Brunei

Lawyers make a fair living from dispensing their wisdom...at a price.
They are tasked with upholding the human rights of their clients whilst making a profit for themselves.

3 items stolen so that would cost him both hands and a foot!
Quite right then!

Gabriella wrote:

"No-one can be 100% ethical nowadays,"

True. That's why people need general principles to guide moral decisions. There is a moral battle going on in our nation between human rights on the one hand and profits on the other. If you seek out who makes a lot of money from a product or a law you can discover who is immoral. Readers who like detective stories know this.

Meanwhile, back in soft-touch Blighty, a 44yr old with 180 offences and 73 convictions was convicted of yet another theft from a delivery driver's van minutes after walking out of court.
A sat nav, wallet and mobile phone totalling £1000 were the items stolen.
A better kind of justice in the UK? ??

I agree Alexa and I'm thinking also of our sales of arms to Saudi Arabia. The Government was seeking arms deals with Saudi Arabia even as they condemned the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi officials inside their consulate in Istanbul.

A puzzling deletion!
Given that it was addressed to someone who heartily embraces right-wing attitudes and policies, (frequently posting such views on GN) while despising any idea that may be liberal or left of centre, I should have thought she'd be pleased to see that anja had read and understood her posts so intelligently.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

We should stop selling weapons to immoral regimes.

Maryliza I'd guess that would be me since I referred to GG as the grammar Gruppenführer ( just as a change from all the posts where she's been described in various other right-wing terms re her close policing of grammar and spelling).
"Lingo"! Now there's a blast from the colonial past!

As a Scot and a European I've no need for Google translator and I 'd assume that most posters would get the gist. I am so sorry GG if it went over your head.

Who’s the “you” and “ yourself” you are referring to “GG”?

No-one...No-one can be 100% ethical nowadays, not even you and to spend all my life reading labels and articles (which a large % of GN posters obviously do, the proof being hundreds of links on here) to make sure that even a 3rd 4th or 5th unethical party hasn't had a hand in anything we eat or purchase, is a waste of my life.
BTW, I'm English. Typing in any other language shows...what....?
Anyone can use Google translate if they don't understand the lingo.
Pathetic...comes to mind. I pity people who resort to infantile snickering especially elderly people such as yourself.

Baggs, meaning the Sultan's own people. Like Saddam when his own people didn't conform, they were slaughtered.

Nonnie two responses- I’ve heard a commentator say that a judge can put aside the requirement to have 4 witnesses ( and see post up thread re witnesses being forced to lie) and secondly imagine a gay man in Brunei thinking oh he doesn’t mean it so I’ll carry on regardless

Brunei, of course, has considerable oil wealth.

Fair point Baggs but seen from the position of would be protesters, knowing he has access to the soldiers could be a sufficient deterrent. Being in a position to threaten is a very powerful position to be in
My understanding is that it’s the stoning to death which is new

ON R4 it was suggested that, as has already been said, he is wanting to make peace with Allah but he is doing it in a way which will not have any actual effect (talking here only about the OP). Apparently the crime has to be witnessed by 4 Muslims in order for the punishment to be carried out, so he has made the law but doesn't expect it to be implemented. A very different perspective than here.

There was an uprising in Brunei in the 1960s. The British Government sent a task force there and I think we have maintained a unit there ever since.

I think it was to protect the rulers of Brunei from possible communist insurgency.
Brunei was a British Protectorate, later a member of the Commonwealth.

Thanks, me, but is that actually true about him being able to use the British soldiers how he likes? Does whoever's in charge of the soldiers actually actually have to submit to the Sultan?

Asking because I doubt the Sultan could order British soldiers to kill citizens of Brunei unless they were physically attacking the Sultan, in which case they wouldn't need an order from him anyway if they are bodyguards.

If the Sultan is really harming his own people then diplomatic pressure would seem to be in order from the Commonwealth (not just Britain). The laws about punishments for homosexuality and adultery are, as I understand it, standard Sharia Laws. I'm curious to know if they are really only just being brought in in Brunei, or whether the proposal is really to use laws that were already there but hadn't been strongly enforced.

Ps still need to pay attention to your proof reading or you may have to resign as grammar Gruppenführer!

GG sorry you didn't understand that the 'boycotting SA oranges' post was a simple analogy.
You've previously made it very clear that you don't give a flying fig about ethical investment so no surprise that your containers are taking God knows what to God knows where!

There are 2000 British soldiers there that given his power he can use as he wishes . As for leaving the Commonwealth hurting people there, he seems to be managing that whilst a member.

Probably their own,Baggs.

I dont understand this.

Sorry for misspelling.

C/f the Gherkas: so he has a bodyguard like most royalty?

He has the elite guarding him------the Gurkha's.