Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Real Crime, Fake Justice (England)
City Journal ^ | Theodore Dalrymple

Posted on 08/19/2006 3:05:06 AM PDT by dirtboy

For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and criminality. Almost alone of British government policies, this one has been supremely effective: no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence.

An unholy alliance between politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep prison costs to a minimum, and liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice, which it would be a further injustice to punish, has engendered a prolonged and so far unfinished experiment in leniency that has debased the quality of life of millions of people, especially the poor. Every day in our newspapers we read of the absurd and dangerous leniency of the criminal-justice system. On April 21, for example, even the Observer (one of the bastions of British liberalism responsible for the present situation) gave prominence to the official report into the case of Anthony Rice, who strangled and then stabbed Naomi Bryant to death.

Rice, it turned out, had been assaulting women since 1972. He had been convicted for assaulting or raping a total of 15 women before murdering Naomi Bryant, and it is a fair supposition that he had assaulted or raped many more who did not go to the police. In 1982, he grabbed a woman by the throat, held a knife to her, and raped her. Five years later, while out of prison on home leave, he grabbed a woman, pushed her into a garden, held a knife to her, and raped her for an hour. Receiving a life sentence, he was transferred to an open prison in 2002 and then released two years later on parole as a low-risk parolee. He received housing in a hostel for ex-prisoners in a village whose inhabitants had been told, to gain their acquiescence, that none of the residents there was violent; five months after his arrival, he murdered Naomi Bryant. In pronouncing another life sentence on him, the judge ordered that he should serve at least 25 years: in other words, even now the law has not quite thrown away the key.

Only five days later, the papers reported that 1,023 prisoners of foreign origin had been released from British prisons between 1999 and 2006 without having been deported. Among them were 5 killers, 7 kidnappers, 9 rapists and 39 other sex offenders, 4 arsonists, 41 burglars, 52 thieves, 93 robbers, and 204 drug offenders. Of the 1,023 prisoners, only 106 had since been traced. The Home Office, responsible for both prisons and immigration, still doesn’t know how many of the killers, arsonists, rapists, and kidnappers are at large; but it admits that most of them will never be found, at least until they are caught after committing another offense. Although these revelations forced the Home Secretary to resign, in fact the foreign criminals had been treated only as British criminals are treated. At least we can truly say that we do not discriminate in our leniency.

Scandal has followed scandal. A short time later, we learned that prisoners had been absconding from one open prison, Leyhill, at a rate of two a week for three years—323 in total since 1999, among them 22 murderers. This outrage came to light only when a senior policeman in the area of Leyhill told a member of Parliament that there had been a crime wave in the vicinity of the prison. The member of Parliament demanded the figures in the House of Commons; otherwise they would have remained secret.

None of these revelations, however, would have surprised a man called David Fraser, who has just published a book entitled A Land Fit for Criminals—the land in question being Great Britain, of course. Far from being mistakes—for mistakes repeated so often cease to be mere mistakes—all these occurrences are in full compliance with general policy in Britain with regard to crime and criminality.

Fraser was a probation officer for more than a quarter of a century. He began to doubt the value of his work in terms of preventing crime and therefore protecting the public, but he at first assumed that, as a comparatively lowly official in the criminal-justice system, he was too mired in the grainy everyday detail to see the bigger picture. He assumed also that those in charge not only knew what they were doing but had the public interest at heart.

Eventually, however, the penny dropped. Fraser’s lack of success in effecting any change in the criminals under his supervision, and thus in reducing the number of crimes that they subsequently committed, to the great misery of the general public, was not his failure alone but was general throughout the system. Even worse, he discovered that the bureaucrats who ran the system, and their political masters, did not care about this failure, at least from the point of view of its impact on public safety; careerist to the core, they were only concerned that the public should not become aware of the catastrophe. To this end, they indulged in obfuscation, statistical legerdemain, and outright lies in order to prevent the calamity that public knowledge of the truth would represent for them and their careers.

The collective intellectual dishonesty of those who worked in the system so outraged Fraser—and the Kafkaesque world in which he found himself, where nothing was called by its real name and language tended more to conceal meaning than to convey it, so exasperated him—that, though not a man apt to obtrude upon the public, he determined to write a book. It took him two and a half years to do so, based on 20 years of research, and it is clear from the very first page that he wrote it from a burning need to expose and exorcise the lies and evasions with which he lived for so long, lies and evasions that helped in a few decades transform a law-abiding country with a reputation for civility into the country with the highest crime rate in the Western world, with an ever-present undercurrent of violence in daily life. Like Luther, Fraser could not but speak out. And, as events unfolded, his book has had a publishing history that is additionally revealing of the state of Britain today.

By example after example (repetition being necessary to establish that he has not just alighted on an isolated case of absurdity that might be found in any large-scale enterprise), Fraser demonstrates the unscrupulous lengths to which both bureaucrats and governments have gone to disguise from the public the effect of their policies and decisions, carried out with an almost sadistic indifference to the welfare of common people.

He shows that liberal intellectuals and their bureaucratic allies have left no stone unturned to ensure that the law-abiding should be left as defenseless as possible against the predations of criminals, from the emasculation of the police to the devising of punishments that do not punish and the propagation of sophistry by experts to mislead and confuse the public about what is happening in society, confusion rendering the public helpless in the face of the experimentation perpetrated upon it.

The police, Fraser shows, are like a nearly defeated occupying colonial force that, while mayhem reigns everywhere else, has retreated to safe enclaves, there to shuffle paper and produce bogus information to propitiate their political masters. Their first line of defense is to refuse to record half the crime that comes to their attention, which itself is less than half the crime committed. Then they refuse to investigate recorded crime, or to arrest the culprits even when it is easy to do so and the evidence against them is overwhelming, because the prosecuting authorities will either decline to prosecute, or else the resultant sentence will be so trivial as to make the whole procedure (at least 19 forms to fill in after a single arrest) pointless.

In any case, the authorities want the police to use a sanction known as the caution—a mere verbal warning. Indeed, as Fraser points out, the Home Office even reprimanded the West Midlands Police Force for bringing too many apprehended offenders to court, instead of merely giving them a caution. In the official version, only minor crimes are dealt with in this fashion: but as Fraser points out, in the year 2000 alone, 600 cases of robbery, 4,300 cases of car theft, 6,600 offenses of burglary, 13,400 offenses against public order, 35,400 cases of violence against the person, and 67,600 cases of other kinds of theft were dealt with in this fashion—in effect, letting these 127,900 offenders off scot-free. When one considers that the police clear-up rate of all crimes in Britain is scarcely more than one in 20 (and even that figure is based upon official deception), the liberal intellectual claim, repeated ad nauseam in the press and on the air, that the British criminal-justice system is primitively retributive is absurd.

At every point in the system, Fraser shows, deception reigns. When a judge sentences a criminal to three years’ imprisonment, he knows perfectly well (as does the press that reports it) that in the vast majority of cases the criminal in question will serve 18 months at the very most, because he is entitled automatically, as of right, to a suspension of half his sentence. Moreover, under a scheme of early release, increasingly used, prisoners serve considerably less than half their sentence. They may be tagged electronically under a system of home curfew, intended to give the public an assurance that they are being monitored: but the electronic tag stays on for less than 12 hours daily, giving criminals plenty of opportunity to follow their careers. Even when the criminals remove their tags (and it is known that thousands are removed or vandalized every year) or fail to abide by other conditions of their early release, those who are supposedly monitoring them do nothing whatever, for fear of spoiling the statistics of the system’s success. When the Home Office tried the tagging system with young criminals, 73 percent of them were reconvicted within three months. The authorities nevertheless decided to extend the scheme. The failure of the British state to take its responsibilities seriously could not be more clearly expressed.

Fraser draws attention to the deeply corrupt system in Britain under which a criminal, once caught, may ask for other offenses that he has committed to be “taken into consideration.” (Criminals call these offenses T.I.C.s.) This practice may be in the interests of both the criminal and the police, but not in those of the long-suffering public. The court will sentence the criminal to further prison terms that run concurrently, not consecutively, to that imposed for the index offense: in other words, he will in effect serve the same sentence for 50 burglaries as for one burglary, and he can never again face charges for the 49 burglaries that have been “taken into consideration.” Meanwhile, the police can preen themselves that they have “solved” 50 crimes for the price of one.

One Probation Service smokescreen that Fraser knows from personal experience is to measure its own effectiveness by the proportion of criminals who complete their probation in compliance with court orders—a procedural outcome that has no significance whatever for the safety of the public. Such criminals come under the direct observation of probation officers only one hour a week at the very most. What they do the other 167 hours of the week the probation officers cannot possibly know. Unless one takes the preposterous view that such criminals are incapable of telling lies about their activities to their probation officers, mere attendance at the probation office is no guarantee whatever that they are now leading law-abiding lives.

But even if completion of probation orders were accepted as a surrogate measure of success in preventing re-offending, the Probation Service’s figures have long been completely corrupt—and for a very obvious reason. Until 1997, the probation officers themselves decided when noncompliance with their directions was so egregious that they “breached” the criminals under their supervision and returned them to the courts because of such noncompliance. Since their own effectiveness was measured by the proportion of probation orders “successfully” completed, they had a very powerful motive for disregarding the noncompliance of criminals. In such circumstances, all activity became strictly pro forma, with no purpose external to itself.

While the government put an end to this particular statistical legerdemain, probation orders still go into the statistics as “successfully completed” if they reach their official termination date—even in many cases if the offender gets arrested for committing further offenses before that date. Only in this way can the Home Office claim that between 70 and 80 percent of probation orders are “successfully completed.”

In their effort to prove the liberal orthodoxy that prison does not work, criminologists, government officials, and journalists have routinely used the lower reconviction rates of those sentenced to probation and other forms of noncustodial punishment (the word “punishment” in these circumstances being used very loosely) than those imprisoned. But if the aim is to protect the law-abiding, a comparison of reconviction rates of those imprisoned and those put on probation is irrelevant. What counts is the re-offending rate—a point so obvious that it is shameful that Fraser should have not only to make it but to hammer it home repeatedly, for the politicians, academics, and journalistic hangers-on have completely obscured it.

By definition, a man in prison can commit no crimes (except against fellow prisoners and prison staff). But what of those out in the world on probation? Of 1,000 male criminals on probation, Fraser makes clear, about 600 will be reconvicted at least once within the two years that the Home Office follows them up for statistical purposes. The rate of detection in Britain of all crimes being about 5 percent, those 1,000 criminals will actually have committed not 600, but at least 12,000 crimes (assuming them to have been averagely competent criminals chased by averagely incompetent police). Even this is not quite all. Since there are, in fact, about 150,000 people on probation in Britain, it means that at least 1.8 million crimes—more than an eighth of the nation’s total—must be committed annually by people on probation, within the very purview of the criminal-justice system, or very shortly after they have been on probation. While some of these crimes might be “victimless,” or at least impersonal, research has shown that these criminals inflict untold misery upon the British population: misery that they would not have been able to inflict had they been in prison for a year instead of on probation.

To compare the reconviction rates of ex-prisoners and people on probation as an argument against prison is not only irrelevant from the point of view of public safety but is also logically absurd. Of course the imprisoned will have higher reconviction rates once they get out of jail—not because prison failed to reform them, but because it is the most hardened, incorrigible, and recidivist criminals who go to prison. Again, this point is so obvious that it is shameful that anyone should have to point it out; yet politicians and others continue to use the reconviction rates as if they were a proper basis for deciding policy.

Relentless for hundreds of pages, Fraser provides examples of how the British government and its bloated and totally ineffectual bureaucratic apparatus, through moral and intellectual frivolity as well as plain incompetence, has failed in its elementary and sole inescapable duty: to protect the lives and property of the citizenry. He exposes the absurd prejudice that has become a virtually unassailable orthodoxy among the intellectual and political elite: that we have too many prisoners in Britain, as if there were an ideal number of prisoners, derived from a purely abstract principle, at which, independent of the number of crimes committed, we should aim. He describes in full detail the moral and intellectual corruption of the British criminal-justice system, from police decisions not to record crimes or to charge wrongdoers, to the absurdly light sentences given after conviction and the administrative means by which prisoners end up serving less than half their time, irrespective of their dangerousness or the likelihood that they will re-offend.

According to Fraser, at the heart of the British idiocy is the condescending and totally unrealistic idea—which, however, provides employment opportunities for armies of apparatchiks, as well as being psychologically gratifying—that burglars, thieves, and robbers are not conscious malefactors who calculate their chances of getting away with it, but people in the grip of something rather like a mental disease, whose thoughts, feelings, and decision-making processes need to be restructured. The whole criminal-justice system ought therefore to act in a therapeutic or medical, rather than a punitive and deterrent, fashion. Burglars do not know, poor things, that householders are upset by housebreaking, and so we must educate and inform them on this point; and we must also seek to persuade them of something that all their experience so far has taught them to be false, namely that crime does not pay.

All in all, Fraser’s book is a searing and unanswerable (or at least so far unanswered) indictment of the British criminal-justice system, and therefore of the British state. As Fraser pointed out to me, the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and to take seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for it puts the very legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are incalculable, for the failure might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an opportunity to the brutal and the authoritarian.

You might have thought that any publisher would gratefully accept a book so urgent in its message, so transparently the product of a burning need to communicate obvious but uncomfortable truths of such public interest, conveyed in such a way that anyone of reasonable intelligence might understand them. Any publisher, you would think, would feel fortunate to have such a manuscript land on his desk. But you would be wrong, at least as far as Britain is concerned.

So uncongenial was Fraser’s message to all right-thinking Britons that 60 publishers to whom he sent the book turned it down. In a country that publishes more than 10,000 books monthly, not many of which are imperishable masterpieces, there was no room for it or for what it said, though it would take no great acumen to see its commercial possibilities in a country crowded with crime victims. So great was the pressure of the orthodoxy now weighing on the minds of the British intelligentsia that Fraser might as well have gone to Mecca and said that there is no God and that Mohammed was not His prophet. Of course, no publisher actually told him that what he said was unacceptable or unsayable in public: his book merely did not “fit the list” of any publisher. He was the victim of British publishing’s equivalent of Mafia omerta.

Fortunately, he did not give up, as he sometimes thought of doing. The 61st publisher to whom he sent the book accepted it. I mean no disrespect to her judgment when I say that it was her personal situation that distinguished her from her fellow publishers: for her husband’s son by a previous marriage had not long before been murdered in the street, stabbed by a drug-dealing Jamaican immigrant, aged 20, who had not been deported despite his criminal record but instead allowed to stay in the country as if he were a national treasure to be at all costs cherished and nurtured. Indeed, in court, his lawyer presented him as an unemployed painter and decorator, the victim of racial prejudice (a mitigating circumstance, of course), a view that the prosecution did not challenge, even though the killer had somehow managed alchemically to transmute his unemployment benefits into a new convertible costing some $54,000.

The maternal grandmother of the murdered boy, who had never been ill in her life, died of a heart attack a week after his death, and so the funeral was a double one. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the killer killed not one but two people. He received a sentence of eight years—which, in effect, will be four or five years.

I asked the publisher the impossible question of whether she would have published the book if someone close to her had not had such firsthand experience of the frivolous leniency of the British criminal-justice system. She said she thought so: but what is beyond dispute is that the murder made her publication of the book a certainty.

A Land Fit for Criminals has sold well and has been very widely discussed, though not by the most important liberal newspapers, which would find the whole subject in bad taste. But the book’s publishing history demonstrates how close we have come to an almost totalitarian uniformity of the sayable, imposed informally by right-thinking people in the name of humanity, but in utter disregard for the truth and the reality of their fellow citizens’ lives. Better that they, the right-thinking, should feel pleased with their own rectitude and broadmindedness, than that millions should be freed of their fear of robbery and violence, as in crime-ridden, pre-Giuliani New York. Too bad Fraser’s voice had to be heard over someone’s dead body


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: banglist; dalrymple; theodoredalrymple

1 posted on 08/19/2006 3:05:08 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; blackie

ping to self-defense article


2 posted on 08/19/2006 3:14:50 AM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The model system, according to gun control groupies. This is America's future if the liberals dominated as in Great Britain.


3 posted on 08/19/2006 3:25:46 AM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
David Fraser, who has just published a book entitled A Land Fit for Criminals—the land in question being Great Britain, of course ..

We should all try to get hold of it to read it. There are a lot of scandals in the British justice system.

4 posted on 08/19/2006 3:28:36 AM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
In America we briefly experimented with the "social therapy" folderol for criminals and then abandoned it for tough on crime policies. Europe thinks that makes us barbarians. If keeping the public safe makes America unloved in Europe then we prefer that safety to being in their good graces.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

5 posted on 08/19/2006 3:32:09 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence.

I'm an American who has been living in Britain for the last few years (work...blah...coming home in a few days!), but I totally disagree with that. I've never been afraid here, and I don't know anyone who is either, and I live in a rough neighborhood (New Cross). I worry more when I'm back home in Chicago than I do here, and I always have.

6 posted on 08/19/2006 3:46:17 AM PDT by anthropos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I knew Britain had problems just from reading my NRA magazine, but this is SHOCKING!

I dare say, things would get a lot more bearable for the general public if a concealed/carry law were passed. It has a way of producing real parity between criminal and victim. I don't see this happening though.

Great article. Thanks for posting!
7 posted on 08/19/2006 3:47:10 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

+


8 posted on 08/19/2006 3:48:39 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

with the UK i don't see how anyone can conclude that westminster will eventually have complete surveillance of all activity of all subjects, with records retained forever, and legal prohibitions (if not already there) against almost anything they want to pull out of the books.

If the state is smart, they will only use the power to disqualify/intimidate potential political opposition, and then only sparingly. with that kind of data to mine, i don't see how anyone could come through completely clean.


9 posted on 08/19/2006 3:57:26 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom

"It has a way of producing real parity between criminal and victim. I don't see this happening though."

Are you kidding? I believe it is a potential offence to come to the aid of an old lady being mugged. I have specifically read that people are advised not to do so.


10 posted on 08/19/2006 3:59:18 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"...liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice..."

There's the problem.


11 posted on 08/19/2006 3:59:19 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage. Try it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butternut_squash_bisque
Liberals adore murderers and thugs. The bleeding heart crowd that works for the abolition of capital punishment and a permissive rehabilitation approach for violent criminals are by and large liberal.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

12 posted on 08/19/2006 4:02:40 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123

I believe you are right. Some of the stuff the NRA prints are real horror stories. I just had no idea it was so pervasive.


13 posted on 08/19/2006 4:22:36 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

-bflr-


14 posted on 08/19/2006 5:24:19 AM PDT by rellimpank (Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media---NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

What one believes is important. The Bible teaches that people are born with the spiritual birth defect of sin and that the heart of a man is "evil from his youth," (Original Sin). Humanists believe that man is good and society is evil, so even an evil-doer is not to blame for his actions and should not be punished too harshly. Humanist societies ultimately fail because they are based on a false supposition.


15 posted on 08/19/2006 5:33:08 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice, which it would be a further injustice to punish
Somebody should be targeting these morons. Putting their names and addresses on leaflets distributed in parts of town where the "victims" of "social injustice" live.

Go rob this house, the leaflet should say. They'll give you extra stuff just for showing up!

16 posted on 08/19/2006 5:34:57 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Years ago, at a Million Mom rally in Denver, a guy from the Tyranny Response Team printed up some really nice yard signs that said "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone" and offered them up to the liberal idiots leaving the rally. None were willing to take the signs.


17 posted on 08/19/2006 5:37:53 AM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
bloated and totally ineffectual bureaucratic apparatus
This is the real problem. In all of Europe. And increasingly in America.
18 posted on 08/19/2006 5:39:58 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom

" In such circumstances, all activity became strictly pro forma, with no purpose external to itself." This is a great description of bureaucracy in general. If the so-calle Conservative party would take this issue to heart, they might have a winner, but once the state takes over health care, they can't talk about anything else, and everyuthing else goes to pot.


19 posted on 08/19/2006 5:40:50 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Liberals adore murderers and thugs.
And suicide bombers. And jihadists who enslave women and murder lesbians and gays.

Those liberals. Their contradictions are huge.

20 posted on 08/19/2006 5:42:13 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Of course they wouldn't take the signs. They might be morons, but they're not that stupid.


21 posted on 08/19/2006 5:45:19 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: anthropos

You're comparing Britain with one of America's murder capitols. The Brits are comparing present day Britain with what it used to be like twenty or thirty years ago.
I doubt even in Chicago, the police would arrest an old lady for poking a young man in the chest since during the altercation she suffers a broken arm.


22 posted on 08/19/2006 5:48:53 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anthropos
I'm an American who has been living in Britain for the last few years (work...blah...coming home in a few days!), but I totally disagree with that. I've never been afraid here, and I don't know anyone who is either, and I live in a rough neighborhood (New Cross). I worry more when I'm back home in Chicago than I do here, and I always have.

Troll alert. anthropos a member since August 18, 2006! I'd be worried too if I was in Chicago, since Emperor Daley believes his subjects should all be disarmed (except for the police, criminals and aldermen, who are probably criminals anyway). I've heard way too many stories about crime in England, cooked statistics, their leniency towards criminals and their harshness for anyone who dares to defend themselves. I feel much safer in Alaska, where I can legally carry a concealed weapon and defend my loved ones and myself.

23 posted on 08/19/2006 6:41:57 AM PDT by AlaskaErik (Everyone should have a subject they are ignorant about. I choose professional corporate sports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
Hi there. Yeah, I'm new...first started posting yesterday...lurked a long time, though, because the site is great for finding news, and I'm a news junkie. And, I'll go ahead and out myself as a liberal, too, since I've done so in other forums. But, I'm not here to bash anything, and I try my hardest to engage in civil debate...won't post often, unless I get into a conversation with someone on a back and forth.

As for Alaska....one of my favorite states...so beautiful up there.

And I hate Daley for putting up a smoking ban...other than that, I'm not to fussed by him, other than the fact that he's got more teflon on him that John Gotti, and probably about as crooked.

24 posted on 08/19/2006 6:52:28 AM PDT by anthropos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Agreed.


25 posted on 08/19/2006 6:59:02 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage. Try it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

An Armed Citizen Is A Safe Citizen!

Be Ever Vigilant!

Molon Labe!


26 posted on 08/19/2006 12:26:59 PM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
When I see a blatant lie in the first sentence, it kind of loses credibility:

"no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence"
27 posted on 08/21/2006 5:57:19 AM PDT by weegie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson