Shocking

[spongebob toonpants 4154]

@ Parky/Chez

 

Already covered these queries extensively in the previous threads that covered Afghanistan. (I assume Parky's taking the piss/stoned)

 

The truth of the matter is Chez if you had any serious interest in the conflict in Afghanistan you wouldn't be asking me about things which have been extensively covered since the NATO mission started. With regard to your two specific questions: if you don't know, look it up, there is tonnes of material on it (I have also spelled some of it out in previous threads during discussions with HF; you posted in these threads yourself).

I assume when you accuse me of 'post-hoc moralising', you mean to say I have stated that the reasons for the intervention were motivated by human rights concerns and the brutality of Taliban rule. I have stated no such thing. I merely made an observation that 96-01 was a horrific period for women, and that their plight has improved since. The Afghan constitution now states women are equal in the eyes of the law and the are various female members of the parliament and government. Women's rights have improved significantly from the period before the intervention, I stated this is a good thing and we shouldn't forget the suffering of those under a Taliban rule. Is that an objectionable statement? I don't think so.

 

fop alert

[JawD 99]

As I've previously said (and demonstrated ) I have little knowledge on the subject. So at times can find the posts from OTP, HF & KSA interesting. Just a shame the latter uses his knowledge on the subject to come across as an absolute arse

[Guest alex]

Just woke up and I'm falling asleep again reading this.

[Park Life 71]

@ Parky/Chez

 

Already covered these queries extensively in the previous threads that covered Afghanistan. (I assume Parky's taking the piss/stoned)

 

The truth of the matter is Chez if you had any serious interest in the conflict in Afghanistan you wouldn't be asking me about things which have been extensively covered since the NATO mission started. With regard to your two specific questions: if you don't know, look it up, there is tonnes of material on it (I have also spelled some of it out in previous threads during discussions with HF; you posted in these threads yourself).

I assume when you accuse me of 'post-hoc moralising', you mean to say I have stated that the reasons for the intervention were motivated by human rights concerns and the brutality of Taliban rule. I have stated no such thing. I merely made an observation that 96-01 was a horrific period for women, and that their plight has improved since. The Afghan constitution now states women are equal in the eyes of the law and the are various female members of the parliament and government. Women's rights have improved significantly from the period before the intervention, I stated this is a good thing and we shouldn't forget the suffering of those under a Taliban rule. Is that an objectionable statement? I don't think so.

 

If post-invasion hand wringing leads to serious concerns about womens rights in a country thousands of miles away, I await with baited breath the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

[NJS 4411]

@ Parky/Chez

 

Already covered these queries extensively in the previous threads that covered Afghanistan. (I assume Parky's taking the piss/stoned)

 

The truth of the matter is Chez if you had any serious interest in the conflict in Afghanistan you wouldn't be asking me about things which have been extensively covered since the NATO mission started. With regard to your two specific questions: if you don't know, look it up, there is tonnes of material on it (I have also spelled some of it out in previous threads during discussions with HF; you posted in these threads yourself).

I assume when you accuse me of 'post-hoc moralising', you mean to say I have stated that the reasons for the intervention were motivated by human rights concerns and the brutality of Taliban rule. I have stated no such thing. I merely made an observation that 96-01 was a horrific period for women, and that their plight has improved since. The Afghan constitution now states women are equal in the eyes of the law and the are various female members of the parliament and government. Women's rights have improved significantly from the period before the intervention, I stated this is a good thing and we shouldn't forget the suffering of those under a Taliban rule. Is that an objectionable statement? I don't think so.

 

If post-invasion hand wringing leads to serious concerns about womens rights in a country thousands of miles away, I await with baited breath the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

 

That just shows how ignorant you are according to KSA.

[Park Life 71]

Happy Face is the member who seems to display the most interest in this subject, I say this because I know he regularly reads articles regarding the Mid-East region and the conflicts within. Now, when I stated that women's rights had improved post intervention, HappyFace cited an article from the Guardian regarding a proposed policy - that to this day has not been enforced - that Karzai made in a bid to gain favour with the Shia community during an election campaign. The Shia Family Law was to apply to the Shia community (around 20% of the population), and would have legalised some of the most extreme attitudes towards women, similar to some of the ones the Taliban enforced, but ultimately less brutal. Several of the more extreme measures have so far been repealed, and if the bill is ever to be enforced in its stripped down form there would be international pressure on the Afghan government - as well as pressure from within that government itself and the Afghan population - to stop it. A group of women demonstrators protested the proposed law, and their was outcry from female members of parliament in Afghanistan. Needless to say the reaction to this rather cynical bout of electioneering from Karzai - that is what it has amounted to thus far - showed women exercising rights that they would never have had under a Taliban rule.

 

Happy Face failed to mention all this and indeed the article he cited, from 2009, alluded to the Karzai government being 'worse than the Taliban' in terms of women's rights. Happy Face stated that 'this only goes to prove the point' that women's rights had not improved since the 2001 intervention. He failed to mention the Afgan constitution which states that women are equal in the eyes of the law, and the various significant steps that have been taken for women's rights in the country. This is highly misleading, and this is from the poster who displays the most interest in the subject and seems to be a reasonable guy. His view is that even if some of the arguments for intervention had merit, the conflict has long since gone very wrong. This is a perfectly reasonable point of view but it shouldn't lead to one contorting evidence that displays some positive effects of the intervention. I am not going to pretend I have never been guilty of ignoring evidence when it hasn't fitted with my view on a matter, but this is something I do now actively try to avoid, having learned the dangers of such behaviour. If this is what can be expected from the person who is most willing to discuss the subject in a reasonable way, what can be expected from those less interested, less informed, and less reasonable?

 

I found this out to my displeasure: statements such as, "I think we got dragged into Afghanistan because of Iraq,", "I couldn't care less if the Taliban were still in charge,", and accusations that I am not addressing the point and the insights involved in such statements. Well forgive me if I now tire of this tomfoolery; the consistent repetition regarding points that have already been addressed; the continual misconstruing of arguments and statements, it is pointless continuing when faced with this kind of unrelenting idiocy. HappyFace does cite some interesting material regarding the Mid-East and his posts encourage further investigation into said topics. AcrossThePond offers knowlegable insights into the Muslim communities with great patience. That's about it though, the rest are all bell-ends and I won't descend to their level of petty insults and nonsense.

 

We're in Iraq so America can leverage and contain oil supply and pricing and Israel can steal water from the Tigris. We're in Afghanistan to help the sisters. Think I've got it now.

[Park Life 71]

@ Parky/Chez

 

Already covered these queries extensively in the previous threads that covered Afghanistan. (I assume Parky's taking the piss/stoned)

 

The truth of the matter is Chez if you had any serious interest in the conflict in Afghanistan you wouldn't be asking me about things which have been extensively covered since the NATO mission started. With regard to your two specific questions: if you don't know, look it up, there is tonnes of material on it (I have also spelled some of it out in previous threads during discussions with HF; you posted in these threads yourself).

I assume when you accuse me of 'post-hoc moralising', you mean to say I have stated that the reasons for the intervention were motivated by human rights concerns and the brutality of Taliban rule. I have stated no such thing. I merely made an observation that 96-01 was a horrific period for women, and that their plight has improved since. The Afghan constitution now states women are equal in the eyes of the law and the are various female members of the parliament and government. Women's rights have improved significantly from the period before the intervention, I stated this is a good thing and we shouldn't forget the suffering of those under a Taliban rule. Is that an objectionable statement? I don't think so.

 

If post-invasion hand wringing leads to serious concerns about womens rights in a country thousands of miles away, I await with baited breath the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

 

That just shows how ignorant you are according to KSA.

 

He is a mere plaything. I let him run around like a wet nose puppy for my amusement. Slaps will be administered if I tire of his quaint little yelps and shoe chewing.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

Can't wait for his hilarious retort btw.

[Dr Gloom 22185]

Happy Face is the member who seems to display the most interest in this subject, I say this because I know he regularly reads articles regarding the Mid-East region and the conflicts within. Now, when I stated that women's rights had improved post intervention, HappyFace cited an article from the Guardian regarding a proposed policy - that to this day has not been enforced - that Karzai made in a bid to gain favour with the Shia community during an election campaign. The Shia Family Law was to apply to the Shia community (around 20% of the population), and would have legalised some of the most extreme attitudes towards women, similar to some of the ones the Taliban enforced, but ultimately less brutal. Several of the more extreme measures have so far been repealed, and if the bill is ever to be enforced in its stripped down form there would be international pressure on the Afghan government - as well as pressure from within that government itself and the Afghan population - to stop it. A group of women demonstrators protested the proposed law, and their was outcry from female members of parliament in Afghanistan. Needless to say the reaction to this rather cynical bout of electioneering from Karzai - that is what it has amounted to thus far - showed women exercising rights that they would never have had under a Taliban rule.

 

Happy Face failed to mention all this and indeed the article he cited, from 2009, alluded to the Karzai government being 'worse than the Taliban' in terms of women's rights. Happy Face stated that 'this only goes to prove the point' that women's rights had not improved since the 2001 intervention. He failed to mention the Afgan constitution which states that women are equal in the eyes of the law, and the various significant steps that have been taken for women's rights in the country. This is highly misleading, and this is from the poster who displays the most interest in the subject and seems to be a reasonable guy. His view is that even if some of the arguments for intervention had merit, the conflict has long since gone very wrong. This is a perfectly reasonable point of view but it shouldn't lead to one contorting evidence that displays some positive effects of the intervention. I am not going to pretend I have never been guilty of ignoring evidence when it hasn't fitted with my view on a matter, but this is something I do now actively try to avoid, having learned the dangers of such behaviour. If this is what can be expected from the person who is most willing to discuss the subject in a reasonable way, what can be expected from those less interested, less informed, and less reasonable?

 

I found this out to my displeasure: statements such as, "I think we got dragged into Afghanistan because of Iraq,", "I couldn't care less if the Taliban were still in charge,", and accusations that I am not addressing the point and the insights involved in such statements. Well forgive me if I now tire of this tomfoolery; the consistent repetition regarding points that have already been addressed; the continual misconstruing of arguments and statements, it is pointless continuing when faced with this kind of unrelenting idiocy. HappyFace does cite some interesting material regarding the Mid-East and his posts encourage further investigation into said topics. AcrossThePond offers knowlegable insights into the Muslim communities with great patience. That's about it though, the rest are all bell-ends and I won't descend to their level of petty insults and nonsense.

 

We're in Iraq so America can leverage and contain oil supply and pricing and Israel can steal water from the Tigris. We're in Afghanistan to help the sisters. Think I've got it now.

 

we're in afghanistan because of 9/11. the yanks had to react and there was clearly a link between afghanistan and bin laden. after the coalition invaded afghanistan, the taliban even offered to discuss handing over bin laden to a neutral country in return for a bombing halt. he was definitely there at the time and obviously al-queda was linked to the attacks on the twin towers.

 

whether the invasion was a smart move is debatable when you look at the loss of life and whether the war in afghniatan - or a war on terror - can ever be won, but it was a legitimate war. the invasion itself wasn't without good grounds, unlike the invasion of iraq, which was illegal.

 

now that we're there, the liberation of afghanistan from the taliban seems a good reason to stick round and ensure the job is done though obviously that wasn't the reason we got in there initially.

[ChezGiven 0]

@ Parky/Chez

 

Already covered these queries extensively in the previous threads that covered Afghanistan. (I assume Parky's taking the piss/stoned)

 

The truth of the matter is Chez if you had any serious interest in the conflict in Afghanistan you wouldn't be asking me about things which have been extensively covered since the NATO mission started. With regard to your two specific questions: if you don't know, look it up, there is tonnes of material on it (I have also spelled some of it out in previous threads during discussions with HF; you posted in these threads yourself).

I assume when you accuse me of 'post-hoc moralising', you mean to say I have stated that the reasons for the intervention were motivated by human rights concerns and the brutality of Taliban rule. I have stated no such thing. I merely made an observation that 96-01 was a horrific period for women, and that their plight has improved since. The Afghan constitution now states women are equal in the eyes of the law and the are various female members of the parliament and government. Women's rights have improved significantly from the period before the intervention, I stated this is a good thing and we shouldn't forget the suffering of those under a Taliban rule. Is that an objectionable statement? I don't think so.

 

I dont have the time to follow even all the threads on here, i've just had a kid and my job is quite demanding of my time. I would position myself as an interested observer on the conflicts, i dedicate my spare time / online research to macroeconomics, the current situation in France driving off the back of that. I'd love to do more research on this but have not had 3 years at university where i can follow these things through coursework and have large amounts of spare time to back that up with research.

 

So answer the questions basically. I ask again as you'll probably find me agreeing with a lot of what you say. Dont be afraid.

 

Also, unless you can provide me documented proof that the plight of women in Afghanistan was part of the mission's objectives, stated before the mission started, then discussing the outcomes for women now in Afghan society as part of ana assessment of the \rights and wrongs' of the war is, i'm afraid to say, very much post-hoc moralising. Its not objectionable at all but should not be part of an argument that clarifies what the 'just cause' was.

[Park Life 71]

In the arena of pan-political agenda management, someitmes ideas take hold and then they are difficult to shake. They build and hum in their own momentum. They become mis-shapen, they swirl in clouds of bite size information that travel around the world many times over in a day. They rarely return to the source. In wars there are no such things as facts....only propoganda.

 

In this super-colliding-data fracture, there is slippage, there are mishapen forms, there are lights that flicker a warning but then darken forever. Thee is half-light, there is muzzle flare, there is lazer targetting, but rarely are hi value targets hit. It is common that the ratio of dollars is heavily weighed in the favour of fire and forget, dream and remember...look into the haze of phosphorous skybursts. Many things are lost, sometimes nearly everything can be reconstituted however you want and the war, specifically in Afg is no different, it is a fiction, a media fiction that is sometimes segues into fact, but the facts must remain hidden, for the facts are the enemy, best to stick with the mythology.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

You been watching Generation Kill on shrooms again?

Edited October 20, 2010 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

i'm going to try to get this thread back on topic.

 

the fact that this kind of thing goes on in the world is horrifying. fucking savages. there really is no way to defend it.

 

totally agree. That is why I posted it.

 

I expected one or two to play it down or even defend it though, but there is really no excuse for it at all. It's of even more concern that this is the sort of mentality they would try and impose on us, because they certainly won't change their ways in the name of "multiculturism and tolerance". Not a chance.

 

well, i don't agree with that. this kind of thing doesn't happen in most parts of the civilised world. britain is a good example of multiculturism - it works. the taliban however, are barbarians. i don't think we will win the war in afghanistan and that is a real worry. these people are animals.

 

I don't really think that multiculurism is working, nor will it ever work. For it to work, the onus is on those accepted into a country to conform ie when in Rome do as the Romans do, but wherever muslims go in the world, they are totally intolerant of said countries traditions and cultures. Everything has to stop for Allah so far as they are concerned, and they expect others to do the same. In their homeland, yes, but not elsewhere.

 

This problem is now a worldwide one, although the UK because of the PC correct brigade has it bigger than most if not the biggest, and will only accelerate. Our politicians don't have the balls to tell the pc correct brigade where to go, basically.

 

Prime example here:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/172324...-dress-ban-vote

 

"The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, said a burka is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognisable and clashes with the principles of a society that respects the rights of all."

 

 

huge over-simplification, i would agree with that statement if you had singled out "fundamentalist islam", but I would also point out that fundamentalist christianity does much the same thing, ie trampling local indiginous cultures in the name of saving the population from eternal damnation.

 

and as far as multiculturalism goes, sure it works. It's worked over here, despite resistance by portions of the population that are scared of anything/anyone they can't identify with on the basis of a first impression.

 

I would love to take part more in this discussion today but I have to go and study , I look forward to having a debate on this further after tomorrow 11 am local time.

 

ah. It becomes clearer. You're a 14 year old then

 

 

hardly dipshit...I wrote my Professional Practice Exam yesterday...

 

 

Well boogalloo. What fancy theories, from the comfort of your armchair, did you spout on about ?

 

Leazes, are you aware that it is quite normal for people to take courses and exams throughout their working lives as part of their continued professional development? And yes, this usually involves studying and the reading of books.

 

Renton, Renton.......my point is that these lefties read books by other lefties......get it ? Lefties who know nothing about the mindset of these people. They think they are dealing with educated and intelligent human beings. They think they play by our rules. Well, surprise surprise. They do not. In the real world, they are savages and will kill anybody who isn't like they are. You know as well as I do that this multiculturism/loss of immigration control is becoming more of a problem, you have said so. So what is your point ?

 

The world isn't a "fair" place. Any fucker can sit and read a book written by someone who knows fuck all about the reality of all this and take it on board.

Edited October 20, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Park Life 71]

You been watching Generation Kill on shrooms again?

 

Oh that's so last year Alexis.

[Guest alex]

I bet that Jock Stirrup left school aged 14 with no qualifications.

[Guest alex]

You been watching Generation Kill on shrooms again?

 

Oh that's so last year Alexis.

Stay frosty.

[Meenzer 15737]

What (if anything) do you read, Leazes? Perhaps you could provide us pinko lefties with some tips for expanding our horizons.

 

Or if you don't read anything, perhaps you could tell us where it is you learn what you know about the world - again, in the spirit of group education, since it'd make your life a lot easier if we all sang from the same hymnsheet.

[tooner 243]

i'm going to try to get this thread back on topic.

 

the fact that this kind of thing goes on in the world is horrifying. fucking savages. there really is no way to defend it.

 

totally agree. That is why I posted it.

 

I expected one or two to play it down or even defend it though, but there is really no excuse for it at all. It's of even more concern that this is the sort of mentality they would try and impose on us, because they certainly won't change their ways in the name of "multiculturism and tolerance". Not a chance.

 

well, i don't agree with that. this kind of thing doesn't happen in most parts of the civilised world. britain is a good example of multiculturism - it works. the taliban however, are barbarians. i don't think we will win the war in afghanistan and that is a real worry. these people are animals.

 

I don't really think that multiculurism is working, nor will it ever work. For it to work, the onus is on those accepted into a country to conform ie when in Rome do as the Romans do, but wherever muslims go in the world, they are totally intolerant of said countries traditions and cultures. Everything has to stop for Allah so far as they are concerned, and they expect others to do the same. In their homeland, yes, but not elsewhere.

 

This problem is now a worldwide one, although the UK because of the PC correct brigade has it bigger than most if not the biggest, and will only accelerate. Our politicians don't have the balls to tell the pc correct brigade where to go, basically.

 

Prime example here:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/172324...-dress-ban-vote

 

"The law's author, Daniel Bacquelaine, said a burka is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognisable and clashes with the principles of a society that respects the rights of all."

 

 

huge over-simplification, i would agree with that statement if you had singled out "fundamentalist islam", but I would also point out that fundamentalist christianity does much the same thing, ie trampling local indiginous cultures in the name of saving the population from eternal damnation.

 

and as far as multiculturalism goes, sure it works. It's worked over here, despite resistance by portions of the population that are scared of anything/anyone they can't identify with on the basis of a first impression.

 

I would love to take part more in this discussion today but I have to go and study , I look forward to having a debate on this further after tomorrow 11 am local time.

 

ah. It becomes clearer. You're a 14 year old then

 

 

hardly dipshit...I wrote my Professional Practice Exam yesterday...

 

 

Well boogalloo. What fancy theories, from the comfort of your armchair, did you spout on about ?

 

Leazes, are you aware that it is quite normal for people to take courses and exams throughout their working lives as part of their continued professional development? And yes, this usually involves studying and the reading of books.

 

Renton, Renton.......my point is that these lefties read books by other lefties......get it ? Lefties who know nothing about the mindset of these people. They think they are dealing with educated and intelligent human beings. They think they play by our rules. Well, surprise surprise. They do not. In the real world, they are savages and will kill anybody who isn't like they are. You know as well as I do that this multiculturism/loss of immigration control is becoming more of a problem, you have said so. So what is your point ?

 

The world isn't a "fair" place. Any fucker can sit and read a book written by someone who knows fuck all about the reality of all this and take it on board.

 

 

[Guest alex]

[manc-mag 1]

Complete tangent but I saw a woman wearing the full hijab yesterday (the one where only the eyes are visible) while driving her car. Got me to thinking that it must conflict with British road traffic laws. Probably the spirit rather than the letter I mean, but if ever there was a loophole for speeders, that's what they want to be wearing.

[Meenzer 15737]

Complete tangent but I saw a woman wearing the full hijab yesterday (the one where only the eyes are visible) while driving her car. Got me to thinking that it must conflict with British road traffic laws. Probably the spirit rather than the letter I mean, but if ever there was a loophole for speeders, that's what they want to be wearing.

 

Bet you could hide a mobile phone under there too.

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

Complete tangent but I saw a woman wearing the full hijab yesterday (the one where only the eyes are visible) while driving her car. Got me to thinking that it must conflict with British road traffic laws. Probably the spirit rather than the letter I mean, but if ever there was a loophole for speeders, that's what they want to be wearing.

 

Bet you could hide a mobile phone under there too.

...and she wouldn't have got caught http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/semi-nak...ferrerPath=home

[Guest alex]

Here's the zany one back again.

[Meenzer 15737]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11581728

 

Saudi prince jailed for life for murder of servant

 

A Saudi prince has been jailed for life for murdering his servant at a hotel in central London.

 

Bandar Abdulaziz, 32, was found beaten and strangled in the Landmark Hotel, Marylebone, on 15 February 2010.

 

The Old Bailey was told the assault by Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud had a "sexual element" and he had attacked Mr Abdulaziz many times before.

 

Al Saud, 34, who had admitted manslaughter but denied murder, was given a minimum jail term of 20 years.

 

The Saudi prince was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to an earlier attack in a hotel lift, a charge which he had denied.

 

The murder of Mr Abdulaziz was the final act in a "deeply abusive" master-servant relationship in which Al Saud carried out frequent attacks on his aide "for his own personal gratification".

 

Judge Mr Justice Bean said: "You were in a position of authority and trust over him which you exploited ruthlessly.

 

"I think the most likely explanation is that you could not care less whether you killed him or not."

 

He continued: "It is very unusual for a prince to be in the dock on a murder charge.

 

"It would be wrong for me to sentence you either more severely or more leniently because of your membership of the Saudi royal family."

 

The 34-year-old was fuelled by champagne and cocktails when he bit his servant hard on both cheeks during the attack on 15 February, the court heard.

 

Jurors heard that Mr Abdulaziz was left so worn down and injured - having suffered a "cauliflower" ear and a swollen eye from previous assaults - that he let Al Saud kill him without a fight.

 

A gay masseur who visited him there described the "dashing" Al Saud as a cross between Omar Sharif and Nigel Havers.

 

The prince initially wrongly believed he had diplomatic immunity and his royal status would save him.

 

But he stood with his arms folded and showed no emotion as the judge told him he must serve 19 years, having already spent one on remand.

 

Mr Justice Bean added: "No-one in this country is above the law."

 

If the prince ever returns to Saudi Arabia he faces the possibility of execution, because being gay is a capital offence in that country.

 

He could seek asylum in Britain after his eventual release.

 

Good to know that "they" can't get away with imposing "their" values on "us". Although there's an interesting conundrum presented by the choice between a man being executed in Saudi for being gay (but not for being a murderer) or being given asylum in the UK despite being a filthy-rich prince.

[manc-mag 1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11581728

 

Saudi prince jailed for life for murder of servant

 

A Saudi prince has been jailed for life for murdering his servant at a hotel in central London.

 

Bandar Abdulaziz, 32, was found beaten and strangled in the Landmark Hotel, Marylebone, on 15 February 2010.

 

The Old Bailey was told the assault by Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud had a "sexual element" and he had attacked Mr Abdulaziz many times before.

 

Al Saud, 34, who had admitted manslaughter but denied murder, was given a minimum jail term of 20 years.

 

The Saudi prince was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to an earlier attack in a hotel lift, a charge which he had denied.

 

The murder of Mr Abdulaziz was the final act in a "deeply abusive" master-servant relationship in which Al Saud carried out frequent attacks on his aide "for his own personal gratification".

 

Judge Mr Justice Bean said: "You were in a position of authority and trust over him which you exploited ruthlessly.

 

"I think the most likely explanation is that you could not care less whether you killed him or not."

 

He continued: "It is very unusual for a prince to be in the dock on a murder charge.

 

"It would be wrong for me to sentence you either more severely or more leniently because of your membership of the Saudi royal family."

 

The 34-year-old was fuelled by champagne and cocktails when he bit his servant hard on both cheeks during the attack on 15 February, the court heard.

 

Jurors heard that Mr Abdulaziz was left so worn down and injured - having suffered a "cauliflower" ear and a swollen eye from previous assaults - that he let Al Saud kill him without a fight.

 

A gay masseur who visited him there described the "dashing" Al Saud as a cross between Omar Sharif and Nigel Havers.

 

The prince initially wrongly believed he had diplomatic immunity and his royal status would save him.

 

But he stood with his arms folded and showed no emotion as the judge told him he must serve 19 years, having already spent one on remand.

 

Mr Justice Bean added: "No-one in this country is above the law."

 

If the prince ever returns to Saudi Arabia he faces the possibility of execution, because being gay is a capital offence in that country.

 

He could seek asylum in Britain after his eventual release.

 

Good to know that "they" can't get away with imposing "their" values on "us". Although there's an interesting conundrum presented by the choice between a man being executed in Saudi for being gay (but not for being a murderer) or being given asylum in the UK despite being a filthy-rich prince.

 

Not to mention a Constitutional conundrum for the House of Saud. He's gone from a filthy rich prince to a murdering queen.