The Townshend Act, part one...and two

[<kevinandt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: john
>Subject: Re: The Townshend Act, part one
>
>I think along the way some listers have lost
>track of reality compared to emotion

Well, I'm hopeful you're not referring to me, because I really don't
*feel* like I've "lost track of reality compared to emotion".

And, wasn't there a gentler way of putting that?

>which in part is due to a general lack of
>knowledge of the peculiarities of the
>British legal system.

I'll bite on that.

>But Kevin, when you said

I wrote.  :-)

>This is not going to please you but let me
>reassure you that the Police won't think
>they are in a mess at all.
>
>Okay, I don't know that for certain,

Ah!  Sounds like there's some hope there!

>but I
>do believe I'm more likely to be right than
>you.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you there.  In fact I've been wondering
why all the UK and other Euro posters have been so quiet of late, and
wishing you would provide some perspective.

But, what we are reading by UK journalists and column writers is a whole
mess of anger toward the police for their actions.
There's obviously a bit of a controversy going on regarding "which hunts",
etc.
That, could well be conceived as a "mess".
So, if reality has been lost by anyone, I would argue that it is simply
people observing what many in the UK are saying...whooops...writing.

>the fact
>is that what Pete is alleged to have done
>is an offence under the law that's extant
>in the UK.

Yes.
My gut unfortunately is telling me that the police *won't* do the right
thing, and instead will protect themselves by the letter of the law, and
"fuck" Pete.

But, my *hope* is that they won't.

>He has contacted someone at the very
>least with close links to serving Police
>officers if not a current Police officer to
>seek advice at the time he did so.

Doesn't that count for *something*?

<snip...listing of evidence that proves what Pete has admitted to>

There's no denying that he technically broke the law.
See, I'm still realistic.

>On another list I suggested that Pete
>would be charged. I dearly hope he is not,
>but I believe his actions "speak louder
>than words" and the Police, far from
>considering it a mess, consider him one
>more case reported.

Well, I too dearly hope he is not charged.

>This is not to say the Police treat this like
>a game. They don't. They take
>Peadophile crime seriously.

Yes, but they *know*...they *KNOW!* that he's *not* a pedophile.

>I think, unless a complete miracle occurs
>and these don't often come along, come
>28th January Pete will be charged with
>certain offences.

Again, my true fear is you are right.
"When you wish upon a star.............."
1/28 will be a difficult day that will either get real bad, or will have
us cheering.
I think Keet's and other's idea to be ready to turn up the volume of the
cheer in case of miracle, is a good one.

>Given the current laws in this country, the
>overall public opinion relating to this
>crime, the law will almost certainly never
>change.

It would be good to get a "Hot line" set up for people to call when they
stumble across kiddy porn sites.

<snip....entities to write to>

I don't know that it would be a good idea to write before 1/28.
I'm hesitant.
If you (all) do, easy goes it.
I would imagine the police are already very aware of the glare of the spot
light and the issues at hand.

Cheers,

Kevin in VT