Hoch

I preface my comments with a brief story. As a young law student, I did some volunteer work at an ins!@#$%^&*ute that took the accounts of victims of the Darfur genocide. The ins!@#$%^&*ute also had an investigative arm to find those that perpetrated these callous and heinous acts. Although the Darfur genocide is quite recent in comparison to the Holocaust, the message is still the same: to bring to justice those that committed unthinkable crimes. Arguably, as is the case here, being a Nazi guard 60 years ago and spending the last 50 years in another country without inci- dent should not, perhaps, lead to expulsion. The argument would seem to be that the events of 1940s are so old and that so much time has elapsed since those events that little would be gained by prosecuting this individual. This argument falls foul of a flawed premise. The lapse of time is inconsequential. Consider the following. This partic- ular individual entered the United States under false pretences. He hid his iden!@#$%^&*y, his knowledge of past events, everything about his life up until that point of entry. From the beginning he was, quite simply, a fraud. But there is something far more fundamental than the lapse of time: upholding the rule of law. It would be a grave injustice not to prosecute a person that committed a crime, no matter how long ago it was. Crimes against humanity, genocide and general war crimes do not have time limits any more than a crime of murder. Society and Parliament through them, or the US Congress in the case, have made the decision that certain crimes are so grievous that statutory time limits do not apply. If the state cannot prosecute an individual for a serious crime simply because it happened long ago, then statutory limits will have to be made on murder and these crimes here. It would therefore seem that justice is subjugated to time. In our demo- cratic society nothing or no-one subjugates the rule of law. -Hoch

Leave it to you Mav to figure this one out -Hoch

Your subject !@#$%^&*le is a bit misleading Sever, and I use the word a bit very kindly. The US targeted Somalian militants with links to Al- Queda. To suggest that the US is targeting African Muslims is erroneous and grossly exaggerates what actually happened. Though of course, it is always unfortunate when those not involved are killed. In any event, it is no secret that Al-Queda has been wagging a proxy war in this poor African nation. So what reason is there for the US not take action when a well-known militant is in the area? I can see none. Were you equal with your condemnation when the US target-bombed Sudan in 1998? Or was that okay be- cause it was President Clinton and not Bush? I daresay you probably never gave it a second thought. What have the American supported Christians done? Who are they? Where are they based? -Hoch

I have not seen these chaps on the road but it does not surprise me. Strictly speaking' date=' a person zigzagging in and out of traffic would fall foul of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. At least I think it is section 3. Anyway, it could be viewed as careless and inconsiderate driving. Depending on the facts, the same could equally apply to a cyclist. In any event, it's just plain stupid [img']http://www.ssforum.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blum.gif[/img] -Hoch

The list you posted Lynx (from the site) is woefully out of date. o The two active Billing Op's are BlueGoku and Mackieman. o Kewlair and Wonderer still have access but are inactive. o SVS is obviously no longer a Billing Op o Along with a few others, Pointman is an unofficial Billing Op. I always advise players to use the form, as it is standard practice. But I know BlueGoku will take requests in-game. Cheers, -Hoch

I wouldn't say most of the London Underground is outside. If I recall correctly, nearly 65 or 70% is subterranean. Only a handful of lines are more outside than in, e.g. the Bakerloo, Metropolitan and Hammersmith lines. But certainly rural or outlining areas get the short end of the stick. In general, pub- lic transportation is appalling compared to our Euro- pean neighbours. I have found that there is marked difference in temp- erature depending on the line that you use. For ex- ample, the District line tends to be cooler than the Northern line. I suspect that is the result of the former operating on a wider line. This allows for greater air flow. Nonetheless, it can get pretty miserable as I wrote earlier :/ -Hoch PS, your article is way out of date cReEmy

*I cannot believe I am about to write this* Now hold on now. The Tube isn't all that bloody bad. I will give you the extorted fees. But the Oyster card has gone a long way to speeding up the time you spend at the ticket gate to the plat- form. I remember the pre-Oyster days, and it wasn't nice. Now that's the only !@#$%^&* thing I'll give Red Ken credit for! I just feel sorry for the poor (sucker) tourists that visit the city and end up having to pay full fare. Service wise I cannot really disagree. I take the Central Line in every day, and anyone who knows anything about London knows that it is the Central Line that gets delayed the most (it's the red one for all you foreigners ). Barring a signal failure, which to this day I still cannot quite figure out how in the !@#$%^&* that happens, the service is quite good. Though I do remember going up to Harrow Crown Court back in February and someone fell on the line. Yikes! Climate control is an issue. Fortunately the past two summers have been relatively mild. But any time it gets above 20 degress, and when you are packed in tighter than a Las Vegas !@#$%^&* during an all male porn convention, it is down right mis- erable. That said, I have yet to come across a European underground system that has air-condi- tioning. Most main line trains do, e.g. the German ICE or the Swedish X2000, but not an underground train. -Hoch

Which form of public transportation are you talking about? The Underground? Overground? Main line trains? DLR? Buses? I only ask because even though London does not have the most timely public transportation system (the Germans and Swiss would get that award) it is certainly the best one as far as connections and ease of getting around. At least I think so Just curious -Hoch

Seriously, re-read what I wrote -Hoch

I have three unopened and in original packing. But I have no intention of selling any of them. -Hoch

Uhm, no. Carefully re-read what I wrote But here is the highlight: 20-30% < 55-70% taxed rate; a weaker dollar insulates pound and euro countries from fluctuations in the price of oil. -Hoch

Basically your choices are between a Trotskyite pol- itician, aka Ken Livingston, or an affable, idosyncratic conservative, aka Boris Johnson. Being a Tory the man who I will be voting for should be quite obvious -Hoch

No, Britons and Europeans pay more because more of our petrol is taxed at higher rates. Tax and other charges account from any where between 55 to 70 per cent. In the US state and federal taxes typically amount to no more than 20 to 30 per cent of the price. But higher taxes benefit us because we are better in- sulated from fluctuating prices in the price of oil. This helps to explain why petrol has only gone up about three to five pence, whereas in the US over the same period it has gone up 15 to 25 cents. Of course, the lower dollar also helps us out as well. I have sympathy for all you screwed out of the pock- et Americans. When you are used to paying $2.50 a gallon and now it's nearly $3.50, that is huge difference. I remember in the late 1990s buying premium for $1 a gallon. The good ol' days -Hoch

Of course it still works. I use it nearly everyday -Hoch

It is my understanding that Swift owns the domain. -Hoch

On Wednesday, 15 April 2008, at 0200GMT the DSB server will go offline. This is necessary in order that vital maintenance work can be carried out. But rest !@#$%^&*ure that after this work has been completed the server will come back online. I thank you in advance for your patience during this period. Cheers, -Hoch

Everything is fine. Thank you all for the concern -Hoch

I'm still on holiday in the US. When I get back home to London next week I'll start to formulate what I had in mind. Though, from what I have read so far I am very encouraged by the amount of interest. Cheers, -Hoch

Aside from the sad smiley faces his ticket read the same. Welcome to my world -Hoch

Oh right, so just because someone makes the odd or even consistent contribution to a zone or zones that translates into them receiving, basically, a get out of jail free card when they violate SSC netban rules. Gotcha. Leaving bizzaro world for a minute and returning to reality, and not to repeat in full what FM wrote already, if Cre wants to dispute the netbans, then he knows what to do. -Hoch

These days the most serious offenders are net- banned. As the BanG Administrators (myself and MTN) can view bans in any zone on the SSC net- work, I do not think individual zones adding BanG Op's from other zones will accomplish much. I also express a similar view that Rudy put forward. However, as FM has already mentioned what would be more beneficial for all is intra-zone co- operation on alias information. Recently I raised this with FM and plan to do so with others when time allows for it. Cheers, -Hoch

This matter is being addressed. -Hoch

Although I always try to avoid discussions on guns (it is been my experience that those in favour of gunsare too opinionated) there seems to be some misunderstandings about gun crime in the 'UK'. Firstly, it is incorrect to refer to UK crime statistics unless the correlated data explicitly states 'UK'. The reason for this is that Scotland is devolved and as such keeps its own crime statistics which do not gen- erally form part of any statistics compiled by the Home Office, that is unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, pay careful attention because more often than not the data will be for England and Wales (the UK, of course, comprising of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Secondly, technically speaking overall gun crime in England and Wales has fallen (less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police). But the general trend has been upwards. A few years ago Parliament decided to tackle gun crime with a one size fits all approach. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 inserted section 51A into the Firearms Act 1968. This has the affect of setting out a minimal term for the possession of a firearm upon conviction of that offence. The minimal term is five years. Whilst various exceptional cir!@#$%^&*stances may apply, the starting point for a judge is five years. This even so if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity (with most offences you receive what is called 'credit' for an early plea, usually around a third reduction). Speaking from personal experience (I have defended two clients on a charge of a section 5 offence of the 1968 Act) judges are annoyed by the imposition of this minimal term. Their annoyance is twofold. Firstly, they must follow what Parliament has set down. This is not controversial. However, and secondly, judges are constantly bombarded by the newly created Ministry of Justice not to hand out lengthy custodial sentences. Yet in law they bound to do so for this type of offence. The result has been a substantial increase not only in the prosecution of firearms possession (high to begin with) but increases in prison population. Criminal barristers like myself are annoyed because unless exceptional cir!@#$%^&*stances apply, or there are aggravating features, a plea in mitigation will get you nowhere. First out of the gate five years. Nonetheless, I (we) still continue with the plea because of professional obligation. The inherent and obvious problem is that one size does not always fit all. Whilst other minimal terms exist with serious offences, the simple handling of a firearm, indeed quite seri- ous, could result in a five year sentence (realistically 24 months; you only serve half your time). In other words, just casually holding (possession is !@#$%^&*umed) a firearm (unlawfully, i.e. without permission) will land you five years (2 1/2) in prison. There are ongoing discussions in Parliament about enacting or amending legislation for knife crime. If this were to happen the courts would be inundated with cases not to mention the prison system. Parliament cannot have its cake and eat it too. -Hoch

Hi ho Swifto <_< -Hoch