• @RaoulDukeOPM
    link
    English
    21 year ago

    I think the point is to go after the leaders rather than the henchmen who will just be replaced.

    Usually it’s not too hard to establish who the leader is, even if it’s not always easy to prove. I imagine that’s another reason they’re allowed to go after any member.

    • @DaveMA
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      I’m thinking more like having a 2IC acting as the boss, giving orders, all the henchmen think they are the leader when actually he’s got the real leader whispering orders to him in secret.

      Maybe I’ve been watching too much TV!

      • @RaoulDukeOPM
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        I’ve never heard of that. But if they did it right, I guess we’d never know.

        • @DaveMA
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          In theory it wouldn’t matter. There are only so many people you can have able to act as the leader. If you took out the 2IC and another took their place so you got them as well, etc. Then you’d likely disrupt the organisation even if you didn’t get the true leader - and one of the 2ICs might sell out the boss for a deal so you’d probably find out about them eventually.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 months ago

            I think it’s probably worth a go given how ineffectual we’ve been…

            Certainly worth assessing or experimenting with the constraints/requirements to focus how it can be applied

            • @DaveMA
              link
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yeah, after having this conversation I’ve wondered why parties aren’t promising this.

              I think National want to be seen to be tough on crime. If they remove crime then they lose a voterbase.

              If Labour do this then it might be seen as a National-type hard on crime move, which could lose voters.