Thanks for the list, Laurence. Makes interesting reading though I am not
entirely clear whether it was for interest or to make some point?
15% chance of weed (In the more civilised juridstrictions where it is
de-criminalised, of course), 41% some sort of thief, 22% of a blood crazed
psycho is more disturbing but I can live with the 7% for a politician though
I refuse to play with Geoffrey Archer on grounds of taste and keep those 5%
crazy motorists away from me. Unfortunately the sex offences does not
differentiate between the violent ones and those who like banging nails in
each other (Why do it? Why imprison them? Strange old world.)or importing
the kind of material that, so I discovered at the face to face in
Copenhagen, is freely available on Danish TV.
What about remand prisoners?
That said, having given due consideration to the various arguements I still
believe prisoners should be allowed to play but have changed my mind and
think that the fact a player is a prisoner should be on the front sheet in
the address section as part of their address. Personally I don't care but
others obviously do and should have a choice if there is some small threat,
however overblown, of something bad coming of it. The red marker arguement
is fair but those who with genuine reason, albeit small, fear an attack on
themselves also have a right to protection.
Give prisoners a choice, privacy or play.
Chris Courtiour
Purely for interest. Just a response to your remark that the prisons were full of these apparently "harmless weed dealers" and corrupt polititians.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
···
At 01:44 AM 18-02-02, Chris Courtiour wrote:
Thanks for the list, Laurence. Makes interesting reading though I am not
entirely clear whether it was for interest or to make some point?
Hi Laurence,
I don't recall a 'harmless' in my original statement. I assume that
is what you were mis-quoting?
Chris Courtiour
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:
>Thanks for the list, Laurence. Makes interesting reading though I
am not
>entirely clear whether it was for interest or to make some point?
Purely for interest. Just a response to your remark that the
prisons were
full of these apparently "harmless weed dealers" and corrupt
polititians.
···
At 01:44 AM 18-02-02, Chris Courtiour wrote:
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
I was paraphrasing rather than deliberately misquoting. The gist of your opening remarks seemed to me to be saying that you thought that many of the prisoners in UK prisons were not more than personable rogues, banged up for petty offenses. You were I think, exaggerating to a degree for the sake of oratory, but your remarks made my left eyebrow raise (rather Roger Moore like) enough to make me want to go find out what the actual figures were.
My own impressions (and I have been on prison visits in the past to both adult and junior types) were that UK prisons held an awful lot of extremely nasty types, and that Jeffrey Archer and Brian from The Magic Roundabout were very much in the minority.
However, if this was what you intended to say, then I apologise for misreading you, as I thought you were saying the complete opposite. 
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
···
At 11:59 AM 18-02-02, arnheim2001 wrote:
I don't recall a 'harmless' in my original statement. I assume that
is what you were mis-quoting?
