Thanks for checking this post, I'm looking for a story a read once.
It's about a teen been dropped in a field during a thunderstorm, he's been bullied before and during a reunion he gets kidnapped and left for dead after being filled by drugs. He gets a tan and full time priapism, and by the end of the story a remember he bought a school, a think. There probably was a sequel mentioned and some drawings. Anyway, thanks for any reference.
Best wishes to anyone during this trying times.
I think you are looking for one of Ernest Bywaters stories. It might be "Hal - the beginning."
Cheers
I believe that at one time there were some noises about a sequal. Is that possible? I'm not really sure where the story line would go, but of course, I'm not a writer. The closest I come is being a pretty good proofreader.
I believe that at one time there were some noises about a sequal.
While the notes and the like were destroyed by the Gestapo I do plan on writing a sequel. However, it is likely to be June 2021 before I can do to legal issues. Although I may write a no sex sequel before then. The legal issues apply to any stories with graphics sexual content in them.
Although I may write a no sex sequel before then.
A no-sex or minimal-sex sequel would be quite welcome!
However, it is likely to be June 2021 before I can do to legal issues. Although I may write a no sex sequel before then. The legal issues apply to any stories with graphics sexual content in them.
From what I understand, you're just now getting clear of the worst of those issues. Better to avoid poking the bear for now.
Better to avoid poking the bear for now.
Good behaviour bond - similar to parole - with terms of no on-line graphic sex material in word or image until 29 May 2021 - thus the June date issue.
Wonder how soon they will be able to detect thought and then ban that as well.
I don't know how long before that happens, but they are certainly working on it.
Being deceitful person I am I would find some kind of loophole I hate infringement of my 1st amendment rights unfortunately for you that doesn't apply to your country.as beautiful as Australia may look on t.v. I couldn't live without my bill of rights
I couldn't live without my bill of rights
The highest number of prison inmates in the world. (2,193,798)
21.2% of whom are unsentenced...
Seems the bill is going unpaid...
The highest number of prison inmates in the world. (2,193,798)
21.2% of whom are unsentenced...
Not that I don't agree we incarcerate far too many people, but I would be shocked if the number for China isn't higher.
I would be shocked if the number for China isn't higher.
CHINA 1,548,498
Feeling shocked..?
Cite required with data source methodology.
Link
ETA
Data Source: International Centre for Prison Studies
https://www.prisonstudies.org/about-us
For example, there are no data on the numbers detained pre-trial or prior to sentencing in China.
And the numbers they do have for China are not necessarily credible.
And the numbers they do have for China are not necessarily credible.
You stated;
I would be shocked if the number for China isn't higher.
The fact is that China has over 400,000 fewer prisoners than the US.
So, instead of being shocked, or responding "Wow, I'd never have thought that", you choose to prevaricate and question other statistics...
*Shrug*
So, to recap;
US population in 2016 = 323.4 million, of which 2,121,600 were in prison
China population in 2016 = 1.379 Billion, of which 1,657,812 (2014) were in prison.
Given the relative total population versus number incarcerated, the US wins the prison population awards hands down.
Shocked yet...?
ETA
Of course in a few months your views could be realistic, given the over population of US jails and therefore the absolute impossibility of containing the current plague once introduced...
Shocked yet...?
No.
1. I don't expect the real number of prisoners in China is so high that it would knock the US out of the top spot on per-captia numbers.
2. The US numbers include prisoners held in pre-trial detention. They have no data on pre-trial detention for China. That alone could flip the 400K difference.
They have no data on pre-trial detention for China. That alone could flip the 400K difference.
That's ok then. All those on pre-trail detention in China will be SO pleased that according to you, they are not actual prisoners and if they are, don't count anyway.
Well done..!
That's ok then. All those on pre-trail detention in China will be SO pleased that according to you, they are not actual prisoners and if they are, don't count anyway.
That's backwards of what I said. I didn't say the pre-trial prisoners shouldn't be counted, I said they weren't counted by your source for the number of prisoner's in China.
Your source for the 1,657,812 number of prisoners in China says that they have no data on the number of pre-trial prisoners. they aren't included in the 1,657,812 number. Which means that number is lowballed by however many people China is holding pending trial.
That's backwards of what I said. I didn't say the pre-trial prisoners shouldn't be counted, I said they weren't counted by your source for the number of prisoner's in China.
I took that N/A as meaning they did not know how many of those 1,548,498 had not been sentenced (yet).
I took that N/A as meaning they did not know how many of those 1,548,498 had not been sentenced (yet).
I don't. In the US, most pre-trial detainees are held in local county jails rather than state prisons. In terms of sentenced prisoners, the county jail would only have very low level offenders, typically with sentences under 1 year.
Getting back to the point, you originally stated;
Not that I don't agree we incarcerate far too many people, but I would be shocked if the number for China isn't higher.
For every 100,000 chinese 120 are in prison. If you include those declared held without sentence, that becomes 166
For every 100,000 americans 665 are in prison
Quibble however you like, to me 665 is significantly higher than 120 or 166.
Especially since China isn't regarded as being big on freedom of the individual and the US habitually promotes itself as 'the land of the free'.
At almost $100/day/inmate that is an awful lot of tax dollars you guys are paying.
Quibble however you like
What I was responding to wasn't about per capita numbers. As far as I am concerned, bringing in the per-capita number (and I don't dispute that the US tops the list on a per-capita basis) is moving the goal posts.
At almost $100/day/inmate that is an awful lot of tax dollars you guys are paying.
That's federal. The majority of US prisoners are actually in state, not federal custody. State prison costs vary a lot.
Alabama only spends $40.49/prisoner/day.
On the other end of the spectrum, New York is spending $190.01/prisoner/day.
The median for the states is around $82.70
The fact is that China has over 400,000 fewer prisoners than the US.
The count of prisoners in China, Korea, and similar countries isn't likely to include those in re-education camps as those aren't prisons. Also, so many of their law breakers are executed instead of being put in prison while that's the reverse in the USA, despite all of the ballyhoo about states have the death penalty.
China is tougher on several crimes that lead to death penalty. Also "minority' is not as big a issue when most of the population are Chinese.
The US constitution is not equal to all. With money and influence, not even the laws are set in stone. The various amendments mean nothing when a group or person in power target you.
ETA If you need examples, try Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster.
If you need examples, try Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster.
I didn't know anything about this guy Foster until you mentioned it, and from what I can see in Wikipedia I wouldn't make a claim either way without a clear proven copy of the coroner's report and what it has to say about gunpowder burns in the mouth and on the face.
However, the best recent example of law changing to suit people in power is the Clinton email issue as it's clear Hillary violated the security requirements for her personal reasons then destroyed evidence to cover it up and yet she was not charged over it or for lying about it to the FBI.
However, the best recent example of law changing to suit people in power is the Clinton email issue as it's clear Hillary violated the security requirements for her personal reasons then destroyed evidence to cover it up and yet she was not charged over it or for lying about it to the FBI.
And yet after 7 investigations by anti-Hillary groups nothing was found wrong. Many of these people are ignoring those in the Trump white house for doing the same thing.
Anti-hillary groups? Try DOJ and FBI. She broke the law and was given a pass. As for Trump, the waters were far more murky with no clear evidence.
Neither Dems nor Rep are free of taint in this regards. If you're rich and well enough connected, there is another layer of society that protects its own and damn the constitution. Only those that endanger that status quo ever get thrown under the bus to protect them.
The Trump administration has shown repeatedly that it was not bound by decisions made before Trump was elected. They have reversed many policies and other decisions. The current administration is not precluded legally from prosecuting her. It was an issue during the 2016 election campaign, with Trump encouraging his supporters to chant "Lock Her Up" at his rallies. The President has repeatedly shown that he has no qualms about expressing his opinions on active court cases. If it's such a big deal, and if they are so certain of her guilt, why haven't they prosecuted her?
If it's such a big deal, and if they are so certain of her guilt, why haven't they prosecuted her?
A lot of the evidence is no longer acceptable to a criminal court due to the way her friends in the FBI handled it and thus broke the chain of evidence and tainted it from the court's point of view.
↑✉︎
Ernest Bywater
3/31/2020, 9:33:46 PM
@PotomacBob
If it's such a big deal, and if they are so certain of her guilt, why haven't they prosecuted her?
A lot of the evidence is no longer acceptable to a criminal court due to the way her friends in the FBI handled it and thus broke the chain of evidence and tainted it from the court's point of view.
You have friends in the Trump administration who gave you that explanation?
You have friends in the Trump administration who gave you that explanation?
The US rules of a clean chain of evidence is clear, and the media reports on the destruction of a lot of the evidence is well known, as well as the information from personal messages of the FBI agents involved that were released made it clear evidence was tampered with during the email server investigation. Don't need any contacts in Trump's office to know what is in the public domain and has been for many months.
Had there been an order to turn over Hillary for prosecution, it would have set up a scenario where her attorneys would have been in a position to demand discovery. During that fiasco, a pseudonym was discovered on Huma Aberdeen's system that tied back to Obama on a private nongovernmental network. That information came about during investigation of Huma's former husband on unrelated charges.
AG Lynch refused to open that can of worms. That carried forward to AG Sessions whom also refused to open the can much to Trump's disfavor.
At this point it takes some critical thinking skills free of Trump or Obama derangement syndrome.
A thinking person would realize that for all the hyperbole, neither party wanted that prosecution. That can of worms runs back to Bills administration and every president in between. Digging back further, I'd be damn surprised if every admin since WW2 wasn't guilty of illegal communications.
The only time such shenanigans were ever brought fully into the light was related to the Nixon Admin. For him, when it came to light, it was because of the Watergate fallout.
It doesn't matter if it is a Dem or Rep, every admin has hidden dirt. If you believe otherwise, I have some decent ocean front cottages you can buy in Kansas.
every admin has hidden dirt
Even George Washington?!
Well before they had internet. I also question if Calvin Coolidge had hidden dirt. They didn't call him Silent Cal for nothing. Some lady guest at a party told him she bet another guest she could get him to say three words to her. He said "You lose."
Even George Washington?!
I'd be damn surprised if every admin since WW2 wasn't guilty of illegal communications.
You must have skipped over that part. The trail of history is too cold regarding anything prior to WW2 to make even an educated guess.
Though I will say, the human tendency of succumbing to corruption has a historical habit of being worse for the rich and or powerful.
Even George Washington?!
Yes.
He made Alexander Hamilton his secretary of the Treasury.
Hamilton, who authored the Necessary and Proper clause in the constitution.
Hamilton, who swore to the members of his state's ratifying convention that the commerce clause + the N&P clause would NOT give the federal government the power to establish a national bank. The constitution might well have not been ratified without this lie.
Hamilton, who's first act as secretary of the Treasury was to establish a national bank.
It's a bit hard to find something later after the first investigation was by Hillary supporters who cleaned up most of the evidence.
I always laugh when someone says "Innocent until proven guilty" Tell that to someone who is arrested, put in jail and can't afford bail.
And now the DOJ wants to get rid of Habeas Corpus so they can jail people without charging them.
In my opinion The US Constitution was just a sales pitch never meant to be followed. Even the first part where it says "All men are created equal" was a big lie.
I guess the prison population will be reduced by the Covid 19 virus, either by letting some out or by death or both. That will somewhat reduce the cost of running the system. Another "benefit" of the disease will be making it easier to finance the social security system as some older recipients and some people who would otherwise have started to collect social security will not have to be paid. Medicare and Medicaid payments probably will be reduced as the recipients tend to be older people who have a lower chance of survival.
On the other hand payrolls will decline until the virus is under control, and maybe not recover even then, and so payroll taxes will be lower. Overall, more senior deaths likely will reduce the government's payments.
Arguing the count of Chinese prisoners is pointless.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps
When a country does something like that and denies it after getting caught out red-handed, nothing they say can be trusted. It was a similar situation with the USSR and their gulags. The USSR denied, denied, denied, their existence, yet reams of evidence in the form of satellite images, eyewitness testimony from escapes, and the general knowledge of the USSR residences made it clear, they did in fact exist.
Anyone who believes the official communist party line is either self deluded via Chinese kool-aid or simply is willfully ignorant.
What none of the anti American posters have said is with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.everyone on China knows you cant bad mouth the government without a bulletproof skull.hell look at their response to the covid crap,they knew about it but did nothing just like sars,swine flu,bird flu and even possibly the Spanish flu 100yrs ago from 1 story i heard.biological warfare out in the open.as for the pretrial prisoners yeah it six for those that can't afford bail but at least they have a chance at it not all countries have it I'm sure.we dont execute prisoners for political crimes or drug charges or being the victims of rape or sexual orientation unlike those nice peace loving muslim countries.when we have reeducation camps or organ harvesting camps then I will gladly say what the fuk, until then my bill of rights is better then no rights at all.
Not all Muslims are violent radicals. The Uighur in China being a good example of peaceful ones. I'll grant you there is a minority that are radicals giving them all a bad name, but to tar the entire population as violent is wrong headed.
Edited for clarity
my bill of rights
I have it better or at least more formal than you. I have a William of Rights.
