"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

If someone is afraid of retribution from someone s/he has offended then
that someone needs to live on an island, surrounded by high security
fencing ... no-one is untraceable from the determined searcher. That fact
that it's made easier by some official or unofficial agency is largely
irrelevant.

I'm mildly astonished.

You really think the difference between some undersocialised criminal with
a grudge against someone involved in punishing them having to

(a) find out which office to go to, get down there, perhaps be seen on
CCTV or identify themselves, trawl through some printed material
organised in address-order rather than by name, versus

(b) enter a name in a free Web search

Is that what they do? They'd have to be aware of the site. If they already
do then nowhere's safe for their intended victim, is s/he?

is 'largely irrelevant'? You don't think making (b) available would
significantly increase the incidence of such retribution? Gosh.

But you say it's already available.

I know JPs, teachers, policemen, two prison governors and others who *might*
be victims of people with a grudge against them. The prison governors are Ex
D but they give out their numbers freely and lots of people know where they
live, including ex-prisoners.

One of our sons is in the RAF but apparently we're not supposed to use his
rank on an envelope. The fact that he lives in officer's quarters on an
known RAF housing site (not inside a protective base) makes that a bit
silly, doesn't it!

I really do think this is another example of exaggerating a possible
situation. One can't live in a protective bubble, well, not to have anything
like a normal life anyway.

Stefek