davo,
"Many of the people who scorn Corby are elitist blowhards who despise anyone from the lower classes. Just check out trade 125 comments..."

Hehehehhehelariously ignorant prejudgment on your part.

l'm from a "lower" class background firmly rooted in a working class ethic and l don't think in elitest terms of 'class.'

My opinions about bikies, dealers and crims are not based on blowhard conjecture. They are based on experience and running with that crowd once upon a time. Jugdging a book by its cover goes a long way in that neck of the woods. Anyone who doesnt exercise some basic pre-judgment when mixing with those characters is asking for trouble. Its one thing to be an ageing baby boomer or yuppie weekend biker on his harley in a black jacket going from cafe to winery. An actual biker is a different matter. Weekend bikers dont usually have typical biker beards, they got to put on white collars come Monday. In the real world of bikers, appearance is a uniform. Its a basic form of recognising one's own kind. You prolly already know this, not being an elitist an all, but bikers identify themselves as outlaws and rebels, making their own rules and dont follow the rules of 'the man.' They like to exist outside of the system and that means crime.

Hate to burst your bubble but actual crims, dealers and bikers 'shoot first and ask questions later.' They dont exercise wounderfully insightful and well considered rational intellectualisations... they judge... its basic survival, its efficient and they essentially dont give a rats arse about being 'predudiced.'

If l see a one legged man, l feel reasonably safe in my prejudice that he can't run very well, if at all. l'm not gonna ask him to run into a burning building to rescue a baby. l rely on an observation to prejudge him. You assume that prejudgment is inherently bad.

How do activities of father relate to Corby? Given that Corby's brother has similar drug convictions to his father, its apparent that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Hmm... Woman's Day and the like,might have liked a different verdict so they could sell her story by the truckloads, once she got herself back in the country. Mind you they still have the rest of family to sell a fair few truckloads of perhaps Australia's greatests argument against woodchipping... the Tabloid Magazine. "The girl next door", "the aussie battler", etc....any more well worn cliches? If I were Ms Corby I'd be blaming this overblown circus, we have had to contend with for the past 8 months or how ever long it has been. I'm not saying the Court would have necesarily found her to be innocent, but surely our stirring hearts and minds have done more harm than good. Australians boycotting Bali as a holiday destination might actually make the island a much more attractive destination. Less drunken and disrespectful Aussie yobbo's, because I am thinking they'd be the ones more likely to boycott.

I have a suspicion that the verdict was given regardless of guilt. Indonesia wants to send a strong message to Australia, that they do not want drug smugglers frequenting and corrupting the morality of Indonesia. They are not concerned if no tourists arrive in Bali. They see the type of Australians frequenting Night Clubs in Bali as Western infidel scum. So setting off bombs in such places to kill Westerners is part of the jihad to cleanse Indonesia from the influences of kafir. They wish to terrorise their own people to bring then into subjection to Islamic religious law. Note the chants of support for Bashir and the chants of condemnation for Chapelle, guilt or innocence was not on their mind.

There have been comments about the presumption of innocence and the misconception that it automatically applies in Australia. Bzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong! In the case of illicit drugs, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is reversed when quantity exceeds statutory limits. In those cases there is a prima facie presumption of trafficking and the onus is on the accused to prove otherwise. Same thing with proceeds of crime. It is up to the accused to prove they are legitimate. In the mean time the state ties up those assets and they will be forfeited to the state in the absence of proof as to their legitamacy. In other words, under OUR system, sometimes an accussed is guilty until proven innocent.

It is in these cases where good forensic science can assist and clear the innocent, and can better identify the guilty.

Arjay,

I apologize for raising issues of race and racism on this forum. I was short sighted and narrow minded of me to even suggest that racism, and especially benign racist views were subtextual and yet dominant in how anti-Indonesian sentiment is being articulated here.

I realize now that this could ever come out of the minds of egalitarian, fair minded and wonderfully enlightened Australians just like you Arjay. Indeed, how dare I even contemplate disrupting your train of pure and virtuous thought by making accusations of racism.

Please forgive me for being so wrong about your intentions. You are right, only those who are members of a dominant racial group in any society have the right to declare when racism exists or is evident in public debate. What a fool I have been