British want to charge wrongly convicted for housing expenses!

[FatSlob]

I posted this in GD also, but I want the "unique" take of the J/PS folks too!

http://www.sundayherald.com/40592

I can't figure out how this clown holds high office.

[liberalhistorian]

1. This is simply beyond belief!

I had to read it three times before it actually started to sink in! For once, words are failing me, I'm speechless. I think I'll come back to this thread when I'm actually able to think again, right now I'm too incredulous and pissed off! And this is coming from a LABOUR party member, too, that's what's really unbelievable.

[mike_c]

2. the shocking thing is that this isn't just some hairball idea....

They're DOING it! What a horrible thing.

[slackmaster]

3. I'd pack up and leave the country

He could probably qualify for political assylum in several nations.

[texasdem99]

4. What!? A country in Europe with an objectionable social policy? Never!

But I thought all the countries in Europe are perfect!

I know so because I read threads in GD and LBN everyday about how much the USA sucks and Europe and Canada rule.


Looks like every country has some baggage...

[liberalhistorian]

21. Indeed, every single country

has its own wingdings, some of whom, unfortunately, happen to get into power. At least it's not tolerated as much in Europe and Canada as it is here.

[Wickerman]

5. Its stupid as shit

but its one official who wants to do something stupid. I doubt it can get passed. Its right up there with proposing orphanages for kids who have parents. Nope, its dumb as shit, but soemthing tells me that if this happened in the US we would have a string of RWers who would line up right behind the proposal.

[RoeBear]

6. Who here is signed in at...

...FreeRepublic and would like to post that there, then let us know the results? :evilgrin:

[Wickerman]

7. I imagine that if you trek over there you could find a thread

on it. However, its finding the thread over at RW Hell that is a struggle. :shrug:

Roe, did you volunteer? Dude, that is SO cool. Thanks!

:yourock:

:evilgrin:

[RoeBear]

8. Not me...

...don't like the content, hate the format.

[texasdem99]

9. I just tried, ugh!

I had never been to FR before. Ugh! What's with the clunky format? How the hell can you find anything on there?

That site looks like it was a "website-in-a-box" type of site done on a 486sx back in 1992.

[liberalhistorian]

23. You can't, at

least I couldn't for the brief time I was registered there before getting royally thrown off because I couldn't take it anymore and let 'em have it with both barrels and the pedal all the way to the metal!

It's the most annoying, unreadable format of any web site I've ever been on, period! It's even hard to follow the damn responses to a thread, as to who's saying what to who!

[FatSlob]

10. Maybe some right wingers,

but no lunatic-asswipes!

[MrBenchley]

11. Don't kid yourself, fat slob...

FR is packed to the gills with them.....

Hell, the Second Amendmennt Slatterns are a particularlt scummy offshoot of freeperdom.....

[liberalhistorian]

22. Read the whole article, it's not just

a proposal, it's actually being done, people are actually being charged!

[iverglas]

12. um

Hill now lives on a farm with his wife and children near Beith in Scotland. He has been charged £50,000 for living expenses by the Home Office.

It wasn't until two years ago that Hill was finally awarded £960,000 in compensation. However, during the years since his release, while waiting for the pay-out, the government had given him advances of around £300,000. When his compensation came through, the £300,000 was taken back along with interest on the interim payments charged at 23% - that cost him a further £70,000.

He was awarded £960,000, i.e. £40,000 for each year he was in prison. That's about $72,000/year US -- a decent salary these days, let alone in 1980 -- for a total of about $1,738,000 US.

Out of that, the proposal is that he be charged back £3,000/year ($5,400 US) for his living expenses. That's a deal you wouldn't likely get on the outside.

I don't see a proprosal to charge people who are *not* awarded compensation for their living expenses. I really don't know how it works in the US, but I'm aware of a couple of Canadian cases where wrongfully convicted/imprisoned persons have been given hefty compensation awards, and this seems to be the practice in the UK as well.

On the other hand, awards of compensation for anything, e.g. by civil courts, simply do not spiral off into the stratosphere in Canada and the UK the way they do in the US. An award of nearly $2 million US is a very big award.

The point is that if his compensation represents what he lost, he didn't *lose* the money that he would have spent on the basic living expenses that were covered by the prison system. I'd have expected the compensation calculation to take this into account, rather than doing it as a charge-back, and I'd hardly have been surprised if it had taken it into account.

Oh look:

The Home Office said an "independent assessor appointed by the Home Secretary takes into acccount the range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been imprisoned". The spokes man said the assessor was "right" to do this, adding: "Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate."

That is, in fact, exactly what they do. So damned if I don't think it's just a trifle, um, dishonest for someone to say this:

He is now facing a bill of around £80,000 for the living expenses he cost the state.

No one is "facing a bill"; what he is evidently facing is a reduction in the compensation he will receive, to account for living expenses he did not incur while in prison.

A person here who is, say, awarded a hefty amount in damages for a disability-causing injury, and who received a public disability pension while awaiting judgment, will have the amount of the social assistance received deducted from the judgment and paid to the government that paid the assistance out. Similar principle.

I might have a couple of quibbles, but I'd need to know more than the amateurish report cited tells. It reports that he was charged interest on advances on the award -- but was there pre-judgment type interest included in the award? If so, he didn't *lose* anything. If not, there's an arguable injustice.

What a big flap about nothing particularly significant, if you ask me. And, unless somebody can show me the great tenderness and respect with which the wrongfully convicted are systematically treated in the US, I'd say just another case of pot and kettle. It might make sense for people in a social democracy of sorts to express criticism like this, but coming from the USofA it's just lame.

.

[Columbia]

13. Great - more US bashing

Whoda thunk it?

[texasdem99]

14. Ha ha! I knew it was only a matter of responses

Thanks, Iverglas.

I knew it was a matter of time until someone turned a thread on charging the wrongly accused in some other country into an indictment of the US.

[CO Liberal]

15. Re-Read Iverglas's Reply, Pete

It's not an indictment the USA - it's a comment about the way many Americans react to news from abroad.

[iverglas]

17. well howdy, Pete

I knew it was a matter of time until someone turned a thread on charging the wrongly accused in some other country into an indictment of the US.

Perhaps *you* would quote exactly what it is you're thanking me for, hm? What "indictment" did you read, and could you copy and paste it just so we're all on the same page here?

It's something not often done in these parts, when allegations of wrong-doing are made -- substantiate the allegations, that is -- but who knows, perhaps you could single-handedly elevate the debate if you just once did it. Think of the example you'd be setting, and how your name would be revered for it, long after you were gone ...

.

[texasdem99]

18. Sure, I'll tell you what I'm thanking you for

It's easy. I baited, and you swallowed, hook line and sinker.

I stated that there was actually a country in Europe with a questionable social policy.

Then you responded with an interesting analysis, very thoughtful by the way, very well done with the conversion to actual compensation and all.

But you just couldn't resist a US bashing zing at the end, just for good measure. Far be it that you actually comment on the post WITHOUT inserting an anti-US zing. That was my point. That your response was utterly predictable. You took a thread about policy in another country and managed to get your gratuitous shot at the US in. What the hell does US policy on wrongly accused criminals have to do with this policy in England? Why even bring it up? What's the point, other than to twist it into an "indictment" on existing US policy.

"It might make sense for people in a social democracy of sorts to express criticism like this, but coming from the USofA it's just lame."

Yes, yes, who is the US to criticize? For us, US citizens, to comment on this British social policy, is lame. In fact, our society is so reprehensible in every way, from the Smirk in office to the guns on the streets, that we cannot possibly pass judgment on any other country's policies. That kind of criticism coming from us would be, well, lame.

As for your professed innocence as far as US bashing...

I would not expect this unmitigated hypocrisy from you.

(Yawn) I know what's coming...No, I won't go searching through gazillions of past threads looking for instances of anti-US rhetoric from you to support my "allegations". I lurked for a while, and I've seen plenty of it. Here's one: How many times do you use "USAmericans" in your posts? That's not bashing? Then is it a compliment? Sure doesn't sound like one. Sounds like you're painting all Americans as narcissistic, jingoistic, and egotistical. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into it...

Asking me to look up other instances of anti-US rhetoric from you for proof is like asking me to prove the fucking sky is blue.

If I had accused you of something that isn't something you do quite often, I'd do the research and finds some threads and back it up. How about this, if I found instances of US bashing on your part, and provided them as proof, would you mea culpa and admit that you professed an innocence that wasn't there?

The answer is no, so I won't waste my time looking them up. Let's just stick with the "US Americans" for now.

Your opinion of the US is as plain as the nose on your face. Let's not waste time playing games, please...You disappoint me.

If you don't like US policies, or the US in general, that's fine. But when you sit back, form an innocent little halo around your head, and go, "Whoa, US bashing? Me? Perish the thought!"

Instead, I'll make it easy for you. It is not a fact, but it is my OPINION that you have a prejudicial view of anything related to the US, and that view is almost always invariably NEGATIVE. How's that? Not a fact, just my opinion, irregardless of proof.

Lastly, regarding "indictment". Along the same lines as that other post, with "Senile". Fer chrissakes, am I the only one NOT allowed to use hyperbole in this forum?

[iverglas]

19. well, if you say so

For somebody with 49 posts, you sure do have a lot to say about a lot of stuff you never seem to have thought worthy of comment during all those, oh, months you were "lurking", I must say. Let it all out, brother!

Yes, yes, who is the US to criticize? For us, US citizens, to comment on this British social policy, is lame. In fact, our society is so reprehensible in every way, from the Smirk in office to the guns on the streets, that we cannot possibly pass judgment on any other country's policies. That kind of criticism coming from us would be, well, lame.

Okay, if you say so. You're the only one I notice saying it, but feel free. Me, I just said that given the abysmal treatment of the wrongfully convicted/imprisoned in the US (particularly when compared to the treatment given in comparable countries, particularly the UK itself), criticism of the UK's policy in this particular matter was lame and entirely pot-kettlish. Somme toute.

Here's one: How many times do you use "USAmericans" in your posts? That's not bashing? Then is it a compliment? Sure doesn't sound like one. Sounds like you're painting all Americans as narcissistic, jingoistic, and egotistical. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into it...

Well maybe you just are, eh?

You've heard of google? Ask it for the term "USAmericans" and be amazed to find that I didn't invent it, if you will.

Heard of, oh, the Organisation of American States? Think maybe that it's made up of Idaho and California and Alaska and a few others?

Surprise (for all I know) -- it's made up of the states of THE AMERICAS -- that big hemisphere where a whole lot of AMERICANS, including Canadians, live.

It's quite beyond me to understand how references to "USAmericans" -- i.e. citizens of the United States, as distinct from inhabitants of the Americas -- could be interpreted as "painting all Americans as narcissistic, jingoistic, and egotistical", but then there's no accounting for how things might seem to you. How you could even look at a neutral term like that and regard it as either "bashing" or "a compliment" is just beyond me.

Since this seems to be the instance of "anti-US rhetoric" on which you're pinning your little thesis, I'd have to say that your thesis is, well, lame.

How about this, if I found instances of US bashing on your part, and provided them as proof, would you mea culpa and admit that you professed an innocence that wasn't there?

The "innocence" that I protested was of having bashed the US in the post about which the allegation was made. I see nobody has managed to cut 'n paste such bashing so far.

Instead, I'll make it easy for you. It is not a fact, but it is my OPINION that you have a prejudicial view of anything related to the US, and that view is almost always invariably NEGATIVE. How's that? Not a fact, just my opinion, irregardless of proof.

Hey, I'll make it extra easy for you. I've never made any bones about the fact that I wouldn't live in the US on a dare or a large salary. Ever.

And I've also made many of my reasons plain.

So here's your little problem: you need to show that the reasons I have made plain -- or hell, even any that you suspect me of concealing -- come down to "bashing". I prefer my society's approach to cultural diversity; "bashing"? I prefer to live in a society where people's health is given priority over profits; "bashing"? I prefer to live in a country that doesn't regularly invade other countries and overthrow their governments: "bashing"? Is there something positive in the US -- something desirable -- that I should be seeing, that I'm not, in those respects?

And you need to show that my view of the US is "prejudicial" (by which I assume you mean "prejudiced" -- and trust that you might look up its meaning before proceeding).

Lastly, regarding "indictment". Along the same lines as that other post, with "Senile". Fer chrissakes, am I the only one NOT allowed to use hyperbole in this forum?

And here you've lost me ... oh, you thought my objection was to your choice of words, when you said:

I knew it was a matter of time until someone turned a thread on charging the wrongly accused in some other country into an indictment of the US.

No, dear heart. It was an objection to the portrayal of my objection to yet another bashing of yet another country other than the US, based on yet another ignorant/intentionally misleading (take yer choice) characterization/critique of that country's policies, which is precisely what this was, entirely apart from any question of how those policies compare to policies in the US, as "an indictment of the US".

My "zing" was against those who seem to feel eternally compelled to bash other countries about which they are obviously ignorant, and who are apparently too arrogant to feel any resonsibility to find out anything about, before engaging in their own neverending bashing. And surprise of surprises, those doing that in this thread were USAmericans who apparently knew nothing and cared to know nothing about the real UK social policy on this point but felt no compunction about denouncing it for being something it is not and doing something it does not do. And amazingly, there was that point: that the US is infinitely less generous to the wrongfully convicted/imprisoned, and so criticism of other countries' far more generous practices by USAmericans is ... well, you know; lame.

When it comes to treatment of the wrongfully imprisoned, the US stands indicted by its own deeds; nothing to do with me.

Now, as to where you "baited" ... the initial post was by FatSlob, I responded to it, you thanked me ... for swallowing your bait? I just don't have that much trouble following breadcrumbs, and there weren't none there to be followed, let alone swallowed.

.

[texasdem99]

25. Answers for you:

"For somebody with 49 posts, you sure do have a lot to say about a lot of stuff you never seem to have thought worthy of comment during all those, oh, months you were "lurking"

Ah, yes. The old "argument by post count" trump card. You know what, you're right. You're opinion is much more valuable than mine, what with my low post count and all.

Didn't you say to me " .. is that using ad personam "argument" doesn't impress anyone. Your opinion about a source is not rebuttal of what the source says." These are your words, not mine, from another thread.

Enough of that.

Now, I openly admit that I had never heard of the term USAmericans, and had thought that you were using it as a slur, as in "us" Americans. So I was ignorant of this term, and did not understand the context you were using it in. I should have looked it up before I started in on you. My apologies.

However, when doing my homework, the first few google items:

http://www.canadianstudies.ab.ca/NewJapan/americans.html

This tidbit at the end:

"Question: What is the difference between a USAmerican and a Canadian?
Answer: The Canadian is the one who knows that there is a difference."

Forgive me, but what's that supposed to mean? That I'm some ignorant troglodyte because, living my life, fixing my kid's bikes and taking out the garbage, I'm unaware that some people use the term USAmerican? Am I to be reproached for this? This quote (joke) would indicate so. What's that? You don't think the actual punch line is, in fact, the perception, the prejudgment, of USAmerican's overall ignorance?

There are many cultural nuances throughout the world, people advocating this, people sensitive to that. I know of many, but forgive me for not researching all of them. I was unaware that some Canadians feel some contempt for the US for constantly being lumped in with the US. I can understand that. The many Canadians I have known in my life (New England has quite a few transplants) have never brought this up to me.

Because I was unaware of this, and not only that, but I don't feel particularly ashamed for being unaware of this, I would imagine you would call me an ignorant USAmerican.



Here's another one that comes up:

STONE COUNTRY: AN UNAUTHORIZED HISTORY OF CANADA
By George Bowering
http://www.goodreports.net/stobow.htm

Completely unofficial, I'll give you that, but here's a nice quote from the page:

"Stone Country isn’t so much an unauthorized history as a quirky, personal one that throws a lot of random darts. Bowering insists on calling residents of the United States "USAmericans" (as in "USAmericans always tell each other that all other people wish they were USAmericans").

Hmmm...That doesn't sound the least bit accusatory to you? Maybe implying that citizens of the US are somewhat narcissistic and self centered? No? Guess I'm just reading too much into it again.

Overall, not any positive references, very few even "neutral" ones, as you state. Even in the other material that comes up in the search.

Do I have a problem with the term? Not in the least. Call me whatever you want, have a ball. My problem is when you originally feigned innocence at any US bashing, which I thought was laughable.

Lastly, I know how to use a dictionary, do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prejudicial

prejudicial

\Prej`u*di"cial\, a. judiciel.] 1. Biased, possessed, or blinded by prejudices; as, to look with a prejudicial eye. --Holyday.

2. Tending to obstruct or impair; hurtful; injurious; disadvantageous; detrimental. --Hooker.

His going away . . . was most prejudicial and most ruinous to the king's affairs. --Clarendon. -- Prej`u*di\"cial*ly, adv. -- Prej`u*di\"cial*ness, n.

Can you teach me how to use a thesaurus now? Gee, that sounds a lot like what I was saying, that you're somewhat biased (ahem, read first line of the definition, please) when it comes to anything with regards to the US.

At least you (somewhat) admitted to that.

Whatever...My attitude toward Canada, and Canadians, is one of respect and admiration, I can't think of anything bad to say about the country or the people.

My OPINION (I will do that for you from now on, because it seems as if I told you it was 9:00 in the morning you would ask for a link on it) is that your feelings regarding the US are laced with bitterness and venom, your attitude with regards to most "USAmericans" is one of blatant contempt.

So,

Whose worse off? Me, in my USAmerican (supposed) ignorance, or you, for your open contempt of USAmerica and USAmericans? Funny, I don't go around feeling bitter about anybody or any thing all day; I wouldn't want to know what that's like.

[iverglas]

32. wow

What a lot of work. I do hope you learned some stuff.

"Question: What is the difference between a USAmerican and a Canadian?
Answer: The Canadian is the one who knows that there is a difference."

Forgive me, but what's that supposed to mean? That I'm some ignorant troglodyte because, living my life, fixing my kid's bikes and taking out the garbage, I'm unaware that some people use the term USAmerican? Am I to be reproached for this? This quote (joke) would indicate so. What's that? You don't think the actual punch line is, in fact, the perception, the prejudgment, of USAmerican's overall ignorance?

Uh, sure. The problem is that the joke would be exactly the same if the term "American" had been used rather than "USAmerican", so your point seems to be, um, missing.

And you are aware that there is a large difference between "perception" and "prejudgment", I assume. There's no need at all to "prejudge" USAmericans' propensity for not knowing stuff; evidence of it can be seen right here on a daily basis.

I have no idea why you take the "joke" in question and extrapolate from it that you are regarded as ignorant for being unaware that some people use the term USAmerican *because* you are USAmerican, which seems to be what you're trying to make it look as if someone said (the joke certainly didn't say that, and I certainly didn't say it) -- but I do admire your skill at portraying something as being something it isn't. Some people might well be fooled by that sort of thing.

"Stone Country isn’t so much an unauthorized history as a quirky, personal one that throws a lot of random darts. Bowering insists on calling residents of the United States "USAmericans" (as in "USAmericans always tell each other that all other people wish they were USAmericans").

Hmmm...That doesn't sound the least bit accusatory to you? Maybe implying that citizens of the US are somewhat narcissistic and self centered? No? Guess I'm just reading too much into it again.

Yeah, I guess you are. Because once again, the statement would have meant exactly the same thing if it had been "Americans always tell each other that all other people wish they were Americans".

Do I have a problem with the term? Not in the least. Call me whatever you want, have a ball. My problem is when you originally feigned innocence at any US bashing, which I thought was laughable.

Well, I'm glad to see you've got over the problem with the term that you obviously did have.

The other problem, which as we've seen now is entirely unrelated to my use of the term "USAmerican" no matter how you try to glue the two together, seems to remain. And given the so-far complete lack of evidence to support the allegation (of "bashing") on which you base your problem, what we indeed seem to have is an instance of

prejudice
1a. a preconceived opinion.
b bias or partiality

.

[texasdem99]

33. Very weak

You claim the term "USAmericans" is completely neutral, you still do.

I do a quick search, as instructed by you, and the first two instances I find back up my statement that your use of the term is somewhat derogatory, and again, for the fiftieth umpteen freakin' time, that the term is used sarcastically and derogatorily in the examples I gave you links to. In fact, in the second example, it's clear that Bowering uses the term in the EXACT context that I took it when you used it. "Us" Americans, as in, "us" and "them"; thereby implying universal US self-centerdness.

Wow, indeed. What a coincidence!?

This all began with the fact that I thought that you were implying something which I brought up to you, you claimed the term was neutral and ordered me to look it up in Google, and I found a reference detailing my exact point that it was hardly always neutral.

You choose to ignore this. And around and around we go.

It implies USAmerican, or "American" ignorance, whichever way you prefer to spin it. This is acceptable to you, fair enough.

Let me ask you, can I go ahead and use the term "CAN'Tadians" when referring to Canadians?

As in, "Can't seem to get themselves out of the US's shadow."

Ha ha. That's real funny. Yeah. This would be OK with you, then. Fair's fair. You wouldn't feel that the nickname was in any way derogatory, it's neutral, right? Don't concern yourself.

Funny little nasty names for citizens of other countries seems kind of juvenile to me. As I mentioned, I have better things to do then to spend my days walking around pissed off at people I've never met.

I'm not going to find links for you on your command anymore, because when challenged by you, if I provide proof and you ignore it, what's the point? Perhaps the term "USAmerican" is, in fact, used in a neutral way by SOME people, I don't doubt it at all.

Only I don't think you're exactly neutral when you use it.

A point that you've now made for me quite clearly, thank you.

[iverglas]

34. well I'm gobsmacked

This is so bizarre that I really have to consider the available explanations for your ideation in deciding how to respond. Everything you are saying is so divorced from reality that "paranoia" is the one that springs to mind -- but since nobody asked me, I'm not sayin' nuttin'.

How more obvious can it possibly be that the "USA" in "USAmerican" is, well "USA"?

"USA" stands for "United States of America" -- the nation that people more commonly (but inaccurately) called "Americans" are citizens of. There is simply no elegant way of referring to the citizens of that nation; "United-States-of-Americans", "USAmericans" for short, isn't elegant, but it is accurate.

Were you really still not getting this????

Did you really not understand that the "US" in "USAmerican" is "U.S."???

U.S.A. ... U.S.American. Hey, if it will make you happy, I'll include the punctuation from now on; for consistency, I'd have to start writing "U.S." where I heretofore have pretty consistently just written "US", but that's cool; for you, anything.

It isn't anybody else's fault that the USA chose a name for itself that designates it as part of a larger whole -- "America" -- instead of naming the part of that whole that it encompasses, the way the peoples of most nations do. You know: France, South Africa, Australia ... . The United Kingdom might have somewhat the same problem, but they seem to have settled on "British (citizens)".

Here's another bit of information for you. In Cuba, citizens of the USofA are called norteamericanos -- precisely because Cubans, like Venezuelans and Peruvians and, yes, Canadians, as I already mentioned, ARE Americans. And I confused a Cuban all to hell once when, after he first addressed me in Russian and I explained in my bad Russian that I didn't speak good Russian, he asked me in Spanish whether I was a norteamericana and I said "sí, yo soy canadiense". Because using "North American" to designate a USAmerican is not much better than "American"; I'm a Canadian, and I am a North American.

Is this getting at all clear?

... you claimed the term was neutral and ordered me to look it up in Google, and I found a reference detailing my exact point that it was hardly always neutral.

No, YOU DIDN'T. You found instances in which the term is used by people who apparently do not have "neutral" feelings toward the USA and USAmericans. That does not make the term itself un-neutral.

For instance, as I believe I have already pointed out with adequate clarity, the "joke" about the difference between Canadians and USAmericans would have conveyed exactly the same meaning if the term used had been "American". Or are you really claiming that you would not have found it offensive in that case?

What is being said *ABOUT* USAmericans simply does not depend on what term is used to designate them; lots of nasty things really are said about "Americans", you may have noticed. And where the term used to designate them is simply an attempt to designate them as citizens of a particular nation, as opposed to calling them by a term that also applies to millions of people who are *not* citizens of that particular nation, it is NEUTRAL.

In fact, in the second example, it's clear that Bowering uses the term in the EXACT context that I took it when you used it. "Us" Americans, as in, "us" and "them"; thereby implying universal US self-centerdness.

Good lord. Here's what was said:

Bowering insists on calling residents of the United States "USAmericans" (as in "USAmericans always tell each other that all other people wish they were USAmericans").

Now, apart from the fact that, as I have already pointed out, what you find offensive is the statement being made and not the words used to make it ... the statement is made in the third person. How the bleeding hell could it be read as meaning "us Americans"?? The author being quoted is CANADIAN. Why in dog's name would be be saying "us Americans ..."??

Let me ask you, can I go ahead and use the term "CAN'Tadians" when referring to Canadians?
As in, "Can't seem to get themselves out of the US's shadow."

Your true colours do just shine through, don't they?

If you think that "Can't seem to get themselves out of the US's shadow" is somehow equivalent to "citizen of the U.S. of America", well then you just go right ahead.

Funny little nasty names for citizens of other countries seems kind of juvenile to me.

You bet they do. But it does seem that you enjoy making them up. Me, I'll stick to using accurate designations for the citizens of those other countries.

Here's an example in reverse. "Chinese" can mean both "citizen of China" and "member of a racial/ethnic/cultural group" distinguished by its common physical features and language group, say. So when I mean "citizen of China", I say "Chinese". But when I mean, for example, my neighbours who were born in China but are now Canadian citizens (and when I have some reason for referring to their race/ethnicity), I might say "ethnically Chinese".

Just as, when I mean "citizen of the United States of America" I will say "USAmerican", and when I mean "person who lives on one of the continents or islands in the western hemisphere", or wish to refer to a multilateral convention signed by the member states of the OAS, I will say "American".

Perhaps the term "USAmerican" is, in fact, used in a neutral way by SOME people, I don't doubt it at all.
Only I don't think you're exactly neutral when you use it.

Well, like I was saying, there's no accounting for some people's ideation.

It implies USAmerican, or "American" ignorance, whichever way you prefer to spin it. This is acceptable to you, fair enough.

IT IMPLIES NO SUCH FUCKING THING. It "implies" citizen of the nation known as the United States of America (or, as an adjective, "pertaining to the nation known as the United States of America").

But hey, you just keep on "perceiving" it however you want to claim to perceive it, 'k?

.

[iverglas]

35. and you still haven't explained

why you would say in respect of a sequence that went like this:

- post by FatSlob (post 1)
- response by iverglas (post 12)
- iverglas "thanked" by Puma Pete (post 14)
- Puma Pete asked by iverglas to explain what he was thanking her for (post 17)

... Sure, I'll tell you what I'm thanking you for
It's easy. *I* baited, and you swallowed, hook line and sinker (post 18; emphasis added)

Unless Puma Pete is FatSlob and FatSlob is Puma Pete, I'm not getting it.

Is you? Are he??

.

[iverglas]

16. ah, there's my answer

I ask, in response to more UK bashing:

And, unless somebody can show me the great tenderness and respect with which the wrongfully convicted are systematically treated in the US, I'd say just another case of pot and kettle.

... and I get ... nada. Just an unfounded accusation of something that wasn't done. (Anybody care to QUOTE that "US bashing" -- not to mention substantiate the allegation that it was "more" of something previously done?)

So, as usual, I'll just have to do the work myself.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/000919.html

New York and Illinois were pioneers in passing laws allowing compensation. The Innocence Protection Act, as originally introduced, provided for $50,000 per year in federal cases. The recent amendment to the bill lowered it to $10,000 per year.

From the Justice Policy Project analysis of the original bill and amendment:

"The bill includes a substantially smaller increase in the federal cap on compensation for unjust imprisonment. Under current law, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may award up to $5,000 against the United States in cases of unjust imprisonment. The IPA as introduced raised this cap - which has not been raised since 1938 - to $50,000 for each year that the plaintiff spent in prison, or $100,000 per year if the plaintiff was sentenced to death. The bill raises the cap to $10,000 per year. In addition, while the original bill conditioned federal prison grants on States agreeing to pay reasonable compensation to exonerated death row inmates, the bill simply expresses the sense of Congress that States should provide such compensation."

Hmm, $10,000/year US ... versus $72,000/year US with a $3,000/year US deduction for living expenses.

Pop quiz, now; if you were a wrongfully convicted person, where would you rather have served your time?

http://www.justicedenied.org/compensate.htm

On December 9, 1998, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice instituted a system to compensate people whose convictions of crimes had been overturned on appeal. This precedent-setting act went completely ignored by the American media. Thirty-five years earlier, when New Zealand became the first country in modern times to institute a system to compensate crime victims, the American media ignored that as well. Yet a mere five years after that, both California and New York established victim compensation programs.

... Precedents for compensating the wrongfully convicted exist in federal law and the laws in 14 states and the District of Columbia, albeit with severe limitations on conditions and maximum awards ... . These limitations include brief time limits for filing and strict standards of proof of innocence. ...<T>here are exceptions to these generalizations -- New York, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have no limit on award maximums, for instance. ...<T>hese statutes do not prevent the unjustly convicted and the falsely accused from using tort law to sue government agencies and entities for false imprisonment, civil rights violations, libel and defamation. One such example is that of Anthony Porter, who recently received $145,875, the maximum allowable under Illinois's compensation statute -- but still plans to sue Chicago under tort law.

Hey, that there's a USAmerican bashing the US; don't be blaming moi.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200207/071102b.html

LEAHY-SPECTER-FEINSTEIN-BIDEN-DURBIN-EDWARDS
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

TITLE IV—COMPENSATION FOR THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED

Sec. 401. Increased compensation in Federal cases. This section increases the maximum amount of damages that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may award against the United States in cases of unjust imprisonment from a flat $5,000 to $10,000 per year.

Sec. 402. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death penalty cases. This section expresses the sense of Congress that States should provide reasonable compensation to any person found to have been unjustly convicted of an offense against the State and sentenced to death.

Maybe somebody can find out where all that stands now ... and work out what that guy in the UK would likely have got had he been wrongfully convicted in a US state instead.

Just the facts, seems to me.

.

[Columbia]

20. More US bashing seen here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x44211#44371

Since you wanted PROOF. I'm not usually inclined to acquiesce to demands, but I'm in a giving mood tonight.

[iverglas]

31. ah yes, more facts seen there

One thing I know is that Australians aren't plagued by laws limiting their reproductive choices the way USAmericans are. Score one for down under (oh, and Canada and most of Europe too, of course).

I'm pretty sure (no, really, I'm positive) that Australians may travel to Cuba, or anywhere else they want, when they want, too. Score some more for the rest of us.

Never heard of a "free speech zone" in Canada (although things get a little more complicated when a bunch of OECD heads of state show up, granted), and I'll bet they haven't in Australia, either. Another point on the left side of the scoreboard.

Over to you.

Too bad you have yet to come up with evidence of BASHING.

I mean, was something I said FALSE? Was something I said an UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION of the facts? Was there something in the instances of lack of freedom that I cited that you regarded as something other than an instance of lack of freedom, and wanted to DEFEND?

Or, hmm, was I responding to the BASHING of yet another foreign jurisdiction and jingoistic characterization of the US, by a USAmerican, as the bestest:

Australia has become a state with a severe lack of personal freedom. I'll stay in the Nation that is still the last, best hope for the world.

-- by citing FACTS which demonstrated that the allegation against that foreign jurisdiction was UNFOUNDED (i.e. constituted BASHING) and that the characterization of the US in question was mere jingoism?

I know what the correct answer is ... and so do you.

.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Um, excuse me,

but the whole point is that it's wrong to charge people who've been wrongly convicted for room and board, PERIOD! It's the state's fault to begin with that they were imprisoned (for many wrongly convicted, there was plenty of evidence that they were innocent, the government just didn't see fit to put it forth because they wanted their convictions). The British are particularly notorious for wrongly convicting and imprisoning Irish prisoners.

It doesn't matter if they've been given compensation money or not, and if you read the whole article you'd see that some of them hadn't and are living in absolute poverty, which is beyond inexcusable. As far as I'm concerned, if they were wrongly convicted, they owe NOTHING, NOT ONE FUCKING PENNY, or whatever the lowest denomination is over there.

They didn't ask to be imprisoned, and most of them lost the best, most productive years of their lives behind bars of the government's making. THEY OWE THE GOVERNMENT NOTHING! The government owes THEM, not the other way around!!!!!

[texasdem99]

26. You are correct

Sorry for the threadjack.

I never stated that I agree it is ridiculous to charge them anything for false imprisonment, which is a crime in and of itself, and enough of an injustice, let alone to be billed for it.

[liberalhistorian]

27. Hi Pete, and

welcome to DU! Actually, I was responding to Iverglas's initial post, although I found your exchange to be very interesting reading!

[iverglas]

30. and forgive me

... the whole point is that it's wrong to charge people who've been wrongly convicted for room and board, PERIOD!

But the whole point is that nobody has been charged for anything, and it is wrong to characterize a reduction in compensation awarded, to account for expenses not incurred, as "charging" anyone for anything. Period.

As far as I'm concerned, if they were wrongly convicted, they owe NOTHING, NOT ONE FUCKING PENNY, or whatever the lowest denomination is over there.

(Yeah, why bother finding out what the lowest denomination is ...)

It doesn't matter if they've been given compensation money or not, and if you read the whole article you'd see that some of them hadn't and are living in absolute poverty, which is beyond inexcusable.

Pot, kettle. I'll keep saying it.

I read the article, which as I observed struck me as a pretty amateurish job, and I saw this:

He is now facing a bill of around £80,000 for the living expenses he cost the state. For Brown, it is the final straw. An interim payment he was given pending his full compensation offer is exhausted; his mother recently died; his relationship with his girlfriend has fallen apart and he is facing eviction from his home following a mix-up over benefits.

I'm just not seeing what you're seeing, it seems. I'm seeing what could be called, within that system, inexcusable delay.

Recall that the interim payment that the other individual was given was £300,000 -- US $540,000. I wonder why we weren't told what the value of the interim payment that the other individual has "exhausted" was.

I see an allegation of someone "facing a bill" -- but I simply do not accept this as PROOF that any payment is being demanded from anyone other than as a deduction from compensation awarded.

And I'm sure as hell not seeing anyone being limited to a claim of $10,000 US a year for the years of wrongful imprisonment.

They didn't ask to be imprisoned, and most of them lost the best, most productive years of their lives behind bars of the government's making. THEY OWE THE GOVERNMENT NOTHING! The government owes THEM, not the other way around!!!!!

And somehow you just seem to be, um, missing the point that in the case detailed in that report, the individual received £960,000 -- US $1,728,000 in compensation for that time, less £72,000 -- US $130,000, or US $5,400 per year, for living expenses that the individual would have paid for had he not been in prison.

Leaving him US $1,600,000 !!!! in compensation for 24 years of wrongful imprisonment.

As far as I can understand it, in most states in the US he would have been entitled to US $240,000 for 24 years of wrongful imprisonment.

He is receiving 6.67 times as much compensation in the UK, even *after* deduction of those expenses, as he would have received in the US.

The moral indignation about what is done outside the US, on the part of people in the US whom I have yet to see suggest that the US should be fairly compensating the wrongfully imprisoned, appears to know no bounds, and still leaves me gobsmacked.


(edited to fix "outside the UK" to "outside the US")

.

[MasterKey]

28. This is a horrible injustice

I hope everyone climbs aboard this as it will become commonplace if they, Britain are allowed to get away with such open criminality and bullying;

MasterKey-- :)

[Spentastic]

29. Bollocks

"British want to charge wrongly convicted for housing expenses!"

David Blunkett wants to. He goes to the Lords about once a week and he normally loses. Blunkett is a closet winger. Hence the winger policies.

Personally, I think this policy is abhorrent. But we also don't lock people up for life for stealing Pizza slices with a stupid 3 strike law.