My error for not going back to check on the name of the guy in Sunderland, England. As to being arrested, summoned, etc., I realize that England does things differently than we do in the USA. However, I'm trying to put into context what a "mandate" means. It means that people will be forced to do something which many will want to do anyway, some will do reluctantly, and some simply will refuse to do. And those that refuse will suffer at the hands of the law, either incarceration or impoverishment. That's the part I have a problem with, as I don't believe that *any* peaceful, non-fraudulent activity between consenting parties should be regulated. Yes, I know, I'm way, way out on the libertarian wing here. As far as I know, however, I'm the only one on this list who has suffered at the hands of tyrannical bureaucrats. I'm reminded of George McGovern, the Southern Democrat Senator, who, after leaving politics got involved in running a chain of hotels. After a few years he wrote an editorial stating that, had he any idea of what private businesses had to put up with from government, he would have been a very different legislator. Jim Elwell
