In the insurance industry, if you are the victim of a crash you may lose your no claims bonus. The situation is not just as simple as a victim of attack being a victim.
Wouldn't it be the case that, for example, those in the drug business are far more likely to harm their competition than their market?
If the goal is to prospectively keep the peace, then the monitoring should be directed towards those most likely to break the peace. I think that is rather orthogonal to fair and equal protection.
Exactly and as having been in the wrong place at the wrong time this rankles and I did have at the time dissuade my one of my coworkers from "accidentally" putting the perp on the kiddie fiddlers regsister.
And the landlord of the pub where this happened was very lucky a few of the lads didn't go down and make our displeasure known.
Perhaps. I just read it again, and I still can't put together the meaning, even trying to read less-than-literally. It reads just like a comment from SubredditSimulator.
The comment is in reply to one talking about police monitoring the victims of crime who might be more likely to take revenge. The police then catch those victims (now perpetrators) of crime.
> Exactly and as having been in the wrong place at the wrong time this rankles and I did have at the time dissuade my one of my coworkers from "accidentally" putting the perp on the kiddie fiddlers regsister.
I've been a victim of crime - I was in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It rankles - I wanted revenge.
At the time I dissuaded a colleague from deliberately putting the name perpetrator of the crime on the sex offender register.
Wouldn't it be the case that, for example, those in the drug business are far more likely to harm their competition than their market?