"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"John Mara" wrote

I guess I was looking at it more from the policing side than the
prosecution side. Did British Rail have railway police? Do the new
private companies have their own police?

British Transport Police are a national police force, funded by the rail
industry. They predated British Rail, and trace their history back to
1826,
making them one of the oldest police forces in the world.

http://www.btp.police.uk/History%20S...ety%20Main.htm

I saw a very interesting "Illustrated Talk" by Sgt. Kevin Gordon (BTP) at
the National Rail Museum at York on Sunday afternoon. Well recommended.
--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... )
"Leave the Mobile Phone at home day Oct 25th 2006"

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
gently breathed:
"Pyromancer" wrote in message
...

[ Singapore ]

I would have no problem going there if a suitable job happened to come
up - in fact I'll probably go there eventually as a tourist as my
parents spent time there in the 1960s. As for avoiding trouble, it's
easy, just don't break the law.

Yes, those nice men from Forest Gate would no doubt agree with you, as would
all manner of unfortunate Irishmen over the years. What if the Singaporeans
have an official dislike of all things Goth?

Than I would have to restrict my social life a bit - just as I would if
I were offered work in, say, an Islamic country. Not being able to go
to a club for the duration of a contract is hardly a hardship, and it's
perfectly possible to listen to Goth music without being fully, or even
partially, gothed up.

Or a downer on rail enthusiasts
celebrating anything Hellfire?

Again - when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Just because I can sometimes
lean out of windows, or breathe clag, or flail, on a UK preserved line
doesn't mean I'd automatically expect be able to do any of these things
in another country. I'd find out what the local idea of acceptable and
unacceptable was, and stick to it.

Who knows, in a society where chewing gum is
frowned upon.

Chewing gum is an utterly revolting and disgusting habit. It's not
quite as bad as public smoking, but the germ-laden saliva-covered
residue which gum users leave all over (or usually under) furniture,
building ledges, etc, is a health hazard. Any society which frowns on
gum has clearly got something right.

Noticeable that the example of how wonderful harsh punishment can be is
not
Saudi Arabia, where, despite a regime which includes public execution, the
crime rate is far worse than in the UK.

We're specifically talking about anti-social behaviour, especially the
evils of graffiti.

Of course, terrorism and murder are a mere sideshow when the main event is,
er, graffiti. Does anyone realise just how potty this kind of argument
sounds? Let's ignore the elephants and kick seven shades out of a few mice.

It's called "sticking to the topic at hand", and is generally regarded
as necessary if sensible debate is to be carried out. You don't stop
all track maintenance just because a bridge somewhere up the line needs
repairs.

Saudi Arabia has it's own unique problems, and is
hardly a valid like-for-like comparison with a secular western
democracy.

Like the USA, perchance? Capital punishment, and warehousing of the
criminally inclined, yet crime just carries right on.

The USA approach to capital punishment is fundamentally flawed. ISTR
it's still statistically more likely for a back person to be executed
than a white one, for the same crime, and that's just one of the
problems.

Anyway, warehousing most offenders is a waste of time and money. Petty
offenders should receive a harsh and painful, but otherwise harmless.
corporal penalty. Very serious offenders, violent serial rapists, etc,
should be executed. Fine-defaulters should have some other financial
penalty applied (perhaps raid their pension funds, or ban them from all
NHS care for a period of time). The only people who should be
warehoused are those who present a clear and serious danger to others -
mostly violent thugs, robbers, etc.

Far
better that sending them to a cushy jail where as you say, they just
learn how to do more crimes while enjoying all the "rights" we insist on
giving them, and costing about 12k a year (or is it 20k?) per prisoner
to run.
I've never been to jail, so whether they are "cushy" I don't know.
There are many news reports on the subject
And you haven't been there either.

Neither have I been to Mars, or the bottom of the Atlantic, or the
Galapagos islands, nevertheless I know something of all three. Prisons
should be about punishment. Punishment should not include being able to
watch TV. If people want to watch TV, relax, have a pleasant time -
then they shouldn't break the law. Prison should really be about forced
labour, think how much work could be done on, for example, the
cash-strapped branch lines, if there was free labour available.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

"Goalie of the Century" wrote in message
...
In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 01:32:13 on
Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Clark F Morris remarked:

Operational railway land is not subject to rates.

Ah HA! A hidden subsidy.
ARe any of the following subject to rates?
1. Highway facilities.
2. Pipelines
3. Port facilities.
4. Waterways.
5. Air traffic control facilities.
6. Airports.

Most are listed at:

http://www.voa.gov.uk/business_rates/RLI/Scats/scat.htm

But it doesn't show the level of rates applied to each of those special
categories.

But you can search by category at
http://ratinglists.voa.gov.uk/irl2k5/mainController?action=InitialiseApp&listYear=2000& lang=E

The 23 items listed, with a number since deleted, for cat 231, Railways &
tramways, seems rather short. Clearly some railway lands are more
operational than others.
--
Goalie of the Century

Rates were not paid by Crown occupiers such as armed forces and nationalised
railways. But they do(did) pay a contribution in liew of rates. I guess it
was not considered desireable to have council or revenue officials measuring
up many Crown sites for security easons. Power stations, railways, ports
etc would have their rateable values or contributions in liew of rates
calculated by reference to formulaes based on such things as generating
capacity or money receipts. Even wind turbines generating electricity
have their rateable value calculated by a formula. I suppose but don't know
that privatised railways have a formula somewhere in the privatisation
legislation determining rateable value. Regarding operational land
there were Lands Tribunal cases concerning Stanier House in Birmingham.
Operational land included control rooms and the like diectly concerned with
day to day operation of the railway but offices concerned with
administration were not operational land and they are the hereditaments
that will apear in the rating list. The operational land offices were
subsumed into the global list figure for the operatioal railway. So Stanier
House would have an entry or entries in the rating list for normal offices
but not for the operational offices.
Items 2 to 6 are subject to rates - local or central rating lists but
highways are not - who would be the occupier liable for the rates?
So in short the railways do pay rates.
The amount of rates each year can be calculated from the rateable value of
each propert subject to transitional relief and movements of rateable value
up and down for various reasons.
Phew

In article , Pyromancer
writes

Neither have I been to Mars, or the bottom of the Atlantic, or the
Galapagos islands, nevertheless I know something of all three. Prisons
should be about punishment. Punishment should not include being able to
watch TV. If people want to watch TV, relax, have a pleasant time -
then they shouldn't break the law. Prison should really be about forced
labour, think how much work could be done on, for example, the
cash-strapped branch lines, if there was free labour available.

But allow an occasional bite of carrot as well as the stick. One thing
I would do (as Dictator of the World) is to greatly increase the
education budget for prisons. And to give some extra incentive to the
process, allow prisoners to earn privileges - such as being allowed to
watch telly - for educational achievement (including learning a useful
craft).

I recall with amusement my sons' days at prep school. Corporal
punishment at the school was The Slipper, which was not actually
formally abolished until the time they were there but (in the way of
these things) had not actually been used for some time previously. It
had been replaced, for the boarders, by something which many of them
regarded as a much more cruel and unusual punishment - television
deprivation! (Known as 'Off TV'.) I remember one son cheering when he
was moved to another dorm, which meant he was no longer in with one of
the school's star delinquents (this, I may add, is a cathedral choir
school, and the star delinquents were almost invariably choristers!)
which meant he now had a chance of occasionally watching an episode of
'Neighbours'! (I digress.)
--
Sue
The Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Preservation Trust is now at
http://www.sirnigelgresley.co.uk
Including - 00 gauge Hornby and Bachmann models for sale.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Sue
McNaughton gently breathed:
In article , Pyromancer
writes

Neither have I been to Mars, or the bottom of the Atlantic, or the
Galapagos islands, nevertheless I know something of all three. Prisons
should be about punishment. Punishment should not include being able to
watch TV. If people want to watch TV, relax, have a pleasant time -
then they shouldn't break the law. Prison should really be about forced
labour, think how much work could be done on, for example, the
cash-strapped branch lines, if there was free labour available.

But allow an occasional bite of carrot as well as the stick. One thing
I would do (as Dictator of the World) is to greatly increase the
education budget for prisons. And to give some extra incentive to the
process, allow prisoners to earn privileges - such as being allowed to
watch telly - for educational achievement (including learning a useful
craft).

Ok, that makes a lot of sense - perks for showing a willingness to
learn, or to reform (working with anti-drug-use missions to deprived
areas would be something else prisoners could do). But privileges, not
"rights".

Can we share the dictator of the world thing - like the rotating EU
presidency? I have this plan for improved public transport you see, 14
coach locomotive hauled trains of neo-Mk1s running at 10 minute
frequencies on main routes, with a return to steam on all the most
scenic lines... :-)

I recall with amusement my sons' days at prep school. Corporal
punishment at the school was The Slipper, which was not actually
formally abolished until the time they were there but (in the way of
these things) had not actually been used for some time previously. It
had been replaced, for the boarders, by something which many of them
regarded as a much more cruel and unusual punishment - television
deprivation! (Known as 'Off TV'.) I remember one son cheering when he
was moved to another dorm, which meant he was no longer in with one of
the school's star delinquents (this, I may add, is a cathedral choir
school, and the star delinquents were almost invariably choristers!)
which meant he now had a chance of occasionally watching an episode of
'Neighbours'! (I digress.)

No idea if he was a delinquent or not, but ISTR Bruce Dickinson of Iron
Maiden was a choirboy at Winchester Cathedral School. Hence all the
references to the classics in Maiden's songs (not to mention the first
verse of "Revalations" being lifted in it's entirety from the CoE hymn
book).

But (back to topic), if TV depravation is acceptable for disciplining
children, then it should most certainly be acceptable for prisons.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

"Pyromancer" wrote in message
...

Who knows, in a society where chewing gum is
frowned upon.

Chewing gum is an utterly revolting and disgusting habit. It's not
quite as bad as public smoking, but the germ-laden saliva-covered
residue which gum users leave all over (or usually under) furniture,
building ledges, etc, is a health hazard. Any society which frowns on
gum has clearly got something right.

Had you read Dave Hill's post, you would have discovered that this is no
longer the case in Singapore. This demonstrates the high moral tone and
deeply rooted principles held by Singaporean legislators.

Or the total lach thereof.

We're specifically talking about anti-social behaviour, especially the
evils of graffiti.

Of course, terrorism and murder are a mere sideshow when the main event
is,
er, graffiti. Does anyone realise just how potty this kind of argument
sounds? Let's ignore the elephants and kick seven shades out of a few
mice.

It's called "sticking to the topic at hand", and is generally regarded
as necessary if sensible debate is to be carried out. You don't stop
all track maintenance just because a bridge somewhere up the line needs
repairs.

You don't clean off the graffiti if the cleaner just got killed in a
terrorist attack. Minor point.

Anyway, warehousing most offenders is a waste of time and money. Petty
offenders should receive a harsh and painful, but otherwise harmless.
corporal penalty. Very serious offenders, violent serial rapists, etc,
should be executed. Fine-defaulters should have some other financial
penalty applied (perhaps raid their pension funds, or ban them from all
NHS care for a period of time). The only people who should be
warehoused are those who present a clear and serious danger to others -
mostly violent thugs, robbers, etc.

When we take an eye for an eye, we all end up blind.

What you suggest - andI have to assume that this isn't a troll - is much
worse. Fortunately, not even Rupert Murdoch can persuade any UK government
down the road you so ludicrously propose.

In the meantime, as I have better things to do with my time, you can join
the august band in my killfile.

--
Tim

Selective killfiling - because life's too short

Tim Fenton wrote:
"Pyromancer" wrote in message
...

Who knows, in a society where chewing gum is
frowned upon.

Chewing gum is an utterly revolting and disgusting habit. It's not
quite as bad as public smoking, but the germ-laden saliva-covered
residue which gum users leave all over (or usually under) furniture,
building ledges, etc, is a health hazard. Any society which frowns on
gum has clearly got something right.

Had you read Dave Hill's post, you would have discovered that this is no
longer the case in Singapore. This demonstrates the high moral tone and
deeply rooted principles held by Singaporean legislators.

Or the total lach thereof.

I did read it - the fact the the US govt has both the will and the
ecconomic muscle to push through such changes is unfortunately a fact
of international ecconomic life. None of which changes my assertion
that "any society which frowns upon chewing gum has clearly got
something right".

We're specifically talking about anti-social behaviour, especially the
evils of graffiti.

Of course, terrorism and murder are a mere sideshow when the main event
is,
er, graffiti. Does anyone realise just how potty this kind of argument
sounds? Let's ignore the elephants and kick seven shades out of a few
mice.

It's called "sticking to the topic at hand", and is generally regarded
as necessary if sensible debate is to be carried out. You don't stop
all track maintenance just because a bridge somewhere up the line needs
repairs.

You don't clean off the graffiti if the cleaner just got killed in a
terrorist attack. Minor point.

The topic of this thread is graffitti damage to railway property and
ways of dealing with it, not prevention of terrorism. Saying "you
shouldn't punish graffiti because it's not as bad as terrorism" is
hardly a sensible approach, nor even a sensible argument.

And yes, I know full well that no criminal justice system, hard-line or
liberal, has any hope of ever deterring a terrorist. Terrorism
(especially suicide terrorism) is a unique class of crime that we as a
society are only just beginning to really investigate. Preventing it
is probably the hardest task our legal and social systems have ever had
to face. But that doesn't mean we should ignore everything else.

Anyway, warehousing most offenders is a waste of time and money. Petty
offenders should receive a harsh and painful, but otherwise harmless.
corporal penalty. Very serious offenders, violent serial rapists, etc,
should be executed. Fine-defaulters should have some other financial
penalty applied (perhaps raid their pension funds, or ban them from all
NHS care for a period of time). The only people who should be
warehoused are those who present a clear and serious danger to others -
mostly violent thugs, robbers, etc.

When we take an eye for an eye, we all end up blind.

Fine rethoric, but does it really add up in the real world? When we
execute a serial rapist, we ensure he (or she, though that's rare) can
carry out no further offences. What's so terrible about that? When we
warehouse a violent thug, we prevent them from thuggery against the
public for the length of their sentence - and with less overcrowding,
perhaps the prisons would have more chance of reforming some of them.

What you suggest - andI have to assume that this isn't a troll - is much
worse. Fortunately, not even Rupert Murdoch can persuade any UK government
down the road you so ludicrously propose.

What's so "ludicrous" about it? Less people in prison, a more
realistic and productive approach to fine defaulters, permanent removal
of the most extreme and violent from society only after they have
comitted several extreme offences, and punishments for lesser offences
that will be regarded by the majority of the population as more fitting
the crimes. You clearly don't like the idea, but you've not put
forward any coherent reasons for not liking it.

In the meantime, as I have better things to do with my time, you can join
the august band in my killfile.

The last retort of the playground politician who can't handle having
their opinions challenged - say your peice, stick your fingers in your
ears, and run away shouting "na-na-na-na I can't hear you"? So much
for debate.

"Pyromancer" wrote in message
oups.com...

When we take an eye for an eye, we all end up blind.

Fine rethoric, but does it really add up in the real world?

"I can't counter that, so I won't"

When we
execute a serial rapist

We don't execute.

What you suggest - andI have to assume that this isn't a troll - is much
worse. Fortunately, not even Rupert Murdoch can persuade any UK
government
down the road you so ludicrously propose.

What's so "ludicrous" about it? Less people in prison, a more
realistic and productive approach to fine defaulters, permanent removal
of the most extreme and violent from society only after they have
comitted several extreme offences, and punishments for lesser offences
that will be regarded by the majority of the population as more fitting
the crimes. You clearly don't like the idea, but you've not put
forward any coherent reasons for not liking it.

Brutalising society. Lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal. Above
all, not solving the underlying problems - which is by far the worst aspect.

In the meantime, as I have better things to do with my time, you can join
the august band in my killfile.

The last retort of the playground politician

Who's sinking to insults? Who's changing his email address in a desperate
attempt to carry on his lame tirade?

So much
for debate.

Indeed - your amended email address has also gone in the killfile. Plenty of
room there yet.

--
Tim

Selective killfiling - because life's too short

Pyromancer wrote:

Chewing gum is an utterly revolting and disgusting habit. It's not
quite as bad as public smoking, but the germ-laden saliva-covered
residue which gum users leave all over (or usually under) furniture,
building ledges, etc, is a health hazard. Any society which frowns on
gum has clearly got something right.

Isn't it the case that the improper disposal of chewing gum is the
problem, rather than the gum itself? I've never liked the stuff
myself, but it's harmless enough. And what about those who use gum to
help stop smoking?

It's called "sticking to the topic at hand", and is generally regarded
as necessary if sensible debate is to be carried out. You don't stop
all track maintenance just because a bridge somewhere up the line needs
repairs.

Indeed not, but you'd ban chewing gum just because some people spit it
out.

The USA approach to capital punishment is fundamentally flawed. ISTR
it's still statistically more likely for a back person to be executed
than a white one, for the same crime, and that's just one of the
problems.

Do you mean the same crime, or similar crimes? If the latter, we get
into the issue of just how similar. And as the death penalty is
applied on a state-by-state basis the size of Black populations in
death and non-death states must have a bearing.


Anyway, warehousing most offenders is a waste of time and money.

Not everyone believes that prison should always just be warehousing.

Petty
offenders should receive a harsh and painful, but otherwise harmless.
corporal penalty. Very serious offenders, violent serial rapists, etc,
should be executed.

What happens after we execute an innocent man?

Fine-defaulters should have some other financial
penalty applied (perhaps raid their pension funds, or ban them from all
NHS care for a period of time).

Quite a lot of fine defaulters simply don't have much money, never mind
a pension fund. And refusing medical treatment could effeectively be a
death sentence. Poor people would be much more likely to be affected.

The only people who should be
warehoused are those who present a clear and serious danger to others -
mostly violent thugs, robbers, etc.

No work to try to rehabilitate, then?

Neither have I been to Mars, or the bottom of the Atlantic, or the
Galapagos islands, nevertheless I know something of all three. Prisons
should be about punishment. Punishment should not include being able to
watch TV. If people want to watch TV, relax, have a pleasant time -
then they shouldn't break the law.

Prison is hardly 'having a pleasant time'. Simple question: If they
said in all prisons, "Ok, boys, the gates are unlocked. Anyone who
wants to leave can" how many are going to stay?

Prison should really be about forced
labour, think how much work could be done on, for example, the
cash-strapped branch lines, if there was free labour available.

'Free labour' being a euphemism for slavery. Which, of course, is
what you have in the USA, where the 13th Amendment says: "Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States". I didn't think you were a fan of the Land of the
Free, Home of the Brave...

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
gently breathed:
Pyromancer wrote:

Chewing gum is an utterly revolting and disgusting habit. It's not
quite as bad as public smoking, but the germ-laden saliva-covered
residue which gum users leave all over (or usually under) furniture,
building ledges, etc, is a health hazard. Any society which frowns on
gum has clearly got something right.

Isn't it the case that the improper disposal of chewing gum is the
problem, rather than the gum itself? I've never liked the stuff
myself, but it's harmless enough. And what about those who use gum to
help stop smoking?

If people could use gum without sticking it all over the place, or
blowing germ-ridden bubbles of it over each other, fine. That's not my
experience of gum though.

It's called "sticking to the topic at hand", and is generally regarded
as necessary if sensible debate is to be carried out. You don't stop
all track maintenance just because a bridge somewhere up the line needs
repairs.

Indeed not, but you'd ban chewing gum just because some people spit it
out.

It seems that most of the users spit it out, if the streets and
pavements are any guide. If something can't be used without endangering
public health, it shouldn't be used at all.

The USA approach to capital punishment is fundamentally flawed. ISTR
it's still statistically more likely for a back person to be executed
than a white one, for the same crime, and that's just one of the
problems.

Do you mean the same crime, or similar crimes? If the latter, we get
into the issue of just how similar. And as the death penalty is
applied on a state-by-state basis the size of Black populations in
death and non-death states must have a bearing.

I'm going very much on second and third hand (so probably falwed)
information here, but I have read reports of studies that said racism
affecting the verdict was still a problem for juries in US murder cases.

Anyway, warehousing most offenders is a waste of time and money.

Not everyone believes that prison should always just be warehousing.

Indeed - which is the point I was making.

Petty
offenders should receive a harsh and painful, but otherwise harmless.
corporal penalty. Very serious offenders, violent serial rapists, etc,
should be executed.

What happens after we execute an innocent man?

If the death penalty if reserved solely for the most serious *serial*
offenders, the risk of that are massively reduced. No matter how
horrific the crime, you can't execute someone for a first offence
(though you can lock them up for 30 or 40 years of course). But if
someone has been convicted of violent rape several times in a row, the
chances of them being innocent are somewhat slim.

Fine-defaulters should have some other financial
penalty applied (perhaps raid their pension funds, or ban them from all
NHS care for a period of time).

Quite a lot of fine defaulters simply don't have much money, never mind
a pension fund. And refusing medical treatment could effeectively be a
death sentence. Poor people would be much more likely to be affected.

Then perhaps they should be required to do community work (but hard
work) at evenings and weekends. It would possibly cost more than prison
does, but at least society would get something back for it. Refusing to
work, or failing to work diligently, would result in going to prison.

The only people who should be
warehoused are those who present a clear and serious danger to others -
mostly violent thugs, robbers, etc.

No work to try to rehabilitate, then?

I mentioned that in another post. I'm all for rehabilitation where
possible - at the end of the day it's the criminal who chooses to
reform, and some people will simply never make that choice - but in the
current overcrowded situation that doesn't seem to be working too well.
With the most violent and dangerous executed, and the less dangerous
found alternative penalties outside prison, perhaps there'd be the
capacity and resource available to do some serious rehabilitation work
with those we had to lock up.

Neither have I been to Mars, or the bottom of the Atlantic, or the
Galapagos islands, nevertheless I know something of all three. Prisons
should be about punishment. Punishment should not include being able to
watch TV. If people want to watch TV, relax, have a pleasant time -
then they shouldn't break the law.

Prison is hardly 'having a pleasant time'. Simple question: If they
said in all prisons, "Ok, boys, the gates are unlocked. Anyone who
wants to leave can" how many are going to stay?

Almost none[1]. But even so, society has a right to expect that those
who have hurt the innocent will be made to pay for what they've done.

[1] You do sometimes get people who actually prefer the regimented
regime in a prison to life outside, usually through mental illness.

I'm familiar with the arguments of those who claim state-actioned
violence somehow "brutalises society", but I don't agree with them. In
my experience, people in general are fairly savage and only held in
check by a combination of the knowledge that following the rules of
society leads to a better standard of living that that which can be
obtained by force, and that those society appoints with the sanctioned
use of force can ultimately apply more of it than they can.

In areas where the fear of the forces of order has been reduced or
removed, you get savagery and gang culture - I know people who live on
rough estates where you never see the police unless they are in a car
chasing someone, and the streets are more of less ruled by gangs of
thugs. I had a gang of youths attack my van in Bradford just a few
nights ago, simply because I slowed down while passing them as I was
about to park.

Prison should really be about forced
labour, think how much work could be done on, for example, the
cash-strapped branch lines, if there was free labour available.

'Free labour' being a euphemism for slavery. Which, of course, is
what you have in the USA, where the 13th Amendment says: "Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States". I didn't think you were a fan of the Land of the
Free, Home of the Brave...

I'm not a fan of their current leadership, or their general attitude to
public services or national passenger railways. But I've been to the
USA and had a wonderful time with some of the nicest, most welcoming
people you could ever hope to meet - all of whom were at pains to point
out, once I'd been introduced as a European, that none of them had voted
for Bush. You can't really judge "America", any more than you could
judge all of Europe on the UK's policies. Just because most of the US
speaks one language does not mean its people are united.

I certainly see nothing wrong with forced labour for convicts. Slavery
is rather different - that would involve kidnapping entire families and
forcing them to work when they'd done no wrong, or declaring that one
type of people aren't really human, plus slavery involved buying and
selling people like horses.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com