"If the law permits Fred's theft, and then preserves the property that he stole against damage, what is the law but the tool of oppression?" - Richard Bridge.

Now if memory serves me correctly the person who stated that is a lawyer.

I would ask him the following:

What did Fred steal?? - The answer of course is nothing.

What property did Fred steal?? - The answer of course is none.

What criminal charges have been brought?? - Again the answer is none, and there are none in prospect of being brought.

Is there any evidence to support any such charge of theft?? - And again the answer is none.

So the man is guilty of what??

Funny thing Marxist socialist values and the law - as soon as it doesn't suit you the "champagne socialists" come out offering opinions and advice such as this:

"How then do the dispossessed regain what was theirs but by renouncing politics and law in favour of what they can control? They will of course lose the pitched battle, for politics and law control the armies.

That leaves guerilla warfare.

Burn baby burn."

Richard - you want to get yourself another job, you are clearly unsuited to the one you've got. Mind you I suppose you could join our other leftist "socialist" legal eagle and go smear some shit on hat pins to stick into perfect strangers - another totally unjustified recourse to violence, but no doubt they'd find some bloody idiotic excuse for their behaviour.