The people involved served 14 years before being released. One of them
died in prison. A statement which had supplied one of them with an alibi
was buried by the police and it was only the tenacious efforts of their
lawyer which eventually uncovered it, hence their release. This is off
the top of my head, the numbers may be slightly out but the essence is a
fair description of events. Now it may be that the suppression of this
crucial piece of evidence was the action of a group of police officers
and the crown prosecution service with no involvement from govt. at all
(although what would you describe the CPS as?) or it may be that the
orders came down from on high. To date, no charges have been brought
against any officers. I know what *I* believe.
>I studied the Criminal Justice Bill in some depth, and discovered that despite
>the fact that it's a really large document, there is actually very little
>that's controversial in it. Of around 140 clauses, I found 4 or 5 which could
>have implications WRT to individual liberty.
I withdraw the point. Not because I think you're right but because these
side issues are obscuring the essence.
>Go and live in Brazil for a bit, and then tell me that we're not free.
A little gilding does not make it any less a cage.
>> I made clear that what I'm talking about
>> requires a certain level of technology. I'm not sure what that level is
>> but I think we're close (in the west at least)
>
>But the way you make it sound, the government is going to surpress this
>technology,
That's possible.
>to stop you attaining the goal to which you strive.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. All I'm doing is describing a
system that I would like to have the opportunity to live in. If I was
striving towards it I wouldn't be shouting my mouth off on a mailing
list.
>> >The beaurocracy is a fair analogy. There is too much, I'll agree with that
>> >but unfortunately it is, as you say, self-perpetuating. Beaurocracy breeds
>> >beaurocracy. The system itself is unaffected by such [I can't type the B
>> >word again, it's too long :)], in most ways other than time.
>>
>> And money. Huge greats wads of my damn cash.
>
>But how do you know that it'd be cheaper in your state?
I don't, but where I spend the money would be my choice, and I suspect
that if we took that big beaurocracy out of the equation we couldn't
fail to save money. I don't see too many instances of where govt.
supplies better value for money than the private sector, do you?
<snip re: contract>
>Show me where I signed.
>
>Herein lies the problem. I've talked about this a lot in Politics classes, and
>the principle is as follows:
>
>You are born into a state, where, at some point, one or more of your forebears
>has agreed, contractually, to be part of the state.
Bullshit. Show me where any of my ancestors signed. I say again, you
won't even be able to find the document.
>You don't want to be part of the state?
>Then leave, it;s as simple as that.
And go where? There's not a single piece of dirt on this planet that
some govt. or other hasn't claimed. I own my home and the land it stands
on (to a depth of 10 feet, the bastards kept the mineral rights but I
can live with it. I signed the contract and I'm happy to abide by its
terms and conditions) so why should I accept that the govt. has the
right to exert dominion even in my bedroom? They have passed laws that
tell me who I can fuck, where I can fuck them and what the nature of the
fucking shall be. That makes the country a much safer place for decent
folks to live in.
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.