o sung wu,
Shoot the bludgers and get it over with.In our day, mine at least, we would have saved to courts the trouble. There is a lot of bad history buried in the botany Cemetery and the Malabar sand hills for far less than these two did.
Corby got away with it, not these blokes too.

G'day CHRISGAFF1000...

Somehow I don't reckon these two will get away with it. Both apparently are scheduled to be executed this month according to the Indonesian Justice Minister or AG ? Though I don't support the Death Penalty myself, from what I've heard these two are prized maggots, and deserve everything they get ? I've not dealt with either, a mate of mine has, and he describes SUKUMARAN himself as a 'real piece of work', and suggested how he wished he could attend, just to be present to see the expression in SUKUMARAN'S eyes, just prior to the big bang ! Somehow, he (my mate) should've taken early retirement I reckon ?

If this was in China instead of Indonesia & Australian politicians, etc tried to 'persuade clemency' would China protest "Stop trying to interfere in our internal affairs" [laws] . . . . Probably Yes, and following this example, Would it be worth trying to upset our biggest trading partner for a couple of known convicted drug smugglers regardless of them possibly "turning over a new leaf"? Being Australian is not some sort of "Get out of jail free" card methinks

o sung wu wrote: "I do not consider anything that Mr PACKER does, as anywhere near to the criminal dimensions of CHAN and SUKUMARAN. As I've indicated earlier,"

Dear o sung wu,

James Packer has committed no crime as far as I know so his actions have no criminal dimension at all. However, considering the many broken families, prostitutes, bankruptcies and other social ills resulting from his legal activities in my opinion he has done far more damage than Chan and Sukumaran. I am sure he would be much more pleasant company than Chan and Sukumaran, and he is probably guilty of no crime However, there is a difference between legality and morality. In my opinion his way of making money is legal and most immoral.

david f,

Having never been a gambler I wonder why anyone would put the grocery money on the pokies or on a nag, but some do.

I do know that where legal avenues of gambling are not available, SP bookies and other criminal elements become involved. When I was contracting to a federal government department for a time it became obvious that its senior industrial officer not only ran a frozen seafood business on his work time but he and others also ran a numbers game as well. All with the knowledge of the senior executive service managers, who were his customers for both. How did we the contractors know? Because meetings were interrupted for the cash transactions!

So your criticism of Packer's gambling investments has no legs at all, and in any event why don't you criticise the private stockholders, including superannuation funds?

You are jealous of his wealth and business acumen I suggest. That is the plus and minus (for some) of democracies, where freedom of speech (yay!) allows us all to see the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

What about the Housos who waste my taxes on drugs, legal and otherwise, and on their punting too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aad7J3ICRnc

G'day there DAVID F...

I guess if we're to reduce Mr Jamie PACKER'S gambling interests down to some moral dimension, I suppose much of what you say is correct. There's a lot of domestic misery associated with gambling, drinking and smoking ? Still, each in their respective places are quite legal, and governments of all colours, derive some fiscal measure from each activity ? Still it doesn't mean it's ethical or morally correct neither.

Perhaps there's another factor that we're missing too ? Each of these 'transgressions' provide many a family with an income. An income that allows others to purchase a house, clothe, feed and educate their children, and all the other bi-products associated with driving an economy, in order that even more income can be produced ? It's somewhat cyclical I guess ? What goes round comes round, again and again ?

Still any comparisons between James PACKER and these two 'ne'er do wells' in Bali is utterly fallacious DAVID F ? But I do understand the need to occasionally 'stir the pot' as it were, in order to engender a scintilla of 'dash' into this otherwise, banal discussion ?