Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
> So, the offense was not reading out the names of British soldiers killed
> in Iraq but, instead, holding an unauthorized protest within 1 km of
> Parliament Square. The guy who had permission to protest was not charged.
>
> I realize that this begs the question about the goodness of "Section 132
> of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005" but I certainly
> didn't care for the clear distortion of the facts here.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
That's all right then. I feel safer now. Not. Any law they pass must be
obeyed...hmm. Nuremburg laws....
Maybe the fate of John Catt, octogenarian RAF veteran, is more worrying
still, in view of the nature of his offence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1583684,00.html
Neither the Guardian, nor the so-called Independent, do a good job of
holding the government to account. Whichever flavour it happens to be.
Journalism in the UK is all corporate, corrupt and lazy.
Is that a knock at the door..?
D.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|