The Brits are getting crazy again


PDA






frostbiker
March 5, 2007, 05:32 PM
Not satisfied with taking guns and kitchen knives, they are now planning on taking samurai swords away. Oh! The humanity. Let's do it for the children people.

Linky Goodness: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/05/nsamurai105.xml

You know George Orwell is somewhere in heaven going, "See, I told you so!"

If you enjoyed reading about "The Brits are getting crazy again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SoCalShooter
March 5, 2007, 05:33 PM
Are we going back in time...so far back as say 1984? Its a collectors item, granted its a weapon but not practical.

Smellvin
March 5, 2007, 05:39 PM
I actually have family that owned a convenience store in a rather crime-ridden area of an English city. They were robbed several times over the years and the weapons used by the robbers included samurai swords, sledge hammers, large knives, and long gardening implements. I can only imagine that the same people who lobbied for the gun bans see these weapons being used as guns were before the ban.

Even assuming their ban were to work, I just want to know what they'll do once robbers are down to their bare hands... maybe Brits will lose their right to bear any types of arms whatsoever. :p

Duncan223
March 5, 2007, 05:44 PM
Ban pointy sticks!!!

El Tejon
March 5, 2007, 05:46 PM
A big concern with the UK martial arts community, but even some of them see it as "reasonable".:(

Of course the goal is to further weaken the ability of people to defend themselves so that the government can step in as Big Nanny. Sad but predictable.:(

ozwyn
March 5, 2007, 05:52 PM
Folks at swordforum.com have been watching the sword ban efforts in scotland, england and australia for a while with no small amount of concern....

Libertylover
March 5, 2007, 06:29 PM
You know, I WAS going to ask how it is that people can advocate the banning of things which bear much historical significance and help them get in touch with their heritage. Then I remembered that most Sally Soccermoms, no matter from WHAT country, simply couldn't care less about all of that, and the "men" in many places/of many mindsets really aren't much better.

It's truly an instance of the inmates (in this case, outright hoplophobes) running the asylum...:barf:

iapetus
March 5, 2007, 06:31 PM
Oh for...


Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, said today: "Samurai sword crime is low in volume but high in profile and I recognise it can have a devastating impact.



"These are hardly ever used in crimes, but they look scary!"



"Banning the sale, import and hire will take more dangerous weapons out of circulation, making our streets safer.

"We recognise it is the cheap, easily-available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine, more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts."

Wait, wouldn't this take the cheap, less effective weapons out of circulation, while leaving the more effective ones?


I'm not quite sure which of the smilies best sums up my views on this...

:uhoh: :confused: :eek: :barf: :mad: :what: :fire: :cuss: :o :banghead: :(



Edit:

And I just noticed an even stupider bit:

One MP recently warned that they were being used by criminal gangs as the preferred weapon of choice after guns.

You mean to say they are being used less than something you have already banned?!?!?


In the words of D. H. Lawrence:

Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the snivelling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulseless lot that make up England today. They've got the white of egg in their veins and their spunk is so watery it's a marvel they can breed.

bumm
March 5, 2007, 07:01 PM
I'd suppose the cheap, imitation, samuri swords are "Saturday Night Specials."
Marty

hrgrisso
March 5, 2007, 07:22 PM
I suppose since the banning of a sgian dhub ,(thats the little knife/dirk/dagger that Scotsmen wore in the top of their hose/socks for you pants wearing men) in Scotland for fear of stabbings, that things across the pond could only get worse...

.41Dave
March 5, 2007, 08:00 PM
Ban pointy sticks!!!

Better ban loganberries too. And don't tell me you're one of those Fresh Fruit nuts that thinks just anyone should be able to own any kind of fruit they want, even pineapples and bananas! No one but the police or military need fresh fruit! And if we don't ban these dangerous comestibles... "Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!"

:D :barf: :banghead:

longeyes
March 5, 2007, 08:13 PM
De-claw Britain NOW!:D

doubleg
March 5, 2007, 08:18 PM
I can not thank my late great grandfather enough for leaving that island full of idiots.

agd1953
March 5, 2007, 08:20 PM
All english are into bondage, "enslave me master":neener:

AndyC
March 5, 2007, 08:44 PM
Scary thing is, lest we fight, it could easily happen here, too. So much for "reasonable & sensible measures" :scrutiny:

1911austin
March 5, 2007, 08:51 PM
The only thing left is to deport (or imprision) anyone trained in hand to hand combat.

.cheese.
March 5, 2007, 08:52 PM
See - swords aren't a problem here in the US.

Why?

Dude pulls at a sword and starts running at me -

I pull out a gun and shoot him...... problem solved. (well, actually legally it's a bit more complicated than that - but we're simplifying a lot here)

The moment you start banning the people's ability to protect themselves, you in fact just create more ways for them to be vulnerable.

I see a day when pens will be illegal there and people will have to use either crayons or markers instead. :(

.cheese.
March 5, 2007, 08:54 PM
1911Austin - you joke, but I can totally see Karate classes being deemed "Killing training." over there.

yenchisks
March 5, 2007, 08:55 PM
What about rocks,the whole damb island setting on one:neener: :scrutiny:

.cheese.
March 5, 2007, 09:00 PM
They will be replaced with fluffy pillows.

Wait... actually, you could kill somebody with a pillow from suffocating them..... so, um.... no more pillows then.

Sindawe
March 5, 2007, 09:29 PM
With each passing day, I am more and more convinced that THESE guys are running the place over there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python).jpg

Stretchman
March 5, 2007, 09:49 PM
Well, there goes 2000 years of rule. The sword, for what it's worth, has much more significance to the British Isles than we could ever imagine our firearms have. They were constantly being invaded by either Europe or Scandanavia.

For like, 2000 years. Why they need a strong fleet. Why they need archers, and Kinghts.

I once had a british person tell me that he would rather the russians come and deal with them using swords than nuclear weapons. The sword has never failed them. Not since the birth of their empire.

Ceremoniously falling on their swords will signify the end of an era in this world that we cannot fully understand the ramifications of. Most, if not all, free christian nations were born out of Europe, and we owe significant amounts to the people who first came here. The ones with enough vision to see that a place like America could exist in a world where no one thought it possible. The people who brought us the knowledge of the greek, and the romans.

Ahh, England... War is not the time....

Standing Wolf
March 5, 2007, 09:50 PM
The Brits are getting crazy again

Nope. They've been socialist a long time.

The Deer Hunter
March 5, 2007, 09:52 PM
Not satisfied with taking guns and kitchen knives, they are now planning on taking samurai swords away. Oh! The humanity. Let's do it for the children people.

Linky Goodness: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...samurai105.xml

You know George Orwell is somewhere in heaven going, "See, I told you so!"

The way I see it is;
If the people have guns then they can defend themselves against the swords, therefore they wouldnt have to worry about swords.

BYT, are they really banning kitchen knives?

LAR-15
March 5, 2007, 10:04 PM
I'd better go mail order me a samurai sword here in the US before the Democrats in Congress add them to the Switchblade Act.

Cesiumsponge
March 5, 2007, 10:17 PM
Cheap stamped samurai swords? I am amazed they missed that one. They already banned glass. (http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2060081&SectionID=255)

But it's all good for the people. Now, if you knock over your sippy cup of ale with your plastic sword, you won't get stabbed or cut. If it only saves one life, it's worth it...

TargetTerror
March 5, 2007, 10:37 PM
From that article:
Last month, amphetamine addict Hugh Penrose was jailed for at least 19 years for hacking a 21-year-old woman with a samurai sword and then deliberately running her over.

This demonstrates exactly the hypocrisy of any sort of weapon control legislation. Penrose attacked her with a sword and a car. Why are they only banning swords?

Duncan223
March 6, 2007, 12:05 AM
First they took away guns...
Then they took away knives......
And now they're taking away money.....

UK Tax Rate Highest EVER!!! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/05/ntax05.xml)

Tax increase 'will harm middle Britain'

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
05/03/2007

Middle income families are being hit hardest by Gordon Brown's taxes which will rise to their highest level for 25 years in two years' time, an influential think tank claims today.

The report from Reform, a centre-Right group, warns that the Chancellor must cut taxes and spending in this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review or "take the UK backwards in the next decade".

Its report reveals how middle income earners are paying more tax as a proportion of their disposable income.
advertisement

A household receiving 28,000.00 (approx. $54,000.00 USD) a year in disposable income pays 47.9 per cent of that in tax, while earners in the top income bracket pay 46.9 per cent.

The report says: "Middle income groups - benefiting from neither tax credits nor upper income tax allowances - have the highest effective tax burden. Better-off people are able to access better services, crucially including education."

The report claims that the tax burden for 2008/9 will reach its highest level for 25 years. Yet the signs are that spending will increase when the four-year Whitehall budgets are set in the summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.

A Treasury report last November which set the parameters for the review "draws on none of the latest evidence showing that taxation has a negative impact on economic growth", the report says.

"The public spending approach still favours quantity rather than quality.

"The clear impression is that overall spending will track up again when resources allow, pushing up taxation and worsening incentives."

Mr Brown's target-led approach to education is expected to involve extending compulsory education to 18 at a cost of 2 billion a year, increasing spending on state school pupils to independent-sector levels at a cost of 18 billion and greatly increasing state-provided training, the report predicts.

Yet the UK's success in the coming decade depends on low taxation and high-quality education, driven by reforms to make the school system more flexible, extend parental choice and bring in new providers. Initiatives such as the sponsored academies are "only the first steps".

The report recommends a "growth rule" that public spending should be brought down to 35 per cent of GDP over 10 years, along with a programme of phased tax reductions. This would mean spending increases by one per cent in 2008/9 to 2010/11, rather than the two per cent envisaged by the Treasury.

Professor Nick Bosanquet, one of the study's authors, said: "The Treasury has the right analysis of the challenges facing the UK, but absolutely the wrong answers. Heavy public spending increases have already gone a long way to mortgaging the future of a generation who will have to pay for enlarged public spending as well as for their own pensions and higher education. Further tax increases will increase the pressure on young people and middle-income families without helping the poorest groups."

A spokesman for the Treasury said: "The Government is clear that protecting investment in education, science and transport, linked to reforms is essential if the UK is to be equipped to succeed in a more globalised world.

"Cutting spending by between 50 billion and 75 billion, as this report proposes would put that at risk.

"The Government has also acted to ensure the tax system promotes business competitiveness. The UK has the lowest corporation tax in the G7 and low capital gains tax to incentivise enterprise."

SWMAN
March 6, 2007, 12:31 PM
British society is in a panic mode. Their social, liberal polices haven't made their society a better, happier, safer society. Case in point is their native born Islamic community. They were raised not to be integrated into British society with British values and love of the UK, but raised to regard themselves as special and unique. Similar cultural teachings have been underway here oin the US in the last 20 years. Instead of one country, one group with common values, you end up with many groups believing their superior or better or entitled to their own rights vs the country as a whole. Standby.

cbsbyte
March 6, 2007, 12:34 PM
How about real handmade Samurai swords? Are they still Ok under the law?

sterling180
March 6, 2007, 12:42 PM
I just hope that this will wash away,like the 'controls on firearms' documents,did,otherwise,god help us-all,on this g*dforsaken hellhole,of an island-ruled by narrow-minded numpties.

Gordon Brown is a greedy,money-grabbing b*stard.

Diamondback
March 6, 2007, 01:05 PM
Most, if not all, free christian nations were born out of Europe, and we owe significant amounts to the people who first came here.The ones with enough vision to see that a place like America could exist in a world where no one thought it possible. The people who brought us the knowledge of the greek, and the romans. ...and witch burning, native genocide, and slavery :)

- Regards

Sindawe
March 6, 2007, 01:36 PM
Apologies for the temporary side track.witch burning, native genocide, and slaveryNone of those activities were/are confined to Christian nations. Remember, ancient Rome (a PAGAN society prior to Constantine) did all those things and worse. My own pagan ancestors in Northern Europe kepts slaves as well. The Janjaweed are still committing genocide against their neighbors in Africa. :barf:

OK, back on track about our poor benighted cousins across the pond. Perhaps rather than "liberating" peoples in the Middle East who want no truck with our ways of governance and living, we should focus our energies on our cultural parents, the peoples of Europe. Much as I dislike the idea of rescuing them from their own folly AGAIN. Twice in a century is bad enough, but thrice? *SIGH*

Diamondback
March 6, 2007, 01:44 PM
None of those activities were/are confined to Christian nations. Remember, ancient Rome (a PAGAN society prior to Constantine) did all those things and worse. My own pagan ancestors in Northern Europe kepts slaves as well. The Janjaweed are still committing genocide against their neighbors in Africa. ..Oh relax...it was just some good natured sarcasm ! :)

OK, back on track about our poor benighted cousins across the pond. Perhaps rather than "liberating" peoples in the Middle East who want no truck with our ways of governance and living, we should focus our energies on our cultural parents, the peoples of Europe. Much as I dislike the idea of rescuing them from their own folly AGAIN. Twice in a century is bad enough, but thrice? *SIGH*.....I have no sympathy for the hole they have dug themselves into. Although, they do have lots of practical experience hosting world wars sucessfully.....I just think this time around we should decline their RSVP ! :) We Yanks always have to bring our own food and drink to the party.....and then end up having to supply everybody there with clean silverware. Seems as if the only thing the Europeans can do with any regularity is to set the table properly before the party begins. After that they require massive assistance. ;)

- Regards

LightningJoe
March 6, 2007, 09:29 PM
Samurai sword or gun or whatever wouldn't do you any good in England anyway. You're not allowed to defend yourself. You have to shout "Call the police" and die.

agricola
March 7, 2007, 01:31 PM
It is nonsensical, never mind a gross waste of Parliament's time and will have absolutely zero effect on any of those offences listed in the original article - all of which were offences anyway.

One should not be surprised by such idiocy over here though; our politics is in somewhat of a limbo as Tony Blair hangs onto power despite the pressure from the Chancellor, his own (extremely disaffected) party and an ongoing Police investigation into the sale of honours for cash donations; hence we get proposals of this kind from wannabees trying to get noticed. This can also be illustrated by the latest proposal from the Home Office to deal with illegal immigration - namely, to send texts to illegal immigrants reminding them not to overstay their visas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6424377.stm

http://i15.tinypic.com/34diu60.jpg

(pic - Firky at u75)

longeyes
March 7, 2007, 02:27 PM
"It starts when you're always afraid..."

This would be funny if it were not tragic. I was just listening to Andrew Roberts discuss his book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900. We owe Britain so much. It is imperative that we help them recover the light.

sterling180
March 7, 2007, 04:50 PM
Much as I dislike the idea of rescuing them from their own folly AGAIN. Twice in a century is bad enough, but thrice? *SIGH*

Is this yet another reference,to the US involvement in WW1 and WW2.Firstly,in WW1 the US came into the war in 1917,because a German U-Boat sunk the Lusitania,killing 128American civillians.A bit too late,to do anything special,in terms of helping the allies,win the war,any quicker,but America entered anyway-by doing the decent thing.(1 year to go,before the Armastice day,11th November 1918.)

In WW2,the US entered the war,because of the ariel attack on the US naval fleet,that was stationed at Pearl Harbor,sinking many ships and killing many people.Same reasons,for not entering as above.



There are two things,that those two paragraphs have in common.Do you know what they are?Well I will tell you:firstly the USA did not enter any of those conflicts,early on,because your government wasn't interested at all.It didn't concern the USA at all and so it wasn't America's war-at all.

A quote,from the Wikipedia,encyclopedia.
President Woodrow Wilson still did not want the country to get involved in a European dispute because the American population (many of whom were German-American) did not want to be involved in a war. Instead of declaring war, he sent a formal protest to Germany. Wilson was bitterly criticized in Britain as a coward.

Now getting back to reality and to this topic:The UK is a very different place now,to what it was,say 30 to 50 years ago.One of my uncles carried a .303 N04 Lee Enfield,in Aberdeen,in 1947,to the local military shooting range-where he challenged members of the Home Guard and Territorial Army(National Guard.)at a game of target rifle,where he beat them all,winning a prize of fine chocolates and Scotch whiskey.He was only 11 years old at the time,would you believe.

He also did the same with pistols,where he carried a Webley,to the same range,where he produced some good holes on the bullseye targets.

Nowdays,everyone is so paranoid about everything and you don't need to be Einstein,to work it all out.We need to employ more hypnotists and brain surgeons,to bring back some half-decent and rational,types of people,by curing them-accordingly,of their pc illness.

[QUOTE]How about real handmade Samurai swords? Are they still Ok under the law?
Yes,they are.The ban is not active at the moment,it is probably in its draft stages,of development.

NoPhilly
March 7, 2007, 05:26 PM
Even assuming their ban were to work, I just want to know what they'll do once robbers are down to their bare hands... maybe Brits will lose their right to bear any types of arm whatsoever.

Either that, or everyone will be required to wear government-issued shackles.

LightningJoe
March 8, 2007, 01:49 AM
Sterling:


Wars don't have a preset schedule. America did not enter WWI one year before it ended. WWI ended one year after America entered. Connection? How much longer could England have held out? WWI might have ended in 1918 without American involvement, but England would have been suing for peace.


As for WWII, America made a very conscious decision to focus on fighting England's enemies (Germany and Italy) rather than the nation that attacked Pearl Harbor (Japan).


But we won't be back. Get out while you can.

sterling180
March 8, 2007, 03:32 PM
As for WWII, America made a very conscious decision to focus on fighting England's enemies (Germany and Italy) rather than the nation that attacked Pearl Harbor (Japan).

Yes,but what I am saying,is that the US government could have joined when the UK,The Commonwealth,France,Belguim,and Poland did,when the Nazis invaded Poland,in 1939.The US did support us,but should have officially entered in 1939 as opposed to 1941.Japan was an enemy of the UK or England too,you know,the Ghurkas and Indians fought them,in bloody battles,in south-east asia,too.

ars don't have a preset schedule. America did not enter WWI one year before it ended. WWI ended one year after America entered. Connection? How much longer could England have held out? WWI might have ended in 1918 without American involvement, but England would have been suing for peace.

The point is,that again the USA should have entered in 1914 instead of 1917 and should have been involved in the Battle of the Somme in 1916,supporting its allies,in the trenches,there and then.If the Lusitania,hadn't of sunk,then would the USA have joined or not?

The UK and Commonwealth would never have bowled over to Germany and her allies,at all.No one back then would have willingly accepted defeat,in the UK,particulary in that decade.If the USA had entered the war when the UK did,then the war could have ended alot earlier.

Okay,the tenses ,in my last post might be slightly muddled,but I wrote them after a hard days work,at my desk and I was very tired.

I will say no more on this subject,as it is going off topic and would probably be disregarded,by others.

Diamondback
March 8, 2007, 04:23 PM
I will say no more on this subject,as it is going off topic and would probably be disregarded,by others.I respect your perspective, Sterling. My post above regarding US involvement in the two World Wars was primarily tongue-in-cheek. I think it is safe to say most Yanks admire the way in which the Brits stood together with such courage during the Battle of Britain. Also, given that perspective, I think that is why so many of us here across the "pond" are so disappointed to see your individual freedoms today being eroded piecemeal. I know you are too !

- best regards to you and all our British cousins !

Crazy Uncle Al Gore
March 8, 2007, 05:52 PM
I may be wrong, but wasn't the an incident last year where two unarmed police were getting mugged, only to be rescued by a sword wielding "ninja"? I believe the "ninja" then ran off.

Nomoney
March 8, 2007, 06:41 PM
Better ban loganberries too. And don't tell me you're one of those Fresh Fruit nuts that thinks just anyone should be able to own any kind of fruit they want, even pineapples and bananas! No one but the police or military need fresh fruit! And if we don't ban these dangerous comestibles... "Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!"

"And now for something completely different.":D

Prince Yamato
March 8, 2007, 10:58 PM
I believe the "ninja" then ran off.

This is impossible is the word "ninja" is considered verboten in England because it sounds too violent. This is why the Ninja Turtles are called, Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles in England. I kid you not...

mindwip
March 9, 2007, 03:03 PM
Much as I dislike the idea of rescuing them from their own folly AGAIN. Twice in a century is bad enough, but thrice? *SIGH*
Is this yet another reference,to the US involvement in WW1 and WW2.Firstly,in WW1 the US came into the war in 1917,because a German U-Boat sunk the Lusitania,killing 128American civillians.A bit too late,to do anything special,in terms of helping the allies,win the war,any quicker,but America entered anyway-by doing the decent thing.(1 year to go,before the Armastice day,11th November 1918.)

In WW2,the US entered the war,because of the ariel attack on the US naval fleet,that was stationed at Pearl Harbor,sinking many ships and killing many people.Same reasons,for not entering as above.



There are two things,that those two paragraphs have in common.Do you know what they are?Well I will tell you:firstly the USA did not enter any of those conflicts,early on,because your government wasn't interested at all.It didn't concern the USA at all and so it wasn't America's war-at all.

A quote,from the Wikipedia,encyclopedia.


Please know all of your history not just half of it. The USA did not enter the war for the same reason Britain did not enter the war when it first started. There country was not in danger. In both WWI and WWII, Britian and many other countries did not enter the war untill Germany had taken over other countries AND started moving closer to Britain. Before that Britain was fine with Germany taking over other countrys, yes they said they did not like it but they were not going to fight over it. Britain only entered the war becuase they were being attacked/going to be attacked. The USA only entered the war because they were being attacked. Don't make it out like Britain was a hero over the USA. They entered sooner becuase they had no choice. But when they did have a choice they stayed out just like the USA did. Britain knew that if France fell there was nothing to truely stop Germany from invading Britain hence why Britain sent lots of troops to stop the Germans in France. Britain and USA acted the same. Except USA was not threatened until later in the war.

because your government wasn't interested at all.It didn't concern the USA at all and so it wasn't America's war-at all. Hence Britain did the same thing when other countries were invaded.

ozwyn
March 9, 2007, 03:55 PM
Actually, the where's and when's of WWI and WWII aside, they need help over onthe other side of the pond to re-discover individual rights, and specifically the right to self-defense.

On that I think we can all agree. I can only hope that there are strong people with voices that will be heard on the side of restoring your right to exsist, because removal of the right to self-defense is fundamentally removing the right to exsist.

Fosbery
March 9, 2007, 04:09 PM
Please know all of your history not just half of it. The USA did not enter the war for the same reason Britain did not enter the war when it first started. There country was not in danger. In both WWI and WWII, Britian and many other countries did not enter the war untill Germany had taken over other countries AND started moving closer to Britain. Before that Britain was fine with Germany taking over other countrys, yes they said they did not like it but they were not going to fight over it. Britain only entered the war becuase they were being attacked/going to be attacked. The USA only entered the war because they were being attacked. Don't make it out like Britain was a hero over the USA. They entered sooner becuase they had no choice. But when they did have a choice they stayed out just like the USA did. Britain knew that if France fell there was nothing to truely stop Germany from invading Britain hence why Britain sent lots of troops to stop the Germans in France. Britain and USA acted the same. Except USA was not threatened until later in the war.

I'm sorry, but that's entirely false.

On WWI: Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her. The Kaiser repeatedly stated that he did not want war with Britain and did everything he could to avoid it. Britain entered the war because she had promised to defend Belgian neutrality. As soon as she was attacked, Britain declared war on Germany.

On WWII: Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her. Hiter repeatedly stated that he did not want war with Britain and did everything he could to avoid it. Britain entered the war because she had promised to defend Poland if she were attacked. As soon as she was attacked, Britain declared war on Germany. Hitler sued for peace with Britain on numerous occasions and each time he was refused.

I hold nothing against the USA for coming into the wars 'late', but to say that Britain entered only when she was in danger/attacked is simply false.

mindwip
March 9, 2007, 05:35 PM
Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her

Um Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium to get around Frances troops. All this took place before Britain declared war. Britain does not want a hotstile nation to occupy France. They were in danger.


On WWII: Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her Well please correct me if i am wrong but Britain had a pact with Poland, that if Poland was invaded by German, Britain would enter the war. German know about this and attacked Poland anyway. German was willing to take on Britain by attacking Poland. So Britain was in danger. And before that they had allowed Germany to break Packs and Treatys with out even stop them untill they invaded a Friendly nation.


PS it is also USA fault too for the start of the second war. They did not want to fight either. I am by no means putting all the blame on Britain USA was just as at fault

Pss Much as I dislike the idea of rescuing them from their own folly AGAIN. Twice in a century is bad enough, but thrice? *SIGH*

Just so you know i am not supporting that claim in any way. Just your response to it. As I personally dont believe it to be right.

mike101
March 9, 2007, 06:47 PM
"I actually have family that owned a convenience store in a rather crime-ridden area of an English city. They were robbed several times over the years and the weapons used by the robbers included samurai swords, sledge hammers, large knives, and long gardening implements"

Guns don't kill people. Long gardening implements kill people. :D

mindwip
March 9, 2007, 06:54 PM
Are stun guns and pepper spray legal over there?

Fosbery
March 9, 2007, 07:20 PM
No. I'd say that "they're not meant to be, but they are."

Under the Firearms Act 1968, weapons "designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" fall under 'section 5' - which basically means that only police, military, museums, scientists, movie studios etc can get their hands on them.

As this was written in 1968, neither stun guns nor pepper/CS spray were around (at least not in the UK). Presumably the law was designed to restrict gas weapons (like those used in WWI) and the like. I can also almost guarantee that, had pepper spray been around in 1968, no police officer would care if you owned it. Today, things are different...

longeyes
March 9, 2007, 09:28 PM
I think it is safe to say most Yanks admire the way in which the Brits stood together with such courage during the Battle of Britain. Also, given that perspective, I think that is why so many of us here across the "pond" are so disappointed to see your individual freedoms today being eroded piecemeal. I know you are too !


I'll second that. Some of us are aware of what we owe the Brits, from King Alfred through the Glorious Revolution and beyond--even if we did have to break from them to raise the game to the next level.

Must we play the blame game over two horrible wars decades later? With one of our last allies??? Sheesh.

iapetus
March 11, 2007, 11:54 AM
I believe the "ninja" then ran off.
This is impossible is the word "ninja" is considered verboten in England because it sounds too violent. This is why the Ninja Turtles are called, Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles in England. I kid you not...

Correction: were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Hero_Turtles#Hero_Turtles


This particular bit of stupidity fortunately no longer applies. Shame so many more significant things haven't gon the same way.

sterling180
March 11, 2007, 02:19 PM
Okay,enough is enough.What I wrote on earlier posts are shared by many,people that I went to school,with and by those who taught me,both in school and by many others.This is shared strongly in the military too and I won't disregard anything my superiors,tell me-either.

Now we seem to have,differences of opinion here,but at the end of the day,it wasn't America's war,at first was it,?So we have to accept it like this by nailing it on the head and moving on,to gun-related issues.

I don't care whether or not any of you agree with or disagree with me,at all.This is about, regaining a sense of normailty into this country,that it has seem to lost and by doing the decent thing,by exposing those arseholes in the GCN and in the government,as idiots,fraudsters and scumbags and making them admit,their gun-grabbing scams,to the UK and to the world.

But don't go on about how America saved us for this and that and why so many lives were sacrificed,to save us:the American government could have said this,without much opposition from the UK,if they entered,when we did,in both world wars.

Mk VII
March 11, 2007, 06:14 PM
I see the discussion has (yet again) reduced to the "We-saved-your-asses-back-in-nineteen-hundred-and-frozen-to-death-therefore-you-should-be-eternally-grateful-to-us-for-the-rest-of-recorded-time-and-conform-to-our-wishes-in-all-things-great-and-small" thread which most Brit-bashing arguments round here turn into eventually.

mike101
March 12, 2007, 08:25 AM
"In WW2,the US entered the war,because of the ariel attack on the US naval fleet,that was stationed at Pearl Harbor,sinking many ships and killing many people.Same reasons,for not entering as above."

OK, fine. But, when we did enter, we saved the whole world, including the UK, and France, from Nazi and Japanese domination.

You're welcome.

Fosbery
March 12, 2007, 01:04 PM
Saved Britain from what exactly?

After the war, the German high command played a war game with the British high command. The scenario was an invasion of Britain. For the operation to even begin, they had to make three massive changes to history:

1) Hitler did not attack Russia and they remained on good terms

2) The Royal Air Force ceased to exist

3) The Royal Navy ceased to exist.

Even with these huge changes, the Germans only managed to get 20 miled in-land before surrendering - not even to the first line or British defence. I think that pretty much puts to rest any idea that the USA saved Britain from Nazi tyranny or that we'd be 'speaking German if it wasn't for you.' THe rest of Europe, well you saved them from Communism, I'll grant you that. And you saved Britain through supplies of food and the like, but not through military action.

mike101
March 12, 2007, 01:56 PM
Seriously, I think what saved Britain was the fact that the Germans went east instead of west.

That war game that you describe doesn't sound very realistic, though. If there was no RAF, and no RN, who would have stopped them? The French? If there was no RAF, would England have even survived the Battle of Britain?

It only took the Germans a few weeks to push the whole French army, and the British Expeditionary Force, clear accross France to the channel. If not for the British civilians rescuing them from Dunkirk, that would have been it, I think.

Out of curiosity, in this war game, if the Germans didn't even make it to the first line of defense, who did they surrender too?

Fosbery
March 12, 2007, 02:28 PM
The war game was set in late 1941 - after Dunkirk. The earliest time the Germans could have staged an invasion due to the time it took to make invasion barges etc. The war game assumed that everything went as it had done until that date, but then the RAF and RN dissapeared suddenly, and also that Hitler did not attack the USSR (he would have had no troops to invade Britain otherwise). If the RAF and RN had still been around, the Germans could never have crossed the channel let alone staged a succesful invasion.

By this time, Britain was divided into a number of defensive zones. Lines of bunkers, pillboxes, anti-tank ditches, minefields, fields of barbed wire, slit trenches, mortar positions, anti-tank guns etc etc etc crisscrossed the country, splitting the entire country into around 75 fortified zones. These zones were further divided by sub-lines if you will, where the Home Guard and other civillian resistance groups would make improvised impediments (for instance, slotting railway track sections, upright, into pre-drilled holes in the road to make quick tank traps) and conduct ambushes and the like.

In the war game, the Germans eventually broke out from the beaches and into the country side but failed to reach the first major defensive line before they were forced to surrender. In the British country side, they simply lost more men per hour than they could bring ashore.

Mk VII
March 12, 2007, 03:21 PM
They wargamed it at the Staff College at Camberley in the 1970s. Vice-Admiral Ruge of the Bundesmarine, who was a Kreigsmarine officer in the war, took the part of the German commander. It always fails.
Without Lend-Lease Britain's dollar reserves, and hence her economic capacity to continue prosecuting the war, would have been just about exhausted by the beginning of 1941.

mike101
March 13, 2007, 06:21 AM
Gentlemen, that was very imformative, and interesting. Thank you.

Mike

LightningJoe
March 13, 2007, 11:00 AM
Germany invade Britain? In 1940? Ha. That's not quite the issue. Without American involvement in WWII, Germany would have controlled continental Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, fought Russia and hardly noticed Britain, since alone Britain had virtually no ability to take the fight to the Germans. Would Germany have eventually beaten Russia? Without lots of help from America, I would imagine so. Japan would have eventually controlled China, the rest of East Asia, and the Pacific. So, then, by 1950, Germany could have done whatever they wanted with Britain.

BLONDEOAKE
March 13, 2007, 11:22 AM
Afte they ban,guns, knives, swords , pipe, rakes , brooms , mops , sledge hammers , shovels , Rocks ,all garden hand tools(concealed weapons) soon they will be using sticks, then later sticks with a nail in it . then more sticks with more nails ,a sharpened stick with nails ..... no just banned them too, water balloons are next folks. What ever weapons they ban the criminals will just fashion new ones.

Zoogster
March 13, 2007, 04:20 PM
Actualy in WW2 America was actively involved much earlier on then when they joined the war. Had America simply jumped in and become a legitimate enemy combatant prior to creating the industrial capacity of a mobilized war machine we may have lost a lot more lives, and struggled as Europe was from sabotage and attacks at home. Remember Mexico was very sympathetic to the Nazi regime before things really heated up and it become obvious everyone must ally themselves with or against Allied and Axis. They had other even stronger points in the Western hemisphere with Argentina very supportive of the Nazi regime. So Nazi Germany could have proactively attacked America

So America did not want to become a legitimate war target for many reasons, and Germany did not want to make them an active enemy either, even though they both new that technicaly they were enemy combatants for the US was very actively involved in making the enemies of the Nazi regime capable of continued resistance through direct material support.

In the Asian realm of things America was taking a very similar role in trying to actively deny "war material" shipments to Imperial Japan. This included trade embargos against Japan including eventualy most raw materials. As America was 80% of Japanese imports, and Japan being a an island nation it was heavily heavily dependent on imports, this was obvious agression. In fact it was expanding and trying to take mainland territory so that it could be more self reliant and gain some natural resources of its own to remain a world industrial power. America started to build a massive Naval fleet after the "Two Ocean Navy Act", whiched Japan could foresee would replace thier own Navy as the largest force in the Pacific. These were some of the main reasons Japan allied with the Axis in late 1940. They had serious America pressure, embargos, and were being starved while in the middle of a war with China, all while America moved its fleet from CA to Hawaii, clearly demonstrating it was preparing for hostilities.

So it is very clear that America played a big role in the war by being the unbombed factory producer of supplies used to fight the Nazi. It is interesting to note that the "Two Ocean Navy Act" was not until 1940, so technicaly America was not even prepared for war until not long before it entered the war. By not becoming an "active" military enemy America was allowed to build up unattacked or obstructed. However by anyone's standards America was technicaly a valid war target because we were actively denying Japan resources, and building up weapons which we were moving close to Japan. That was a hostile move, and Japan's options were to wait while its economy was crippled as America continued to build an even larger Navy to eventualy fight them with, while creating and promoting embargos and things to further slow thier progress, or to attack while they still had a chance and similar fleet power. Of course we know the end results, but I would venture to say Japan was backed against a wall and had few options if it was not willing to become a third world nobody.

However I must concur that while American forces fought bravely and many lost thier lives fighting to keep the world something better than the Nazis would have created, we entered into a 12 round fight in the 10th round when the other guy was already pummeled, tired, and a far easier foe. Not only that but we double teamed them along with the Russians and they had no possible way of fighting both fronts and against a far larger economy with factories on safe land thousands of miles out of reach, while thier own factories and production lines were constantly being bombed and severed.

So America's decisive military advantage in both WW1 and WW2 can be attributed to not only logistics and the men who fought, but because America came in late to the conflicts with fresh supplies, economic support, and troops after the other sides had beaten eachother into only partialy functional messes, while previously preparing to do so.

However that does not at all mean America was not actively involved in stalling and entangling Axis forces prior to formaly entering into the war through many political and logistical endeavors. America was simply not the capable and formidable fighting force prior to being put on notice that history would like us to believe and we had to prepare before being capable of standing up to such formidable foes.

The whole America was minding its own business just trying to exist and were savagely bombed and forced to enter into war thing is just created for political perspective, because previously the American public did not want to be involved in the foriegn constant squabbles when it lived thousands of miles away in a sperate economy. But in reality we were involved early on. Our fleet was stationed in Hawaii instead of CA because we were preparing and building up capabilities to fight Japan with. Had they not attacked when they did we would have even more decisively destroyed them later with more naval and air resources on hand. Though it was probably a price worth paying for politicians to gain unwavering public support for war when previously the American public was very much against becoming involved once again in the constant squabbles and wars of Europe. Attacking Pearl harbor gave the politicians a blank check to do as they wished since Japan had previously been forced to ally itself with the axis, and so they could all be considered one and the same.

BACK on topic, I could never live in the UK with no right to self defense, or a legal means to carry it out. Women and children are particularly succeptible in that society, no wonder they want cameras everywhere and police in all locations. The very policies and mindset such policies create further support such policies because everyone is more defenseless and dependent upon nanny government's oversight for any level of appearant safety. It is a downward spiral with a population extremely vulnerable to whatever the government decides to do with or to them. Nevermind the criminals that can prey more freely upon the populance.

F4GIB
April 23, 2007, 09:44 PM
Actually, the UK needs to ban knives this is why.

MAN 'CUT OFF HIS OWN PENIS IN RESTAURANT'
April 23, 2007
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

A man chopped off his penis with a knife in front of horrified diners at
a busy restaurant.

Police were called to Zizzi, in The Strand, London, at 9pm on Sunday
after reports of a man in possession of a knife.

Sales rep Stuart McMahon, who was eating at the restaurant with his
girlfriend, told the SUN: "This guy came running in then charged into
the kitchen, got a massive knife and started waving it about.

"Everyone was screaming and running out as he jumped on a table, dropped
his trousers and popped his penis out.

"Then he cut it off. I couldn't believe it."

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said a man aged between 30-40 was the only
person injured and that his injuries were self-inflicted.

She said he was taken to a south London hospital where his condition was
today described as stable.

###

ElZorro
April 24, 2007, 12:11 AM
not a proper replacement for plain, common-sense reading of proper history.

Proper history is not so readily amenable to alteration by opinion (unless, of course, you're the writer of the history books.)

Next, I suppose, we'll be hearing that Monty was a great military tactician. We'll just have to overlook the little Market Garden bobble (yeah, I know, it was Ike's fault for caving in to Monty's and Churchill's ridiculous demands).

And, I suppose, we'll have to likewise overlook his thrashing about in Africa, crying; "Look at me whilst I lose the war with proper British flair".

BTW, off-topic, but is the insistence on extraneous and misplaced commas a peculiarly British grammatical trait? Looks like someone took a basket of commas and tossed it at the page. Forgive me, but words (and grammar) mean something.

Love and kisses,
ElZorro

Fosbery
April 24, 2007, 12:23 PM
ElZorro, do you actually know anything about Montgomery's career? It certainly dosn't sound like it. Before Monty was in charge, the British were retreating. After he came to power, the Germans were retreating. I fail to see how that, and overseeing the first major victory of any Allied army, could be seen as 'losing the war'.

I don't think there's any major military historian who disputes that Montgomery was a gifted general. There is much to critisise, as there is with any general (Rommel had his Normandy, Monty his Holland) but on the whole he was a brilliant commander.

sterling180
April 24, 2007, 03:50 PM
Sterling180; Whilst opinions are ubiquitous, they are
not a proper replacement for plain, common-sense reading of proper history.

Maybe to you,in your own opinion,but my views are shared by many,over here.Yes,the whole world could have stepped in earlier,but they chose not to.We could say that Britain would have probably entered Vietnam in 1965/66,but didn't due to Harold Wilsons,disapproval of that war and that of the anti-war protests,that occurred in Europe,at the time.Also,it wasn't considered Britains war,at all.Not suprisingly,this was the old Labour Socialist party,that was sympethetic towards Moscow.Rumour has it,that Harold Wilson was a KGB agent,that sold secrets to the Russians and was a full member of their communist party,like Philby was.

British SAS soilders,did serve in Veitnam unofficially,though.

ElZorro
April 25, 2007, 02:59 PM
or his self-aggrandizing dedication to outflanking Patton rather than outflanking Rommel's badly battered troops.

Had his concentration been reversed, many German troops would not have made it back to the mainland and eventually the Normandy region to participate in Overlord

But then, this isn't about a disagreement over Field Marshall Montgomery's performance or qualifications. I accede to the higher authority and bid you a fond good day.

ElZorro

Cromlech
April 25, 2007, 07:25 PM
I love the way these threads turn out.


Yup, more stupid laws on the books over here.

We (well most of us) recognise all the good things that America has done for us over the years, and we (again, a good deal of us) love you guys for it.

That being said, the whole 'We save your asses back in . . ." doesn't win any friends, and is neither big nor clever. As has now been shown in this thread, WWII was a whole lot more complicated than just that. Acting as if this is not the case just reinforces the uneducated 'redneck' stereotyping of Americans that I'm sure is unwanted.


Anyway, I may want to look for a nice Albion sword before this silly ban comes into effect.

agricola
April 25, 2007, 08:23 PM
ElZorro,

No offence, but if you are going to start making comments about "proper history", then you could at least adhere to that rule yourself.

For a start, as Fosbery notes, Monty's arrival in North Africa turned the campaign there from one that had been characterized by sudden shifts of the front line to one that pushed the Axis forwards further and further back, until they were pushed out of the continent, or left to surrender. It may not have had the requisite amount of dash or excitement, but the important thing was to win - as much as Rommel complained, he recognized after Operation Torch that, if he was to have a victory, it would have to be against the US forces who he could goad into his kind of fight.

Secondly, Monty did not try to outflank Patton, he wanted to be able to bypass German resistance (of which there was rather more facing the British), and in any case Alexander's plan did not include much in the way of co-operation between the two armies. In any case, I hardly think many of the ex-Sicily garrison managed to make an apperance in Normandy (nearly all of the forces facing Husky stayed in Italy, or went to the Eastern Front).

Finally, Browning was far, far more to blame for Arnhem than Monty was. Of course, the concept was overly ambitious but it was doable. Where it fell down was the staff work prior to the operation (mainly around the lack of any airborne experience of those planning the operation) and the command of it immediately before and during the battle (specifically Browning, who not only ignored the evidence of armoured units in the area but attempted to put on sick leave the officer who had informed him of the unpleasant facts, as well as changing the priorities of US troops at Njimegen and attempting to foist the blame for the fiasco on a Polish commander).

Orthonym
April 25, 2007, 09:14 PM
Yup, Browning was definitely a bad Boy.

The crazy part, which was emphasized in the movie, was the landing several miles away from the objective, and then marching there. What was the point of the parachutes?

At Pegasus Bridge, the guys assaulting risked death and maiming, even before combat, to get just as close as possible to the objective while still in the air. I think one whole gliderful of troops was knocked unconscious by the hard landing.

Wait! Everything I wrote above is off topic!

SamTuckerMTNMAN
April 25, 2007, 10:31 PM
Good gosh.

Now you see why we are on the same side.

At present there are 17 weapons, including knuckle-dusters and batons, on the Offensive Weapons Order.

The Home Office, the Offensive Weapons Order, this is like some monty python futura skit gone utterly insane. The one good thing that can come of this is that we will see, and are watching, the futility of this bull**it political resolution to bad guys.

Does anyone else see the possibility of a massive trial for the western world in the next, say, 100 years? Is there any possibility that countries which seem so immune and safe could EVER be invaded. Oh wait they already are. I mean by gun toting or hatchet wielding madmen. Well...crap, got that one too. OK I mean absolute foreign military or barbaric invasion. Are those days truly passed? Really, have we decided that planet Earth is so peaceful and passive that we destroy the last vestiges of resistance in our own countries. Britain, what have you become?

A big concern with the UK martial arts community, but even some of them see it as "reasonable".

The only thing left is to deport (or imprision) anyone trained in hand to hand combat.

I once had a british person tell me that he would rather the russians come and deal with them using swords than nuclear weapons. The sword has never failed them. Not since the birth of their empire.

Ceremoniously falling on their swords will signify the end of an era in this world that we cannot fully understand the ramifications of.

Martial artists, archers, hunters, commandos, mall ninjas, whatever.

We are all on the same side. After swords will come "insert item here" and eventually people trained to use them, then people sympathetic to their use.

Don't make fun of me because I spoke once of civil war, tin hat pointers - if you lay down and take this sh** in your own free country then I scoff at you, I dare you, and challenge you to study history and learn what it is you promise for your children and theirs, and theirs, and theirs.

st:fire:

Gifted
April 26, 2007, 12:02 AM
reading all that stuff in the first page(before the WW stuff flew off topic), reminded me of this story, I read back in school. It's always reminded me of just how bad things can get.

Let me know when they start putting bags of shot around the necks of big strong guys.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Orthonym
April 26, 2007, 12:03 AM
Here's something from the second verse of "Advance Australia Fair";

"...Then here he raised Old England's flag,

The standard of the brave:

With all her faults we love her still..."

Orthonym
April 26, 2007, 12:19 AM
The thing which has always scared me the most about Hillary is that she reminds me very much of Diana Moon Glampers.

Fosbery
April 26, 2007, 11:59 AM
Orthonym:

Pegasus Bridge was on D-Day :neener:

Deavis
April 26, 2007, 12:13 PM
They were robbed several times over the years and the weapons used by the robbers included samurai swords, sledge hammers, large knives, and long gardening implements. I can only imagine that the same people who lobbied for the gun bans see these weapons being used as guns were before the ban.


You are a liar. That never happens in Britian. Britiain has established a system that is far superior to the US and they have almost no violent crime. Nobody is attacked with guns, knives, swords, or anything else. Your friends are nutters who are not the norm in Britain and you are using this to justify your sick American love of guns. It is so safe in Britain that the police don't need guns and you are 300X less likely to be shot than in America. :rolleyes:

I spent last night listening to that litany, I just wanted to share a British viewpoint with you. According to him guns are the reason people commit crimes and carrying a gun means you are more likely to kill someone with it. That is why England is so safe. :barf:

agricola
April 26, 2007, 01:07 PM
Fosbery,

I dont think he was saying it wasnt - but (not to put words in his mouth), it was planned by (competent) people with airborne experience.

agricola
April 26, 2007, 01:14 PM
oh, and while we are talking about D-Day, how about Operation Titanic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradummy

six SAS men and 500 dummies dropped into enemy-held territory, armed with record players playing battle noise

:O

If you enjoyed reading about "The Brits are getting crazy again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!