England really is a police state


PDA






atek3
November 27, 2004, 03:45 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator2/spec517.html


‘You’ve committed an offence, mate,’ said the policeman, ‘and you’d better get used to the fact that you’re going down for six months.’ Nicky Samengo-Turner on the nightmare he endured after being stopped for a random security search




the UK. 'nuff said.

atek3

If you enjoyed reading about "England really is a police state" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zedicus
November 27, 2004, 04:25 PM
Currently a common an Under documented Occurrence, that I have mentioned many times. :barf:

Justin
November 27, 2004, 04:36 PM
But Agricola said that it was legal to take rational measures for your own self protection in Great Britain.

This is obviously a fabrication!

AZRickD
November 27, 2004, 05:31 PM
The community support officers reacted immediately. They behaved as if they had never seen a penknife before, pulling out the bottle-opener, the corkscrew, the thing that gets stones out of horses’ hooves. ‘This device has a locking blade,’ said the constable, after which a short, whispered debate ensued. My goodwill towards the police began to give way to alarm. I reached for my mobile to call the lawyers and explain that I was going to be late for my meeting, but the constable stopped me. ‘Turn that phone off,’ he said. ‘You’re about to be arrested for possessing offensive weapons and carrying a bladed instrument in public. You’ll be allowed one call when we get you to Charing Cross police station.’
This harrumph sounds like it came directly from an "Avengers" re-run:‘We stop one in every 25 cars on a random basis, and, let me tell you, sir, criminals and terrorists come in many different guises,’ replied the policeman.
How P.C.:‘Shouldn’t you be concentrating on men of Arab extraction?’ This seemed to me to be a sensible question, relevant to the current state of the world. The policeman said, ‘That is a racist comment, sir.’

tyme
November 27, 2004, 06:48 PM
I gather the article is a true account. If so, it's a rather strange piece of journalism; it reads like a joint effort of The Onion and Kafka.

R.H. Lee
November 27, 2004, 06:55 PM
[Self edited so as not to take gratuitous potshots at the Brits.]

Justin
November 27, 2004, 06:56 PM
Satire has gone the way of the Dodo on account of it being pretty much indistinguishable from reality these days.

Baba Louie
November 27, 2004, 07:14 PM
the UK. 'nuff said. And do you think that cannot happen here? :uhoh:
Lip off to a TSA guard as they fondle your female spousal unit while you put your shoes and belt back on at the airport, have your dog shot by the police as your kids watch while you're detained by the side of the road because you left your wallet on the roof of your car, etc.

May we live in interesting times. :scrutiny: We do.

Mr. Kook
November 27, 2004, 08:07 PM
In our country we can leave the airport and skip the fondling.

We can also shoot back at the idiot cop who is shooting at us. (note to resident LEOs, I am referring to the corrupt and power tripping among you who are very very few and very very far in between, but nonetheless exist.)

We have it a lot better than those in the UK.

Now, I wonder what those idiot constables would have done if someone were transporting a fixed plate steak knife as part of a pic-nic.

Faithless
November 27, 2004, 08:14 PM
Power tripping arsehole authority figures are universal.

This is just another day in paradise.

G36-UK
November 27, 2004, 08:45 PM
From what I can remember over here, we aren't allowed pepper spray or even those little collapsible batons. Even if you intend to use it for defense, the nutters over here consider it an offensive weapon.

Seeing as we've got a few WMDs ourself, could you please liberate us? I mean, we aren't allowed defensive weapons like you have. We're neglected by our government!

P95Carry
November 27, 2004, 08:55 PM
The saddest of sad things is this approach to ''offensive weapons'' as bad news across the board. No differentiation between good guys and bad guys and as we know - the bad guys will always be ''tooled up'' regardless.

So poor ol' Joe Public there is obliged to have the ''stiff upper lip'' whilst being defenceless ... or risk being jailed because he happens to have a halfways decent Swiss army knife on his person.

I knew things were bad five years ago when I was still a 'subject' there - it only however seems to get worse ... As I have said before, I am all but embarrassed to admit my heritage. Thank heaven I never got found with my M27 in sho rig! :p

Brick
November 27, 2004, 09:31 PM
We are conducting random stop and search under current anti-terrorist legislation,’ began the constable, addressing me through my open side window. ‘Would you mind if we searched your vehicle? We’re training these new community support officers.’

Sounds like they have no right to refuse, or do they?

Texian Pistolero
November 27, 2004, 09:53 PM
As Babe Ruth might have put it,

"It's deja vu ("1984") all over again."

Remember, the allegedly "free" Britons have NO "constitution,

and NO "bill of rights".

Currently the "Liberal" party is proposing,

no trial by jury for "terrorists".

Problem is,

how do you define who is a "terrorist"?

Meanwhile,

happy homo east cost pediophile liberals look to the UK as a blueprint for the future.

As the Babe said it well,

"It's deja vu ("1984") all over again."

homeka45
November 27, 2004, 10:43 PM
It's as if the nazis were never stopped across the channel :uhoh: !

Zedicus
November 27, 2004, 11:04 PM
It's as if the nazis were never stopped across the channel:uhoh:!

Well put!

c_yeager
November 28, 2004, 02:48 AM
Perhaps he should have said "NO" to any of the multiple queries for permission to search his vehicle. I'm not sure if it would have made a difference but, if I happen to be carrying a weapon of any kind in England and someone ASKS if they can search my belongings the answer is gonna be a big fat negatory. I wonder what would have happened then?

KRAUTGUNNER
November 28, 2004, 04:24 AM
"Great" Britain's government and society is absolutely FUBAR!

Nothing short of a revolution could change things over there.

I strongly encourage those few million sane and decent Brits, who are fed up with all that monkey business and repressions, to seek political asyl asylum in the "red" states of the USA, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Austria or Switzerland.

In Germany it is perfectly legal to carry (with the exceptions of public festivities and sports events) pen knives or K-Bar "assault" knives, or Fairbairn-Sykes daggers, or other fixed blade or folding-blade knives.

George Orwell was absolutely right! EngSoc is alive and well. :cuss: :banghead: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Chuck Jennings
November 28, 2004, 05:10 AM
There are a lot of Brits that are getting sick and tired of the ever creeping infringment of their rights. As in america there is a growing divide between the ruling elite class and the average person. Recently, when Ozzy subdued a burglar, there were many who completely agreed with what he did despite the fact that his actions have been outlawed by their "progressive" government. The reactions to this article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm) indicate that a backlash is coming.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 28, 2004, 08:23 AM
How do people stand to live under such a screwed up system.

agricola
November 28, 2004, 08:55 AM
Well its nice to see, after a short break following Cuchulainn's positive experience of the UK, the usual comments returning with such a vehemence, all from the same people. Of course, the vast prejudice is reinforced by the usual parade of ignorance and outright lies.

Chuck would you like to tell us how Ozzy Osbournes actions have been "outlawed", since its clearly not mentioned in that article or by any other evidence - indeed, he was saluted by the Police, the media and pretty much everyone else.

With regards to the veracity of the article:

i) questions are not asked about the HIV status of a prisoner being booked in;

ii) Charing Cross Police Station's cells do not have wooden benches;

iii) "public order breach of the peace" is not an offence - the area was not in public (so no public order), and a breach of the peace allows Police to detain someone for the next Court if the breach is ongoing, or likely to restart if the person is released. That does not appear to be the case here, and so one would imagine if what he says is true, a payout for false imprisonment will be forthcoming.

iv) all of the custody area is on CCTV, so if the serious allegations that this person has made - assault by the constable, the constable swearing at him - will be on tape and the solicitor would already have a copy;

As for the whole issue with regards to stops and searches under the Terrorism Act, well thats one of the consequences of having had bombs going off for the past thirty-five years.

Iain
November 28, 2004, 09:32 AM
Heh.

The other day I was reading the thread on the guy who threatened a farmer with a gun. I noticed that the guy was charged with 'making terroristic threats'.

Pretty sinister sounding charge, so I looked it up. I did my research and it turns out not to be as serious as it sounds. So instead of accusing you all of living in some 'police state', I learned something.

Is there a lesson in that?

oneshooter
November 28, 2004, 09:45 AM
England,and its citizens have got the legal system that they want,they voted for it and are apparently happy with it. I is not our place to change it form the outside,if THEY want it changed then THEY must do it themselves. Remember the outrage when the Brit newspapers tried to affect the last election. They have their system,let them live with it.If you don't like it.THEN STAY AWAY!!

Oneshooter
Livin in TEXAS

The Real Hawkeye
November 28, 2004, 09:48 AM
As the Babe said it well,

"It's deja vu ("1984") all over again."
That was Yogi Berra.

Selfdfenz
November 28, 2004, 11:19 AM
oneshooter,

Well Put.

Sadly, a little more everyday our system is sliding the same direction. The current administartion is part of that change sadly. During my last two trips DFW airport this past Sat and the one previous I was singled out for wanding and patted down both times. The TSA guys were very cordial and I would not want their jobs.

As a person that has lived an honest life I have never been patted down in my 50+ previous years on this planet. Now, with no supposition of crime or that I possessed something forbidden, (I already passed the metal detector) it has become common place that I can be searched? What gives?

What is it about a slightly past middle aged, somewhat overweight, balding white guy that got me the "Treatment"? How long will it be till you or I get randomly selected for a free cavity search?

Since I was on the "secure side" of the security sector I wonder what kind of threatment I would have gotten if I had said no to the pat-down? Bet it would have not been cordial. Then again, it's not like you can say no when you are there to pick up your child is it?

I've been flying commercial 30+ years but it's getting to be rather an overly intrusive hassel. From my window on the world there is not a thing I can do to change it back to the friendlier skies of the past.

S-

White Horseradish
November 28, 2004, 11:59 AM
i) questions are not asked about the HIV status of a prisoner being booked in;

ii) Charing Cross Police Station's cells do not have wooden benches;OMG! He got the benches wrong! Well, that just totally ruins a man's credibility.

That's just silly nitpicking.

iii) "public order breach of the peace" is not an offence - the area was not in public (so no public order), and a breach of the peace allows Police to detain someone for the next Court if the breach is ongoing, or likely to restart if the person is released. That does not appear to be the case here, and so one would imagine if what he says is true, a payout for false imprisonment will be forthcoming.

iv) all of the custody area is on CCTV, so if the serious allegations that this person has made - assault by the constable, the constable swearing at him - will be on tape and the solicitor would already have a copy; That may well be. Or, the tape could be blank. At any rate, the main thing wrong with this occurrence is that he was detained for a penknife. You are not mentioning that at all. Do you think that actually makes sense?

As for the whole issue with regards to stops and searches under the Terrorism Act, well thats one of the consequences of having had bombs going off for the past thirty-five years. I'm sure penknives and sticks are integral components of those bombs...

agricola
November 28, 2004, 12:43 PM
white horseradish,

Those who lie about little things are usually lying about the greater picture as well. also, there is a difference between the copy of the tape provided to the solicitors (which will be just the record of the interview) and the CCTV tape of the custody area. if what he alleges happened, it will be on the CCTV.

I used to work at Charing Cross Police Station and I know many of the officers that work there; that story does not ring true at all to me.

Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton. as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.

as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people.

cpileri
November 28, 2004, 01:14 PM
A point was raised that the British have got it the way they want it.

Comparing them to our situation here int he USA, I have to doubt it.

I feel very much like we have had the TSA and all the new insecurity measures shoved down our throats. Of course, since birds of a feather flock together; there may well be a mojority of Americans who DO approve of the new police-state measures. But I haven't met too many.

So the folks in England may also be coerced into compliance.

Coerced is a very appropriately used: the threat of everything from missing a flight, to arrest, the expense and humiliation of trial, etc- that's a complicated way of FORCING compliance, friends!

I like to think the average Brit still values freedom as well.

C-

HankB
November 28, 2004, 01:21 PM
As a person that has lived an honest life I have never been patted down in my 50+ previous years on this planet . . . What gives? What is it about a slightly past middle aged, somewhat overweight, balding white guy that got me the "Treatment"? When a slightly past middle aged, somewhat overweight, balding white guy is being given the treatment it's probably so that onlookers like Hamid, Saddam, Mohammed, and Osama will be reassured to know that TSA is not practicing profiling. Thank your for your contribution to political correctness.

Telperion
November 28, 2004, 01:28 PM
Victorinox Multi-tools do not have locking blades.

as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.So in return, what are you doing slumming in a US gun forum then, old chap? I'm waiting for the day that agricola can provide a moral or deontological justification for his country's laws that prohibit people from carrying sticks. But I won't wait too long...

Hawkmoon
November 28, 2004, 01:37 PM
What's so horrible about a locking blade on a penknife? I have a Gerber folder that I carry with me all the time. It's not a switchblade, it's not even a "flickblade" (if there is such a term) -- if >I want the blade open, I take out the knife in one hand and use the other hand to open it. It locks open -- the better to prevent "Mr. Manual Dexterity" from amputating a digit. This now fits some sort of terrorist profile?

Heck, this summer I visited a National Monument. Forgot the knife was in my pocket until I had been in the line for 20 minutes and got to the sign ... the one that said "No Weapons." So I did what any red-blooded former Boy Scout would do -- I hailed a nearby <attractive blonde> park ranger and asked her if my pen knife was going to get me busted for trying to sneak a "weapon" into the site. She asked to se it, I showed it to her, and she then said "Well, since you've showed it to me you can hardly be accused of trying to sneak it by me, can you?"

End of discussion.

Chuck Jennings
November 28, 2004, 01:50 PM
would you like to tell us how Ozzy Osbournes actions have been "outlawed"

Since 1967, when the rules of what constitutes acceptable use of deadly force where changed by parliament, there has been incremental administratve changes made to the interperetation of laws concerning self defense. From my understanding, these changes (which were not decided on by the people) have left many Britons frustrated and dismayed by the very real possibility of having a case brought against then by the Crown Prosecution Service for exercising their human right of self defense. This fear comes from many criminal and civil proceeding that have be initiated against victims of crimes. The fact that Ozzy was praised while others have been hauled in shows how the system is not fair to victims of crimes.

My posting of Britions reactions to this abrogation of the common law principles of self defense is to illustrate my belief that the good people of Great Britan have had enough. Furthermore, the recent Telgraph poll that showed that 71% of britons are in favor of "unqualified right to use force, including deadly force if necessary" against burglars shows that the elite are out of touch with the will of the people. There is a movement to institute a "make my day" style legislation that is being advocated by many former chief constables.

I sincerely hope that the good people of great Britan can bring their government back to the cause of protecing their people's rights. London has always been one of my favorite cities, and I hope that Britons can arrive at a place where liberty is not disposed of so readily in the name of saftey.

AZRickD
November 28, 2004, 01:58 PM
Lots of AngriCola's nonsense removed -- The takehome message:As for the whole issue with regards to stops and searches under the Terrorism Act, well thats one of the consequences of having had bombs going off for the past thirty-five years.Indeed...Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. Dang, A-C, you've got your countryman, Pitt the Younger, puking in his grave.

Shame on you.
that story does not ring true at all to me.That does it for me.
Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton.This is supposed to sway any of us here at THR? Laws against pocket knives, batons, and offensive umbrellas and canes? Heck, we don't like Englands firearms laws, why should we support laws against kitchen implements?
as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.Nobody here is asking to vote in your socialist enclave. However, we're very concerned. That's why we broke with your side of the pond after all, isn't it? The Founding Fathers warned us of the evils of "democracy." Your example just drives the point home. We thank you for reminding us. Your newspapers repeatedly argue (and berate us) that we in the States should adopt your silly laws. I hope we can learn from this episode to stem to slide toward your country's mistakes.
as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people.I can think of numerous times when suspension of the 4th and 5th Amendments led to criminals being released on technical grounds. William Pitt wants to have a word with you, A-C.

Rick

Sam
November 28, 2004, 02:13 PM
To expect that a British citizen would have the same protections and liberties as ourselves is ludicrous. In case some of you have forgotten, we have been to war with the British on two ocassions, precisely because of thier attitude and position on civil liberties.
The fact that we have sided with them during several wars is irrelevant. Pure coincidence that we had similar aims at the time. The United Kingdom is not
and has never been a "free" nation in the way that the US is. It never will be a free nation so long as it has no constitutional guarentees to freedom for it's citizens.
Along with thier restrictive firearms laws, they do not have a free press either. I probably haven't studued them as much as I should but I'm quite certain that there are many more liberties that we enjoy, which are not found there. I think that collectively we should not be surprised by any suggestion that thier citizens might be treated in a manner which we find repugnant.

Sam

wasrjoe
November 28, 2004, 02:32 PM
I thought it was interesting when I read an article about Ozzy's tackling of the thief that was in his home. I can't find the article right now (it was on Google news and had a title that was along the lines of "Was Ozzy right for tackling the thief?") but there was a very long list of people quoted. I believe only one or two said anything negative about Ozzy's actions.

Now, the most interesting thing was that several of these people said something to the effect of, "Nowadays in Britain we're scared to defend our selves for fear of being prosecuted or sued."

I really need to find that article.

White Horseradish
November 28, 2004, 02:34 PM
Some of this has been said already, but I don't want you to confuse my opinion with someone else's.


Those who lie about little things are usually lying about the greater picture as well. also, there is a difference between the copy of the tape provided to the solicitors (which will be just the record of the interview) and the CCTV tape of the custody area. if what he alleges happened, it will be on the CCTV. You are assuming that was a deliberate lie and not a mistake. I have spent a few hours cuffed in a police station. If I told you I rememebered what the bench was made of, I'd be lying. I realize there is a difference between tapes, that was a sarcastic inference.

I used to work at Charing Cross Police Station and I know many of the officers that work there; that story does not ring true at all to me. Your loyalty is commendable, but does reveal a certain bias. I find it hard to believe that 100% of the officers at the station have great personalities and never have a bad day and get angry.

Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton.Lockable or not, it's still a penknife. A baton is still a stick, albeit a folding one with a French name. (Hmmm. Could that be the true reason they are banned? ;) ) I am not disputing the legality. I am stating my opinion that this particular prohibition is idiotic.

as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly. Do forgive me. I must have missed the regulation that forbids me to have on opinion about a place I don't live in. I assume you have no opinon on anything outside UK borders, then?

as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people. I take it they were going to perpetrate this slaughter with penknives and sticks?

Hydromeda
November 28, 2004, 02:35 PM
We don't have a free press?

News to me....

Also (although i may be wrong) the fact that we have signed up to the declaration of human rights guarantees our personal freedoms without the need for a constitution.

Just because our political system is different from yours, doesn't have to make us wrong.

Faithless
November 28, 2004, 02:47 PM
The 'declaration of human rights' holds less value than toilet paper.

Have a poke round on this (http://www.statewatch.org/)

White Horseradish
November 28, 2004, 02:55 PM
We don't have a free press? Nobody has a free press. Press costs a heck of a lot of money and belongs to the one who is willing to pay it.

I don't see how a declaration can guarantee anything, it's merely a statement. For example, the Declaration of Independence in US does not guarantee anything , it's not a law. The Constitution is a law and does guarantee various things.

mussi
November 28, 2004, 03:03 PM
Free press is indeed a rare thing.

In quite a few European countries, it's illegal to publish anything gloryfying the Nazis, or just pointing out that some ethnic groups get a better deal just because they are what they are.

In other countries, naming a special ethnic group or editing some piece of online content (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/28/0226245&tid=153&tid=123&tid=95&tid=120&tid=114&tid=17) lands you in jail.

The difference between these two places is that the former claims to be 'following human rights' and puts up claims to 'civilization'. Also look at Singapore as well. At least there they don't claim all that.

And where sits the UK? I don't know. At least not in a place I'd like to live, or even work. I've had quite lucrative work offers from the UK and I declined them all.

Most readers can easily guess why.

Hydromeda
November 28, 2004, 03:09 PM
I appreciate that the press, which influences the population hugely, is run by a relatively small number of people, and cannot therefore be truely considered "free". My notion of a free press however is not the idea of some sort of democratic press, made by the people for the people, but rather that is not swayed or influenced by the government of a given country, and this, I submit, we have.

As for the declaration, you're right. Signing it as of itself means nothing, but the laws that have been brought in to codify the declaration within our legal system do.

Faithless
November 28, 2004, 03:16 PM
I going to assume you're talking about England Hydromeda.

What free press? 6 or 7 individuals/corporations collectively own most of the 'British' media.

With Blunkett in charge, security is a better word than liberty.

another okie
November 28, 2004, 03:19 PM
It is important for us in the U.S. to remember that they do in fact have a Bill of Rights in England; they just ignore it, as we ignored the First Amendment in passing campaign finance reform, and as we ignored the Fourth Amendment in the Patriot Act.

One protection we have that the British do not is that our Bill of Rights is in a Constitution which cannot be changed by the legislature; theirs is a just a law and can be changed at the will of Parliament.

But all such declarations and laws and constitutions are just words on paper if we are not willing to fight for our freedoms with the four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box.

Hydromeda
November 28, 2004, 03:24 PM
I believe England was the topic of conversation.

Again, yes, the media is owned by a small number of individuals. These indiviuduals do however seem to have conflicting poilitical beleifs, looking at the different ways they cover the news, and i reiterate that my notion of free press is one that is free from governmental control. Anyone can start up their own paper, and say pretty much whatever they like, it's just that most people don't/can't/don't sell many papers

Sam
November 28, 2004, 03:50 PM
When speaking about not having a free press in the UK I was specifically referring to something called the "Official Secrets Act" that allows the government censorship rights of printed and broadcastm material, among other things.
Didn't have a thing to do with the cost or dominace by moguls.

They don't have any way to water the liberty tree either. Hell we had to loan 'em guns to keep the huns away.

Sam

Hydromeda
November 28, 2004, 04:20 PM
That was the type of thing i thought you meant.

There may be a piece of legislation to allow the british government to censor the media in the interest of national security, but if there is such a thing, the Official Secrets Act is not it. This act deals only with the restriction of governement workers from giving out confidential information, and does not mention what the government may be allowed to do about the information once it is leaked.

I may be wrong, the wording is here if you would like to peruse yourself:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

You may actually be thinking of the system of defense advisory notices, which is a way for the government to let the media know what subjects to avoid. This system is however voluntary, and noone can be legally prosecuted for going against the advice.

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/notices.htm

agricola
November 28, 2004, 05:50 PM
Chuck,

You should read less Joyce Lee Malcolm. The 1967 change (and its interpretation since) have had no effect on the way in which self defence has been interpreted by the Courts as this link shows (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/gullible4.html). In this particular instance Osbourne was congratulated, and noone except you has called his actions unlawful.

White Horseradish,

My experiences lead me to doubt his story, but if he has a legitimate greivance then let him sue so that those officers who he alleges have committed criminal as well as disciplinary offences face some form of justice - all the evidence is going to be right there on the tape, and its going to be backed up by his solicitor who witnessed the whole thing.

Of course, if that doesnt happen then you have to ask questions - as I am already - about how truthful this man's story is. I have no doubt he was arrested for the reasons he gave, but the rest of it stinks to high heaven.

AZRickD,

William Pitt the Younger is dead, fortunately - had I been alive he would have probably had me beaten for insolence.

He had good reason to fear democracy though - after all, he only graduated from Cambridge despite the fact that he chose not to take his examinations (something the sons of noblemen were allowed to do), and he only obtained his Parliamentary seat by finding a wealthy landowner who controlled a pocket borough. You could also point to his refusal to step aside after Parliament passed at least one no-confidence motion in him (not for any moral grounds - the King refused to deal with his opponents (to the extent of calling them "his enemies" (which of course meant "off with their heads")), so Pitt was able to remain in office). Pitt then won the next election using bribery and widescale corruption (even for the standards of the times), and was able to glue himself into the consitutency of Cambridge University for the rest of his life as a result.

Is it worth also mentioning that he was one of the first Prime Ministers to suspend habeas corpus? Or the Seditious Meetings Act? Or perhaps the Combination Acts? Maybe the Treasonable Practices Act that led Thomas Paine to flee fearing his life for publishing the Rights of Man?

Lets leave out the fact that, despite being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, having never married and having produced no heirs, he managed to run up debts of £40,000 (which was paid out of the public purse).

Aside from that, I am sure you using Pitt the Younger as an example for this works, on some level, but I'll be damned if I can see it.

Boats
November 28, 2004, 08:20 PM
Free press in England? My brother, who lives in Shakespeare's birthplace, reports he has to pay the Beeb a service fee, called a license, and he avoids the Beeb like a plague. Of course the Beeb in England has no direct analogue here. Yes, PBS and NPR are supported by diminishing tax handouts, but no one here can imagine being forced to directly buy the government administered news/enertainment service like the Beeb demands.

Life in Airstrip One as he calls it. I can only conclude that his English wife is mysteriously talented in ways I don't care to think of. :evil:

Sam
November 28, 2004, 09:16 PM
Hydromeda,
It was not contained in the Official Sectets Act and I stand corrected.
I will research more thoroughly and repost when I find the proper law.
Under the current "DA" notice system which is purely advisory no one can be prosecuted. Under the old or "D" notice system publication could be and was supressed, although I am not familiar with any prosecutions under that act.

Just for grins you might look up the conditions of liscense fro the BBC. The Home Secretary has total discretion over content. Refer to the Brind case of 1990 as an example an example.
The Court of Appeal in R v Home Secretary, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696. For a useful summary, see R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2000) paras 2.13 – 2.17.

Your judges pretty much threw out the European Convention on Human Rights when it comes to government interests.

Sam

Sistema1927
November 28, 2004, 09:45 PM
It is hard to imagine that these are the descendents of the men who defeated the French at Agincourt.

Sam
November 28, 2004, 09:50 PM
Systema,
Who hasn't whipped the French?

Sam

AZRickD
November 28, 2004, 09:51 PM
Sure, AngriCola, John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Act pretty much negated this for all times:"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -John Adams, 1776And, of course, Jefferson was a slave owner. Just ruins the Declaration of Independence for me.

Face it, A-C, you like a government with ten-thousand lackeys muscling their way on British subjects, for security sake.

In the end it is clear that when Pitt gave his warning: "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves," he was talking about people just like you.

That's where you stand. That's all we need to know.

Rick

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 28, 2004, 10:10 PM
It is hard to imagine that these are the descendents of the men who defeated the French at Agincourt

How did these same people manage to produce such a screwed up system.

They sell high-end bottled water from the UK at the local supermarkets here in NoVa. I'm reluctant to drink it lest I start to develop a strong compulsion to give away all my guns, knives, plastic sporks, tooth picks, & other such potentially lethal weapons and walk around defenseless.

Jim March
November 28, 2004, 11:00 PM
England has no monopoly here.

Weapons control laws always turn cops into the allies of criminals first, and criminals themselves before too long.

Running my website and publishing my EMail address, I get all kinds of people writing in with problems.

I'll strip out enough details to protect this guy's privacy.

Anyways.

This guy was from Arizona, driving through the "Golden State" of California with his 12yr old kid. With a 45 in the glovebox, which is legal in most states. 'Cept California.

So on one of the major interstates, some lunatic tries to run him off the road - plays "chicken" with him for a couple of miles.

The Arizonan does what any Arizonan would do unless they're a recent transplant from a Liberal zone - he pulls out that 45 and holds it up. Lunatic peels rubber outta there. Arizonan assumes problem solved.

Problem most definately not solved. Lunatic didn't like his game interrupted, calls 911 on a cellphone, reports "nut with a gun" and his vehicle description. CHP (Calif Highway Patrol) is waiting for him down the road. Whole "cuffed and stuffed" thing ensues...kid is in tears, 'cuz dad has just gone from "hero" to "criminal" in less than 15 minutes.

CHP took the report as the Arizonan having committed "assault" but that got dropped when the "complainant" didn't come forward. Gee, I wonder why not? Maybe it was because he was a CRIMINAL??

Sigh.

I hate it, folks. I hate it with a passion.

Take another example: the '94 "assault weapon" ban, or California's variants. Big confusing messes. Some small percentage of us "gun nuts" aren't going to understand it or otherwise get caught up purely by accident.

So the passage of these laws is effectively a promise to criminalize some small percentage of "gun nuts" and jail them purely for not keeping up with new laws?

Picture DiFi saying "oh don't worry, we're only gonna jail one or two percent of you - this time...aren't we nice?"

No. HELL no.

Chuck Jennings
November 28, 2004, 11:29 PM
Unfortunately, Jim is correct. There is no shortage of countries (including the U.S.) headed towards police state status. There are forces working to create so many laws and rules that anyone can be made a criminal simply by applying the law in a certain way.

AZRickD
November 29, 2004, 12:11 AM
The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.

Rick

agricola
November 29, 2004, 02:10 AM
AZRickD,

I presume you can post up evidence when I call for more laws in the US?

P95Carry
November 29, 2004, 03:08 AM
Ag' ..... let's have a longer post - I want to see how you defend this - or otherwise. Total honesty here - exactly what you think - trying to leave your working hat off if possible - a ''man-in-street'' appraisal.

Even better - you are just Joe Public - responsible, law-abiding - and you are on the receiving end of an unjust search.

Iain
November 29, 2004, 05:47 AM
Several things I'd like to analyse here.

1. Why has England been used in the title? Why is England persistently singled out from the UK nations here on THR?

I can only assume that it is 'cool' to be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, and not 'cool' to be English. Or that there is the assumption that England is some tyranny that forces its laws on the unwilling Celtic fringe. This ignores the fact that it is partly Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians that sit in the House of Commons and help make these rules. And they are enforced there just as much as anywhere else.

2. A conversation starts about 'free press' and hydromeda takes it on. The members who are arguing with him/her change the definition of free press so that they can call the BBC 'non free press'.

That's really adult. And ignores the glee that some members took in that whole incident where the BBC attacked the Government over the Iraq war, and got in a whole load of trouble for getting its facts wrong, and arguable leading to a man's suicide. Some of you loved that attack on the 'leftist BBC'. So again with the changing goalposts to suit your arguments.

The poster who raised the issue of the BBC has yet to respond to my analysis of the mis-information he is spreading in his sig.

3. Personal attacks on agricola. A member who I have NEVER seen call for stricter gun laws in the US, or call for any sort of legal change in the US. In fact his purpose here seems to be to resist that kind of - how to say - 'legalistic imperialism' when it is directed at us.

When a British person called cotzal turned up here and delivered the most amusing and ignorant rant on 'Ammendment 5' (he meant 2A) he was told not to be ethnocentric by a moderator. And quite rightly.

4. Jim is absolutely right. One thing I have learned here is that people respond better when you take the log out of your own eye before attempting to remove the log from theirs (I've been liberal with scripture there). I learned this in time to prevent getting my ass handed to me on THR over the election (I was not a Kerry supporter, I hate attack and partisan politics)

My country is not perfect. No country is. Most inhabitants of Western countries think that their particular boiling pot looks like it is boiling less than their neighbours. And which of us can claim to have an objective thermometer? I can't.

Hydromeda
November 29, 2004, 08:12 AM
Added to what St Johns has just said, yes the BBC has certain controls held over it by the Government, and this is in return for recieving the benefits of the licence fee that Boats' brother, along with every other person who has a tv in Britain, pays for the privilege. The BBC however is not the be all and end all of the media in Britain. It doesn't even constitute the majority of the tv, let alone when you take into account radio and newspapers.

Boats
November 29, 2004, 09:28 AM
The poster who raised the issue of the BBC has yet to respond to my analysis of the mis-information he is spreading in his sig.

Ah, I see, you don't have signed confessions from the French soldiers on the scene, therefore the episode is ambiguous. Isn't France a signator to the International Criminal Court? Why not at least some brave Belgian complaintant agitating for an investigation by the ICC? The dog that isn't barking is all I need to know about how the game in Den Hague is rigged.

It simply isn't the United States under the microscope this time, so it's no fun in the European pressrooms to go cutting and pasting the overheated rhetoric flung at America time and again to redirect the same to the French. I can only guess we'll have to keep going with the fiction that those Ivorians slaughtered themselves. :rolleyes:

AZRickD
November 29, 2004, 09:37 AM
I presume you can post up evidence when I call for more laws in the US?The support for this in the rags of Great Britain are a google away. Since you go out of your way not to challenge that, I'll guess it's a safe bet. To deny it is really pretty silly, anyway, don't you think? For A-C, that he defends laws against pocket knives and umbrellas is enough (remember, it's none of our concern). If I am wrong, perhaps you will tell us exactly where you stand.

Hydro, the New York Times doesn't constitute a majority of media in the USA, but it drives the news coverage for most everyone else. Less so today than five years ago, but it still drives.

Rick

Iain
November 29, 2004, 09:43 AM
That's nonsensical.

British newspapers may occasionally call for certain things - and because Ag does not routinely condemn them for doing so he somehow supports them? Want us to post up every article written and disagree with it?

Art Eatman
November 29, 2004, 09:47 AM
St. Johns: For many in the U.S., "England" includes all of the British Isles. Oh, sometimes Ireland is considered as a separate deal, but "England" is used to include Scotland and Wales and the Channel Islands, etc. Just one of those things...

As far as "free press": If you'll recall from Gulf War 1, our press kept yapping about where the Marines were and kept yapping about the casualty rate WHEN they stormed ashore in Kuwait. Shwartzkopf never bothered :) to mention the movement of forces to the west. He kept remonstrating (mildly) about not telling Saddam when we'd attack. Recall all that? IOW our press is free to report war plans, insofar as they can ascertain them.

That's a part of what we see as "freedom of the press". It includes the freedom to put our own people in physical jeopardy for their lives. Dumber'n hammered dirt, but that's what we live with.

It's my understanding that the British government has the legal power to prevent just such reporting. That's what's commonly meant, here, when people speak of a lack of press freedom in your country.

Dunno if I have it correct as your government's powers, but that's the best I can do to sorta clarify the argument...

Art

Hydromeda
November 29, 2004, 09:51 AM
However the New York Times is not the BBC, and the UK, as we may have mentioned, is not the US.

It may be true that other major news distributors take the lead from the BBC in the stories that they cover. It is not something I have studied in depth but it is true that most major newspapers tend to cover the same stories, whether this is because they are lazy and can't be bothered to find their own stories, or if it's because they are the stories that they expect people to be interested enough in to buy or watch.

The point however was not that the British press, as an entire body, is biased (which it may well be, as well as any other press in the world), but that is free from governmental control.

Art: the powers that the government has re the reporting of military actions, as discussed with Sam are as follows:

1) The official secrets act makes it a criminal offence for any governmental worker to reveal confidential information, including such things as military maneuvers, to any third party. It does not give them any powers to stop the information from being published once it has been leaked.

2) The system of defense advisory notices allows the government to advise the media as to which type of stories they deem it unwise to publish. They are not however legally binding, and are followed on a purely voluntary basis, usually to try and stop our guys getting killed.

There is no legislation to allow them to ban specific information being published, as far as i know, sam i believe is currently looking for any that may be in existence, and if he finds some i will of course stand corrected.

Art Eatman
November 29, 2004, 10:08 AM
Hokay...

As usual, "everybody knows" is an arena rife with error...

:), Art

Sistema1927
November 29, 2004, 10:43 AM
St. John's makes some valid points about American ignorance of the UK.

Maybe my perspecitve is a bit different. English blood flows through my veins. I am 11th generation on my Dad's side, his ancestors came over on the Lyon's Whelp in 1629. I am first generation on my Mother's side, she came over on the Queen Mary in 1950. I have also lived in England a total of 5 years (Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties).

Yet, what gives with both the British isles, the home of the rights of free men, and America, the land that once delivered on the promise? When did a penknife become a weapon to be feared? It is not just the UK, we see the same lunacy in the USA with "zero tolerance" policies that will not allow even a drawing of a gun or knife in a classroom. Heck, when I was young I was drawing pictures of 42 gun square rigged frigates. I wonder what the school counselors of today would have to say about that? (A good dose of Ritalin, I guess.) Additionally, when I was in High School, it was not uncommon for male students to carry a 4" Buck folding knife in a belt sheath. How far we have fallen.

What happens in the UK should scare us in America, due to the fact that this stuff is not confined by oceans. We see the same (or worse) in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and a host of other states. Just because I live in the wide-open West does not mean that this disease cannot spread to my neighborhood.

Something to think about.

Iain
November 29, 2004, 11:08 AM
I can respect that. A factually accurate discussion of the UK, without resorting to attacks and factually inaccurate hearsay, with reference to why the UK is less than perfect, whilst also acknowledging the imperfect nature of the United States would make for more interesting and amicable discussions. I'm all for that.

agricola
November 29, 2004, 01:37 PM
The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.

You seem to have misunderstood the question, despite quoting it. Can you point me to where I have stated that "what America needs is more laws just like they (the UK) have"?

AZRickD
November 29, 2004, 09:37 PM
That would require me to use the Search function at THR -- which doesn't work. Far easier for you to simply give your opinion on the matter.

You've had separate individuals ask you at least three times what your position is. You've failed to do so here.

Lastly, I'm guessing by your omission that you concede the point that the BBC and other major outlets do opine, with much snootiness, in the affirmative on this issue?

Rick

agricola
November 30, 2004, 02:06 AM
AZRickD,

What you dont have the links to hand? One would have thought as you were able to post:

The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.


Also, the search function appears to be working now. As it happens, my opinion is that: firstly, its your business and not ours what your laws are, and secondly given the prevalance of criminal use of firearms in the US CCW is understandable and common-sense.

I await your apology with interest.

AZRickD
November 30, 2004, 02:44 AM
Nope. Advanced Search is still not working.

*CCW* in the *US*? Sorry. That's a little too narrow of a focus. You've been here long enough to be able to cite the issues chapter and verse.

Rick

Sam
November 30, 2004, 02:48 AM
Mr. St. Johns
Your questions answered, in order:

1. Here in the states we generally make no distinction between the different parts of the UK.
Nothing personal :” it’s all English to us”. Hasn’t got a thing to do with “coolness”.


2. I did not change the argument. First I am not arguing with Mr., Hydromeda, It’s called a discussion.
Haven’t told him off or treated him impolitely. The press is not restricted to print media any more. Has not been that way for over 50 years. Even in the UK.

3. I didn’t ignore a single bit of the glee as you put it. I am attempting to discuss law, rule, and regulation not emotional content. Your Home Secretary has preemption rights over the broadcast media in the UK.PERIOD. Wither he exercises them or not is immaterial. He has those rights. That is not an argument, it is a fact. It is in your law.

4. What analysis am I supposed to respond to? You have not posted an analysis. You have not posted anything between my entry into the discussion at response #34 and the beginning of your rant at entry 59.
I have willingly spread no mis information and where I have made incorrect statements, I have stood corrected.


5. If you read my initial post #34 you will see that I have not criticized your country. I stated that no US citizen should be surprised by the fact that your countrymen and mine have nothing in common when it comes to civil liberties since that is why we separated our interests from yours in 1776. Statement of fact. Not a criticism.

I shall give you the opportunity to review the posts and settle down before I have my friends call upon yours.


Mr. Hydromeda,
Fear not. I am still researching. It appears that when I am done I may well know more about your laws than ours. I am currently stuck in the middle of a bundle of “Orders in Council” from the 40’s and it is going to take me a while. I still have to feed the wife and kids.

Sam

Iain
November 30, 2004, 04:59 AM
It was a bit of a rant. Only because my experience with 'English' threads here at THR can be a little tiresome - same 'arguments', same people. My post after the rant was essentially a call for 'less noise, more signal' on these threads, I'm quite happy to discuss things without the same snippy attacks cropping up each time. While you are researching our broadcast laws in detail I'd suggest you can exempt yourself from being part of the 'noise' on this thread.

agricola
November 30, 2004, 11:56 AM
AZRickD,

Yet that is the extent of my opinions on the US, as the search would have showed you, because (as I said) it is a matter for those who live in that country.

You said:

The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.

Please evidence your statement, or withdraw it and apologise.

Dbl0Kevin
November 30, 2004, 01:35 PM
Ok I'm gonna jump in here for a sec.....

Agricola,

I think the problem that some of us have here is your constant defense of the UK when laws or and incident such as this is debated. When there is a law along those lines here in the US such as the AWB, the MG ban of 86 etc. you will hear each and every one of us condemning the law and the legislators that passed it. In addition thanks to the AWB we not only condemned it but voted a great majority of the legislators who supported it out of office and made sure that it sunsetted. No one is saying that you can't be proud of your country, but when there is a disgustingly anti-freedom law and you go out of your way to defend it against people who are upset by it then I would take that to mean you support the law. That I believe is why some people are making such claims, and in my opinion I can understand why they would believe such. I have never seen you say that a law or situation was wrong that has been brought up on here. You have always defended the government and your country and said it has been misunderstood and it's really not as bad as people make it out to be.

That's my .02 cents anyway.

Hydromeda
December 1, 2004, 08:27 AM
Sam

I await with patience and baited breath the outcome of your research, and rejoice in the fact that i will from now on have an expert on english law to call on on the forum if needed.

re: your comments to St Johns, i think you may have taken him a little personally. Am fairly sure he was not directing any of his rant at you, as you have acted in a completely rational and appropriate manner. Specifically as relates to what he said about the spreading of misinformation, i believe that was directed at Boats, rather than anyone else.

And by the way, it's Miss Hydromeda.

Art Eatman
December 1, 2004, 08:49 AM
Ag, Dbl0Kevin has some good points.

Something I've noticed in past threads on this general tired ol' subject is that you appear to defend your government's definitions regarding violent crimes.

We've had semantic go-rounds before on this, and obviously the difference in the way we define violent crimes and the way you folks do creates a bunch of confusion. The backing-and-forthing creates frustration and hostility.

Enuf fer now...

Art

Hydromeda
December 1, 2004, 09:05 AM
I thought you guys might be interested in reading this article relating to relative government pressure on the british and american press.

http://www.sundayherald.com/43388

AZRickD
December 1, 2004, 09:43 AM
Simply not good enough, A-C.

The gun rights debate does not center, nor is it restricted to CCW. There is open carry. There is the 1934 NFA. There is registration. There is Vermont Carry. There is "Gun Safety" as proposed by the anti-gunners. And there is all that silliness in your country. All of which you refuse to clarify in this thread.

The server is still slow and the Search function is inop.

It would be much quicker if you would just state your views and address arguments of the other posters as you and your buddy, Hydro, have refused to do over the span of a few dozen posts. I realize it takes some measure of courage from you, but after all, you're not French, are you? While you're at it, since you don't have time to rebutt "all" Brit policies (as St. Johns warns me), can you make a dent and deal with a few of them? So far you've defended just about all of them.

Rick

PS, just to clarify, by omission (your third) you are conceding that the British press often bad-mouths American gun laws (and in an attempt to affect laws here,) right?
Yet that is the extent of my opinions on the US, as the search would have showed you, because (as I said) it is a matter for those who live in that country.

You said:

Quote:
The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.


Please evidence your statement, or withdraw it and apologise.

P95Carry
December 1, 2004, 10:35 AM
This sort of thread goes predictably in circles - well, usually does. It also gets tiresome due to the theme following the same course most times.

My own position is I think pretty clear - I am an ex pat' and have little but dismay for the way things have gone in UK. I get plenty of feedback from folks there I am in touch with and there are few who laud the trends.... they also concede that their supposedly ''useful'' votes are all but useless in slowing or halting of said trends.

I'll just refer back to my post#58 - and the question I asked then. It would be most illuminating to get answers...............

agricola
December 1, 2004, 10:48 AM
AZRickD,

One paper (the Guardian) tried to influence the election, rather more of the media have pointed to the US situation as something we in the UK dont want to have (there is a difference) and a great deal of the media paint the US as being filled with bumbling idiots; there is a difference between each of the perspectives. You however said that I had said and done these things, which of course I have not. When the search function manages to come back, please do that search and retract or apologise for that statement.

The minutiae of the legal situation in the US is something for you lot, it is your country, but as I recall the only statement I have made is that given the level of armed criminality in the US CCW is a common sense measure.

That is as far as it goes, I really do not have an opinion on the US, at the end of the day if you all want to drive around in SUV's shooting whatever you can buy, then good luck to you, its your business and none of mine.

Art / Dbl0kevin,

The problem is that, when I post here it is because invariably someone has either written or quoted something that is incorrect - my first post on this thread highlighted the errors I found in the article - about my country.

Secondly you are approaching this from a standpoint of "its anti-freedom", while you forget that not every country is going to share your views, because of their differing history and experiences. Of the two pieces of legislation in this article, one (the Prevention of Crime Act) has been in place since 1953, and the other was brought in replacing legislation that has been on the statute books since the late 1970s, and exists because we have been suffering terrorist attacks regularly for the past forty years (the current level remains lower than at the worst of the PIRA campaign when these stops and searches were common).

Personally, I agree with both of these pieces of legislation, as for that matter did the author of this article - he appears to be saying the laws are alright as long as they dont apply to him.

People over here do not necessarily have the same conceptions of freedom as you do, though there are similarities (which is why the ID card scheme will be a massive failure), which is something to bear in mind.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 10:51 AM
p95,

sorry I missed your question but hope it is answered by the above.

Hydromeda
December 1, 2004, 11:36 AM
Azrickd,

I have replied to every question asked me, whether directly or indirectly. And as i have been discussing the notion of free press in britain, rather than the control of guns in the US, i haven't commented on it. This is not a refusal to answer, merely an effort to only have one discussion at once, and to keep it relevant.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 12:05 PM
hydromeda,

you are wasting your breath IMHO

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 12:24 PM
Secondly you are approaching this from a standpoint of "its anti-freedom", while you forget that not every country is going to share your views, because of their differing history and experiences. Of the two pieces of legislation in this article, one (the Prevention of Crime Act) has been in place since 1953, and the other was brought in replacing legislation that has been on the statute books since the late 1970s, and exists because we have been suffering terrorist attacks regularly for the past forty years (the current level remains lower than at the worst of the PIRA campaign when these stops and searches were common).

This is what I just can't understand. Maybe it's my ignorance of Europe, but even still I don't understand how man does not yearn to be free and not controlled by some outside force such as a government. Just how much freedom do you believe it is acceptable to give up for a bit of security? I'm sure if you put a government agent on every block and he searched everyone that came by you would stop a lot of the terrorists......is that acceptable? How about if you couldn't buy any items that could be used as an "offensive weapon" locking pen knife, baton, pepper spray, taser etc. without prior government approval and registering said item? What about all chemical products that could possibly used to make an explosive, fertilizer, ammonia etc. not to be sold to the public unless you submit yourself for a search and a complete background check?

I'm sure these measures would help curb terrorism.....but what is the point if you can't live your lives?

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 12:26 PM
Oh and one more thing. You have stated:

I have made is that given the level of armed criminality in the US CCW is a common sense measure.

Last I checked muggings at knifepoint in London were darn high as well as home invasions. Do you support law abiding citizens in UK being able to defend themselves with a firearm as well?

agricola
December 1, 2004, 01:32 PM
dbl0kevin,

But what is in the Terrorism Act is not "a Government agent on every corner"; its the combined experience of the past forty years of fighting against the most murderously efficient terror group in the world.

I would be willing to bet money that if al-Qaeda went on a similar campaign against the US your legal system would be changed as well.

As for:

Last I checked muggings at knifepoint in London were darn high as well as home invasions. Do you support law abiding citizens in UK being able to defend themselves with a firearm as well?

Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

agricola
December 1, 2004, 01:34 PM
Oh, and I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean, and no I do not believe we are anywhere near that stage.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 01:39 PM
Oh, and I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean, and no I do not believe we are anywhere near that stage

I'm having a hard time following your logic here. Are you trying to say that you don't believe citizens of the UK are responsible enough to be trusted with concealed weapons?

agricola
December 1, 2004, 01:42 PM
dbl0kevin,

no, I am saying that if that is what the UK people want, then they should change the law so thats what they can have. they do not appear to want this.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 01:43 PM
I would be willing to bet money that if al-Qaeda went on a similar campaign against the US your legal system would be changed as well.

al-Qaeda has already started an attack against us, though not with car bombings and suicide bombings such as the IRA. I'm sure there would be a certain group of people who would want our legal system changed as there are a number of them now. I would hope that saner minds would prevail because if we were to let them dictate how we run our country then they would win.

Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

No matter what your definition of prevalent is they still occur. One time is too many. You may go your whole life without needing a gun, but the one time you need it you REALLY need it. I would have to say that a "burlary when someone is inside" would be a home invasion. What else would you call it? If I'm in my home and someone enters without permission they are certainly invading my house. I am not going to ask if he would like some tea and crumpets! I'm going to reach for my firearm and if he makes any threatening move ask if he'll like some lead and copper.

I guess you're right there definately is a different definition of "freedom" that is followed across the Atlantic. I'm sad to see that.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 01:48 PM
no, I am saying that if that is what the UK people want, then they should change the law so thats what they can have. they do not appear to want this.

That much I understand, but what I still don't get is this:

I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean

What would it mean?

agricola
December 1, 2004, 01:53 PM
dbl0kevin,

thats funny because a quick google search says that "home invasion" and a burglary where someone is inside are not the same thing:

http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0928.html
http://www.crimedoctor.com/homeinvasion.htm

agricola
December 1, 2004, 01:55 PM
dbl0kevin,

er... the complete change of British society for very little tangible benefit?

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 01:55 PM
thats funny because a quick google search says that "home invasion" and a burglary where someone is inside are not the same thing:

I don't care what the legal definition is. If someone enters my home uninvited when I am inside than they are invading my home....plain and simple. You're ducking my questions now with silly semantics.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 01:57 PM
er... the complete change of British society for very little tangible benefit?

Please explain this further. I can only assume that you mean a complete change of British society would be the ability for citizens to use deadly force to defend their lives. How would you call that very litle tangible benefit? I think to the person who's life would saved it would be a HUGE tangible benefit.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 02:05 PM
dbl0kevin,

i) british people can already use deadly force in order to protect their lives;

ii) british society has for the past sixty years been "unarmed"

iii) there is no demand for it amongst the population

What was that about "how dare the brits tell us how to live"?

Cosmoline
December 1, 2004, 02:10 PM
In all fairness to Agricola and the UK, it does appear that the fool writing the article CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH. Watch any episode of "Cops" and you'll see fools stateside making the same mistake. Never, ever, ever, ever consent to any search by any law enforcement officer. If you do, you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Also, I've seen plenty of "Cops" episodes filmed back east where cops slam folks down on the ground and arrest them for having firearms in their cars. You don't have to go to the UK to find tyranny--it's right here at home laughing at us.

Otherguy Overby
December 1, 2004, 02:11 PM
Agricola said:
Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

Now I recall reading somewhere that crimes in Great Britain are not counted into statistics until they are solved?

Is that true?

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 02:29 PM
What was that about "how dare the brits tell us how to live"?

I'm not telling you anything. I was simply asking you a QUESTION about what YOU believed and what YOU supported. Show me where in my posts I told you how you should run your country. I could care less if you want to outlaw butter knives and have a "Criminal's Bill of Rights" in your country.....that's your business. I DO, however, wonder why you are on an AMERICAN message board relating to firearms and self defense and expect anything but outrage over laws and situations such as this. Care to explain that one to me? I did not seek you out to tell you how to run your country....you though have sought out this message board and post in every topic about England to say how great it is.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 03:12 PM
no

[edit: to otherguy]

agricola
December 1, 2004, 03:14 PM
dbl0,

not you, AZRickD

I post here because noone (aside from ST Johns and a few others) challenge these stories about the UK, which are almost always wrong. You may have noticed I rarely post on any other topics that are not of some interest to me.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 03:14 PM
no

Wow......what a well thought out, reasoned, and logical response you have there. I guess I won't bother asking you anything anymore since you never answer anyone's questions and simply bring up other irrelevant topics to change the subject. :rolleyes:

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 03:17 PM
I post here because noone (aside from ST Johns and a few others) challenge these stories about the UK, which are almost always wrong. You may have noticed I rarely post on any other topics that are not of some interest to me.

So basically you just came here looking for an arguement. We obviously have no power to do anything in your country and are simply talking amongst ourselves to show what we don't want to happen here.

You STILL have yet to answer me this question:

I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean

What would it mean?

agricola
December 1, 2004, 03:21 PM
Dbl0kevin,

I have answered that question already at least twice, which is why you commented on my responses.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 03:26 PM
I have answered that question already at least twice, which is why you commented on my responses.

Ok let me see if I can piece this together. Are you saying that a UK CCW would be the "complete change of British society with little tangible benefits" and not the simple idea of people being able to use a firearm to defend themselves?

agricola
December 1, 2004, 03:54 PM
dbl0kevin,

yes, as anyone who lives here would recognize.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 03:56 PM
also I would point out that CCW is about "carrying a firearm for self defence" and not "using a firearm to defend themselves", which of course British people can, and have been, doing.

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 03:57 PM
Ok if that is your position could you kindly explain to me how allowing law abiding people to carry firearms for self defense would so drastically change British society and not give any tangible benefits? I'm honestly curious as to why you believe this.

"using a firearm to defend themselves", which of course British people can, and have been, doing.

How is this possible being that you cannot OWN a firearm other than a shotgun or black powder as far as I know. And that those who do own them must keep them locked up.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 04:15 PM
dbl0kevin,

As said below, British society has been for the past sixty years (and probably a lot longer) "unarmed" in the sense that there has been no public carriage of firearms on a regular basis. for a start, you have several generations of people who in the main are going to have no experience of firearms at all. this could of course be remedied by statutory courses, but these are not going to in any way equal being brought up around guns.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the Police and every security guard, doorman and nightwatchman do not carry firearms, which is something that would have to change overnight. That is not just a matter of training to use the firearm, but also retraining the whole system by which these groups (especially the Police) operate. It is an oft-stated fact of British political life that successive governments have repeatedly shied away from any further militarization of the Police (primarily because this is not something that the public want); this would inevitably lead to that.

That is even to assume that there is any public interest in such a system; as I said above we are a very long way from that.

agricola
December 1, 2004, 04:18 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/26/nshot26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/26/ixnewstop.html

Telperion
December 1, 2004, 06:19 PM
So are the Brits going to stop all newfangled technology arriving at their shore? After all, we know the only people who can cope with cell phones and computers are those who had them before they were out of their swaddling cloths. ;)

That aside, perhaps you could outline the objections to police carry of sidearms as it relates to "further militarization". To most of us, sidearms are just personal defense weapons. The British police already seem plenty "militarized" -- as I understand it's not too uncommon to see patrols with full-auto longarms. Special situations, to be sure, but essentially unheard of in the US, except in recent years. :uhoh:

AZRickD
December 1, 2004, 07:27 PM
OO-Kevin asked:I'm having a hard time following your logic here. Are you trying to say that you don't believe citizens of the UK are responsible enough to be trusted with concealed weapons?His intention is to avoid giving a definative answer to your question because to answer directly would expose him in the very likeness you and I anticipate. His lack is good enough.

Rick

Sam
December 1, 2004, 08:27 PM
Miss Hydromeda,
I apoligize for assuming that you were male.

Mr. St Johns,
I will for the time being adopt Miss Hydromeda's judgement.
Do not for a moment believe that anything you might suggest would prevent me from posting here.

Agricola,
I find it more than slightly amusing that you highlight the governments reluctance to "further militarize the police". Your government certainly does not further militarize the police. They do however perform what we would consider a police function with the military.

Sam

Dbl0Kevin
December 1, 2004, 08:29 PM
His intention is to avoid giving a definative answer to your question because to answer directly would expose him in the very likeness you and I anticipate. His lack is good enough.

Yeah I suspect pretty much the same thing.

AZRickD
December 1, 2004, 10:34 PM
Police and every security guard, doorman and nightwatchman do not carry firearms, which is something that would have to change overnight.Somehow that was avoided when Ohio adopted CCW. In the good ol' days, the police, yours included, were not armed and were expected to utilized the help of the armed and unarmed citizenry.

My how times change.

BTW, you mentioned 1953 as the turning point. This is the same year which Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674007530/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-1708771-4667904?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) cites as the year Brits lost perhaps their largest chunk of the right (what used to be the obligation) of self defense. Funny, that.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0674007530/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/104-1708771-4667904?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

agricola
December 2, 2004, 02:14 AM
(double post)

agricola
December 2, 2004, 02:15 AM
AZRickD,

do you specialize in making stuff up? Please show me where I mentioned "1953 as the turning point". and while you are at it please do that search.

Dbl0Kevin,

What you would call semantics other people would call "the law", essentially your own definition is worthless because of this - there is a clear difference between a home invasion and burglaries where someone is at home as the various legal systems of the world recognize.

I also note that you continue to demand answers for that question you have had answers for, probably because you dont like the answers recieved. Its sad that you, like AZRickD, have to do this but I guess it says more about you than it does about me.

Hydromeda
December 2, 2004, 07:50 AM
Sam,

No problems for the gender confusion, I only corrected you because you kept saying Mr Hydromeda, rather than Hydromeda. Not actually all that bothered.

I have also been doing research, and actually you're right, we do have a less free press over here than you guys do. This is because of certain privacy laws we have to protect people from media coverage, so you could say that we infringe one right to protect another. This doesn't cover things like military maneuvers though, or other governmental scandals and actions.

Finally, without wanting to be St John's knight in shining armour, i was surprised at what you directed at him so looked back through the forum and think you may have mistaken something he said. When he said you could "exempt yourself from being part of the noise on this forum", he meant that you were one of the people that were making sense, not just randomly mouthing off. I think it was supposed to be a compliment of sorts.

longrifleman
December 2, 2004, 10:36 AM
also I would point out that CCW is about "carrying a firearm for self defence" and not "using a firearm to defend themselves", which of course British people can, and have been, doing.

How can you use a firearm to defend yourself if it has been confiscated and destroyed?

How can you use a firearm for self-defense that is locked up separately from it's ammunition?

Denying people the ABILITY to defend themselves is to effectively deny the right itself.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 2, 2004, 12:50 PM
How can you use a firearm for self-defense that is locked up separately from it's ammunition?

It's even worse.

For rifles and shotguns you need the permission of your local police dept. for ownership. That entails showing a good reason for ownership such as varmiting, membership in a shooting club, etc., and the application requires two signed references from ones such as a Minister, employer, local police officer, etc.

Grant of this permission is most definately not automatic and self-defense is not generally a "good reason" for permission absent a very specific, verifiable threat such as a botched IRA hit.

These administrative obstacles undoubtedly prevent many who would like to keep a shotgun for home defense from doing so. A few very fortunate individuals have managed to qualify or ownership and then avoid prosecution for using their guns for home defense. However, you'd expect that most people would be deterred from ownership in the first place.

The British people are admirably law abiding and deserve better than this.

As a start, self and home defense should be explicitly written into the administrative regulations as a "good reason" for ownership of a shotgun.

AZRickD
December 2, 2004, 01:15 PM
Please show me where I mentioned "1953 as the turning point".
Page 4 of this thread.
Angri-Cola said: "Of the two pieces of legislation in this article, one (the Prevention of Crime Act) has been in place since 1953,"Sounds like a turning point to me. If it's not, then your post there kind of loses its meaning. You'll argue that you didn't say those exact words, as if we should really care about your semantics. I thought is was an interesting coincidence that both you and your enemy, anglo-historian Joyce Lee Malcolm focus on the same year when Brits were neutered.
and while you are at it please do that search.No AngriCola, I'd rather you state your positions here. Best evidence, and you could have given your answer to all of us days ago. Going through Search would require me to wade through hours of reading your fluff. I'm sure that most here would not want me to suffer that fate.

For some reason you keep avoiding answering our questions. I'm not the only one here to come to that conclusion (in this thread alone). If you don't have the cajones to speak your mind, that's telling enough for many of us. No need for me to waste my time when you don't think highly enough of us to fully answer a few simple questions on your opinions in this matter.

What is also telling is that you are so ego-centric that you want us to focus on what you said and not about the words of your friends in the Brit press which has readership in the millions -- attempting to influence and increase restrictions on the American RKBA as we gunnies are belittled in the process -- You're kind of odd that way.

agricola
December 2, 2004, 01:50 PM
AZRickD,

You made an allegation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand (about England being a police state) here:

The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.

I have called you on it and answered that point, please evidence it, or withdraw it and apologise. I will not hold my breath however, because you - despite demanding answers to points that have nothing to do with this thread - have failed to do so.

Sounds like a turning point to me. If it's not, then your post there kind of loses its meaning. You'll argue that you didn't say those exact words, as if we should really care about your semantics. I thought is was an interesting coincidence that both you and your enemy, anglo-historian Joyce Lee Malcolm focus on the same year when Brits were neutered.

One wonders what your level of education is if you genuinely believe that - I notice that you cut away the rest of the piece, which in no way suggested that 1953 was a turning point, as anyone who wasnt as dishonest as yourself would realise. The fact that even your altered section doesnt suggest it either is probably lost on you, but relevant to the rest of us.

You know, someone coming across this thread from outside might note which person has been performing all the ad-hominems, all the avoidance and all the fraudulent behaviour and come to the conclusion that that person's opinion wasnt worth much, and they would be right.

What is also telling is that you are so ego-centric that you want us to focus on what you said and not about the words of your friends in the Brit press which has readership in the millions -- attempting to influence and increase restrictions on the American RKBA as we gunnies are belittled in the process -- You're kind of odd that way.

Last I checked I have no friends in the Brit press, much less those who have done what you describe. Would you like to prove me wrong?

Derek Zeanah
December 2, 2004, 02:13 PM
Agricola:

Just curious, but do you work in law enforcement?

Never wondered about your employment before this thread, but if you do then that might explain a lot...

TimRB
December 2, 2004, 02:46 PM
"The British people are admirably law abiding and deserve better than this."

Ironically, the legendary good manners of the British people are their undoing. As we've seen in America, to gain freedom from British rule you have to break a lot of laws.

Tim

Daniel T
December 2, 2004, 03:47 PM
Derek, agricola is a LEO or equivalent in the UK. He even refers to it earlier in the thread.

I have to say agri, that you do come across as being evasive in your posts. That's probably one of the reasons you get so much flack, some of which is decidedly undeserved. Some of our LEOs post in much the same way, and get the same criticisms, only from different people.

P95Carry
December 2, 2004, 04:19 PM
To reinforce that statement of Daniel's ... indeed Ag' ... however much you may think you have answered a question, I am sorry but - time and time again to seem to skirt round issues and rarely post an answer which seems targeted and dedicated to a question.

I refer again to my question in my post #58 ... you chose to ignore it. It is a simple question and would I feel be revealing to many of us. You are an intelligent and literate man - no doubts there but - your evasion tactics do mean that the ''flack'' will always come your way. Your approach leaves folks frustrated and things end up going round in circles sometimes.

Remember - I am an ex pat' ... proud of my heritage but no longer proud to see the country go the way it has. I see problems here but thanks be - we do at least retain certain basic freedoms which once upon a time could have been seen in UK. Most of all, I am sad for those I left behind ... many of whom see all these changes and feel powerless to do more than watch and feel helpless.

I wait in hopes. :)

agricola
December 2, 2004, 04:32 PM
p95carry,

I refer you to post #83. Apologies if I dont pick things up first pass, but there are many points to be countered and some will be missed off; its not intentional and I do not "choose to ignore things".

Also its important to differentiate between being evasive, not allowing someone (AZRickD) to get away with his usual antics and providing answers that people do not like.

At the end of the day issues regarding UK CCW are moot unless the voters want that; they dont - however much this board would like them to, because of fundamental differences in attitude between this country's population and this boards.

Dbl0Kevin
December 2, 2004, 04:41 PM
At the end of the day issues regarding UK CCW are moot unless the voters want that; they dont - however much this board would like them to, because of fundamental differences in attitude between this country's population and this boards.

I think you're missing the point here. I haven't seen anyone deny the fact that the vast majority of Brits do not want CCW. This is common sense as they have been disarmed for years and don't know any better thanks to the biased media. The question we have been asking is what do YOU personally believe, not what the polls of British people say. They are not the ones on an American firearm enthusiast message board trying to start an arguement.....YOU are. I bring up my point again if you do not agree with us here then why bother to post? You're obviously not going to change our minds and we're obviously not going to change yours....if it IS in the fashion that I believe it to be. So that leads me to the conclusion that you just like to come here and argue. Seems kinda pointless to me.....as much as I can't stand the Democrat Underground, I'm not over there pointing out to them all their mis-facts and utter lies.....because I know it's foolish to waste my time.

P95Carry
December 2, 2004, 05:03 PM
Sorry Ag - re post #83 ... it probably didn't register as it should - and it still left some ananswered aspects for me. Thing I find a problem is At the end of the day issues regarding UK CCW are moot unless the voters want that; they dontEven allowing for my many years as a shooter and firearms owner and thus exposure to folks in the ''shooting fraternity'' ... I did find time and time again a quite undercurrent within many people (non shooters too), whereby they did actually wish there was more provision for self defence options, including being able to carry.

OK, the CCW issue per se is perhaps one where Brit's are for most part not either aware or enthusiastic but, the broad feeling from all those I asked, was that the ability to defend self was (in law) very reduced if not stiffled - better to 'BOHICA' then face the legal consequences. That seems to have gotten worse, and that is why many say that the advantage these days is with the criminal.

As for the voters ''not wanting'' - in fact I think a great many do but, the general effect thru the ballot box is about zero - it would take a mass protest of mammoth proportions to get such a thing even 1% nearer to the statute book ... frankly, folks feel impotent ... their vote achieves little except choosing the devil they fear least!

Another thing too - the average Joe has been somewhat inculcated with anti gun rhetoric ... look at the noises made after Ryan and Hamilton ... all geared toward ''bad gun'' and disregarding the responsible and upright citizen (oops, sorry ''subject'' LOL) .... always making out that ''the gun'' is some animate object of terrible power and threat - instead of seeing that it is people who make guns dangerous and those are primarily criminals, who will always find guns anyways.

OK enough blather - but it would be good to hear your ''secret'' take on things ... what you think was good ''way back then'' and what you think is bad .. now. Leave guns out of the quation if you wish but address your views on aspects of self defence and what you think the law abiding average person should or should not be able to do - forget ''law'' as such .. this is an excercise purely in ''pipe dreams'' if you like - assuming you might have any!

agricola
December 2, 2004, 05:26 PM
Dbl0Kevin,

i) i did not start this thread

ii) i did not start the abuse

So how exactly did I "start the argument"? Also whether or not I change your minds is irrelevant; what is at issue is the great deal of "facts" you are told about the UK is utter rubbish, and needs to be challenged and corrected.

P95Carry,

OK, the CCW issue per se is perhaps one where Brit's are for most part not either aware or enthusiastic but, the broad feeling from all those I asked, was that the ability to defend self was (in law) very reduced if not stiffled - better to 'BOHICA' then face the legal consequences. That seems to have gotten worse, and that is why many say that the advantage these days is with the criminal.

Apologies for harping on about this again, but that belief is a direct result of the media and the coverage of self defence in the wake of their (the media's) reporting during the Martin trial, in which after the verdict they were faced with a choice - either own up that their reporting had been scandalously biased; or ignore the whole thing and maintain their stance to the exclusion of the pesky facts of the case.

Stories about successful self-defence are rarely reported, and even when they are they are provisoed to such an extent that it makes that case (such as the farmer in the link I posted above) seem the exception to the rule (in the post-Martin world), rather than the truth - which is British justice has always robustly defended the right of anyone to defend themselves. How widely reported was
this story? (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2878093) ?

As for the voters ''not wanting'' - in fact I think a great many do but, the general effect thru the ballot box is about zero - it would take a mass protest of mammoth proportions to get such a thing even 1% nearer to the statute book ... frankly, folks feel impotent ... their vote achieves little except choosing the devil they fear least!

I would disagree with this; I appreciate you have been out of the country a while but voters remain very switched on as I suspect the next election will show.

OK enough blather - but it would be good to hear your ''secret'' take on things ... what you think was good ''way back then'' and what you think is bad .. now. Leave guns out of the quation if you wish but address your views on aspects of self defence and what you think the law abiding average person should or should not be able to do - forget ''law'' as such .. this is an excercise purely in ''pipe dreams'' if you like - assuming you might have any!

The current position on self defence IMHO is the right one, because it has a long history of defending the right to defend yourself, while still punishing those (like Martin and Hastings) who clearly go beyond self defence. As for possession, personally the situation pre-Hungerford was probably the ideal for this country in terms of legislation and permitted weapons, albeit mixed in with some modern elements (certain bits of the successive Acts more armed response officers, a national database of FAW certificate holders etc).

Mk VII
December 2, 2004, 07:10 PM
Readers reply:
to the original article.
Since 9/11 I have watched the erosion of civil liberties in this country engendering barely a bleat from anyone but progressives (who are seen by those in the Bush camp as Communists in disguise). I was horrified at the outright lies that got both the U.S. and Britain into the invasion of Iraq and said that if G.W. were re-elected (not that he won the popular vote the first time) I would leave the country. However, after reading this article, I cannot envision returning to Great Britain. My God! What has happened to the land of my birth? So resolute and fearless in time of war (I was a child during WWII and not once did I witness hysteria from any adult, whether parent, aunt, uncle, neighbour or teacher) and the same resolve to not be deterred from going about the daily business of living was again displayed during acts of terrorism by the I.R.A. It seems to me that Big Brother government intruded as little as possible. Have the fear and paranoia that Bush & Co. have instilled into the hearts and minds of the Americans who returned him to office (in the mistaken belief that he would protect them, when in fact his actions have spawned terrorists where there were none) infiltrated British government thinking? Please tell me that it is not so. No living American had experienced an attack on American soil before 9/11, so one can forgive the resultant shock to the psyche of a nation that thought itself immune. Here, 9/11 is still seen as the ultimate offence, with scant attention being paid to the thousands of Iraqis who have died since the invasion who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place. This should not be so in Britain, a nation that has already proven itself unflappable when threatened. The thought of Brits losing their basic rights because of an overreactive and incompetent bureaucracy fills me with anger. Come on, Brits. We may no longer rule the waves, but we never, never, never shall be slaves!
Valerie Luevano

I agree with your writer's view that we are seeing the emergence of an increasingly overbearing and unnecessary police state. I am a serving police officer myself and must say that we have coped perfectly well in the past without all these new powers. On the other hand, your writer was certainly committing one criminal offence in having the baton with him in the car. However, I believe that this matter could have been handled much better by the constable in question. Certainly the language used to the writer and the battery at the police station are inexcusable. I do think, however that the personal comments made about the police officer's appearance (particularly the remark about his weight) were unnecessary and detracted from the objectivity of the piece.
David Keates

I could barely contain my anger at the article about police behaviour on the embankment. A campaign by the Spectator to fire these uniformed thugs would be well received. It would also send a powerful signal to the many other aggressive, lazy, arrogant and incompetent scum of which the metropolitan force appears to be largely constituted. I am City-based investment banker, and am furious at having to put up with chippy, swaggering chimps searching my car, simply because they will never be able to afford to buy one like it.
As an ex army officer, I also concur with the point made about the absence of leadership. I can only assume that management of the Met is drawn exclusively from the pond life which it employs to harass tax-paying motorists. Anyway, here’s a tip for your readers that I've used to good effect in the past. I exaggerate my Scottish accent to ludicrous proportions when stopped. When they react to this (as they invariably do), you simply scream at them for being racist. The Hendon programming then kicks in, and they let you go. Remember, it’s racist if you ‘believe’ it is. The look of terror in their brain-dead, jobsworth eyes when you use the R word is as enjoyable as it is predictable.
Michael Donnelly

Please don't think matters are any different in Amsterdam - under similar circumstances I had the experience of spending the best part of the night in a police cell, being physically assaulted and threatened - when my wife who happens to be a solicitor arrived, she was treated to threats concerning her further career. Later I spoke to an Amsterdam magistrate I ran into at a Christmas party and he had scores of anecdotes like this one.
Should you consider a European project on police behaviour deterioration since 9/11 or such a date I'm your man.
Pieter Kievit
Amsterdam

AZRickD
December 2, 2004, 10:19 PM
I have called you on it and answered that point, please evidence it,You surely haven't called me on the Brit press portion (which has several orders of magnitude the audience than the seven people active in this thread). As for you, you are small potatoes. I can spend painful time fishing through your vapid posts (where you strive to avoid saying anything of import), or I can wait for you to spell out your philosophy, in toto, here and lay it to rest... but for some reason you are unable to do that very simple thing which would take, what, two or three paragraphs?

You've wasted another opportunity to do so. I fully believe that you think just as I stated. It is up to you to deny it, point by point.

I got your number, A-C.

Rick

agricola
December 3, 2004, 01:55 AM
AZRickD,

You surely haven't called me on the Brit press portion (which has several orders of magnitude the audience than the seven people active in this thread).

Yawn. Once again you have displayed for all to see exactly how ignorant you are, as well as dishonest. Perhaps THR can establish a playground section that you would be more comfortable in?

Chuck Jennings
December 3, 2004, 02:13 AM
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/ad_hominem.jpg

Dbl0Kevin
December 3, 2004, 07:36 AM
i did not start this thread

No but you chose to post in it in order to correct our "ignorant American thinking".

i did not start the abuse

If you couldn't fathom where your posts would take things then you're either naive, oblivious, or not telling the truth.

So how exactly did I "start the argument"? Also whether or not I change your minds is irrelevant; what is at issue is the great deal of "facts" you are told about the UK is utter rubbish, and needs to be challenged and corrected.

You started the arguement by coming onto an American Firearms message board and posting things that you KNEW were not in favor on this board. You have not unearthed any new "facts" about this case here. It was pretty cut and dry in the article and no one was debating that. We were simply pointing out what happens over in England and how we are disgusted by it and do NOT want it to happen HERE. But then you decided to come on over and tell us how great it is over in England. You had to give us the "facts" as you say, all the while using British society and mass voter beliefs to justify your posts instead of simply just telling us what YOU personally believe as we all do here. This board is for individuals to talk and discuss things and say what they believe, not for someone to come on over and say this is no good because the voters didn't want it and cop out in that way. (no pun intended being that your a cop)

PS. And also, being a fellow law enforcement officer I find your attitude in this thread very sad as it truely perpetuates the stereotype that police are yes men for the government.

Art Eatman
December 3, 2004, 08:21 AM
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy! Never a dull moment at THR...

Sayonara,

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "England really is a police state" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!