABC foreign correspondent Peter Lloyd faces up to 20 years in a Singapore jail and up to 15 strokes of the cane after being charged with drug trafficking and possession.
The ABC’s South Asia correspondent was allegedly in possession of 0.8 grams of methamphetamine, or ice, a smoking pipe and six syringes when he was arrested by Singapore police on Wednesday. His urine tested positive to amphetamines.
What’s next the Bananas in Pyjamas out of their heads on acid? Oh hang on they have already done that….
Drugs, and your ABC, they just go together like fish and chips….
Until next time Comrades
Filed under: Blogging, Ethical questions, Journalism, Justice, Law, Leftism, Media Matters, Popular Culture, Television, international politics, the Law | Tagged: Bananas in Pyjamas, Meth-amphetamine, Peter Lloyd
“sad because our tax dollars are being spent to pay for a lawyer to defend someone so obviously guilty”
You’ve got to be kidding me, Iain.
For one, you cannot possibly know that he is “so obviously guilty” and secondly, our entire legal system is bases upon the tennants that citizens are entitled to legal representation and the presumption of innocence.
But of course, you know better, don’t you?
Unbelievable.
his urine testing positive for amphetamines is pretty damning Keri
It’s shameful that government revenue should be going to pay for his lawyer, Iain. If I were you I’d take a stand and withhold some of the income tax that you pay…
That’s the report, Iain. You didn’t personally test his urine did you, Iain? Personally I would never label someone “obviously guilty” until he has been convicted in a court of law with legal representation.
Which is the right of every person charged with a criminal offence, Iain.
His “obvious guilt” or otherwise does not prohibit him from the right to legal representation.
Iain’s legal value system:
Catholic pedo priests – an exaggerated tool of money-hungry claimants and their silvertail lawyers.
A paramedic suspended for sexual interference with a patient – obviously not guilty, m’lud, and I back him to the hilt.
Queensland police accused of involvements in a death in custody – definitely not guilty, m’lud.
Detainees held for years without charge in Guantanamo Bay – entirely justified.
ABC journalist charged with drugs in Singapore – guilty, he’s a leftist after all.
Any Muslim in court on any chare – guilty, obviously.
Mark”s Bitter and twisted delusions about Moi
He gets this from my suggestion that any leader of the church has to try to both minister to the victims of abuse and protect the ability of the church to continue it’s good works, and my appreciation that this is a difficult balancing act.
Mark is happy to deny this chap the presumption of innocence even when the complaint against him has been tested by a jury and dismissed.
As above ,tested in a court of law and dismissed
In a time of war of course combatants , even irregular ones may be detained for the duration.
Even those on the left like Ray are making jokes about this one
Nah, but if the evidence convinces the courts then that is another matter entirely.