Briton 'with foetuses' arrested in Thailand...

[bbfan1991]

A British citizen has been arrested in Bangkok after "six foetuses wrapped in gold leaf" were found in a hotel, Thai police have said.

Hong Kong-born Chow Hok Kuen, 28, was arrested in the city's Chinatown area and has been released on bail.

Thai police said the bodies, thought to have been used in a black magic ritual, were packed in travel bags and were beyond recognition.

It was not clear where the bodies came from.

Lt Col Kittima Thongchai, the police officer who made the arrest, said the bodies were so dried up that it was not possible to make out whether they were foetuses or babies.

"We have to send the bodies for forensic test to identify whether they were foetuses, removed illegally by abortion, or corpses of babies", he told the BBC.

Mr Kuen was arrested after a tip-off that baby corpses were being sold through a website "advertising black magic", according to the Reuters news agency.

Black magic

Black magic rituals are prevalent in Thailand, where faith healers organise ceremonies to reverse bad luck.

Mr Kuen faces up to one year in prison and a fine of not more than 2,000 Thai Baht ($63; £40) if found guilty.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has said they are aware of the arrest of a British national in Bangkok on 18 May.

An FCO spokesperson said: "We stand ready to provide consular assistance."

OMG!:eek:

[Livia]

Beautiful world... but some disgusting excuses for people.

[Kazanne]

Beautiful world... but some disgusting excuses for people.

Well said Livia,so true :xyxwave:

[Scarlett.]

What the **** is wrong with some people?

[Pyramid*]

What the **** is wrong with some people?



I have no idea, I can't begin to describe how much this turned my stomach when I saw the photos. The one of the larger 'unborn' child still sucking it's thumb whilst still in the foetal position: I honestly cannot find words that truly express the disgust as well as utter sadness together with complete loathing for some 'human beings'.

Sick and deranged people comes no where close to adequately describing this horrendous act.

[Z]

I don't want to see pictures, the story's horrible enough.

[MTVN]

It's an ancient Buddhist-animist practice

[Redway]

Why are some people so retarded? ****ing hell.

[Kizzy]

Could be something to do with this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17980177

[Pyramid*]

It's an ancient Buddhist-animist practice


I don't care what it is MTVN. It's still abhorrent and sick.

[Redway]

It's an ancient Buddhist-animist practice

I don't give a flying ***** about what it is, I'm afraid. It's perverted and sick. Retarded muppet, the Briton with dead bodies.

[Pyramid*]

I don't give a flying ***** about what it is, I'm afraid. It's perverted and sick. Retarded muppet, the Briton with dead bodies.

Hoi you. That's an offence to the Muppets. Muppets are (overall) generally harmless little blighters.

I demand you retract that.

(Miss Piggy excluded of course)

;)

I agree. anyone who passes this off as 'yeah, but it's tradition' is not considering the welfare of the child / unborn or not

It's old tradition in some African countries to inflict terrible suffering and then offer the child as a sacrific. It's old traditon in other countries to take children to the tops of mountains after weeks /months of ardous journey to get to the summit to sacrifice an innocent child to the 'Gods'. Being an old tradition does not make it right.

If old tradidtions were upheld all over the world: putting children up chimneys to meet their death would still be allowed in the UK.

[Pyramid*]

I don't give a flying ***** about what it is, I'm afraid. It's perverted and sick. Retarded muppet, the Briton with dead bodies.

Hoi you. That's an offence to the Muppets. Muppets are (overall) generally harmless little blighters.

I demand you retract that.

(Miss Piggy excluded of course)

;)

I agree. anyone who passes this off as 'yeah, but it's tradition' is not considering the welfare of the child / unborn or not

It's old tradition in some African countries to inflict terrible suffering and then offer the child as a sacrific. It's old traditon in other countries to take children to the tops of mountains after weeks /months of ardous journey to get to the summit to sacrifice an innocent child to the 'Gods'. Being an old tradition does not make it right.

If old traditions were upheld all over the world: putting children up chimneys to meet their death would still be allowed in the UK.

[MTVN]

Yeah because I was really defending it by stating what it was :rolleyes: I was just explaining what they would be used for, I didn't say it wasn't sick; most ancient practices are - of all religions - not everyone has managed to escape them

[Redway]

Yeah because I was really defending it by stating what it was :rolleyes: I was just explaining what they would be used for, I didn't say it wasn't sick; most ancient practices are - of all religions - not everyone has managed to escape them

I know. I wasn't having a go - I was just saying that I don't think the reason applies here. Apologies - maybe I should have been a bit clearer in my post.

[Pyramid*]

Yeah because I was really defending it by stating what it was :rolleyes: I was just explaining what they would be used for, I didn't say it wasn't sick; most ancient practices are - of all religions - not everyone has managed to escape them

Please refrain MTVN from the rolling eyes. It really is wholly unnecessary.

People are putting their point of view over regardless: and are managing to do so without being witheringly petulant and using a 'sarky' smiley. No one stated you were defending: people were offering their own counter opinon on your comment.

The points made in respect of your comment are no less valid because you used a 'rolling eyes'#

TBH, I'm surprised at you as you are usually very good in serious debates despite this being in General ... It is a serious matter surely and not one to be taken lightly. In my humble opinion of course.

[Jack_]

To be quite honest, taking MTVN's comment seriously as if he was essentially defending this story was quite stupid and looked to me like nothing else but yet another attempt at trying to incite an argument out of nothing. That, if you ask me, is 'wholly unnecessary'.

[Pyramid*]

To be quite honest, taking MTVN's comment seriously as if he was essentially defending this story was quite stupid and looked to me like nothing else but yet another attempt at trying to incite an argument out of nothing. That, if you ask me, is 'wholly unnecessary'.


I'll take a serious discussion as seriously as I wish - and this is such a discussion despite it being in the General Chat section.

If you have some objection to my posts Jack - rather than you having digs and personal snipes at me - which YOU ARE doing - I respectfully suggest you take it off the main board and to pm.

[Jack_]

I'll take a serious discussion as seriously as I wish - and this is such a discussion despite it being in the General Chat section.

If you have some objection to my posts Jack - rather than you having digs and personal snipes at me - which YOU ARE doing - I respectfully suggest you take it off the main board and to pm.

In that case then, let me directly respond to this part of your last post. Now let's see if you should've taken his post so seriously or not.

people were offering their own counter opinon on your comment.

But there wasn't any counter opinion/argument to his comment.

A counter-opinion would be to say it's not an ancient religious practice, and the fact of the matter is - it is. So there's no possible way you could 'counter-argue' that at all. And then the only other option would be to say that you were counter-arguing his post by saying that it doesn't excuse the foulness of the crime, in which case his original post didn't excuse it either, he merely stated what it was. Again, no possibly way of offering a counter-opinion. It's a fact that it's an ancient religious practice and he never once used that fact to defend the crime itself. Therefore, yes, you did take his post too seriously.

[Z]

Oh, Jack's got the multi quotes out.

[Pyramid*]

In that case then, let me directly respond to this part of your last post. Now let's see if you should've taken his post so seriously or not.



But there wasn't any counter opinion/argument to his comment.

A counter-opinion would be to say it's not an ancient religious practice, and the fact of the matter is - it is. So there's no possible way you could 'counter-argue' that at all. And then the only other option would be to say that you were counter-arguing his post by saying that it doesn't excuse the foulness of the crime, in which case his original post didn't excuse it either, he merely stated what it was. Again, no possibly way of offering a counter-opinion. It's a fact that it's an ancient religious practice and he never once used that fact to defend the crime itself. Therefore, yes, you did take his post too seriously.


I think you will find that my counter opinion was simply that I, in my opinion, stated that there could be no acceptable reason for this type of behaviour - traditional or not.

There you have it. In one very small short paragraph. I did not say MTVN was defending this ritual. Perhaps read what is written instead of what is not Jack.

[Jack_]

I think you will find that my counter opinion was simply that I, in my opinion, stated that there could be no acceptable reason for this type of behaviour - traditional or not.

There you have it. In one very small short paragraph. I did not say MTVN was defending this ritual. Perhaps read what is written instead of what is not Jack.

The point is, he didn't say there'd be an acceptable reason either. At no point did he state that, so how could you possibly respond to his post in a manner which insinuates that he was excusing the crime?

The very fact that you said 'I don't care what it is MTVN', appears to me like you thought he was trying to excuse it.

[Pyramid*]

The point is, he didn't say there'd be an acceptable reason either. At no point did he state that, so how could you possibly respond to his post in a manner which insinuates that he was excusing the crime?

The very fact that you said 'I don't care what it is MTVN', appears to me like you thought he was trying to excuse it.


I do not care what it may be regarded as: MTVN put over a comment as a reason for said behaviour: it was THAT that I said I did not care for - the reason for said behaviour: not for MTVN personally...... I think you fail to to distinguish the difference in that Jack.

Additionally it would be good if you read what is written: rather than you reading 'what you wish was written'. It makes a huge difference also.

I will say again: if you have some issue with my posts.... take it to pm.

Also: I am quite sure MTVN is more than capable of replying without you acting on his behalf or acting as his bit of 'muscle'. He is a highly intelligent young man and more than able to answer himself.

[MTVN]

Indeed Jack, I did feel the implication was that I was trying to defend this behaviour. If that was not the case though Pyramid then fine, I have other things to concentrate on today

[Pyramid*]

Indeed Jack, I did feel the implication was that I was trying to defend this behaviour. If that was not the case though Pyramid then fine, I have other things to concentrate on today

I replied to the comment you made MTVN. I did not say you excused it - I said it does not excuse the behaviour.

You made a comment that was neither defending or condeming.

If you would care to point out to me where I said that you condoned it, or DEFENDED IT, I would be very grateful.