I like to shape my opinions from facts, not the other way around.
When I went to the site which supposedly has the infamous leaflet
which our two little gadflies distributed, I see a lame disclaimer
which states that the original is "out-of-print." One is then urged
to read another, similar publication. The original "was a
specialist publication written in 1986 and not intended for
distribution on the streets", they tell us slickly. Ahem... don't
worry your little head over a "specialist" publication; instead,
read this "updated" version.
Hey, don't take my word for it:
Wasn't the original leaflet submitted as evidence in court? If
it had originally been distributed on the streets, one would
presume that the evidence would be public information. Did the
bailiff eat it on the way to the evidence room?
You'd think somebody would have the guts to disseminate the original,
unabridged document here. It is, after all, rather central to the
case at hand--for the rare few of you here who actually give a rip
about the facts.