John Mara wrote:
Brian Begg-Robertson wrote:

Well you can tell your good friend that I for one object to the fact that a
lot more money is now going to be spent on these scumbags having a thorough
education in every other type of crime. If you took your head out of the
pages of the Daily Mail once in a while you might discover that, in the real
world, PRISON DOESN'T WORK.

Aren't the railways in Britain privatized? Why is protecting their
property of any concern to the government? This is one of the problems
with privatization schemes. The private companies take the profitable
parts of the operation and leave the difficult problems to the government.

John Mara

That's a curious interpretation of the duty of government! My house is
private property too, but I'd be pretty shocked if I were told that
someone who vandalised it would not be searched for or prosecuted
because it was private property and therefore my duty to find and
obtain redress privately.

John, you misunderstand the purpose of the criminal justice system. It
is not to obtain redress between citizens - which is why compensation
is rarely paid and only in nominal sums. Crimes are committed in breach
of The Queen's peace and that is why criminals are prosecuted in the
name of The Queen. That is why even if the owner of property vandalised
cannot be ascertained, or someone found in possession of stolen goods
where the owner can not be identified, or where an assault takes place
and the "victim" has even given his consent to the assault, there will
STILL be a criminal prosecution.

Marc.