Momey laundering scams

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <3D772371.22695.1AD575@localhost>, David Hansen
<davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On 4 Sep 2002 at 18:05, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>> you're asking an operational question (viz: which crimes will they
>> investigate and what resources will they deploy in doing so)
>> 
>> IME, they don't answer such questions on the record (for a pretty
>> obvious reason)
>
>There are several obvious reasons. One of them is that they don't 
>want to be embarrassed by revealing the groups whose crimes they 
>choose to ignore and those that they choose to do something on.
>
>An example is in the past down south, when opening supermarkets on 
>Sunday was illegal. The police were perfectly happy to ignore 
>illegally open supermarkets and turn up to these illegally operating 
>shops and help the staff in these illegally open shops deal with 
>thieves. 

 So far so good.

>This is just one example of the police taking the side of 
>rich and powerful. 

 But this is silly: the judgement that theft is real crime and
 sunday opening is even more trivial than parking offences
 is not one so much favouring wealth as sanity. If they favoured
 keeping shops from opening when you as a low-waged person needed,
 and ignored theft including robbery from your home, THEN you'd
 have cause to complain.

>People shouldn't be surprised by this

- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPXeqVHpGxv7MBb4WEQJJDQCdHPGrmHiboRyOVKyrJkdxs7MIP1MAoLni
EGGAlxqaWgjhbUWSUb1KqA/b
=SUm+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----