Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways.
– Frederic Bastiat
Take a look at the posts tagged “A Broker in Pillage” sometime, and you’ll see many examples of the armed robbery by which pathologically-bloated modern governments sustain and enrich themselves: Robbing homeless people of their meager possessions for the “crime” of being homeless in the first place. Stealing cash and automobiles from sex workers’ clients and robbing sex workers of their life savings. Stealing rental vehicles from their owners because the renters crossed imaginary lines with them. Stealing a yacht because there were cigars on board. Attempting to steal a family’s livelihood because a few strangers were arrested on the property. Stealing an entire township because weeds were growing on it. The outrage is disguised by the euphemism “asset forfeiture” (which almost makes it sound as though the victims voluntarily give cops their property), and it’s become such a gigantic, out-of-control problem that it’s even attracting attention from staid, mainstream publications like The New Yorker:
…In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one…civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace…United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins…[and] State of Texas v. $6,037…“The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window,” Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor…and…leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There’s no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve…
Though this article is extremely long, it’s well worth your time if you’re unfamiliar with how egregious this extortion racket has become. It focuses primarily (though by no means exclusively) on a case that’s particularly over the top even by the horrific standards discussed above: the bandit ring of Tenaha, Texas, whose modus operandi was to stop minorities for ridiculous “offenses” such as “driving in the left lane without passing” or “driving too close to the white line”, illegally search them, steal any valuables, and then force them to sign the loot over to the police under threat of spurious felony charges, false imprisonment and even abduction of their children. The whole rotten scheme was shut down last year and federal criminal charges may be pending; the mastermind behind it, a former state trooper named Barry Washington, insisted to investigators that God had given him permission to rob people.
This thuggery is a cancer which has hastened the degradation of the justice system in both the United States and the United Kingdom. But while the US media generally remains silent about it in most cases, or reports it somewhat neutrally when sex work is used as the excuse (“…A new [Minnesota] state law permits authorities to forfeit the cash that was used in or intended for…sex solicitation…[and] applies to prostitutes, patrons or pimps…in addition to other penalties offenders can face…”), their British cousins gleefully compete to see who can lick police boots the cleanest while vilifying their victims the most viciously, especially when those victims are involved in the sex industry:
…brothel boss [Margaret Paterson]…is set to lose her haul…as police bid to claw back £1.2 million in dirty cash…the remorseless 61-year-old faces financial ruin after the Crown confirmed it will seek to recoup the colossal seven-figure sum under Proceeds of Crime rules. The confiscation grab would be one of the biggest single hauls in Scottish legal history…
And given that police departments in both countries keep growing while their governments criminalize ever-larger numbers of ordinary activities, you can bet the situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
The trick to maintaining a degree of public consent for asset seizure in NSW is to ensure that every media story about it contains the factoid that it is used to fund victims compensation schemes (cue particularly heartbreaking story of the victim of an especially heinous crime that has nothing to do with the asset seizure in question).
Last I checked, over five years ago, less than 5% of the profits of asset seizure go into victim’s comp. It’s always falling in percentage terms as seizures rise but victim’s compensation doesn’t.
I have some experience with this (as I’ve mentioned before), as there was an attempt to seize my car by some local police. I think it went my way because the police had misjudged the situation (they didn’t expect to be facing a lawyer with fangs and claws) and because they didn’t realize I had a paper trail (car note) on how we bought the car. (I think they probably figured the person driving it at the time had just plunked down a pile of cash and bought it outright).
Still, I think if we ever gave them an excuse to seize it again there would have been no mercy the second time.
At the time they mocked the person driving it and told her how much fun they were going to have driving her car. Real class act. Glad I don’t spend much time in that town any more.
On a less personal note, there have been a few famous and egregious eminent domain cases in various places. The one I always immediately think of was Poletown, Detroit:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Poletown_Lives_Review.pdf
Of course, that seizing of residents land and property was ultimately valid because it caused Detroit to be the thriving city we see today!
Asset forfeiture is a classic example of the kind of law you get from the “We need a law to punish the people we KNOW are guilty, but can’t prove it.” mindset. The same thinking brought us ‘no knock’ warrants, and a host of other claptrap that a genuinely sovereign people wouldn’t tolerate for two seconds.
I’m not quite a Libertarian or an Anarchist. As a fifty-ish man with bad teeth, gout, and a host of other frailties I have no illusions about my ability to take on the World by myself. But while I believe that government is as necessary to life and comfort as fire, I also believe that it is a trustworthy as fire.
I’m a fifty something man with bad teeth and bipolar with no illusions of taking on even one retired librarian, but I’m definitely an anarchist.
I too believe that fire is necessary.
For governments.
To hold their feet to, if nothing else.
See, my problem with the idea of NO state is that I simply don’t believe that it would last. I think that if people do not set up a government that governs more or less by their will, then one which rules them with another’s will will be imposed on them by someone(s) with the necessary will to power. I think, in fact, that that is what has subverted our own government; a group of nitwits who are deeply committed to ruling others.
What we see in New York’s Bloomberg is a case in point. Bloomberg seriously believes that he has the right and duty to tell others how to eat. He isn’t consciously out to rule others for the sake of personal aggrandizement. He isn’t Stalin; he’s worse; a little weasel who won’t admit that he gets off shoving other people around, but won’t stop either.
Ripe for the Guillotine.
If you won’t tax the wealthy, the money for your budget has to come from somewhere…
Taxing “the wealthy” doesn’t get you enough for our Political Class’s Grand Plans. And the problem isn’t low taxes, it’s the grandiosity of the plans.
Grandiose plan: invading Iraq. We paid lot, with so little return. We replaced an unreliable Sunni puppet with an unreliable Shia puppet. But then, Halliburton made a killing, both literally and figuratively, so I guess it was worth it.
I strongly suspect that we invaded Iraq simply as a matter of establishing that we are serious people. We couldn’t let Saddam flout the terms of surrender that he and agreed to, if we wanted any other negotiations we undertook to be treated seriously. Or at least, that’s the theory.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that.
Remember, y’all, these choices aren’t made by a dictator but by an oligarchy; profit, saber-rattling, message-sending, increase of the police state and increased power for certain individuals were ALL factors that played into the decision. That’s how fascism works; remember, the Latin word fascis means a bundle of sticks with an axe included (used as an emblem of power). The symbolism should be obvious.
And there are fasces on the “throne of state” in the Lincoln Memorial.
Sadaam is dead – peace to his ashes.
Whatever the hell is going on in Iraq right now you can bet there are no chemical weapons being used on farmers and villagers – as DID happen under Sadaam.
Whatever is going on now the PEOPLE there have an opportunity to make a free nation for themselves. No, Susan – there is no “puppet” government installed in Iraq.
I’m actually very proud of that war – wish we had stayed a bit longer to help them kill more AQ – but Obama well, he just had a fire in his pants to get the hell out.
Good news story … yes I know it’s a real “downer” for the “anti-war” crowd – but then again, that crowd isn’t so much “anti-war” as they are “anti-prosperity” and “anti-humor”, I might add.
http://www.oilreview.me/industry/iraq-inaugurates-offshore-oil-export-terminal
When I was in Iraq, they were lucky to push 500,000 barrels a day through the only functioning offshore terminal they had. We called that terminal “May-Boc” … that’s not the real name that’s just what we called it. The other offshore terminal, “A-Boc” was tits up (bombed out in the first Gulf War and Sadaam never fixed it). Now I think they have two terminals up and running and are pushing over twice what they were back in 2004 when I was last there.
And CHECK THAT STORY! The goal is to push 12,000,000 barrels a day by 2017 – only four years from now! Iraq is about to become an economic powerhouse again. They have the tools they need to be a great and free nation – their destiny is now in their hands. Why … Thank You Mr. Bush!!
And guess what? When we left – there weren’t MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EXECUTED IN IRAQ the way there was in South East Asia when we bailed on them like a pack of pussies!
Happiest day of my life … well no, there was a happier day … we won’t talk about because it involved an M240B machine gun and some .30 cal rounds that found their mark, and a beer party with some Marine Recon guys immediately after … but the second happiest day of my life was when we invaded Iraq.
Bush TOTALLY fucked up the justification. All of us in the field felt that Iraq should be invaded simply for violating the terms of the cease-fire that they signed. They violated those terms for ten years. What the fuck are terms signed for if they mean nothing when one side violates them. They routinely violated the no-fly zone and lit up our pilots when patrolling it. Shit – we spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to enforce those terms.
And the best thing about Iraq? Simply invading the place CHANGED the whole paradigm for how AQ worked. Prior to that – AQ was a “world-wide” terror organization. After we invaded – AQ shifted its strategy to feed it’s fools into the meat grinder of Iraq – where we killed them by the thousands. See – that’s what it’s all about. Kill ’em over there – make ’em attack our military guys (that’s what we are for folks!) – and KILL THEM THERE.
It was a complete Fuck Up with a capital “FU” for AQ. They could have been killing kids in sand boxes on school yard playgrounds here in the west – but instead they were trying to beat the greatest military in the world in Iraq. How’d that work out for ya Osama? Oh wait – he can’t answer can he!! Thank you Mr. Obama!
Yep – very proud of the Iraq thing. Afghanistan? That’s a different story – seems we’re going to
“wimp out” 😀
Sadaam is dead – peace to his ashes.
It is rarely mentioned, but one of the evil things Saddam Hussein did was to criminalize prostitution in Iraq. I guess prohibitionists don’t want to draw attention to what kind of people share their position.
Please krulac, no more! No more!
If I laugh any harder they’ll be wheeling me back into theatre to redo my stitches.
Just to return the favour, here’s one of three recent posts I made that are at least partly inspired by you.
Ah krulac, my amusing muse.
That’s right. When a people keep screaming “Get tough on crime!” while also screaming “Cut my taxes!” this is what you get.
Nobody likes paying taxes, but if you want the government to do something (whether that be exploring space, building roads, or cracking down on whatever crime bothers you most), then you have to PAY for it. Otherwise, you get crap like asset forfeiture.
By the way: $200,000 per annum means you are making about three times the average income, and four times the median income of the American populace as a whole.
But, it’s all theft…EEEEEEEEVIL theft! Eyeroll…GAG
Above comment was to Sailor Barsoom. I was talking about those EEEEEEVIL scary taxes.
As long as wealthy means “If you got rich as a result of privileges received from the government (e.g. barriers to entry and selective law enforcement),” then I am for taxing the wealthy.
Unfortunately, taxing the wealthy usually means “Lets tax the upper middle class and small business owners, while we create loopholes that only we and our cronies (who can hire armies of accountants) know about.”
Actually, it’s worse. “Tax the Wealthy” almost always means “Increase the Income Tax”, whereas the truly rich gain their wealth from capitol gains and similar methods that are taxed at a lower rate.
And that lower rate is probably, on balance, a good thing. Tax capitol gains at a high rate and there is far less incentive to invest. And, in any case, the government has demonstrated conclusively (at least to MY satisfaction) that they can spend significantly more than 100% of what they are allowed to collect. The problem isn’t low taxes. The problem is all the ratholes that the Political Class wants to pound sand down.
All my adult life, I have read and listened to smug swine dismissing government waste as “too small for Congress to bother with.” This has always, ALWAYS irritated me; a $250,000 budget for building some minor outcrop of the Federal behemoth may not mean much to Congressman Porkslop, but it would be a VERY nice year for ME.
No. More. Taxes. No more listening to “But we just CAN’T cut anything more!”
You make an excellent point that I didn’t consider, thanks. Because the highest earners on the personal income tax are usually educated professionals and independent contractors, they superficially appear wealthy.
You are also right that the wealthy are individually taxed at lower rates, although they are indirectly taxed from various sources like corporate taxes. However, I would argue that it is fairly common for wealthy individuals, many of whom have large stakes in the largest corporations, to prevent free competition by supporting politicians in exchange for privileges that apply to their corporations. And although I agree that our government is too large and needs to dramatically cut spending, I have nothing against a small tax increase for a few kleptocrats :).
I am against tax increases for ‘a few kleptocrats’ because I know perfectly well that a) they won’t do whatever the politicians promise towards reigning in the kleptocrats and b) the government has no justification whatever for spending any extra money.
Hey! politicians! Want money for one of your hobbyhorses? Squeeze it out of the slop!
Not to mention that what they use to target “a few kleptocrats” ends up sliding down the food chain.
I had the dubious honor of acting as host to the “Alternative Minimum Tax” as a self-employed individual on a adjusted gross income of $30 K. By the time the entire tax bite was calculated, I was paying a marginal rate of 75%. ON 30 THOUSAND DOLLARS. I guess I was one of the RICH but just didn’t know it. That was the best year I’d had in about 10 and it almost destroyed my business.
I have a chronic health problem that makes regular employment problematical. I’m living month to month on what I make, doing my best to stay off of public assistance, and then the Feddies pull shit like that.
I’ve dealt with some asshole rich guys in my time, but they can’t hold a candle to a state functionary who wants to see you screwed to amp his enforcement numbers.
So, yeah, I’m against tax increases for the kleptocrats. because they have the clout and the money to hire the experts to disperse the charge. Folks further down the food chain don’t.
It’s a lot easier to add a lower income scalp to your trophy wall because they don’t have the means of countering gov’t power when the ‘crats come calling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/business/16tax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/pf/taxes/IRS_taxes_minorities.fortune/index.htm
Here’s another article on the IRS going after the soft targets.
“Wealthy”, according to Mr. Obama and the Dimmocrits – means anyone who makes over $200,000 per year … $250,000 for a married couple.
By that measure … I … a college-dropout … am wealthy. I don’t own any oil wells … ain’t got no Haliburton stock …
Damn how did I get here without a college education?
Hmmm … maybe it has something to do with the fact that I work seven days a week without any off-days.
Yeah … TAX MY LAZY ASS!!! 😀
Well according to me, you’re not wealthy. Sorry Krulac :).
But I am going to say that I envy that you do not have to pay payroll taxes after $113,700. Not fair! I wish I could opt out of Social Security.
You seem to question tha tyou are “wealthy” on the grounds that you worked hard for what you have. The two have nothing to do with each other. Whether you dug it out of the rock with your bleeding fingernails or it was handed to you, the fact is that you bring in over $200,000 a year.
Now, whether or not that counts as “wealthy” is another question. What rate you should be taxed at is a question I don’t feel qualified to answer.
Thank you!
Everyone forgets that taxes are what you pay for a civilized society. What has changed since 1969–when 84% of our population paid Federal income tax, and the effective corporate rate was close to 25% on profits, is that we have seen the middle-class made increasingly destitute by an inflationary spiral that has been hidden from the American public by changing the method by which the inflation rate is calculated twice. (see http://www.shadowstats.com/, for more on this subject), together with the evisceration of our manufacturing base and the high paying union jobs that went with them. Now 40% + of our population doesn’t pay Federal Income tax–although they all pay the full 7.65 % FICA tax that those who make over $113,000 per year escape, plus gas, liquor, tobacco, various excise taxes, plus whatever the state smacks them with.
Dear freegirard, thank you! Taxes help the disabled and others in need.
Not to mention orphans and native Americans, whose lands we stole, and whose way of living we have made impossible to continue.
Beat me to it. When I manage to find another RA I’m planning to have him or her pull prostitution arrest/complaint records and examine how they change when a state changes the ease with which officers can seize assets.
How come none of the bankers have been asset stripped?
For the same reason politicians aren’t; they’re part of the ruling class.
Please people – a bit of accuracy please – the banks are every bit as subject to asset forfeiture as the rest of us. A little googling is all you need to do to discover this …
In fact, banks have probably had more of their assets seized than all the rest of us combined. A big bank like BoA deals with the negative effects of asset seizure EVERY DAY.
Notable United States forfeitures
In 2009, Lloyds Bank forfeited $350 million in connection with violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (falsified outgoing wire transfers to persons on U.S. sanctions lists).
In 2009, Credit Suisse, a Swiss corporation, forfeited $536 million in connection with violations of IEEPA.
In 2010, Barclays Bank forfeited $298 million in connection with violations of the IEEPA and the Trading with the Enemy Act.
In 2010, ABN Amro Bank forfeited $500 million in connection with violations of the IEEPA and the Trading with the Enemy Act.
And even when banks aren’t specifically targeted – they still get hit peripherally. Where do you think all that money that is being “seized” resides? That’s right – a bank. It may belong to “real human” out here in the world but the banks use the money that is deposited with them – so it impacts the bank’s bottom line.
I have a friend who owned a historic home in San Diego. He rented it to a lawyer – lawyer quit his practice and started mixing drugs in the bathtub. House was seized – my friend had to declare bankruptcy one year later and the bank was stuck paying property taxes on a seized historic house in San Diego. That’s a big chunk of change they lost and this happens to them every day.
DoJ’s website is probably the best source – you’ll find plenty of bank assets seized …
Like this …
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-tax-153.html
Since the penalty was essentially the sane cost as compliance, but less uniformly applied it makes business sense to break the law.
Not the same thing as losing your car for the crime of driving by after the cop has finished the box of donuts.
I have found that people are confused by large numbers and large amounts of money. So let me scale down that bank that paid $16m for failing to report $1.2b.
“An escort in manhattan was found guilty of not reporting $120k of income to the IRS. Her penalty was $160 plus the original amount owed.”
If the law worked against escorts the way it works against banks, only the very odd few would obey the law. The same obviously applies to corporations.
Bingo. It’s just calculated as a cost of doing business, like bribes and advertising.
I think that that holds true for national banks, particularly those with political connections. But I have seen a number of smaller regional banks that were completely fucked by the FDIC and had their assets absorbed – essentially forfeited – by those same politically connected banks.
We had a bank here in the Northwest that had been around for better than a century. The FDIC told them that their capital sheet was too low and they needed to raise X amount of capital or the FDIC would take them over. They gave them 30 days.
The bank was on the curve to rectify the issue the FDIC had raised when suddenly the FDIC pulled the plug – at 10 days. I think B of A got that one.
Folks, to get the real information on our tax situation, which has only gotten worse since Barlett and Steele wrote the book in 1994, read “America: Who Really Pays the Taxes.” Be careful every time I re-read it, my blood pressure goes up 20 points.
Where we really need to increase our taxes is on those who gross more than $400,000 per year total income, the top one percent. That is on both earned and unearned income. We also need to have a high tax rate on large corporations that is close to the actual taxes they pay, not a de facto 7% when their de jure rate is 35%.
Korhomme, as to your question, read any of Matt Tiabbi’s articles from 2011-2 on Wall Street and the fraud they got away with. But only if your blood pressure is under control.
Amanda Brooks has a good column about her personal experience with illegal stop and seizure. Absolutely infuriating. Naturally, if a private citizen were to have a racket like this, they’d be hunted down like the dogs they are. Must be nice to be above the law.
I can’t begin to address cogently the taxation, politics and war issues raised in this discussion. So I’ll add my $.02 of information to the limited topic of civil asset forfeiture — the bane of civil society as I see it.
A couple of decades ago I had the privilege on several occasions to meet Brenda Grantland and hear her educate various groups on the subject of forfeiture. Brenda is a brilliant lawyer and fervent opponent of civil asset forfeiture. She was a founding board member of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR) a non-profit dedicated to forfeiture reform and providing information on forfeiture. She’s grown stronger and feistier ever since.
For decades now, FEAR, fear.org is still the only organization in the USA solely dedicated to reforming forfeiture laws. FEAR is a non-profit organization that offers everything from training to brief banks for lawyers and pro se defendants. Fighting forfeiture is what FEAR does.
If you need expert counsel on a forfeiture case, FEAR can help you find one. I believe FEAR also offers speakers and educators for groups as well.
Brenda’s story, which you will find at brendagrantland.com, has always inspired me, and she will inspire you too. In her own words she is “short and nearsighted”. Don’t let that fool you. On the forfeiture battlefield she is a legal warrior with a farsighted vision.
There’s also Americans for Forfeiture Reform.
Thanks!
More is better.
Maggie wrote;
By this rubric, David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz would still be at large in the New York Population.
The appropriate approach to Barry would be grand theft under color of law. Make sure that you use the federal statute – that would land him – appropriately – in Federal prison.
The FBI states that;
Both of these issues would appear to apply to dear Barry W. One would think that the FBI would be expeditious in their prosecution of this matter. Until one remembers that the FBI is among the most egregious in these kinds of violations. Professional Courtesy, perhaps?
I just started on Barlett and Steele’s 2000 follow-up to “America: Who Really Pays the Taxes.,” titled “The Great American Tax Dodge.” In 2000–according to the authors’ estimate–there were at least $300 Billion dollars worth of taxes that were fraudulently not paid to the Federal Government by individuals. (Corporations are a whole other ballgame.) The IRS goes after the minnows like us, because Congress has decimated their enforcement budget over the last 40 years, and going after the pike–wealthy taxpayers–is simply beyond their ability to investigate, let alone prosecute, because of the huge costs involved.
No one likes the tax man–the publican as he is called in the Bible–but the attack on the middle class to pay ever higher taxes, while the rich pay less and less, is part of the oligarch’s plot to destroy America’s middle class. (Read Lewis F. Powell’s 1971 memo on the subject, and note how it is being applied today, with enhancements, by the so-called conservatives.)
That $300 Billion was annually in 2000. I would guess it is 30-50% higher today.
[…] can’t have the UK lagging behind the US in the number of ways for the police to lock people up, steal their property and trample on their rights. As for Ms. Cooper, perhaps she should’ve paid more attention to […]
I’m currently looking at the idea of replacing income taxes with a Value Added Tax (VAT) with modifications to keep it from utterly reaming the poor. One modification is to have it not apply to food, medicine, rent and basic utilities, or to have it only apply to those things above a certain amount. Another modification is a basic income which would be enough to just get by, even if paying the VAT on things like food and rent and such.
Having to adjust my basic opposition to flat taxes, which are usually regressive in effect. One advantage of a VAT is that it taxes machine labor at the same rate as human labor.
Asset forfeiture should be abolished. If you want the cops to have all those cool guns and stuff and do all those things, then pay for it with taxes, whether income, VAT, or whatever. If you aren’t willing to pay that much taxes, stop asking the cops to do so much.
Sorry Sailor, a VAT is a regressive tax, even if you don’t include groceries, etc. It makes it harde to buy a car, a washer, a TV, a house, booze, etc. No a progressive income tax like we had back in the Eisenhower Admin is best–when corporations paid 35% of Federal revenues.
In truth, a VAT and any other “flat tax” is naturally regressive in effect. I’m just wondering if there are ways to denature it, to sufficiently denature it. Or does it become so squirrely that there’s no point to it, and you might as well go back to the old income tax instead?
Anyway, a VAT isn’t the only way to do a BI. Alaska has a baby version of it, and no VAT, no income tax, no sales tax.
The only VAT I can think of that wouldn’t be regressive would be a luxury tax on things like cars over $70,000, Jewelry over $10.000, a second home–especially if it is outside the U.S..
The idea I was looking at (I’ll try to find the video) was that it would apply to everything, even food and rent and such, but that every citizen and legal resident would receive a check each month (or week perhaps), which would be enough to buy the basics of life, even with the basics of life having a VAT attached to them. Thus, any money they had beyond this could go towards either buying more expensive versions of the basics, or things beyond the basics.
There would be a lower limit to how poor a person could be, unless said person wished to be poorer in which case he could give his BI away and eat berries or roadkill or whatever.
But again, a VAT isn’t the only way to do it.
[…] with, much less convicted of, a crime. Alleged sex workers and accused clients are among the commonest victims. One US state just passed a law that “permits authorities to forfeit the cash that was used […]
[…] protect other women because the rapist had a history of escaping charges, and what if the cops were motivated by the desire to enrich themselves? It’s true that we can’t know what’s really going on inside people’s heads, but we can do […]
[…] the police, hinting that they have a lot of money so as to make them a more attractive target for a profit-motivated raid. If this is what passes for “sympathy” in British journalism, I’d hate to see what […]