´óÏó´«Ã½

Shaun Attwood

Comments

1. At 05:40 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Adam wrote:

   Hmmm....whiny liberal tripe. If 'he didn't want the time, he should have done the crime.'

   The reason this policy regime is popular is because it works.

2. At 05:46 PM on 14 Dec 2007, rob gerig wrote:

   your item about Shaun Attwood's time in prison raises the issue of how we treat people placed in prison on remand. These people are by definition innocent, so on what basis do we treat them the same as people who have been found guilty of some crime? Or do we? If we do, should we? I admit I am ignorant. I don't know what happens when one is placed on remand, neither do most people I suspect. Perhaps PM could help to educate me.

3. At 05:47 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Adam wrote:

   Hmmm... 'If you don't want the time, don't do the crime.'

   If only the UK penal policy was so robust....

4. At 05:52 PM on 14 Dec 2007, rob gerig wrote:

   your item about Shaun Attwood's time in prison raises the issue of how we treat people placed in prison on remand. These people are by definition innocent, so on what basis do we treat them the same as people who have been found guilty of some crime? Or do we? If we do, should we? I admit I am ignorant. I don't know what happens when one is placed on remand, neither do most people I suspect. Perhaps PM could help to educate me.

5. At 06:14 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Markham wrote:

   Why is PM giving the "oxygen of publicity" to this man? He pleaded guilty. I for one do not want to hear the whinging and moaning of a criminal or his parents. There is far more news in the world that could be broadcast rather than another of the never ending pieces about how "Johnny Foreigners" legal system isn't a patch on the British one.

6. At 06:31 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Adam @ 1, Markham @ 5, I think I must have heard a different PM from the one you are castigating: I didn't hear either Shaun Attwood or his parents whine or whinge at all, and he quite clearly said at one point that he admitted he had committed an offence, that he had been punished for it, and that he had deserved to be punished.

   Maybe the air round these parts does strange things to radio reception.

7. At 07:53 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Markham wrote:

   Chris@6 - He may have done his time but I was under the impression the ´óÏó´«Ã½ opposed allowing criminals to profit from their crimes by buying their stories.

8. At 08:11 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Jim Alvarez wrote:

   After listening to Shawn stories about his time under lock and key it reminded me of growing up in various parts of the US mainly California and Oklahoma where many times I lived in conditions much like Shaun did in Arizona. Granted my parents did much better for me than make me wear pink underware but living among cockroaches, mice and other assorted vermine in hot climes (sometimes without even a swamp cooler) was not uncommon for us at times and I know that many people coming across from Mexico have it a lot harder.
   The point is that folks who do a crime should not expect to have an airconditioned cell, TV and three wonderful meals a day. Yes I would preferr that no one should have to share a cell with cochroaches but taxpayers don't want to and shouldn't have to spend their hard earned money on making convicted felons comfortable.
   Shaun seems to have learned from his experince as many other inmates who spend any time in Joe Apajo's jail. Joe's jails are great motivation not to go back in again.
   

9. At 08:52 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Markham @ 7, money wasn't what you were talking about in your post at 5, so I didn't consider it as being part of your complaint here.

   Mr. Mair, please would you or one of the production team clarify this point: was Mr. Attwood paid for his story and his time? Did his parents receive any money for this interview? I excluse reasonable expenses and possibly a seasonal mince pie from 'payment' in this context.

10. At 11:37 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Thanks, Rupert. I didn't think you had, but I felt it was better to ask so that you could make it clear, rather than just saying so on my own account.

11. At 12:54 PM on 15 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Markham, my comment (at 10 at the moment: it was at 11 last night) makes no sense unless you know that when I made it, a post had been put up by one of the production team which stated that Shaun A. had not been paid for his contribution to PM. Without Rupert's post, which now seems to have vanished, mine makes little sense; both his and mine were on view for about ten minutes last night and then both went away, so perhaps his will also come back at some point.

    They do keep telling us that this blog is broken, but losing posts after they have appeared is a new .... erm, sorry for the pun, departure!

12. At 04:53 PM on 15 Dec 2007, Rupert Allman wrote:

    apologies - my original entry has vanished. To make it clear we did not pay for the interview. Not was there any request for a payment to be made.
    

13. At 12:04 AM on 16 Dec 2007, wrote:

    Thanks Rupert, and now you know what it feels like to have a message disappear (or fail to appear after 'acceptance')...

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
    Namaste -ed

    P.S. I loved the interview and thought he was anything but 'whining'.