Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Death in China.  (Read 5497 times)
Mexicano Rojo

Offline Offline

Posts: 11955


Demasiado no es demasiado




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 19:15:48 »

Link to the following article in the Guardian, have a read everyone, to me it sounds like the bloke is mentally ill. Personally I think its a fucking outrage he was put to death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/de...mental-illness

Akmal Shaikh's journey from a minicab business in north London to death row in a remote part of north-west China is a labyrinthine tale involving eastern European gangsters, harebrained business schemes and a dream of international pop stardom.

It began in Kentish Town, north London, where Shaikh lived with his British wife and children. The couple ran a cab firm called Teksi on Fortess Road, close to Kentish Town tube station, and life appeared to be good.

Shaikh's former solicitor, Bruce Hayim, told the Observer earlier this year that Shaikh was once a "charming and charismatic man" – though the legal campaign group Reprieve insist he has "a lifelong history of very strange behaviour". His older brother, Akbar, said his sibling had shown signs of mental illness in 2001 after his first marriage had ended and "as he grew older he seemed to go off the rails". In 2004, he was accused of sexually harassing a female member of staff and ordered to pay £10,000 in unpaid wages and damages by an employment tribunal, according to his local paper, the Hampstead and Highgate Express.

But in 2005 Shaikh's life started to unravel further. He suddenly packed his bags and left for Poland, says his brother, where he announced plans to set up an airline despite having no means to do so. Given his complete lack of money, business plan or experience in the aviation industry, the venture soon foundered, but he was undeterred.

Having turned his back on his family, he stayed on, sometimes sleeping rough, moving from Lublin in the east to the capital, Warsaw. At some point he acquired a girlfriend, who told the Observer she soon became concerned by his "really silly and crazy" behaviour, such as the time he sent her a fake letter purporting to show he had won £1m.

He then started a prolonged email campaign, sharing his delusions with celebrities and government officials he had never met, firing off endless dispatches typed in an enormous 72-point font. Hundreds of emails sent by Shaikh to the British embassy in Warsaw from 2005 reveal the state of his mind. In the messages, obtained by Reprieve, he claimed to have spoken to the angel Gabriel and explained that he could have foiled the July 7 bombings in 2005, had he only been allowed to hold a press conference. One email appeared to be a letter to Father Christmas.

Some messages were copied in to a group of 74 organisations and individuals, including Tony Blair, Sir Paul McCartney, George W Bush and the BBC programme Top Gear.

But among the nonsense contained in the emails was information Shaikh's lawyers claim proves he had become involved with criminals who took advantage of his vulnerability. One mentioned a character called Carlos, who was going to help Shaikh achieve his dream of making it big in the music industry. Carlos, wrote Shaikh, had excellent contacts, and he knew a producer in Kyrgyzstan who could help him fulfil his dream of becoming a pop star. Though Shaikh had no singing experience, and even less musical talent, he recorded a song, an off-key track in English, Arabic and Polish called Come Little Rabbit, which, according to Reprieve, he truly believed had the potential to bring about world peace.

Today, two men who helped Shaikh record the song said it was clear he was psychiatrically ill. Gareth Saunders, a British teacher and musician who sang back-up on the song, said, "he clearly thought this song was going to have a very positive impact on the world".

He added: "It would be totally unlike him to get mixed up in drugs. However, it would be totally typical of him to fall for some kind of story that some drug dealer might spin to him concerning making his record in China … He would be so desperate for human contact that if some shady character came up to him to talk, Akmal would have gone on and on about his song, and it would have been easy for someone to see that he could be exploited."

It is Shaikh's case that back in 2007, "Carlos" told him that he knew people in the music industry that could assist and in September that year paid for a flight for Shaikh to Kyrgyzstan. There, his passport was taken by a gang of men – an act which did not unduly worry Shaikh, who believed he would soon be so famous that he would be recognised at every border crossing. When his passport was eventually returned, he was introduced to a man called Okole. This man, Shaikh claims he was told, ran a huge nightclub in China that would be the perfect venue for the debut performance of Come Little Rabbit.

En route to China, the two men stopped in Dushanbe, in Tajikistan, where they stayed in a five-star hotel – which Reprieve say Shaikh believed was a sign of his celebrity status. There, Okole told him he would have to fly to China alone as the flight was full. Shaikh claims Okole gave him a suitcase and promised to follow on the next flight.

On 12 September 2007, Shaikh flew into Urumqi and was stopped by customs officials on arrival. He was searched and his baggage scanned. Two packets containing around £250,000 worth of heroin were found in his luggage.

Shaikh told the officials that he did not know anything about the drugs, and that the suitcase did not belong to him. Reprieve say he helped the Chinese authorities with their inquiries and even set up a "sting" operation, telling Chinese officials to wait for Okole as he was due to arrive on the next plane. But Okole never turned up and Shaikh was arrested.

Though he was sentenced to death shortly after, the Foreign Office was not notified for many months, and in August 2008, Reprieve took on the case.

Chinese law says a defendant's mental state should be taken into consideration if they are accused of serious crimes, but the Chinese authorities have refused repeated requests for Shaikh to be evaluated by a doctor. At his first appeal hearing this May, Shaikh insisted on reading a long, rambling and often incoherent statement to the court. His performance was so strange that judges laughed.

Though he has never been assessed by a psychiatrist, Foreign Office officials were eventually allowed to spend 15 minutes with Shaikh. From their description of Shaikh's behaviour, Dr Peter Schaapveld, a London-based consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled a medical report in which he was able to deduce with "99% certainty" that he was suffering from a mental disorder that could either be bipolar or schizophrenia.
Logged
Luci

Offline Offline

Posts: 10862


Fatbury's Stalker




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 19:18:06 »

What exactly did we do to interfere with the Chinese judicial process?

Nothing, as far as I'm aware. Asking for clemency isn't interfering and I haven't read or heard a single thing to suggest we tried to do anything else. Sure, we asked whether they had properly taken in to account his mental state but again, why would that be viewed as interfering?

It pisses me off when people suggest things like this as we're probably the only country in the world that does respect cultural differences of other countries. We haven't made a major issue out of it like a lot of countries would.

Like I said, interfere was probably the wrong word to use but it really annoys me how people come out and criticise their actions when its a law that has stood for a considerable amount of time.

I also don't think we do respect cultural differences as much as we should but that is a completely different arguement.  You can be pissed off if you like, no issue with that as the above is only my personal opinion.
Logged
Talk Talk

« Reply #17 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 20:07:25 »

In this case, I don't think the death penalty was the right course of action (only in my opinion of course), but on the other hand, the laws are there to be obided by so there was always going to be a high chance of execution if the law is broken.  Its not like China decided to suddenly implement a law for this man alone.  Unfortunately, with China's poor human rights record it hasn't done itself any favours.

What irritates me somewhat is Britain thinking it has the right to interfere (maybe not the right choice of word but you get my drift) in other countries judicial systems and how they handle law breakers/criminals.  We are never going to agree with everything that is done overseas but every country has its own right to make its own laws and punish those who break them.  I don't understand why we always deem ourselves as 'right' in terms of how these things should be handled and have little or no respect for cultural differences which can impact the judicial system.

I don't think the death penalty is right for this type of crime, however our streets are riddled with drugs and I'd love to see a tougher course of action against those who distribute them.

And of course this is my personal opinion as well...

If drugs were no longer llegal (as opposed to 'legalising' them) then we wouldn't have this situation. By banning anything, governments induce criminal elements to satisfy the intrinsic demand for whatever the commodity is. If you wanted booze in Prohibition America you would find it. If you want heroin in Communist China you will get someone to supply it illegally.

Take away the reason for criminals to supply and you release the victims, particularly with drugs. If it is lucrative to supply then there will always be pushers. If you can buy it over the counter at Boots then the pushers will disappear.

And before anybody gets whiny about "oh but if it is freely available then more preople will take it". That just doesn't happen. Only those who are naturally predisposed will gravitate towards any banned substance. I ask any of you - if you could buy heroin legally would you try it? I thought not.
Logged
Don Rogers Shop

« Reply #18 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 20:17:44 »

And of course this is my personal opinion as well...

If drugs were no longer llegal (as opposed to 'legalising' them) then we wouldn't have this situation. By banning anything, governments induce criminal elements to satisfy the intrinsic demand for whatever the commodity is. If you wanted booze in Prohibition America you would find it. If you want heroin in Communist China you will get someone to supply it illegally.

Take away the reason for criminals to supply and you release the victims, particularly with drugs. If it is lucrative to supply then there will always be pushers. If you can buy it over the counter at Boots then the pushers will disappear.

And before anybody gets whiny about "oh but if it is freely available then more preople will take it". That just doesn't happen. Only those who are naturally predisposed will gravitate towards any banned substance. I ask any of you - if you could buy heroin legally would you try it? I thought not.Fuck me the last few months i have had don't tempt me Smiley.Couldn't agree with you more Alan spot on post
Logged
chalkies_shorts

« Reply #19 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:16:12 »

So there is no actual medical evidence of mental disorders - good suspicions but no evidence. Sorry but the Chinese have it right on this occasion. I understand the argument for drugs being legalised but don't go for it myself. The guy took a big risk and has paid for it - justl ike the many hundreds who would have taken the chance if he had succeeded.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:29:35 »

And of course this is my personal opinion as well...

If drugs were no longer llegal (as opposed to 'legalising' them) then we wouldn't have this situation. By banning anything, governments induce criminal elements to satisfy the intrinsic demand for whatever the commodity is. If you wanted booze in Prohibition America you would find it. If you want heroin in Communist China you will get someone to supply it illegally.

Take away the reason for criminals to supply and you release the victims, particularly with drugs. If it is lucrative to supply then there will always be pushers. If you can buy it over the counter at Boots then the pushers will disappear.

And before anybody gets whiny about "oh but if it is freely available then more preople will take it". That just doesn't happen. Only those who are naturally predisposed will gravitate towards any banned substance. I ask any of you - if you could buy heroin legally would you try it? I thought not.

The irony in your post comes in the shape of the two 19th Century opium wars...opium was legal in Britain, but not in China, and was used as a lever to open up trade with China.  When the Chinese complained about the numbers of their citizens getting strung out on opium, they got gun boats up the Yangtze as a response.

I suspect the Chinese were susceptible to opium addiction  because of their hard lives...for those who've never tried it, it is a wonderful hit. If it was freely available in 21st Century Britain, I suspect you'd find a lot of takers.
Logged
DMR

« Reply #21 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:29:52 »

See Labour and Gordon Brown are making a fuss.

Where was Gordon Brown when we extradited the Aspergers syndrome man (who hacked NASA computers), where was Brown when we extradited him to America for a life sentance in an American jail?

Where were you Brown you fucking creep. Shame on you.

As for this bloke. He did import a lot of Heroin, and people in China get executed for a lot less than trafficking Heroin. If you go somewhere like China obey their laws, because they dont fuck about. Dont agree with the death penalty myself, but people should respect the laws of foreign countries and that goes for immigrants for this country too.

Saw a Muslim man with two wives, both in Burkhas down the bottom of Town a couple of days ago. It's not OK.

Do you know they're both his wives, or are you making another assumption like the ill-informed bigot you usually are?

Cos that's not OK.
Logged
DMR

« Reply #22 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:30:26 »

So there is no actual medical evidence of mental disorders

Good grief

Logged
chalkies_shorts

« Reply #23 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:35:45 »

Good grief
Sorry - of his medical disorder. He was never diagnosed with any medical disorder. He was living in Poland, he was Ok to book his own travel, he lived on his own, he made hos own decisions. How many other fuckers throw the medical card in as a last resort? He desereved what he go.
Logged
DMR

« Reply #24 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:36:26 »

That's better
Logged
Don Rogers Shop

« Reply #25 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:36:34 »

The irony in your post comes in the shape of the two 19th Century opium wars...opium was legal in Britain, but not in China, and was used as a lever to open up trade with China.  When the Chinese complained about the numbers of their citizens getting strung out on opium, they got gun boats up the Yangtze as a response.

I suspect the Chinese were susceptible to opium addiction  because of their hard lives...for those who've never tried it, it is a wonderful hit. If it was freely available in 21st Century Britain, I suspect you'd find a lot of takers.
I disagree with that Reg if it's managed through doctors(not available to buy) then at first it will be no different but over time hopefully they will withdraw from it.In turn youngsters will find it harder to get it on the streets and obviously can'y just ask the doctor for some.
Logged
chalkies_shorts

« Reply #26 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:39:44 »

That's better
Apologies but I've had a bit of wine.
Logged
Rich Pullen

« Reply #27 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:44:33 »

Without knowing the facts it's a tricky debate really. From what I've watched on the news the media suggest the guy was completely off his rocker. I imagine the Chinese media have painted a different picture.

If this was a case of a gentleman that was 100% healthy in every way then it would have only made the news in passing... What could the government do? Or indeed what would the government want to do?

I hope people look beyond the 'respect their laws' sentiment though! Especially if this man was mentally ill.

History would be a different place if we lived by that.

ONLOOKING NATION 1944

"Well, if you're Jewish you shouldn't live in Germany, everybody knows the law."

ONLOOKING NATION 1955

"Well, that African-American lady shouldn't have sat down at the back of that bus, she should have respected the law."

Viva la Revolution and all that.
Logged
chalkies_shorts

« Reply #28 on: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:47:32 »

He was 53 years old with 3 kids who used to run his own business. if he had bi polar you'd have thuoght it would have been dagnosed. Last throw of the dice that didn't work.
Logged
china red

« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 00:12:52 »

Without knowing the facts it's a tricky debate really. From what I've watched on the news the media suggest the guy was completely off his rocker. I imagine the Chinese media have painted a different picture.

This is the take on the story in the Chinese media (well English language).  It doesn't seem to be a massive story in the media here, no one that I know has even mentioned it to me. 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/29/content_9243734.htm

I think the biggest problem is that the accused was unable to show any evidence that he had a prior mental disorder diagnosed and that the Chinese were unwilling to submit him to a full medical examination.

 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to: