[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So what were they doing on the land which they knew was not theirs?
Isn't that known as breaking the law? Ie illegal, thus making them criminals?

I don't know what they were doing on the land which was not theirs, in much the same way that I don't know what you do on land which isn't yours when you're out pursuing your hobby.

I would have imagined that if they were breaking the law then the court (that's the big grown ups who decide who is and who isn't breaking the law) would have stated so. As it sits they didn't state this so I can only logically conclude that they weren't and, as such, are not criminals.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Sorry Adolf - but you've a lot of learning to do.

What exactly do you mean by that?

What exactly (for added emphasis) do you think I meant by that?

Originally Posted by Bill C

I do not care btw if anyone on this forum objects to the word ******* if you dont like it sue me .

That's very magnaminous of you Bill. However, you must surely know, even with a modicum of net etiquette and a fundamental grasp of the law, that were you to make a comment worthy of litigation on this forum then it wouldn't be you who would be sued but the "publisher" / "owner" of the site - unless, of course you were prepared to make such a statement or comment whilst simultaneously posting your name and address - thereby substantiating that any such statement or comment was, indeed, made by (and the express and sole opinion of) yourself and in no way representative of the publisher or owner.

I hardly think you are about to do that - so lets move on.

Let me be straight about a few things;

1: I am not an apologist for illegal behaviour.

2: As a recent victim of crime I have no time for "wishy washy" resolutions for anti social or criminal behaviour. I grew up in a "society" policed by paramilitaries who shot people for anti social behaviour (I am referring specifically to anti social / criminal behaviour) and that was the accepted "norm".

3: I am of the opinion that tarring people with the same brush, whether that is because of religion, colour or race is wrong. I have served a foreign country in foreign lands and I have witnessed first hand actions and atrocities borne out of ignorance and a lack of understanding of other cultures and religions committed in the name of democracy - a fickle mistress.

4: I neither bear grudes nor harbour malice, nor do I respect or fear those who do.

5: I am an advocate of discussion and tolerance - but not at the expense of the rights of third parties.

6: I will challenge intolerance, ignorance and bigotry at every turn and wherever they present themselves as fact over hypothesis / opinion - it is my moral responsibility as a human being to do so.

7: I am not perfect - but I also have the ability to recognise that fact.

If I have offended anyone, in particular scaredwebwarrior, in this thread I have done so only to provoke meaningful discourse based on facts - nothing more.

Aside from cursory debates / chitter chatter on more menial or general matters I have no agenda in engaging any contributors to these forae other than to counter that and those which fly in the face of mutual respect and understanding. If and when any such debates arise and only one side to any particular argument is presented where, clearly, a more unbiased debate can be had, and I feel I can contribute to same, I will do so.

I am happy to discuss / debate anything, including points of law and modern society, with anyone who wishes to do so - with the provision that an open minded approach is adopted.

I have just realized that it's 3:58am.

I am going to bed.