Ugly American Goes Into Hiding After Killing Cecil The Lion
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Would that be the same Sir Roger Moore who said that a Scottish Bond, a Welsh Bond, and even an Irish Bond were fine, but Idris Alba, born and raised in London, shouldn't play Bond because he's not "English English" enough?
Hint: Alba's black.
Maybe Sir Roger should found WRATH - White Racists Against Trophy Hunting.
Here it is, had you forgotten?
"clearly his brain is full of manure...
he's lucky Bodacious has been retired. I am not a fan of bull riding, but I liked watching Bodacious head slam the riders. He was a smart bull.
Here's a tribute to Bodacious (at about 2:42 mark you get a really clear view of what made him so dangerous. He was able to maneuver the rider into a position where they'd have their face slammed into his head.)"
No, hadn't forgotten. Where does it say I don't care about humans?
Oh Idris should play Bond...he was so good as Luther...and he is so hot he'd make an excellent Bond.
he is english.Born in London. LONDON!!. And he's hot hot and sexy as hell...all the things that James Bond has to be. Plus, the following actors who've played james bond were/aree not english.
Barry Nelson: American
George Lazenby: Australian (AUSTRALIAN!!)
Pierce Brosnan: Irish American
Sean Connery: Scottish (and still the best)
Wrong. Pierce Brosnan is not Irish American. He's Irish. Born and raised in Dublin's fair city.
You forgot Timothy Dalton, Welsh.
Good point. When they make the Life Story of P Diddy movie, we should insist that the lead be played by a Lapplander.
Bond is specifically Scottish. He is not Othello.
Palmer is not going to get extradited as the government there has virtually no case against him. However, it appears that his hunting guides are in a heap of trouble. Tough sh!t for them I say.
That is probably the wisest choice, Palmer is just a goof, unfortunately not a criminal. His dental practice is pretty well pooched, we don't want to force him on to welfare.
The receiving government generally doesn't evaluate the case against the accused. Trying the accused is the role of the requesting government. Generally, the receiving government will simply hand over the accused, unless the accused raises affirmative defenses, such as no grounds for the case at all, corruption or other lack of due process in the requesting country, or violations of the receiving country's public policy, such as capital punishment (the U.S. has a lot of trouble extraditing alleged criminals from other countries because we have capital punishment).
Extradition is procedural, not substantive.
Last edited:
(the U.S. has a lot of trouble extraditing alleged criminals from other countries because we have capital punishment).
That is interesting, I've always maintained that if you go into another country to commit crimes it is your responsibility to know the penalty for the crime you are committing and if you don't feel you are up to accepting the punishment, don't commit the crime. That seems pretty simple to me. I think Countries should keep their noses out of another country's laws and penal code.
I agree, but the thinking is that if a country has decided the death penalty is unjust, then it has a duty to protect its citizens from such injustice, even if they have committed crimes.
For example, If a country passed laws that said a thief was to have his hand cut off, and a Canadian was accused of stealing something in that country, but now he's back in Canada, would it be Canada's duty to turn him over to be mutilated if found guilty, or to protect him from what Canada has decided is a cruel and unjust punishment?
Don't matter what your answer is, that's just how you should think about it. Good arguments on both sides.
Personally, I'd think twice before stealing in another country if I was about to lose a hand.