[Preacherman]

From the Telegraph, London (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$G0KRWH44C3NBHQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/07/27/nmart27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/27/ixnewstop.html):

Tony Martin is 'going to get it', warns cousin of the boy he shot
By Thair Shaikh and Daniel Foggo
(Filed: 27/07/2003)

Relatives of Fred Barras, the burglar shot dead by Tony Martin, last night warned that the Norfolk farmer will be murdered after his release tomorrow.

One cousin of Barras said Martin was "going to get it", while another said a hitman would be hired if the dead teenager's associates failed to carry out a retaliatory attack.

The death threats will add to fears about Martin's safety, which have already prompted police to set up a mobile station at his farm at Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

The Telegraph can also reveal that Martin, who was moved to a safe house last week, made arrangements for a gun to be hidden at a friend's home. The weapon, which was concealed under a wardrobe in Martin's farmhouse prior to his conviction for murder in 2000, was smuggled out by his friend, Paul Cumby. Mr Cumby said last night that he still had Martin's gun, saying: "I've got that."

In a separate development, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has ordered the head of the Prison Service to explain the early release of Brendon Fearon, Barras's accomplice during the burglary of Martin's home in August 1999. Yesterday, Jamie Jones, a News of The World photographer, was assaulted by Fearon's brother in Newark, Notts.

Fearon, who was shot and wounded by Martin, was freed on Friday, despite serving less than a third of an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing, prompting an outcry from MPs and Martin's supporters.

Ishmael Steele, Barras's cousin, who lives on the same road in Newark where Barras grew up, said Martin would be killed. "He will get it. Something will happen to him, it's got to.

"We've got hundreds of relations who aren't happy with it. And to those who say it's just talk, I'd say wait and see. The detectives can't be with him all the time, can they?"

Another cousin of Barras, who gave his name as Georgi, said the travelling community had recently put a £60,000 bounty on Martin's head.

"He is a dead man. I don't know if it will be a traveller that will do it, but it will be a proper hitman, a professional job," he said.

Martin was jailed for life at Norwich Crown Court three years ago for killing Barras, 16. His life sentence and murder conviction were overturned on appeal and reduced to a five-year term for manslaughter. On Thursday, Martin, who was held at Highpoint Prison in Suffolk, was moved to a safe house. He is expected to remain in hiding in the days following his release, but has told friends that he then intends to return to his home.

The freeing of Fearon, 33, only three days before Martin's release, prompted an outcry yesterday with Henry Bellingham, the Norfolk farmer's MP, claiming that ministers and the prison service were pursuing a vendetta against his constituent. "This was either a coincidence, in which case it was grossly negligent and deeply insensitive, or someone, somewhere has acted out of spite." The Government responded by ordering Phil Wheatley, the head of the Prison Service, to a meeting with Mr Blunkett tomorrow to explain Fearon's release.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow prisons minister, accused Mr Blunkett of rank hypocrisy. "Fearon's release is a direct consequence of policies initiated by Mr Blunkett. The ordering of this report shows how the Home Secretary's actions are driven by a desire for the short-term media limelight. He is not in control."

[rrader]

This is the natural result of a legal system as sick, as poisoned, as low and as retrograde as that of the British.

How could any rational people fail to realize that prosecuting and imprisioning innocent victims of crime, and coddling the criminals themselves only emboldens the criminals.

What a backward and low legal culture the British have. Makes one wonder about their legal education system.

Even the French legal system isn't this retrograde.

[AZRickD]

Although Brits allow those threatened with reprisals to carry firearms, our own Agricola says this isn't specific enough and the newspaper is not a reliable source.

Rick

[Al Norris]

Another cousin of Barras, who gave his name as Georgi, said the travelling community had recently put a £60,000 bounty on Martin's head.

"He is a dead man. I don't know if it will be a traveller that will do it, but it will be a proper hitman, a professional job,"
If this is the same group, known also as "travellers" here in the US, then Martin is in real and immediate danger...just ask my aunt, Amy Davis of Richfield, Utah....oh wait, you can't. She was murdered on May 3, 2001 by one of them.

Agricola, just how much of a threat must one have before the police will allow Mr. Martin the right of self-defense?

[CZ-75]

I believe UK "travellers" are Gypsies, where as the "Irish Travellers" we have here (usually out of SC), are a different matter. I don't doubt that they are every bit as dangerous, though.

Martin definitely did his country a favor by killing that punk - before he grew up into unmitigated scum like the rest of his family.

[HBK]

Geez, give the man a gun and let him defend himself. I can't believe that he is being openly threatened by the relatives of the criminal. I guess that's what happens when it's illegal to defend yourself.:barf:

[agricola]

rrader,

yep, and no witnesses or victims have ever been targetted by criminal families before, during or after giving evidence in the highbrow United States. Martin was not found guilty by decree, or by a judge. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to ALL the available evidence, and not just the media reports that painted Martin in a good a light as possible.

Please, for once, leave your biases at home.

rest,

Given the frequent comments listed here about the efficiency of the media at distorting the truth, I'd reserve judgement (at least) about the veracity of these claims, and indeed strongly doubt them, given the past history of the media and this case. That Telegraph article is a case in point - one wonders how many doors they knocked on, how many family members they spoke to, to get that quote.

[agricola]

preacherman,

also your tagline is wrong. Martin is still armed - it says so in the text.

[Gray Peterson]

I was wondering why there was so much concern over Tony Martin's safety was such a huge concern after his release. Now I know why.

The "Travelers" are a very dangerous group, from my understanding. If you kill any of their "family", even if they commit a crime against you (Home Invasion), they swear a "death oath" on you, and they will not stop until you are dead.

Good thing I live here in Oregon. Lock and load! :D

[Diesle]

which have already prompted police to set up a mobile station at his farm at Emneth Hungate, Norfolk



:what: ****


Diesle

[Powderman]

It is a pitiful shame of the worst sort that a man cannot defend his home and his family from goblins, thieves and murderers.

I know that this good man will probably not leave his homeland. But if he should choose to do so, he is welcome in the United States. As a matter of fact, I would be honored to welcome him to my home.

Let those sniveling punks, traveler or not, show up around my house.

And, a death oath? Let them take all the oaths they want. As far as carrying them out--

"Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!"

Bring it!

[Al Norris]

CZ-75, the UK "travelers" are in fact the same as those here in the US. It's where ours came from. At least, it was documented as such during the trial of the scum that killed my aunt.

[HBK]

Perhaps a blood oath is needed against them...if that's the only thing they understand.

[rrader]

Agricola:

yep, and no witnesses or victims have ever been targetted by criminal families before, during or after giving evidence in the highbrow United States. Martin was not found guilty by decree, or by a judge. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to ALL the available evidence, and not just the media reports that painted Martin in a good a light as possible.

In fairness, yes it does happen in the US. In fact I can look out the window of my Office here in Virginia to a political jurisdiction, Washington D.C., where it happens very regularly. The legal system in D.C., at the local level anyway, approaches being just as low and retrograde as that of the UK with regards to gun ownership and the natural right of self-defense.

The difference is that the legal system in D.C. is the exception in the U.S., not the rule.

And if anyone here were to defend the City of Washington D.C.'s legal system as you have defended the U.K's, I imagine that they would be opposed just as strongly as you have been.

[agricola]

rrader,

no, i'm pretty sure witness intimidation is global in its scope, unfortunately.

[Don Gwinn]

Of course witnesses are threatened here. But for the most part, our government does not respond by saying "Tough! That's what you get for committing such a barbaric crime against their poor dead cousin!" Yours does. If Tony Martin lived in my area, his neighbors would be ready to lend a hand. In Britain, they don't have that option.

As for Martin being armed, you yourself said he can't get a gun license and the police have cameras in his home, not to mention a mobile station set up on his property. Are you referring to Mr. Cumby's shotgun? I presume that if anyone can legally own that gun, it would be Cumby. You can't have it both ways, sir.

I don't approve of calling the British as a people "retrograde" or "degenerate." Your government, though, is repressive and statist, and the people did, after all, elect it. They certainly share some responsibility, just as I have to take some responsibility for our problems over here.

[bbrins]

also your tagline is wrong. Martin is still armed - it says so in the text.

The Telegraph can also reveal that Martin, who was moved to a safe house last week, made arrangements for a gun to be hidden at a friend's home. The weapon, which was concealed under a wardrobe in Martin's farmhouse prior to his conviction for murder in 2000, was smuggled out by his friend, Paul Cumby. Mr Cumby said last night that he still had Martin's gun, saying: "I've got that."

agricola,
Is this the text that you are referring to? If so, then I think that his friend is armed, not Martin. You don't actually think that the police are going to allow Martin to have that gun back, do you? They will probably go way out of their way to make sure that he does not get it or another.

I think it is sick that they would prosecute the victim in the first place. If anyone should have gone to jail for manslaughter or better yet, murder, it should have been Barras's accomplice, Brendon Fearon.

[rrader]

Don Gwinn:

I have edited my first post to reflect that I meant to refer to only the legal system of the UK as low and retrograde. Labeling the entirety of the people and culture of the UK as such is of course painting with too broad a brush.

As was mentioned in another thread, folks in the UK have contributed around 92 thousand pounds to Martin's defense fund and there is a lot of popular resentment to what has happened to him. These are both things that speak well of the British people.

[agricola]

Don,

But for the most part, our government does not respond by saying "Tough! That's what you get for committing such a barbaric crime against their poor dead cousin!" Yours does.

It doesnt - in fact Martin has had far more "protection" (I use inverted comments because I still think these "threats" are mere rehashes of the pre-trial "threats") than your average convicted killer, which is at the end of the day what he is. Normal, actual victims of crime are treated well, and intimidation of witnesses is hugely frowned on by the courts.

With regard to Martin's gun, I think we all know that as soon as he is released he will get his hands on it and so he will be armed.

With regards to the Government, lord knows it has its faults and, sadly, the sooner the General Election comes the better so that we can be done with it. However labels like "repressive" and "statist" dont mean much, because at the end of the day they appear repressive and statist to the American mind, just as your Government appears barbaric and repressive to us. Its just a matter of perspective.

[Don Gwinn]

Ah, yes. The vaunted "perspective."

Some things, sir, are a matter of perspective. Nowadays it's considered wisdom to fall back on a different "perspective" in any disagreement. Can't really argue with someone's "perspective," of course. My students are fond of a similar trick--the Opinion Gambit. "It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong."

Neither, of course, is true. There are things one ought not do because they are objectively wrong. Prosecuting a man for murder when defends his home and his life is objectively wrong. I don't care if there's a "perspective" or a "culture" out there that approves. It's still wrong no matter how many peopld approve.

Your government is providing security--or surveillance of Martin himself. That much is true. Perhaps I should have said that you, Agricola, were the one who proclaimed that whatever happens to Martin is not so bad because he's a murderer you wouldn't trust with a toaster, but that seemed a bit personal. That does seem to be your view.

However, I do note that your government does not seem to have changed its position on the radical idea of simply leaving Mr. Martin alone to live in peace and defend himself in the first place, much less made any move to avoid the next time the exact same thing happens. There will either be more like Tony Martin, or more people will be acquiescent victims because they understand the message your government was sending when it made an example of Martin.


This may be entirely unrelated, but I also find it interesting that the "Traveler" connection hasn't been covered much, at least in the U.S. That would tend to make most people think twice about these poor, harmless burglars who shouldn't have faced death just because they wanted to rob some mean old man a little bit.

[agricola]

Don,

I agree with you - prosecuting a man who was defending himself is wrong; the very substance of this case is that Martin was NOT defending himself at the time he shot Barras. We can argue over this until the cows come home, but the fact is that a jury of his peers found him guilty of the murder. That jury also had access to all the facts of the case, and one thinks that one has shown that the reporting of this case has fallen way short of objectivity.

I actually said that, in light of his mental condition and his prior behaviour, I wouldnt trust him with a stapler. It was already the case that Martin was paranoid about people - especially gypsies - breaking into his property; now, thanks largely to the media, he will be expecting assasins at any time of the day or night. I reserve my pity for the poor soul who happens to come into contact with him while getting lost walking, or having broken down and asking to use the phone.

[seeker_two]

And how many Tony Martin's will have to die before guys like agricola get the point?...:rolleyes:

BTW, what was it that you do again?...:scrutiny:

[rrader]

seeker_two:

BTW, what was it that you do again?...

Ditto.

[agricola]

seeker,

the answer was on TFL, ages ago.

[AZRickD]

Agricola said: "yep, and no witnesses or victims have ever been targetted by criminal families before,"

This is the same line the anti-gunners in New York give for denying a pistol permit... "You're in no more danger of being a crime victim than anyone else. Request denied, peon."

Rick

[Marko Kloos]

It was already the case that Martin was paranoid about people - especially gypsies - breaking into his property;

Looks like his "paranoia" was quite justified; I seem to recall that Mr. martin was burglarized on several occasions prior to the incident in question. I also seem to recall that the local Constabulary did precisely squat to solve the problem before the shooting occurred.

I'm not too surprised, though. A study from Cold War days has shown that there is such a thing as "professional kinship". A plumber in the US, for exapmle, has more in common with a Russian plumber than either of them do with their non-plumbing countrymen.

It only follows that the professional looters who make up the "progressive" solcial democratic government of the UK feel more kinship with the "traveller" freelance looters than they do with regular peons like Mr. Martin. They'll go to lengths to protect their thieving colleagues from Tony Martin, but they won't lift a finger to safeguard either Mr. Martin or his property.

Always remember that the entire problem could have been avoided by those "travellers" not repeatedly helping themselves to someone else's property. They initiated the confrontation by robbing another man of his possessions. The government failed Mr. Martin by failing to safeguard his right to *not* be burglarized. The robbers forfeited their own rights by attempting to deprive someone else of his rights by force.

[Powderman]

Agricola:

From what I understand, Mr. Martin was convicted of murder by your court system.

Why was he convicted of murder?

Why did he go to trial?

Could you tell me what your law states? And, could you tell me under what circumstances a victim can defend themselves legally in your country?

And, may I ask, why are you defending a system that puts good men in prison for shooting a person who broke into their home--WHILE THEY WERE THERE?:confused:

And finally, how can you defend that type of system in any conscience?

:confused:

What would it take to change your point of view?

What would you do if someone broke into your home while you were there?

What if they threatened your family?

What if they grabbed your wife?

What would it take for you to realize that ANY system that prosecutes a man for defending his home, his family or himself is DEAD wrong?

Would you defend your family? :evil:

Or would you stand there and bleed? :what:

[Kharn]

When you get a mini police station on your property, but they wont let you own a pistol, you know the whole country's gone to hell in a handbasket.

Which shows a larger belief by the police that someone is out to cook your goose, a pistol permit or a police station in your front yard?

Kharn

[Caliburn]

Get the feeling that the police living on the guy's property would be keeping their eagle eye on Martin instead of the travellers? Think their presence would make it possible for him to recover that other gun from his friend's house? Not a chance. They'd probably bust him if he leaves the butcher knife in the living room.

What choice is this to offer law-abiding citizens? Either (1) allow your property (the fruits of your labor) to be carried off at will by scum, or (2) fight back, go to jail, have your life threatened by other scum, AND set yourself up for a lifetime of direct personal Big Brother intrusive monitoring.

Ever hear of Bastiat's dilemma? "When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law."

The inmates are running the asylum.

[Preacherman]

the very substance of this case is that Martin was NOT defending himself at the time he shot Barras. We can argue over this until the cows come home, but the fact is that a jury of his peers found him guilty of the murder. That jury also had access to all the facts of the case, and one thinks that one has shown that the reporting of this case has fallen way short of objectivity.
Agricola, let me state up front that I respect your right to your opinion, even though I disagree with it. However, I think the above statement is a classic illustration of the difference between the social milieu here, and in England. Here, if a bad guy (BG) commits a felony, in many jurisdictions, you do whatever you have to do to stop him, and the general reaction is "Oh, good!". In our more urbanized, left-wing environments, the reaction is, instead, "Oh, poor dear!".

A classic example is the kidnapping of a woman in Tennessee, who was taken to Georgia by her kidnapper. He stopped to fill up with gas, and went into the building to pay. She found a loaded pistol on the back seat, and when he came out, she started shooting at him. Note that he was not at that time any threat to her: he was a reasonable distance away from her, and unarmed at that. She chased him across the parking lot, shooting all the while, and when he fell down, she shot him three times in the back. Clearly, this is illegal conduct under virtually any self-defence statute you care to mention. However, the local sheriff arrived, heard (and confirmed) the story, walked over, looked at the back-shot body of the kidnapper and proclaimed "Yep - self-defence, all right!" No further legal action was taken. I daresay if that sheriff or the local DA had tried to make anything else of it, he/they would have been tarred and feathered by their loyal constituents!

So I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for the criminals who were shot. I think Martin's only mistake was to have not shot them both inside the house, where a greater threat is presumed to exist. If he wants to come over to this side of the pond, I'll personally buy him another shotgun to celebrate!

[Don Gwinn]

the very substance of this case is that Martin was NOT defending himself at the time he shot Barras.
Upon that point, sir, we disagree.

(Agricola is an LEO, by the way.)

[HBK]

I would chip in on that shotgun, but I doubt Martin is the sort of man to allow ludicrous laws and legal systems to run him out of his home country.

[Al Norris]

Don, I was first to bring up the relation of the travelers. From the scarcity of the posts, I must conclude that 1)people here aren't aware of these crooks or 2)they don't believe there is such a thing.

I used to be in the #2 camp. That is until my aunt was murdered by a traveler. I've since done a bit of research into this group of people.

The threats to Mr. Martin, pre-trial or post-trial by travelers, are to be taken seriously.

For those of you in Salt Lake City area (and there are more than a few here) Check your back issues of the Slat Lake Tribune:

Sat. May 5th, 2001
Sun. May 6th
Obit, May 6th
Tues. May 8th
Thur. May 10th

This was a 17 yr old who killed, then raped a 78 yr old woman. His parents abandoned him when it was apparent that he would stand trial. He was convicted and given a life sentence, remanded to the Arizona authorities where he is on trial for a murder there. A murder that occured before my aunts and in which he was in custody 14 days before he murdered my aunt. Then the Montana folk want a piece of him. His parents? The father is wanted in connection to the Montana case and can't be found.

Agricola, the travelers in the UK are in fact more dangerous than those here. Here they have to contend with armed citizens. That is not a concern in the UK.

[HBK]

Where can you get more info on this group?

[seeker_two]

the answer was on TFL, ages ago.

agricola: Refresh our memories...:scrutiny:

[agricola]

seeker,

its mentioned on this thread.

[Gray Peterson]

Where can you get more info on this group?

Ditto. It's yet another reason to increase the amount of permits I have to protect myself and my mate....'

When I mean more info, I really mean more info. I've heard how dangerous they are, and I know enough to be worried, but I don't know their entire history.

[Mk VII]

for an admittedly partial (and rather out-of-date) take on this subject see http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/pages/persview.htm
As a convicted criminal sentenced to more than three years imprisonment Mr. Martin is subject to a lifetime ban on having anything (in the widest sense) to do with firearms, which could be reviewed on application to a Court

[Sean Smith]

Blah blah Martin, blah blah practically only subject Agricola posts on, blah blah blah...

:rolleyes:

[tyme]

HBK, I'm not sure any sane person would want to admit to England being their (new usage) "home country."

(Don Gwinn) My students are fond of a similar trick--the Opinion Gambit. "It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong."
That makes it easy to justify any grade you want to give. "Opinions are like ..., everyone's got one. And everyone also gets grades, though some get poorer grades than others." :cool:

[seeker_two]

(Agricola is an LEO, by the way.)

THAT explains Martin's dilemma...:scrutiny:

...and Great Britain's too. :what:

[WonderNine]

THAT explains Martin's dilemma...

...and Great Britain's too.

That's what I was thinking. :scrutiny:

[MicroBalrog]

Didn't Agricola visit the US at some point or another?:confused:

[CZ-75]

Where can you get more info on this group?



http://sca.lib.liv.ac.uk/collections/gypsy/travell.htm

Irish Traveller surnames are Costello, Carpenter, Carroll, Gormon, Lewis, McNalley, Mack, O'Hara, Riley, Sherlock, Roche, Sheedy, Joy, Joyce, Hartnett

How they spend the money they steal:

http://sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/traveller.html

Comprehensive, but perhaps biased in their favor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~alkst3/USA.html

[agricola]

Sean,

Well that just displays your own ignorance - I only post on threads concerning the UK.

Micro,

No, I've never been to the US.

rest:

I think we are moving into dangerous territory equating "traveller" with criminal - dont forget that the demented Austrian from last century considered them on a par with Jews in the extinction stakes.

[KC]

"I don't approve of calling the British as a people "retrograde" or "degenerate." "

Degenerate is unkind and untrue. Retrograde is. The Engilsh used to have an absolute monarch, wich was transformed into a constitutional monarchy by a revolution of the political elites. Though it was their blood that was spent to create that situation, no power was turned over to the general populace. The elites kept it for themselves. Now, instead of having one head to the Dragon, St. George (were he still allowed to arm himself) must contend with a multi-headed Hydra. Centralized control of English society has done nothing but constrict tighter and tighter around the polity's neck since the bloody debacle that the aforementioned political elites allowed WWI to become, and the again in their failure to contend with the repulsive ideology that was Nazi Germany.
Oh wait, I forgot; England had some of the same habits. The Jews had been expelled a while earlier, the Irish had been encouraged to kill each other off, and then die in famines. Slavery was not permitted in the Home Isles, because there were laws against allowing negros in. Then, at the last gasp of empire, Victorian England led the West in strict societal contols over the private life of it's citizenry. Maybe degenerate isn't so inaccruate a word after all...


"Your government, though, is repressive and statist, and the people did, after all, elect it. They certainly share some responsibility, just as I have to take some responsibility for our problems over here."

Not exactly; certain branch heads are repressive and statist. Ashcroft is truly one of the greatest dangers to (American) civil freedoms since Hoover was allowed to run the FBI as a personal fiefdom.
Second, the people didn't elect the current head of the executive branch: an archaic system labelled the Electoral College allowed that particular mess to happen. in 2000, it worked in the Republican's favor, as it had for the Democrats in 1996. At least the US allows some input from the demos to select it's executive, unlike the arbitrary and secretive coalition building that remains outside the control of the electorate and legal system in the UK.
Lastly: yes, there are unwelcome elements in government, as there always have been. There is, however, a finite lifespan to all of their terms in office. While they may have debts to labor unions, the petty tantrums of socialized labour is unlikely to strangle the life of this country, nor hold it hostage.

[agricola]

KC,

Rarely have I seen a less well reasoned argument. A critique:

i) At least the US allows some input from the demos to select it's executive, unlike the arbitrary and secretive coalition building that remains outside the control of the electorate and legal system in the UK.

Aside from a smattering of Lords, each and every minister of State is an MP and, as such, can and frequently are removed from office by the people at General Election time - Portillo, Rifkind et al all know this. This includes the head of the modern British executive - the Prime Minister. There is also no "coalition building" - the party which has the most seats in the House of Commons above a certain point is the Government and all Ministers come from that party. The system whereby the great offices of State have their shadow counterparts means that, prior to an election, voters have a good idea who will form the administration should that party get elected. IMHO this is a much better system than the US, for whom (aside from Bush) noone is accountable to the electorate.

ii)The Engilsh used to have an absolute monarch, wich was transformed into a constitutional monarchy by a revolution of the political elites. Though it was their blood that was spent to create that situation, no power was turned over to the general populace. The elites kept it for themselves.

Actually, no. The two revolutions - the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution - were in a sense a change of elites. However, from about 1815 onwards one sees in English history increased organization of the "lower" classes, usually along social, workplace or community lines. These various movements were extremely successful at gaining rights, removing abuses in the workplace and generally improving the lot of the common man. This extraordinary success has meant that like organizations - Unions, and indeed the Labour Party itself (together with "socialism") are more popular here than they are in the US.

iii)Oh wait, I forgot; England had some of the same habits. The Jews had been expelled a while earlier, the Irish had been encouraged to kill each other off, and then die in famines. Slavery was not permitted in the Home Isles, because there were laws against allowing negros in. Then, at the last gasp of empire, Victorian England led the West in strict societal contols over the private life of it's citizenry. Maybe degenerate isn't so inaccruate a word after all...

Jews were expelled across Europe at various stages in history, so England is nothing unique. The treatment of the Irish was no different to any of a dozen other losing sides of wars, including the American Indians at your own countries hands. Any slave who set foot on English soil was a free man, and by 1807 that evil trade was outlawed.

[Al Norris]

agricola wrote:
I think we are moving into dangerous territory equating "traveller" with criminal - dont forget that the demented Austrian from last century considered them on a par with Jews in the extinction stakes.

It is not criminal to rob and steal from all who are not "travelers?"

Beating those who would protect themselves from your nefarious activities, is not criminal?

Raising your children to believe that all who are not "travelers" are fair game for your scams, is not criminal?

Teaching your children to shoplift by bringing them with you into various stores, is not criminal?

But then again, I'm biased.

[KC]

Agricola--

You are right; I did not present a perfectly reasoned arguement. Nor did I intend to. A poorly reasoned arguement, on the other hand, would have been more along along the lines of "Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs." Mine was neither.


"...the party which has the most seats in the House of Commons above a certain point is the Government and all Ministers come from that party. The system whereby the great offices of State have their shadow counterparts means that, prior to an election, voters have a good idea who will form the administration should that party get elected."

Ah. So, the electorate does not know who they are voting for; they simply vote a party ticket, and get what pops out. Delightful. Regardless, coalition building, as you seem to apply the term, does not necessarily function only between political parties, but in them as well. This is (my understanding at least) how Margaret Thatcher worked her way into power, and back in, and in again.


"The two revolutions - the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution"
Yes, I am aware there were a number of fraticidal wars in England. The Civil War of the mid 17th century that got rid of an absolutist monarch, and replaced him with an absolute dictator. This dictator died, and the inheritors of the country ran off and got the whelp of the monarchist to come back. After more futzing around, the elites wound up inviting a bunch of germans over, because no one in the country was capable of envisioning a non-monarchial government. So, then we get three kings; one never visits the country, the nexts goes there a couple of times, but doesn't like it. The third *does* wind up living there, but he becomes the basis for the movie "The Madness of George III", after he and the oh-so-democratically elected Parliment loose the then jewl of the Empire's crown, the American Colonies (outside of English Canada and formerly French Quebec). Oddly enough, this little spat does *not* seem to be called a civil war, outside a few contemporary English sources and a few American ones who either change their tune in surprisingly short order or move to Canada.


"...in a sense a change of elites. However, from about 1815 onwards one sees in English history increased organization of the "lower" classes, usually along social, workplace or community lines."
Yes; some figured out how to make money as if they had a mint, but could only think of getting approval by and from imitating the old nobility. Nowadays, rather than getting knighthood or other title of nobility for actually doing something of martial or mercantilist legerdemain, it instead is an award for penning the best song by which the masses are entertained. Bravo.


"removing abuses in the workplace and generally improving the lot of the common man. This extraordinary success has meant that like organizations - Unions, and indeed the Labour Party itself (together with "socialism") are more popular here than they are in the US."
Yes...is that why coal was still being dug from Newcastle LONG after it had ceased to make the least bit of fiscal sense? Why English cars became reknown for their sterling (no pun intended) reputation? (Especially Lucas.) Is that why the country was flushed down the fiscal toilet by the Labour governments during the 1950-70's?


"Jews were expelled across Europe at various stages in history, so England is nothing unique."
Perhaps better: unlike Spain, the jews were able to leave with more than just the clothing on their backs, and had a little more than 30 days in the late 15th century to do so on pain of execution. Better unless you were a Jew, I suppose.

"Any slave who set foot on English soil was a free man, and by 1807 that evil trade was outlawed."
So 'English Soil' was carefully defined as being only those islands in the near vincinity of continential Europe. (Ignore for the moment the entire concept of "debtors prison".) That evil institution was indeed outlawed, on paper. There were attempts to curtail the slave trade, so long as it inconvenienced the US or Spain. Brazil always had a far greater appetite for human chattle than N.America did, but that wasn't a concern for oh so altrustic England--there were Indians to pacify and Chinese that hadn't been introduced to opium.

[HBK]

I pretty much agree with Al on the traveler issue.

[agricola]

KC,

no, no and no.

The voter here belongs to one of about 650 constituencies, or areas of the country which return a single MP. He or she votes locally for that MP - who may be anything from the PM to a new candidate. This is not "voting for a party ticket", although each PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) or standing MP will usually be a member of one of the major parties (independents can and do stand and win though). Margaret got into power because the Conservative Party felt that she was the person with the best chance of leading them to power. Your understanding of coalition building would be more apt when considering the US political system.

Your wilful misunderstanding of the way social reform occupied much of the 1800s and early 1900s has enabled you to come up with your nonsensical argument. As a case in point, take Margaret herself. The daughter of a grocer, she rose to lead the country, becoming one of the first women in the world to do so (and at the head of the most reactionary party). Her success was as a result of that social reform, and its something which as of yet has not happened in the US. You need to further understand the way in which the UK political system works because you clearly dont understand it.

The issue of the coalfields is interesting. Before the great Strike of the early 1980's, the coal industry was relatively successful in that it enabled mining communities to survive; once it was removed you were left with whole towns with no employment prospects, which led to a number of social ills - heroin addiction, petty crime, alcoholism etc. The cost of these problems is far more than any losses incurred by the Coal industry (which was at that time nationalized).

There hasnt been a Lucas car company for the period I've been alive - they make sparkplugs and bulbs and the like. With regards to cars and the quality thereof, please explain why all Formula One companies rely on British engineers, and also explain Lotus, Jaguar, TVR, Aston Martin etc.

[rrader]

Noteable British Quotations Series:


"The treatment of the Irish was no different to any of a dozen other losing sides of wars, including the American Indians at your own countries hands."-Agricola



"Anyone want to go sailing?"

Lord Mountbatten, 27 Aug. 1979


(Talk about slow learners... jeeez )

[Zedicus]

First off I would like to Offer my Sympathy to Mr Martin in the Obvious Terror He must be feeling knowing that people have put a price on his life.
(never know he may be reading or my read this in future:))

The Brittish goverment here Requires a socalled Justifyable Reason for the authorisation of a person to have a firearm/weapon for the purpose of self defence.

My Question, Since when Isn't Having a (for lack of a better term) Hitman sent after your Head, not a Justifyable reason for use of lethal force in self defence?

[rrader]

Agricola:

There hasnt been a Lucas car company for the period I've been alive - they make sparkplugs and bulbs and the like. With regards to cars and the quality thereof, please explain why all Formula One companies rely on British engineers, and also explain Lotus, Jaguar, TVR, Aston Martin etc


Or better yet, how about an examination of BSA (in it's day bigger than Honda Motorcycles is today), Norton, Enfield, Triumph, etc...

Socialism killed Triumph Motorcycles, and a classic Capitalist: Sir John Bloor brought it back in the teeth of massive Japanese competition. Triumph now produces great, high-quality motorcycles that even "Harley Types" can appreciate.

Contrast today's Triumph with the pitifull Meridan socialist worker's co-operative that ran it into the ground.

[Iain]

Noteable British Quotations Series:

quote:
"The treatment of the Irish was no different to any of a dozen other losing sides of wars, including the American Indians at your own countries hands."-Agricola

"Anyone want to go sailing?"
Lord Mountbatten, 27 Aug. 1979
(Talk about slow learners... jeeez )

I don't understand what you mean by this rrader.
Agricola makes a perfectly valid point.

[Kharn]

St. Johns
Lord Mountbatten was blown up by the IRA while onboard his sailboat on August 27, 1979, their statement regarding the bombing included: "This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country."

Kharn

[Iain]

I know that.

Why is this any different to the way that many countries have treated those natives of the land's they now inhabit?

Does that justify terror and murder by the IRA? Or by the Loyalists? Or by the British?

[Cosmoline]

There's no hope left in the UK. Martin needs to sell everything and high-tail it to the free world.

[rrader]

I don't understand what you mean by this rrader. Agricola makes a perfectly valid point..

I am not trying to justify any act by the IRA post 1927.

Your statement should be added to the list. Too bad the folks in Ireland haven't been content to console themselves with the thought that thier 700 years of dispossession are common to many "defeated peoples" and that, on a relative scale, their treatment doesn't approach the level of barbarity meted out to groups like the Armenians or the European Jewery. Really quite unreasonable of those Irish folks not to see the reasonableness of this.

On a related subjct, has the law in the UK been changed to allow a Catholic to be Prime Minister, or to allow a member of the Royal family to marry a Catholic? Just wondering. The Republic of Ireland seems to be a bit more advanced than the UK in that regard, having had both Jewish and Protestant Prime Ministers in an overwhelmingly Catholic nation.

[Iain]

The law has been changed, so yes they can. Perhaps you could inform me how recently some states still banned homosexual acts? We are not the only ones with funny laws.

I don't support British rule in Northern Ireland, funny thing is though the situation is a lot more complicated than people think. You try telling people that regard themselves as British that the country they live in is now Ireland, they tend to have these terrorist groups that kneecap people too.

Do we have to mention Native Americans, or have you forgotten about that?

So I ask again - you fought the Indian Wars against that ''menace'', we did wrong things too - this gives you the right to bash the British how?

[MicroBalrog]

Right on the money St. Johns, but: What does all that have to do with Martin?

[Iain]

sorry

[agricola]

I do love the way in which parts of American opinion seek to justify the IRA. Was the British rule in Ireland filled with tragedy and acts of terror? Yes. Is that rule unique in the world? No.

[rrader]

Do we have to mention Native Americans, or have you forgotten about that?

No, I am well aware of how my Native American ancestors (Narragansett) were treated, i.e., not nearly as badly as the Irish, not nearly as well as the Mashantucket (cash-in-buckets) Pequot (casino) tribe in CT.

Most of the serious abuse of the eastern tribes took place while America was still comprised of British colonies. Additionally, a lot of the initial warfare was conducted by tribes acting against other tribes in conjunction with the white settlers.

http://www.narragansett-tribe.org/

The point I was making is that the treatment of other groups has little bearing on how the Irish look at their history and doesn't excuse that treatment.

Perhaps you could inform me how recently some states still banned homosexual acts? We are not the only ones with funny laws.

The anti-sodomy laws in the US are not equivalent in any way to the ant-Catholic laws imposed by the Crown in Ireland. The anti-sodomy laws merely prohibited acts that are condemned by the Bible and affected only a few, whereas the anti-Catholic laws were used to disposess and subjugate an entire people to the point of genocide.

[CZ-75]

There hasnt been a Lucas car company for the period I've been alive - they make sparkplugs and bulbs and the like. With regards to cars and the quality thereof, please explain why all Formula One companies rely on British engineers, and also explain Lotus, Jaguar, TVR, Aston Martin etc.

Ah, Lucas electric, "the Princes of Darkness." Crapola with a capital C.




please explain why all Formula One companies rely on British engineers

Handicapping?


and also explain Lotus, Jaguar, TVR, Aston Martin etc.

You mean GM, Ford, who cares, and Ford, don't you?

[Preacherman]

From the Telegraph, London, 07/30/03:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/07/30/matt.gif


Article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$NW2OWK5G0X4CXQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/07/30/nmart30.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/30/ixnewstop.html:

Shootings were like a horror film

By David Sapsted and Graham Tibbetts
(Filed: 30/07/2003)

Tony Martin described last night how his heart raced and he felt "his body was about to explode" the moment before he shot dead a burglar and wounded another.

The 58-year-old farmer, who says he has been "misunderstood", recalled the fateful shots that killed Fred Barras, 16, and injured his accomplice, Brendon Fearon, after serving two thirds of a five-year prison sentence for manslaughter.

Norfolk police continue their 24-hour vigil at Bleak Farm
Mr Martin, who had endured numerous break-ins at his home at Bleak House, Emneth Hungate in Norfolk, said he heard the two intruders and reached for his shotgun.

"I went over to the chair and got a handful of cartridges and loaded the gun. By this time I could feel my heart going boom, boom, boom," he told the Daily Mirror.

"My heart was racing. It was as though my whole body was about to explode - it was like a horror film."

At this point Barras and his accomplice, Fearon, shone a torch in his eyes and he began shooting, said Mr Martin.

"My finger was on the trigger and I fired. I was aware I had shot the gun. At the time I had no idea I had fired more than once."

Mr Martin, who regained his freedom on Monday after his release from Highpoint prison in Suffolk, said he regretted the death of Barras in August 1999 but had no feelings of remorse.

"I don't feel anything about anyone or anything," he said. "That might make me sound like a cold and callous man but I can't help that. I was forced to do what I did because of the circumstances of that night."

He believed the public had failed to appreciate the difficulty of his circumstances in rural Norfolk, where police were unable to prevent repeated break-ins.

"I can't believe how misunderstood I have been," he said. "I have a lot of supporters but there are a lot of people out there who think I am a madman who is only too happy to kill."

Mr Martin insisted he had no intention of killing Barras. "I did kill, but I certainly wasn't happy to do so. I was devastated when I discovered I had killed a boy.

"All I can say is that I didn't mean to do it. I didn't even know I had done it until much later." He added: "Nobody has the right to kill - even to suggest they have is crass and deplorable."

Mr Martin said he warned the police in May 1999 that if burglars broke in again, he would take drastic action. "After the second break-in, I rang the police and said, 'If they come back, I'll shoot them'. The reason I said this - and it was a dangerous thing to say - was because I hoped it would make them protect me; provoke a response, spur them on to do something."

Malcolm Starr, who led the campaign for Mr Martin's freedom, said the farmer was insisting on returning home.

"I spoke to him by telephone late last night," said Mr Starr. "He was in a very good mood. He was mainly concerned about seeing his dog and getting back to his farm."

Police were continuing to maintain a high profile presence outside Mr Martin's farm. "He finds it all very amusing and ironic," said Mr Starr. "He said to me, 'It seems I have got my own police force now.' "

Mr Martin had earlier described the move as "shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted".

Norfolk police defended their decision to site a mobile police station at the entrance to the remote farmhouse. Reports have been continuing to circulate that a £25,000 bounty has been put on Martin's head in revenge for his killing of Barras.

"We are making a proportionate response to the situation we are faced with. Given the situation and the report of threats against Mr Martin, it would be irresponsible if we did not do that," said a police spokesman.