Dear Forrest,

Only time will tell,
and history will judge.

Fingers-crossed that the right
choices are made on behalf of us all.

Foxy wrote, in her post of Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 1:11:42 PM , quoting Dorothy Green in, "Imagining The Real":

"No one has the right to exhort writers to write
on certain subjects or take up particular moral
stances. ....................................."

How absolutely astounding to see Fractelle attempting to do exactly that in this post to BrianHowes' topic 'Extradition without evidence from the UK / US':

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3148#74306

I wonder whether she realizes that all she will be seen to be doing is standing in the way of Brian Howes getting a hearing? His case is difficult enough for him to carry with a posting limit of 4 X 350 words max posts in 24 hours.

Granted I am in communication with him off-OLO via the Ubuntu Forums private messaging facility, and can perhaps carry some of the posting-response load that his self-evidently challenging topic is going to generate on OLO. Not only are there already more questions being elicited than there are posts available to answer them, but some posters are clearly not even reading some of the answers and/or explanations that have already been given.

As an example, Fractelle has suggested, in her post of Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 12:24:25 PM, that "the Howes case .... would be better served with appropriate publicity in Britain.". She just doesn't get it, does she? The press is totally censored in Britain with respect to at least this extradition matter. The Howes' issue can get no publicity in Britain. Period!

As there are going to be many complexities of this case unable to be explained in limited posts of just 350 words maximum each, I would observe that interested posters could register on the Ubuntu Forums and, maintaining their anonymity, seek fuller explanation of some points. I post there as Forrest Gumpp. Not trying to divert anyone away from the Forum, but that technique will enable the thread to maintain its focus on the Howes' issues.

Others remain free to widen the discussion to other topics. Obstructing the focus of that thread is as good as censorship.

Forrest Gumpp: << The press is totally censored in Britain with respect to at least this extradition matter. The Howes' issue can get no publicity in Britain. Period! >>

Rubbish, Forrest.

"Couple begin extradition battle" BBC News 28 January 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7214403.stm

"Extradition battle couple on bail" BBC News 4 September 2007

<< SEE ALSO
Couple fight US drug extradition
26 Apr 07 | Tayside and Central
Couple 'at centre' of drugs ring
31 Jan 07 | Tayside and Central
Couple in court over drug supply
31 Jan 07 | Tayside and Central
Arrests in US drug supply inquiry >>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/6977815.stm

"Extradition appeal for drugs duo" BBC News 4 March 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7923349.stm

"Suicide warning over extradition" 17 September 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8261626.stm

And the Herald Scotland:

"Amateur pyrotechnics couple face US-extradition hearing in January" 27 Dec 2008

http://www.heraldscotland.com/amateur-pyrotechnics-couple-face-us-extradition-hearing-in-january-1.826538

"The long arm of American law" 6 Sep 2008

http://www.heraldscotland.com/the-long-arm-of-american-law-1.826366

The Scotsman:

"MacAskill signs extradition order" 31 May 2008

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/MacAskill-signs-extradition-order.4138598.jp

Here's a fascinating one from the Sunday Mail, published on June 21 2009:

"Drugs probe extradition Scot accused of sex attacks on six-year-old girl"

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2009/06/21/drugs-probe-extradition-scot-accused-of-sex-attacks-on-six-year-old-girl-78057-21459748/

Etc etc etc.

Seems to me that the case has been getting quite a bit of coverage in the UK media, but perhaps not of the sort that Mr Howes really wants.

Forrest, I've been waiting for you to acknowledge your blatant error, but other than a half-hearted reference on one of Brian Howes' threads, you haven't said a contrite word.

A tad impolite, don't you think? You know - bad form for a gentleman and all that.