A drug smuggler has been executed in China.
There’s nothing unusual about that; the Chinese do it a lot.
The trouble this time, is because the chap was British (or at least – lived in London). There is now a major row going on, that smacks of the good old days of gunboat diplomacy, and old fashioned ‘We’re British-dammit!’ head up arse attitudes towards Johnny Foreigner. It never ceases to amaze me that as soon a British citizen (or even resident) is accused of any crime abroad, they are immediately assumed by the British government and press to be any combination of the following:-
1. Innocent
2. Mentally ill
3. Stitched up by an unknown manipulative villain
4. A really nice chap
5. A pillar of their community
6. A drug smuggling twat looking to line their own pocket at the expense of wreaking untold misery and havoc on the lives of vulnerable people and the society in which they live and thieve to feed their habit. [Sorry about that - I don't know how that one got in there! - Ed]
7. The victim of a corrupt and inferior legal system
8. Totally reliable with respect to their protestations of innocence
9. Have an honest and supportive family whose have all the attributes of no.8 above.
Now, I know that I’m generalising, and that the Chinese legal system leaves one hell of a lot to be desired in terms of fairness, openness and unbiased legal representation for all concerned, but….
What do you lot think? Not just about the case of Akmal Shaikh, but about your country’s nationals being convicted of crimes abroad – is it just us holier-than-thou British who have this attitude?