gareth2

If you have done all those things than thats great and your right to do so, i make no qualms about that. But if a devout libertarian such as yourself wants his back to be scratched after he has done what he considers to be obviously right, what hope would we have with a not so devout libertarian copper? Methinks we should stick with civic responsibility, but then maybe im just a dreamer, eh.

But i digress. More to the point, you say i have abused you. Well let me quote how i brought you up in this thread (welcome by the way);



You merely retaliated against the abuseivness of the opening attack, did you? or was i guilty of lies and distortions there? But! there is more... from the farming thread in question, posted by me right after the post i quoted above;


Now, there you have it. Its not like i tried to slip this one in by the back door, is it? not only did i apologise because i opened up your arguments to a criticism it wasnt designed for, but i went and told you afterwards so you could defend yourself "if you thought it was nescessary". which evidently you did, with avengance.

BNP scum?

Libertarian liberties more like.

Regards,
Gareth.

John Carter

I discarded that as a stupidity. Who's going to start these new police forces? Who's going to fund them? Do you know how hard it is for a new company to go up against an established one? Try opening a small private supermarket next to your local Tesco and you'll find out.

So... Do you envisage these forces sharing crime evidence between each other? Or do you think that Staffordshire Policing Corporation Ltd may withhold evidence from New Staffs Cops in order to preserve their competitive advantage?

Paul Birch

Without even bothering to read the explanatory thread?

Anyone can do so. The courts fund them (so ultimately, the criminals do). It is very easy for a new company to take business from an established but inefficient, dishonest or unpopular one. It happens all the time. Especially where - as in this case - there are no large economies of scale or major capital investments required. Just a uniform and a pair of boots!

I expect there'd be some of both (as of course there is in every law enforcement regime). They wouldn't be likely to withhold evidence in court, though, since any police force could sub poena any member of any other (or anyone else) to give evidence. It would all shake itself down INTO phpbb_whatever arrangements tended to be most efficient. I suspect that specialist information agencies would soon develop, which would pay police forces for data and charge them for answering queries. Most ordinary cases would probably only be addressed by the particular force (usually a local one) to which the complaint was brought.

Your questions indicate another misconception. These police forces would not be limited liability companies; they would be trusts, with full liability resting with the members, all of whom would be policemen (though they would also be at liberty to employ non-member policemen or civilians, who normally would be liable only for their personal acts and would further be indemnified by the force for liabilities incurred while acting under lawful orders). To set up a police force one would have to sign the Police Powers Act. Only natural persons could do so.

Paul Birch

You didn't bring me to this thread. You merely happened to mention it in another thread in which you were losing the argument. And I didn't consider your posts in this thread worth commenting on. I was responding to the thread originator nyorks-patriot (probably a mistake - I dare say I shouldn't have let him get to me but should have ignored him as a troll). Not only was the thread title quite obviously meant to offend, he was deliberately insulting from the outset. His posts were pure vitriol with not a whiff of rational argument.

gareth2

I didnt say i brought you to this thread, i said i brought you up in this thread. I didnt happen to mention "it" in another thread, i purposefully told you that i had posted here, to make sure you could defend yourself, as i have previously stated and you have ignored, and taken out MR straw man instead.

As i was the only BNP person on this thread, and you said "Do we have to put up with this sort of offensive rubbish from racist BNP thugs" then its is only reasonable to assume you were talking of me, and if you dont think so, then your not reasonable. I didnt take it as offensive, but as an interesting title, with two apparent contrasts. I find his posts interesting, and i happen to agree with him here.

Im not a thug, and honest racism is a virtue. Sadly, the word has been hijaked, and at best is only a smear these days, used by those in need of a quick exit.

Regards,
Gareth.

Anthony Butcher

Slanging match off topic!