[MicroBalrog]

What's wrong with shooting burglars? For 1,000 years, the
Common Law of England let homeowners use force if they
felt threatened by intruders until liberal judges
hijacked the law and set a twisted agenda of putting
criminals' 'rights' before those of ordinary people
The Mail on Sunday (England)
Page: 52
August 3, 2003

Byline: Peter Hitchens
You and your wife are alone in your house late at night. You
are woken by footsteps and banging downstairs. What do you do?
If you have any sense at all, you will do nothing and hope the
intruder goes away quickly. If he bursts into your bedroom, you
would be wise to submit to him and not to look at him too
carefully in case he gets the idea that you might be able to
identify him later.
You know that if you ring the police they will probably take
too long and may not come at all. And if you resist the thief,
attack or injure him, you are likely to find yourself in a
shared cell watching trash TV and eating prison slop with
plastic cutlery as you do your time.
You are even more likely to be sued shamelessly and
successfully in the courts by the man who has robbed you. If you
kill him, which at least means he cannot sue you or intimidate
you or come back for more, then the law will probably treat you
as a murderer, making no legal distinction between you and
Harold Shipman.
In the unlikely event that the thief is caught and
prosecuted, he and his friends will be free to terrorise you
into withdrawing your evidence, and the jury that hears the case
into acquitting him, since a feeble police force rarely, if
ever, acts to stop such things and often does not bother to
patrol court buildings any more.
If by any chance he is convicted, he will swiftly be
released under one of 'tough' David Blunkett's many schemes for
letting prisoners out as rapidly as possible. He might even come
back to steal whatever he left behind the first time.
Countless citizens, especially women living alone, now sleep
with some sort of weapon or blunt instrument by their beds in
case they are disturbed by thieves in the night.
Others, especially those living in the countryside where the
police have vanished, look thoughtfully at their legal firearms
and wonder if they dare use them, even as a deterrent.
This is the disgusting, pitiful state of the law of England
in 2003. Unless it is changed, it is only a matter of time
before the prosperous suburbs of Britain are laid waste and
plundered by armies of thieves, rightly confident that nobody
can or will stop them and that they will not be punished. It is
only the surviving illusion, on both sides, that we still live
in a policed and law-governed country that stops this happening
today.
Tony Martin, a strange and muttering loner, has won the
sympathy of millions not because he is a good example or because
he behaved well when he shot a burglar dead. His popularity is
the result of frustration and rage among the law-abiding who
feel that they could easily have acted as Martin did. They
probably won't because they are more worldly and have more
sense.
On the one occasion I spoke to Martin, shortly before his
trial, I told him he was very likely to be convicted. He was
astonished. He still thought he lived in an older England of
stout-hearted juries and robust judges where his action would be
excused if not applauded.
That country died some time in the past ten years. As
recently as 1993, Judge Daniel Rodwell awarded Malcolm Hammond
L300 for shooting two armed robbers who raided his home, saying:
'He showed great gallantry in tackling these dangerous men and
protecting his pregnant wife from further harm.' But the shadows
of political correctness were already deepening, though few
realised it at the time.
Six months later Mr Hammond was brought back to the same
court and fined more than L2,000 because the pistol he had used
was illegally held.
Mr Hammond always denied this and said he had wrestled the
gun from one of his assailants.
Once upon a time, nobody would have cared all that much, but
in John Major's semi-Socialist Britain it was slowly becoming
clear that the law was now neutral between 'offender' and
'victim'.
By the time Martin came to court it was even worse. The
system wanted to make it clear that it disapproved much more of
Martin for killing a burglar than it did of the fact that he was
burgled in the first place. Huge pressure was placed on Martin
to recant and show remorse for his action. He was kept in prison
far longer because he wouldn't.
No parallel effort was made to make burglar Brendan Fearon
do the same, though he was almost as responsible for the death
of Fred Barras as was Martin. In fact, the prison system
couldn't spit him out fast enough and despite Mr Blunkett's
bluster and demands for explanations the Home Secretary knew
perfectly well that this was the case.
Until recently, Englishmen were allowed to defend their
homes and to keep weapons, just as many Americans still do.
Partly because the US is still much more rural than we are,
and proper policing is impossible, the old English idea that a
burglar loses his rights when he breaks into someone's home is
still very much in force. That is why 'hot' burglary, where the
homeowner is in his house, is so much rarer there than here.
In Britain now we have the worst of both worlds police who
can't or won't protect us, and no right to protect ourselves.
How did this happen?
Some think it was the abolition of the old Common Law rules
by the Criminal Law Act in 1967. But actually this wasn't so. In
the hands of old-fashioned judges and juries, the 1967 defence
of 'reasonable force' would excuse almost any action.
What changed as in all the other great pillars of British
life were the people and the ideas that drove them.
The police chiefs stopped being old military men and were
replaced by social science graduates.
Guardian-reading Crown Prosecutors supplanted
battle-hardened police prosecution officers.
Respectable, middle-aged property-owning jurors in
three-piece suits disappeared to make way for slumped,
unemployed teenagers in shell suits.
The judges stopped being gnarled, disillusioned veterans of
the criminal courts and made way for Sixties idealists who think
criminals need help.
The law became a favourite profession for people whose views
were so wildly Leftwing that they could never win an election,
but who wanted political power anyway.
It was a clever move. At least until the Blair victory in
1997, elite liberal lawyers and judges, radical Home Office
civil servants progressive' prison governors and Left-wing
police chiefs were the most powerful radicals in the country.
Piece by piece, they took control of the law so that it
defied common sense and instead served their crackpot,
guilt-driven ideas of social justice.
Martin had to be punished severely because he had tried to
impose the old conservative law, which has now been abolished.
Anyone who was thinking of doing the same thing had to be warned
that on this, at least, the law would come down hard.
There was something very symbolic about the way Martin, once
convicted, was then seen being led away handcuffed to a female
guard, about as politically correct a message as you could send.
Was it perhaps deliberate?
And it was only when he claimed to have been sexually abused
as a child, the standard liberal excuse for all kinds of
misdeeds, that his conviction was reduced from murder to
manslaughter.
Interestingly, police officers who shoot suspects rashly or
by mistake tend to get let off. It wasn't because he had killed
someone that Martin was being punished, but because he had
challenged the new liberal monopoly of force.
All that would be bad enough.
But what makes it unbearable, and what brought it to boiling
point for Martin, is that the police have vanished at the same
time.
As police have been withdrawn from foot patrol, police
houses and stations in the countryside have been shut down in
great numbers.
The combination of weak law and absent constables has hit
isolated country dwellers first.
They know that if they call for help, none will come in
time, whereas the rest of us just suspect that this is so. Rural
people and those who rob them have realised as the rest of the
country is just beginning to do that we are now halfway back to
the Dark Ages.
The ridiculous temporary police station now sitting next to
Martin's farm does nothing to overcome this since it will sooner
or later have to be dismantled, and then where will Martin be?
And it is because Martin is a rather batty and
quick-tempered eccentric that he has been the first property
holder to discover the real nature of the new law. A more
normal, reasonable person would have submitted, or moved away,
or simply got rid of any valuable property so he had nothing to
steal.
Many of us already adapt and change our lives in this
defeatist way. Lots of police forces will give you a printed
label to say that there is nothing valuable in your car, for
instance.
But as we make these little surrenders, we know in our
hearts that we are running away from a foe we really ought to
confront, and leaving our children a legacy of lawlessness and
chaos.
It may be wise to give in, but it is also shameful. And that
is why so many of us are pleased when we see someone fighting
back, however foolish it may be for him to do so.

[longeyes]

How did this happen?
Some think it was the abolition of the old Common Law rules
by the Criminal Law Act in 1967. But actually this wasn't so. In
the hands of old-fashioned judges and juries, the 1967 defence
of 'reasonable force' would excuse almost any action.
What changed as in all the other great pillars of "British
life were the people and the ideas that drove them.
The police chiefs stopped being old military men and were
replaced by social science graduates.
Guardian-reading Crown Prosecutors supplanted
battle-hardened police prosecution officers.
Respectable, middle-aged property-owning jurors in
three-piece suits disappeared to make way for slumped,
unemployed teenagers in shell suits.
The judges stopped being gnarled, disillusioned veterans of
the criminal courts and made way for Sixties idealists who think
criminals need help.
The law became a favourite profession for people whose views
were so wildly Leftwing that they could never win an election,
but who wanted political power anyway."

It can't happen here. Nawww.

[rrader]

Longeyes:

So then the UK's skyrocketing rate of serious and violent crime is more a result of a low and retrograde mentality amongst the badly educated, stridently left-wing Euro-socialists who make up its police and justice system, as opposed to simply low and retrograde laws.

It looks as if the justice system in the UK has been operating just like the police department in New London, Connecticut, it was found to be turning away recruits who tested as having too high an IQ. The theory was that people of average intelligence wouldn't make good police officers since they would become bored with the job.

Maybe the UK's solution would be to replace the current crop of boneheaded law enforcement personnel with new, more intelligent recruits.

[agricola]

most of you know what i will point out, so i'll start with the most glaring piece of nonsense in the whole article:

In the unlikely event that the thief is caught and
prosecuted, he and his friends will be free to terrorise you
into withdrawing your evidence, and the jury that hears the case
into acquitting him, since a feeble police force rarely, if
ever, acts to stop such things and often does not bother to
patrol court buildings any more.

The Courts take witness intimidation very seriously, as Hitchens well knows. Juries are, in certain cases, escorted to and from home or their tempoary residence by Police officers on Jury Protection duties. Each and every Magistrates Court and Crown Court in the land has Police Officers on duty attached to the Court, to say nothing of those officers who are giving evidence on that particular day.

You are even more likely to be sued shamelessly and
successfully in the courts by the man who has robbed you.

When Fearon successfully sues Tony Martin then Hitchens can make this statement - but he hasnt, and wont, because no Civil Court in the land will find in his favour. I am unaware of any rash of succesful crooks suing their victims that would otherwise enable Hitchens to make his claim.

Respectable, middle-aged property-owning jurors in
three-piece suits disappeared to make way for slumped,
unemployed teenagers in shell suits.

This is just old-style Tory elitism of the worst kind.

The combination of weak law and absent constables has hit
isolated country dwellers first.

Crime is, and has always been, and is so globally, much higher in city neighbourhoods than it is in rural ones. He may have a point when it comes to the withdrawl of the Police Houses from towns and villages, but then one cannot recall any statements of his, or other Tory writers, objecting when the Thatcher and Major administrations performed all of its cutbacks and economy drives that lead to this state of affairs. In one way its like the Countryside Alliance's moaning about the closure of rural shops - if they didnt bloody drive their Land Rovers to the big out of town Sainsburys every weekend then those shops would still be in business.




:rolleyes:

[agricola]

rrader,

you found any errors yet?

[telomerase]

Do the burglars carry licences and ID themselves (with PGP keys) so that everyone can distinguish them from arsonists, rapists, murderers, and Labor politicians? If not, there would seem to be a safety issue here.

[rrader]

All:

They call their police "Plods" in the UK for some strange reason.

[Duncan Idaho]

Juries are, in certain cases, escorted to and from home or their tempoary residence by Police officers on Jury Protection duties.That must be so the thugs know which house to break into after the "escorts" round the corner with their rube of a juror. I reckon once they know which house to break into, that kidnapping the family members - for reasons of extortion - should be something that even a Brit could figure out.

[rrader]

Duncan Idaho:

I reckon once they know which house to break into, that kidnapping the family members - for reasons of extortion - should be something that even a Brit could figure out.

Not the "Plods." Apparently they are selected for low IQ.

[Standing Wolf]

It may be wise to give in, but it is also shameful. And that is why so many of us are pleased when we see someone fighting back, however foolish it may be for him to do so.

I guess the British enjoy vicarious courage more than the genuine article. As for me, rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

[Zedicus]

It's about time that somone wrote an article like that.:)

In the unlikely event that the thief is caught and
prosecuted
all to true, a ricent example of the way that there either isn't enough LEO's to do the job or the possabillity that they just can't be bothered.

Only this week a young boy's body was found localy with no ID, on a Railway line after 2-3 trains had allready run over the body, the body was found to have several bruses and other injurys that as the report said "may have caused or contributed to the death", but despite the circumstances and what little florisic evidence they had gathered pointing to a possable homicide, the Police dismissed the death as "Not Suspisious"

they did the same with another EXTREMELY Suspisious death several months ago, a man had gone missing, his famly reporting his dissapearance after 2 days of his not returning home.2 days later his car was found abandond, around 4-5 days later his severed head was found on the shore of Loch Lomond, shortly after that "pices" of him were found scattered all over the UK.
and the Police deemed it as "Not Suspisious".

the same happened with another only 3 months ago when a backpacker found a man's torso on a trail in a rural area, and that was still "Not Suspisious"....

If those deaths aren't Suspisious, I'm not sure what is....
police
houses and stations in the countryside have been shut down in
great numbers.
Also True, but not restricted to rural areas, the area I live in has a population of around 180,000 and they shut down all but one police station which only now has a skeleten crew of 3-5 Pollice.
if you call for the police to respond, they have to come from a city that's over 30 miles away.

[alan]

This discussion began with the following question. " UK paper asks: What's wrong with shooting burglars? "

It strikes me that the question aught to be addressed to the British Court/Legal System, as it currently exists.

[444]

I have no idea.

I have nothing against it.

[agricola]

rrader,

you know, if you continue this avoidance people might think that you were all mouth and no trousers.

[agricola]

zedicus,

whereabouts in the UK do you live?

edit: no news website i can find has links to the story you suggest, aside from the "limbs in the loch" murder trial from 2001 for which a man was found guilty and sentenced to life. I cannot find any links to the first story. Do you have any?

[HBK]

Burgulars should be shot. Nothing wrong with that.

[Pebcac]

You know, reading Agricola's response to the article, my impression of British politics as consisting only of outright class warfare is reinforced.

When Fearon successfully sues Tony Martin then Hitchens can make this statement - but he hasnt, and wont, because no Civil Court in the land will find in his favour.

Whether or not he wins his suit is really quite immaterial, given that the British government has funded said lawsuit. Juries in the United States have, unfortunately, awarded damages to criminals injured in the act of committing their crimes, but our federal government has yet to fund any of these lawsuits.

[seeker_two]

UK paper asks: What's wrong with shooting burglars?

Nothing, in my opinion...

Britons have to protect themselves from home invasions, being that the LEO's & court system there doesn't seem to be concerned with the problem....

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

[HBK]

Actually, if a burgular broke into my home, I could only shoot him if he threatened my life or that of other occupants. If he ran away or took something and left, I could not LEGALLY shoot him. In theory, however, I am of the opinion that burgulars are nothing more than moving targets.

[alan]

seeker_two quoted and wrote the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK paper asks: What's wrong with shooting burglars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nothing, in my opinion...

Britons have to protect themselves from home invasions, being that the LEO's & court system there doesn't seem to be concerned with the problem....

Problem with that statement is the following, at least as I understand things.

In U.K., government, that being law enforcement, the legislature(Parliment) and the judiciary, along with special interest groups have made it virtually impossible for the British Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Everyman to do that, "that" being to protect themselves from home invasions, let along from violence on the streets.

One notes, in passing, that the above mentioned groups, entities or whatever one might choose to call them NEVER admit error, no matter how blatant the errors of their ways. Given the resord of past performances, they aren't very likely to take the necessary, and or indicated corrective actions either.

[agricola]

alan,

One notes, in passing, that the above mentioned groups, entities or whatever one might choose to call them NEVER admit error, no matter how blatant the errors of their ways. Given the resord of past performances, they aren't very likely to take the necessary, and or indicated corrective actions either.

once again, this is something easily disproved:

http://www.met.police.uk/news/stories/damilola_verdict.htm


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,856697,00.html
seeker_two,

You've been told, several times.

[alan]

Agricola:

Re the links you provided, thank you, however a couple of newspaper stories and so forth, from where I sit, these days in the U.S., though many years ago I lived and worked for a while in London, do not really answer the question.

The "question", by the way, is as follows. The government of U.K. has essentially completely disarmed the law abiding, correct me if I'm in error. Additionally, self defense, is looked upon as the most questionable of actions. Again please correct me if I'm in error, as there certainly is the possibility that I've misread and or misunderstood things.

Has "government" shown any realization of the very serious errors inherent in the course that they have chosen to follow re the above? I think not, however I certainly could be wrong. Aside from the question of realizations, has "government" shown or indicated in any way at all, the willingness or the ability to change course, or to even consider so doing? Again, I think not but I could be wrong on that too.

So sir, should it turn out to be that I'm all wet, let me know, however respecting the case of this seemingly sorely put upon farmer, I do not think that such is the case.

All the best .

Alan

Addendum: The links you provided discuss one particular case, the murder of a "young person", who would not likely be eligible, in most parts of the world, to carry anything much in the way of defensive weaponry. My comments are more general in nature, dealing with "government policy", in the broad sense of the term.

[agricola]

alan,

you said various groups never acknowledged their mistakes. This was clearly in error.

Self defence is still upheld in the courts. The Martin case was not about self defence, because a jury of his peers, with access to all the evidence, found that it was not self defence to shoot Barras in the circumstances that he did.

[HBK]

Just because 12 members of a jury found him guilty does not mean he was so. Let's say I were to shoot someone in self-defense and was put on trial. If there are a majority of active pro gun people on the jury, they would probably see it my way and I would be aquitted. However, if a majority of the jurors were from the VPC or Brady bunch, whichever, I would probably be found guilty, regardless of the judge's instructions.

[4v50 Gary]

What a terrific article. The Brits are waking up! When the letters to the editor comes out, please share them.

They've got a terrific uphill battle though and I wish them luck.

The only rights a criminal should have are last rites.

[alan]

agricola:

What is the "offical attitude" regarding the carriage of what have been described as "offensive weapons", things that might otherwise known as the tools of ones trade?

As to self defense still being upheld in the courts, there is or might be some question as to that.

If I recall, correction if necessary, you are British, I'm American. Our basic frames of reference are quite different, as are the contexts of the places where we grew up. These factors might, to some extent at least, serve to expalin differences of view point/opinion/outlook.

As to the Martin case being or not being about self defense, I suppose it depends on how one spells self defense. As I said above, there might well be, based on things beyond our control, a basic difference in our respective outlooks, points of view, that sort of thing. Not so much a question of the one being right, while the other is wrong, just that each is markedly different from the other.

[seeker_two]

agricola is British. He is also an LEO.

Draw your own conclusions... :scrutiny:

[rrader]

seeker_two

agricola is British. He is also an LEO.

They're called "Plods" in the UK for some reason.:scrutiny:

[alan]

Agricola:

Another poster offered the following: "agricola is British. He is also an LEO."

Fair enough, each of us has to be somewhere, doing something.

By the way, I assume that you know who Colin Greenwood, if he is still with us was. If not, he was Chief Inspector, West Yorkshire Constabulary, prior to retirement, or to his being perhaps pushed out. I suspect that the book he wrote, which many years ago I read, made any number of people in politics and LE less than happy.

The benefit of your thinking re his take on the value of British gun laws is requested, should you care to offer it.

I first came upon Mr. Greenwood via a televised interview/discussion program that was broadcast here quite some years back.

[Erik]

Good article from across the pond. MAybe they are awakening...?

[agricola]

alan,

Greenwood was correct in his conclusions; in that he stated that the various Firearms Laws have had no effect, either positive or negative, on the overall crime rate. Thats something that has been forgotten or ignore by many people who wish to cite his work as proof that the bans have caused crime to skyrocket.

as it happens, there is some evidence that the handgun ban especially has had some effect on the arming patterns of criminals - nearly 50% of recovered firearms from criminals and crime scenes are converted replicas.

rrader,

how about you repeat the same tired ad hominem statements over and over again? it saves you from admitting your legion of mistakes and mere fibbery, after all.

[Mk VII]

P.C. Plod was the policeman character in Enid Blyton's 'Noddy' series of books for children. Usually portrayed as a rather unpleasant bully, his name became an unaffectionate term for police officers generally.
The London Metropolitan Police's views on weapons are at http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm

[seeker_two]

That things classified as offensive weapons can be carried in certain circumstances:

at work

for religious reasons

weapons worn as part of national costume


.

Guess everyone could go around dressed as Scotsmen...:D

If you are found guilty of making, selling, hiring, lending or giving a sharp instrument or blade you are liable to: imprisonment, a fine of up to £5000, or both.


How do restaruants & silverware stores stay in business?... :scrutiny:

Avoid trouble
...Don't look someone in the eye - it may look like a challenge.
.

...and serfs should appear appropriately supplicant. :fire:

If you are being followed
Knock at the nearest door and ask the people there to call the police.


Worked for Kitty Genovese... :uhoh:

If you are attacked
Shout as loudly as you can. Get away rather than get even.

Hand over money or valuables - they can be replaced but scars last a lifetime.


Surrender: If it's good enough for the French... :p

Hard to believe London has a crime problem with all these sharp minds about... :scrutiny:

[Mk VII]

even Scotsmen have been arrested for wearing the skean dhu. They now make a dummy clip-on one without a blade.
You can't even buy a blade for your razor now unless you're 17 (I think).

[scbair]

You mention that a significant number of the "handguns" now used by armed criminals are converted replicas. Does this mean a homeowner can convert a replica to fire live ammo and he/she will be treated as leniently as will the street trash? What if I convert a couple of pieces of pipe to spray buckshot rather than water, and keep it beside my bed?

I am told a non-locking pocketknife with blade less than 3" is legal to carry; do the authorities not know non-locking blades are safety hazards? Why do they not demand that ALL folding knives have effective safety locks?

"Get away rather than get even"??? I can't run as fast as a 19 year old street scavenger; I don't want him to do anything that would require my "getting even." I want to STOP the worthless scum before he can harm me! I believe that's what we, in the uncivilized USA, call "self defense;" you would undoubtedly call it "vigilantiism."

Please stay in the UK, where your government seems intent on making sure no citizen can intrude on your precious LEO prerogatives. We have plenty of left-wing radicals (I refuse to call them "liberals;" a true liberal is a free and original thinker. Our "lefties" haven't had any original thoughts in years. As for free, HA! I've paid for every durned one of 'em!). We need no new ones.

[Iain]

Fairly sure the rules are that the blade must be of a locking type, otherwise I break the law fairly regularly.

[alan]

Agricola:

From what I recall of Greenwoods contentions, based on research he did, I believe at Cambridge, the following might prove interesting to think on.

His investigations, he claimed, clearly showed that for the significant police time and effort invested in enforcement of the firearms laws then in effect, relatively loose compared to the current genre, that the above mentioned time and effort could have been much better utilized in other directions.

This was, as I recall, the general sense of his conclusions. He also mentioned that prior to the 1920's virtually anyone could enter a gun shop, and walk away, having purchased any type of firearms available therein, without question. He also mentioned, as I recall, that under those circumstances, the incidence of gun crime was very much lower than it became later on, when all manner of restrictive gun laws had been enacted, when all manner of restrictive gun policies had been foisted off on the public.

True statement??

[MicroBalrog]

Did You Know?
That canisters of CS gas sold as self-defence to women are illegal in this country.



Good think my Mom doesn't live ther...


That antique weapons become offensive weapons if carried in a public place with the intention to cause injury.


And the burden of proof is on you, too!:evil:


That a flick knife is an offensive weapon - no question.

No comment needed.

[Zedicus]

scbair: I am told a non-locking pocketknife with blade less than 3" is legal to carry; do the authorities not know non-locking blades are safety hazards?
Who ever said that the Lawmakers had any Common Sence?:rolleyes:
St Johns: Fairly sure the rules are that the blade must be of a locking type, otherwise I break the law fairly regularly.
Well, only 2-3 months ago in my area a guy was sentanced to 6 months
for having a mini swiss army knife (One of These!) (http://www.swissarmy.com/webstore/moreinfo.cfm?product_id=3235&category=38) in his posession...
(i can try and find a link about it if you want, but it will take quite a while)
no idea if it's only a localised thing, but either way it ticks me off...:fire:

[agricola]

Well, only 2-3 months ago in my area a guy was sentanced to 6 months
for having a mini swiss army knife (One of These!) in his posession...
(i can try and find a link about it if you want, but it will take quite a while)
no idea if it's only a localised thing, but either way it ticks me off...

is this another one of your stories Zedicus or did it actually happen?

[Waitone]

Reading this thread gives me a nice, warm feeling about our future stateside.

We now have three SCOTUS judges who will admit to using law and social morays from other countries in rendering interpretations of US law.

I look forward to UK law being used in sorting out US self-defense laws.

I just knew we had it wrong these many years. Now is our chance to get back on the straight and narrow. Hey, maybe we can get the Brits and Aussies to help us sort out our second amendment.

[HBK]

Can't those three justices be removed for doing that? Other countries laws have nothing to do with US laws. Any justice that says they will look at other countries legal precedents should be run out of office.

[Mk VII]

No stabbing charges for blind man
By Paul Stokes (Filed: 07/08/2003)

A blind man who was arrested after a scuffle in which an intruder was fatally stabbed on his driveway will not face criminal charges, police said yesterday.
Thomas O'Connor, 62, was held after Lee Kelso, 23, died from a knife wound during a disturbance outside a house at Brinnington, near Stockport, Greater Manchester.
Mr Kelso, who had been drinking in a nearby pub, was urinating in the front garden when Mr O'Connor shouted at him to go away.
It led to an altercation between the two men during which Mr Kelso received two stab wounds.
When interviewed, Mr O'Connor said he had been acting in self defence and, after a seven-week investigation, Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have decided it would not be in the public interest for him to stand trial.

[KC]

"Just because 12 members of a jury found him guilty does not mean he was so."

And just because 12 members of a jury find you not guilty does not mean you are innocent. Just ask O.J. Simpson.

[agricola]

KC,

OJ Simpson is innocent of those murders

[HBK]

Good point, KC. Don't know why that double standard escaped me.

Agricola: I bet you could get all these guys to stop busting your balls if you admitted that the crime rate in England has skyrocketed because of the gun ban.:neener:

[scbair]

O. J. Simpson was found "not guilty";
however, O. J. Simpson was not, and cannot be, found "innocent."
Big difference.

[KC]

Agricola:

As has already been pointed out, there is a difference twixt "innocent" and "not guilty".

Speaking of double standards, while there was a great deal of outrage over a jury finding Simpson not guilty after the circus he and his lawyer turned that trial into, it really does not compare to what happened after another (Los Angeles) jury issued it's verdict after the end of the Rodney King trial.


HBK: you wrote
"I bet you could get all these guys to stop busting your balls if you admitted that the crime rate in England has skyrocketed because of the gun ban."

Think on this:
"Agricola: Roman soldier and politician who as governor of Britain (77-84) brought most of its inhabitants under Roman control." (From Dictionary.com)


KC

[AmericanFreeBird]

Well, the only advice I could offer would be to kill anyone you find breaking into your home and transport their carcasses somewhere where they won't be found soon and hope for the best.

Maybe you country folk need to get yourselves some hogs. :D

[agricola]

kc,

dictionary.coms definition is incorrect - Gnaeus Iulius Agricola became governor when all but a tiny part of North West Wales (the territory of the Ordovicii) and England north of a line Chester - Hull was already pacified - indeed the territory immediately north of that line (the territory of the Brigantes) had been traversed by one of the previous governors P. Cerialis (aka the luckiest man in Roman history) in company with Agricola on his last posting, and was largely pacified by that date (the Brigantes had remained loyal during the Boudica rebellion) despite some internal discontents. Beyond them there was nothing of real importance, then as now :D

Once Agricola had conquered the remainder of the country following the battle of Mons Graupius most of that area was then released - perdomita Britannia et statim missa - because of the jealousy of the emperor Domitian.

Besides, being found not guilty means you are innocent of the crime its alleged you have committed. Cochrane and the rest of OJ's flunkies may have seriously abused the judicial system in the process, but it doesnt change the fact that he was found not guilty.

[HBK]

Still, a government that disarms its citizens can't be trusted.

[KC]

Agricola:

Again, you miss the point while making it for me.

Your historical namesake (whom you presumably admire) was an invader laboring for an alien power whose interest in the inhabitants was solely to enrich themselves through taxation via pacification and domestication. Ie:robbery (writ large.) The native inhabits response to this robbery attempt would be of questionable legal virtue under current British law.


Your disagreement with the brief biography of "Agricola" from dictionary.com is not one of fact, but language. The intent was that under Agricola's term, the process of taking control of Britannia was completed, not necessarily that he himself had begun and ended the process. You yourself wrote, "Once Agricola had conquered the remainder of the country following the battle of Mons Graupius..." which would seem to bear out my claim.


As to imaginary lines, and on which side worthiness lies, I am sure that one could have an interesting conversation were one to ask a Scot, a Welshman, an Irishman, and a few others.:D


As to the jury process, the Simpson trial provided a graphic demonstration between FACT and TRUTH. (TRUTH being subjective, FACT being objective.) TRUTH won out over FACT, in that instance (in fairness, most legal systems do not seem to make a distinction between the two.) Other occassions:
-The British Parliment held TRUE the idea that their colonies on the Atlantic seaboard in the Americas would be taxed to pay part of the cost of the (then) latest of the wars between England and France. In FACT, this was demonstrated to not be correct.
-It was held TRUE that "Britannia Ruled the Waves", and was also FACT for a good number of years. By the early 20th Century, this FACT was conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect, but was nontheless held to be TRUE for a couple more decades.

While Simpsons not guilty plea was found to be TRUE, only a deranged lemming/LA County Jury could find that to be FACT. This was later demonstrated when Simpson was found guilty under civil, not criminal law.


KC

[agricola]

KC,

What an odd turn of phrase you have. The dictionary.com definition is neither TRUTH nor FACT because it is in error - the majority of the then British were already under Roman control, and had been prior to P. Cerialis becoming governor.

With regards for your statement against Agricola, do you hold similar resentment against George Washington? Or those who sailed on the Mayflower?

FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost.

Also, civil law requires a lower burden of proof than criminal. OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions. Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

[Zedicus]

Still, a government that disarms its citizens can't be trusted.
Though some Sheepele still like to think otherwise when History has Proven countless times that only Bad things follow Diarmament of civillians...

[ninenot]

Well, then, if the article is accurate, the Brits will have to learn the old Up North saying: "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up"

[KC]

Agricola:


As far as the life of the historical figure, it would seem that a number of other sources, including the "Columbia Encyclopedia", the "Encyclopedia Britannica", and the "Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography" corroborate the assertations made by dictionary.com and myself.

"FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost."

Ahhh...so Agricola was a Good Guy because he was a kinder, gentler, tyrant, who made the (proverbial) trains run on time?


Re: the Mayflower, Geo. Washington, et al.
This is an inaccruate comparasion. The Romans were interested in expanding their empire in order to draw new revenue from conquered peoples (at least in that point of the empire,) no longer as a means of self-preservation.
The Mayflower colonists were not interested in subjugating the natives, as the Romans were. The Puritans were intent on creating their own religious haven, and were concerned about the natives only when one group sent raiding parties against the other.
Washington & Co. were uninterested in Indians per se. Only when attempting to negotiate heirarchical treaties with non-heirarchial societies, and the attendant frustrations, did the natives become an issue to the colonists, and later the US.

[The British Colonial administration had attempted to deal with the problems between the natives and the colonists by restricting the ability of the Crown colonies to expand past the Applachians or into the Ohio River Valley.
There were no such restrictions on the colonies that would make up Canada, and there was no way for the British government from enforcing such an edict on the French or Spanish colonies had the 1776 revolt been unsucessful.
Yes, it was the end of the various tribes, but prior to the re-introduction of the horse to the Americas by the Spanish, the Plains Indians had been in decline and doing ecological damage similar to that of the late 19th century, just not in as organized a fashion. The Spanish had already expanded into California and the Southwest, spreading their influence via a feudal manorial system. Unorganized, stone-age societies do not last long when matched with industrializing organized ones.]


"OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions."
No. It means that under that particular finding of law, there was an insufficient amount of evidence to determine that he (Simpson) had, beyond a reasonable doubt, comitted the crime. IT DOES NOT mean that he unequivocally did not commit the crime.

"Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant."
Did I have equal access to the evidence as did the jury? Thanks to the media coverage, yes. (Due to media coverage, the general public probably had *better* access to all evidence than did the jury.) Was I a witness? No, 'The Real Killers' (read: Simpson) made sure of that. Are my opinions relevant? As I was not on the jury (and would have very like been rejected by the defence as a possible jury member), and both criminal and civil trials have been concluded, my opinions are not relevant. However, your position questioning them is less so given that you are neither a resident nor citizen of the US. (FWIW, your status as a LEO, active or not, foreign or not, probably would have ensured that you would not have been selected as a juror.)


KC

[agricola]

KC,

well, I am sorry but those sources are clearly flawed - it is a question of fact that, by Agricola's governorship, the vast majority in terms of population were already under Roman control. Here is Tacitus' great work, from which almost all opinion on the man is based:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-agricola.html

[Orthonym]

Where is Boudicca now that we really need her?

[KC]

Agricola:

First, Tacitus: while he is the primary source for most of Agricola's life, is hardly an unbiased source. He held a virulent grudge against anyone connected to the Julio-Claudians, and himself married Agricolas daughter.

Second, you don't seem to read your own source:
"Never indeed had Britain been more excited, or in a more critical condition. Veteran soldiers had been massacred, colonies burnt, armies cut off. The struggle was then for safety; it was soon to be for victory. And though all this was conducted under the leadership and direction of another, though the final issue and the glory of having won back the province belonged to the general, yet skill, experience, and ambition were acquired by the young officer." (Section 5)
Later:
"Rousing each other by this and like language, under the leadership of Boudicea, a woman of kingly descent (for they admit no distinction of sex in their royal successions), they all rose in arms. They fell upon our troops, which were scattered on garrison duty, stormed the forts, and burst into the colony itself, the head-quarters, as they thought, of tyranny. In their rage and their triumph, they spared no variety of a barbarian's cruelty. Had not Paullinus on hearing of the outbreak in the province rendered prompt succour, Britain would have been lost." (Section 16)

This would seem to suggest unsecured territory. Section 25 indicates that Agricola spent some six years pacifying the territories he occupied. While true, the Britons were not as intractable as the Germans in this regard, a six-year uprising is a troublesome and expensive prospect for a military governor, and seemed to take up much of his term. 'Roman control' would seem to still be a nominal condition, at best.
Since you seem to be so much better versed in details of Roman occupation of Briton than I, tell me, what year was it that the Roman Empire evacuated/abandoned (the allegedly secured and same) Britannia, leaving it to reavers and local barbarian chieftans? Sometime in the 5th century CE, wasn't it? This after years of building and maintaining walls and forts along borders, with standing armies to maintain internal and external security?



"The Britons themselves bear cheerfully the conscription, the taxes, and the other burdens imposed on them by the Empire, if there be no oppression. Of this they are impatient; they are reduced to subjectionn, not as yet to slavery. " (Section 19)
It would seem that some things about the Britons have changed but little, in the centuries since. Others, much.


KC

[AZRickD]

"How did this happen?"

If you want to know how this happened, go to www.amazon.com and buy the book by Anglo historian Joyce Lee Malcolm titled, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."

Click Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674007530/qid=1060698689/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1270977-3661738?v=glance&s=books)

It's a fun, and exasperating read.

Rick

[agricola]

KC,

Maybe you should read it. Following the Boudiccan revolt much of England was repacified, the majority of Wales was subjected and forays made into Scotland. Paulinus' victory at or near Mancetter crushed the rebellion in one fell swoop.

Britain was left by the Romans around 410 (the date of an edict by the emperor Honorius asking citizens to look to their own defence), however it remained in a Roman, or semi-Roman state for the next 100 to 150 years (longer than Rome itself which became barbarianized officially in 476), only falling to the Saxon hordes around 550 (and even then areas remained recognizably Romano-British).

[scbair]

O. J. Simpson is NOT "innocent," BY COURT OF LAW!!

He was found "not guilty" in criminal court, but was later found culpable in civil court. Thus, my earlier post differentiating "not guilty" from "innocent."

Any LEO should readily grasp this difference.

[agricola]

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [adj] declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless; "he stands acquitted on all charges"; "the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity"

Synonyms: acquitted, clean-handed, guiltless, innocent

not guilty = innocent of that crime


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/not+guilty

[scbair]

Thank you for correcting your earlier post. I agree that O. J. is "innocent of that crime," but, in accordance with the civil court verdict, definitely not "innocent of those murders," as you stated in your Augus 11 post.

At least, I assume the purpose of your subsequent post was to admit your error and not try to sidestep. I give you credit for that.

[Keith]

Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost.

How revealing! We'll take away your liberty, your land, your right to choose your own leadership, culture and destiny. And then we'll make you pay for the administration and services that you don't want since after all, you owe us for this...

This is the statist mindset - any earnings and property that the Subject's are allowed him to keep are a boon from the state for which they should be grateful.

All Hail Caesar!

Keith

[Mk VII]

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" 'Monty Python's Life Of Brian'
What's all this got to do with guns, anyway?

[KC]

Agricola, as with most LEO's, has made up his mind, and will not accept any counterarguement, even one using his own sources; churlishly dismissing out of hand anything and anything everything that is not congruent to his beliefs.

Given his responses to the various posts, it may not be so much that he does not agree with the arguement regarding Simpson, but that he does not understand it.

Given his choice of role-models and professions, he clearly believes his position (no matter the issue) to be morally superior, and thus not only beyond reproach, but one that should be a standard to grade others against--We mere mortals are not qualified to make decisions, as we are not in Government, nor are we qualified to defend our lives and property, as protection is the purview of the state through it's Police, and the people only subjects of the state.

Good job agricola. Big Brother is watching and doubtlessly approves.

[agricola]

KC,

Thats ridiculous. Any person who has gone beyond a mere scanning of the facts regarding Agricola knows that he did not conquer the country or bring most of its occupants under control. Its not a "belief", these are facts backed up by the surviving texts and archaeology (the Agricola is fully supported by the extant evidence btw).

I said it before, I will break it down into more managable pieces this time. The Boudiccan revolt was mainly in 60 AD. Agricola became governor in 77 AD. Inbetween successive governors pacified the greater part of the island (Agricola did serve in a junior capacity under Suetonius, and later as the second-in-command to P. Cerialis). By 77 AD all Agricola had to do was complete the subjection of the Ordovicii (NW Wales) and Brigantes (N England / Borders), and attack what is now Scotland. This he did, but he was then recalled and that part of Britain beyond what would become Hadrian's Wall was then abandoned, save for incursions during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Septimus Severus. The majority of Agricola's conquests were let go.

Keith,

You cannot assess people from that distance in time with your own mindset, because you just come across sounding ridiculous. The world beyond the small parts of it which were civilized - the same parts from which you recieve your ability to read, write, comprehend ideas such as freedom, spend money, recieve money and all other abilities that separate us from other animals of higher intelligence - produced little or nothing that has enriched mankind. Of course, if you can identify a part of the world during the Empire where people enjoyed freedom from oppression, I'd like to hear it. Hobbes was correct when he identified the main flaw of the natural state of man.

schbair,

OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of the offence for which he was accused. That dictionary states that "innocent" is a synonym of "not guilty". Its immaterial whether or not he did it, the fact is that OJ Simpson is now innocent of the murders because he has been found not guilty. Unless you all have new evidence that the jury did not see, or have access to all the evidence in its raw form (ie: uncontaminated by the sea of bias which surrounded that case) I'd suggest you are in no position to second guess people that were in possession of those facts.

[Keith]

Sorry, but I'm not a Hobbesian Man and I don't know anyone who is. Man is not a brute and he doesn't need every aspect of his life controlled by some elite ruler.
I'm a "Lockesian Man" (to coin a phrase) who thrives on independence. I want very little from government. I want its powers firmly limited and I want my civil liberties to be clearly recognized as beyond the boundaries of those powers.

This conversation pretty clearly delineates the difference between "us and them" - you being the "them"... And I don't want to start a fight - truly! You simply come from a very different world, one which (in many ways) is very parochial and limited. You've never been allowed the freedom to even own a handgun (for example - and to keep things on topic). And not having this freedom, you can't imagine why anyone else needs it or should have it. You're the fox who has lost his brush and wants all others to lose theirs.
What happens to people who live under such control? Don't they chafe and act out whenever they get the chance? Isn't that what "yobs" and football hooligans are - people who are rebelling against such control when they think they can get away with it? And why not? A society that exercises such control is intrusive and not worthy of respect from the individual. Self-discipline is learned behavior.
And of course, we have our own examples in this country! Our cities are full of such people.

Yet, you can still escape it here. You can move away from "liberal" states and leave most of those controls behind - and meet a better class of people!. I wish you could meet my twelve year old son. He has a half-dozen firearms. He shot his first deer at the age of six. He says "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir" when asked a question by a stranger and studies hard and tries to do the right thing, always. And it's not entirely due to his upbringing, such behavior is simply the norm here.

Doubtless, you would be appalled at how little the state controls and interferes with life in a place like this. Yet, you would not be able to argue with the results. People want nothing more than to live their own lives and they do pretty well when government keeps their nose out of it.


Keith

[agricola]

keith,

That post is a good illustration of how ignorance can make someone think that they or their country stand alone in terms of quality. Its good that youre clearly proud of your son, but there are several hundred million twelve year olds who are probably just as polite and respectful as him spread across the world, and you will as a result find that the standard of governance has no effect on the quality of the people for whom it governs.

Your post raises the old point that it still seems that some Americans seem to be unable to understand why other people dont want to be like them; pride in your country is commendable but it doesnt give you the moral high ground in being able to bash everyone else.

[scbair]

I stand corrected, in that I now retract the small credit I previously granted you.

A subsequent (civil) court found O. J. anything BUT "innocent" of the murders. He was found liable/culpable, and had a judgment rendered against him. It is irrefutable. You may hem and haw, evade and seek definitions that appear to support yopur position, but this only illustrates your own untenable position.

That you refuse to admit your initial error speaks volumes about your true character. Had tea with Bill Clinton, lately?

I've only recently joined this forum, but have quickly realized you seek an audience, rather than intelligent debate. I will no longer respond to any of your posts. I don't suffer such behavior as patiently as I did in my youth.

[KC]

Keith, scbair:

Think back to Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", and apply this to what you say in correspondance with agricola. Those who have never seen light cannot understand a description of it, as they lack the vocabulary to do so.

[alan]

Re court action, jury verdicts and such, in the U.S., in criminal cases, one is either, by virtue of jury verdict, GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. There is no such verdict as INNOCENT, so far as I know. Correct me if I should be wrong.

In Scottish juris prudence, in a criminal case, there are three (3) possible verdicts. GUILTY AS CHARGED, and off you go, to prison or perhaps to the gallows. Do they still hang people in Scotland?

The other possible verdicts, 2 in number are, NOT GUILTY, and CHARGES NOT PROVEN. In either of the latter instances, the accused "walks", however there might be a significant different between a verdict of NOT GUILTY and a verdict of CHARGES NOT PROVEN in the minds of the jurors.

[Keith]

Your post raises the old point that it still seems that some Americans seem to be unable to understand why other people dont want to be like them;

No, it raises the old point that foreigners are often unable to understand that there is no such thing as "being like an American".

You live under a centralized authoritarian system where a Londoner lives under the same rules, tax base, laws and system as someone in a small village in Yorkshire. And the people who live in those two places will be much more unanimous in their opinions and outlook since their behavior is dictated by that same centralized framework of control.

That's not true here. A person in say, Massachusetts, lives under the same onerous laws and pays the same heavy taxes as you do in GB (or nearly so). And the average man in Boston will quite likely share your world-view. He can't imagine living in a place with lower taxes (and lack of gubmint "services") or allowing citizens to carry weapons for self-defense.

Yet, you can go west or south (or north, to Alaska) and find an entirely different way of life under different laws, different styles of government. And this results in people with an entirely different outlook!

Most people miss this point - even most Americans miss the point! We do not have less government controls because we are smarter or braver or more "freedom loving" than Brits or Aussie's (or what have you). We have more civil liberties because the US consists of 50 semi-autonomous states. The federal government simply can not easily impose such draconian controls because the framework to allow that does not exist under our system. Each new control must incremental in nature and will face a host of enemies opposed to it.

Keith

[agricola]

scbair,

point 1: Simpson was found liable in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower. Do you believe in the "double jeopardy" rule or not? Over here (as an aside) if one is found not guilty of a common assault the magistrate can issue a certificate prohibiting any subsequent civil action; IMHO this should be extended. Civil Courts are not places to try criminal matters, least of all a double murder, and it was an abuse of the system to allow that trial into that Court.

point 2: In almost every civilized country (indeed one has heard several people here lambast a suggested scheme from the British Home Secretary to abolish double jeopardy) your guilt or innocence is determined before a tribunal, either composed of your peers and a judge, or several judges. If that tribunal determines that you did not commit that crime, then you did not commit it. This is at the base of all trial law, and the reasons why trials exist. The fact that someone from a supposedly oppressed state has trouble explaining this to the self-appointed enlightened ones is worrying.

I say this again to you and Keith: are you in the possession of special knowledge that those members of the jury werent? If the answer is no, then you have no legs to stand on when you second-guess the decision of the jury - you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

KC,

Its funny that someone clearly wrong about something can then claim superiority, but I guess I must have slept in the day Dr. Shotter opened his seminar on the the Gracchi with "Now listen, everything I have told you is correct, but if ever some Yank comes along and says something else, he or she is automatically right and the rest of world history is wrong".

[agricola]

keith,

You live under a centralized authoritarian system where a Londoner lives under the same rules, tax base, laws and system as someone in a small village in Yorkshire. And the people who live in those two places will be much more unanimous in their opinions and outlook since their behavior is dictated by that same centralized framework of control.

this statement displays better than any discourse of mine how deeply mistaken you are.

[MicroBalrog]

There is no such verdict as INNOCENT, so far as I know. Correct me if I should be wrong.

Ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty"?

[agricola]

micro,

quiet please, theyre about to argue that everyone is guilty that the media says is :D

[Keith]

KC,

Most people aren't going to be familiar with Plato, yet the old folk tale of the "fox who lost his brush" embodies the same wisdom.

Keith

[Keith]

this statement displays better than any discourse of mine how deeply mistaken you are.

Really? Can one own and carry a handgun, and the other not? Do the schools in Yorkshire have different books, standards and curricula than those in London? Can one build an addition to his house without groveling before the housing commision, and the other not? Can one even paint his house any color he wants, and the other one not? Can one fly a remote control airplane without permission from the proper authorities, and the other not? Can one own a television without a license, and the other not? Can one let his dog run off the leash, and the other not?

I don't think you realize how little you can do without getting a license, paying a tax or getting permission from some "authority". And I don't think you realize how much living under such a system has colored your world-view!

Keith

[KC]

argicola:
"Now listen, everything I have told you is correct, but if ever some Yank comes along and says something else, he or she is automatically right and the rest of world history is wrong."

I do not know your Dr Shotter, but try reading the text for yourself. If you want to hold an opinion counter to that of several military historians and your own source, fine. I can hardly stop you. I can correct you.

"quiet please, theyre about to argue that everyone is guilty that the media says is"
That is untrue and asinine, as you damm well ought to know.

Microbalrog:

"Innocent until proven guilty" simply places the burden of proof onto the prosecution to demonstrate the defendant's guilt, as opposed to the Napoleonic code (based on, oddly enough, Roman law), where the burden of proof is placed on the defendant to demonstrate his innocence. It is not itself a verdict.

Keith:
Actually, I am not that familiar with Aesop, so until you brought up that particular parable, I had not ever heard the story. Same intent, but one for classists and another for children.

[MicroBalrog]

And I don't think you realize how much living under such a system has colored your world-view!

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!:D :D

[Keith]

KC,

I didn't know the fox story went back to Aesop. I thought it was an Irish/British folk tale.

Either way, it is illustrative of an important truth. My twelve year old son can own a gun, yet an adult in GB can not - or can only do so under very restrictive circumstances.
I sometimes catch a British tv show where people "bodge" together various vehicles and machines in a junkyard. It's a fun show, yet I'm occassionally amazed at some limitation imposed by the "authorities". On one episode they built remote control aircraft and took a moment to describe the various licenses and "permissions" they had to obtain to be able to fly them at some old rock quarry out in the country - can you imagine?
On other episodes they had to jump through hoops to launch model rockets and to build crude black powder cannons.

This is stuff that kids do in this country (well, the cannons might require some adult oversight...) without the involvement of gubmint bureacrats or large sums of money for "licenses".

We don't impose such controls on kids, so I can't imagine what it's like to be an adult and live in such a place!

Keith

[agricola]

KC,

Everything I have stated is based on history AND the Agricola. You are the one who has taken one paragraph totally out of context and cited it as evidence, but I guess parading that ignorance is somehow satisfying to you. You have been told the facts, but I guess they must be beyond you. Which battles did Agricola fight in Southern Britain? Where are the Agricolan-period marching camps in the South? Where are the references in the Agricola to campaigns in the South? Where in the first century AD did the majority of the British people reside (clue: its not North)?

If of course you can counter this by showing me where in the Agricola it states that he brought most of the population under control, bring it on. You will then of course have to explain why the majority of those people were swiftly taken out of Roman control by the emperor Domitian, but I have tommorrow off and am in need of some humour.

Its not asnine as you admitted:

Did I have equal access to the evidence as did the jury? Thanks to the media coverage, yes. (Due to media coverage, the general public probably had *better* access to all evidence than did the jury.)

Your statements are based on the case made by the media, not the case made to the jury. A citizen is innocent until found guilty. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of those crimes by a criminal court. He is therefore innocent, as he was all along.

keith,

The pupils in Yorkshire have a different curriculum (which can vary from school to school), a different exam board and can have different subjects )indeed this can vary from school to school as well). Schools in Wales can and do teach the Welsh language, which is not taught in most of England. The rate of council tax is different in parts of Yorkshire, never mind when compared to London, or anywhere else in the country. A person in Yorkshire would be rather cross with you were you to compare him to a Cockney, and if you compared him with a Lancastrian then you would probably be going home air-freight.

Planning departments vary from County Council to County Council - one compares the horrid City with its mishmash of offices with a frankly beautiful place like Chester or York - but they serve a vital purpose in protecting important and historical buildings from abuse by landowners. I can hear your response already regarding "Well, its their property", but the ethos here in a country where there is almost 4000 years of visible history amongst monuments, cities and towns must be to protect that history for future generations.

Your statement at the end is laughable - that I am automatically wrong because I am not from the US.

[MicroBalrog]

Your statement at the end is laughable - that I am automatically wrong because I am not from the US.

Laughable? How so? (And no, I'm not an American - or a Conservative).:neener:

[Keith]

but they serve a vital purpose in protecting important and historical buildings from abuse by landowners.

Aaaahhhh, but the landowner might think some bureaucrat telling him he can't build an extra room for his new kid might be abuse!

As I said, having never been allowed to exercise control of your own life and property, you can't imagine why such a state of affairs would be desirable!

Keith

[agricola]

micro,

he said:

And I don't think you realize how much living under such a system has colored your world-view!

Coloured it from what exactly? Twisted it from the norm? The norm that says a man is innocent unless found guilty or if we think he is guilty anyway?

[MicroBalrog]

And I don't think you realize how much living under such a system has colored your world-view!

Not "coloured it from", but "towards" certain notions (for example, support of gun control).

[agricola]

keith,

for the life of me I cannot find any licence required to fly model aircraft.

[MicroBalrog]

Here are the UK regulations on model rockets (http://www.argoshpr.ch/Safety/RegulationsUK_e.htm)

[Keith]

Speak to the Junkyard War people. Out in the wilds of Kent (or wherever they are) they must get permission from the British equivalent of the FAA to fly those planes or launch model rockets. They went so far as to explain that the zone in which these deadly toys were to be used would be made off-limits to aircraft for the duration of the test.

They also explained that the solid rocket propellants were controlled items that had to be handled by licensed "experts" who actually placed them in the rockets and hooked them up to the launch mechanism/battery.

This is the kind of stuff that ten year olds buy at Wal-Mart and launch at the local ball field on Saturdays, in this country.

Bureaucracy gone mad!

Keith

[Zedicus]

I sometimes catch a British tv show where people "bodge" together various vehicles and machines in a junkyard. It's a fun show, yet I'm occassionally amazed at some limitation imposed by the "authorities"
Sounds like one I watch called Scrapheap Challange...:)
On one episode they built remote control aircraft and took a moment to describe the various licenses and "permissions" they had to obtain to be able to fly them at some old rock quarry out in the country - can you imagine?
On other episodes they had to jump through hoops to launch model rockets and to build crude black powder cannons.
Hence why I had to Give up on 2 of my Favorete Hobbies:(, I couldn't afford the planes & accessories/rockets & Accessories and the bloody fees imposed by the daft restrictions...:fire:
Bureaucracy gone mad!
Yep! you Got it in One shot with that Keith!:D

[jimpeel]

For those interested, the story is on Peter Hitchen's (http://www.peterhitchens.com/) webpage at: http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_page_id=2&in_article_id=191228

[agricola]

zedicus,

are you ever going to supply evidence for your suspicious death stories?

[Keith]

Zed,

Come on over and get a new start in Southern Alaska! The weather will be the same, but other things will be a little different. We'll order up a kit and build a custom L1A1 (in memory of a better England) for you on my kitchen table and then bodge together a few rockets, etc, and then go blow some stuff up - legally!

Keith

[Zedicus]

agricola: zedicus,

are you ever going to supply evidence for your suspicious death stories?
Can you give me one Good Reason why I should waste 6 hours looking for links that have probably been long since moved/erased?
Zed,

Come on over and get a new start in Southern Alaska! The weather will be the same, but other things will be a little different. We'll order up a kit and build a custom L1A1 (in memory of a better England) for you on my kitchen table and then bodge together a few rockets, etc, and then go blow some stuff up - legally!

Keith
Sounds Like fun, But unfortunitly It'll be a while till I can move....:(

[Tommy Gunn]

It's a good article, but would you please edit it so that it can be read?

A URL to the story would be appreciated as well.

[jimpeel]

http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_page_id=2&in_article_id=191228

What's wrong with shooting burglars?
By PETER HITCHENS, Mail on Sunday
August 3, 2003

You and your wife are alone in your house late at night. You are woken by footsteps and banging downstairs. What do you do?

If you have any sense at all, you will do nothing and hope the intruder goes away quickly. If he bursts into your bedroom, you would be wise to submit to him and not to look at him too carefully in case he gets the idea that you might be able to identify him later.

You know that if you ring the police they will probably take too long and may not come at all. And if you resist the thief, attack or injure him, you are likely to find yourself in a shared cell watching trash TV and eating prison slop with plastic cutlery as you do your time.

You are even more likely to be sued shamelessly and successfully in the courts by the man who has robbed you. If you kill him, which at least means he cannot sue you or intimidate you or come back for more, then the law will probably treat you as a murderer, making no legal distinction between you and Harold Shipman.

In the unlikely event that the thief is caught and prosecuted, he and his friends will be free to terrorise you into withdrawing your evidence, and the jury that hears the case into acquitting him, since a feeble police force rarely, if ever, acts to stop such things and often does not bother to patrol court buildings any more.

If by any chance he is convicted, he will swiftly be released under one of 'tough' David Blunkett's many schemes for letting prisoners out as rapidly as possible. He might even come back to steal whatever he left behind the first time.

Countless citizens, especially women living alone, now sleep with some sort of weapon or blunt instrument by their beds in case they are disturbed by thieves in the night. Others, especially those living in the countryside where the police have vanished, look thoughtfully at their legal firearms and wonder if they dare use them, even as a deterrent.

This is the disgusting, pitiful state of the law of Britain in 2003. Unless it is changed, it is only a matter of time before the prosperous suburbs of Britain are laid waste and plundered by armies of thieves, rightly confident that nobody can or will stop them and that they will not be punished.

It is only the surviving illusion, on both sides that we still live in a policed and law-governed country that stops this happening today.

Tony Martin, a strange and muttering loner, has won the sympathy of millions not because he is a good example or because he behaved well when he shot a burglar dead.

His popularity is the result of frustration and rage among the law-abiding who feel that they could easily have acted as Martin did. They probably won't because they are more worldly and have more sense.

On the one occasion I spoke to Martin, shortly before his trial, I told him he was very likely to be convicted. He was astonished. He still thought he lived in an older Britain of stout-hearted juries and robust judges where his action would be excused if not applauded.

That country died some time in the past ten years. As recently as 1993, Judge Daniel Rodwell awarded Malcolm Hammond £300 for shooting two armed robbers who raided his home, saying: 'He showed great gallantry in tackling these dangerous men and protecting his pregnant wife from further harm.'

But the shadows of political correctness were already deepening, though few realised it at the time. Six months later Mr Hammond was brought back to the same court and fined more than £2,000 because the pistol he had used was illegally held. Mr Hammond always denied this and said he had wrestled the gun from one of his assailants.

Once upon a time, nobody would have cared all that much, but in John Major's semi-Socialist Britain it was slowly becoming clear that the law was now neutral between 'offender' and 'victim'.

By the time Martin came to court it was even worse. The system wanted to make it clear that it disapproved much more of Martin for killing a burglar than it did of the fact that he was burgled in the first place. Huge pressure was placed on Martin to recant and show remorse for his action. He was kept in prison far longer because he wouldn't.

No parallel effort was made to make burglar Brendan Fearon do the same, though he was almost as responsible for the death of Fred Barras as was Martin. In fact, the prison system couldn't spit him out fast enough and - despite Mr Blunkett's bluster and demands for explanations - the Home Secretary knew perfectly well that this was the case.

Until recently, Britons were allowed to defend their homes and to keep weapons, just as many Americans still do.

Partly because the US is still much more rural than we are, and proper policing is impossible, the old British idea that a burglar loses his rights when he breaks into someone's home is still very much in force. That is why 'hot' burglary, where the homeowner is in his house, is so much rarer there than here.

In Britain now we have the worst of both worlds - police who can't or won't protect us, and no right to protect ourselves. How did this happen?

Some think it was the abolition of the old Common Law rules by the Criminal Law Act in 1967. But actually this wasn't so. In the hands of old-fashioned judges and juries, the 1967 defence of 'reasonable force' would excuse almost any action.

What changed - as in all the other great pillars of British life - were the people and the ideas that drove them. The police chiefs stopped being old military men and were replaced by social science graduates.

Guardian-reading Crown Prosecutors supplanted battle-hardened police prosecution officers. Respectable, middle- aged property-owning jurors in three-piece suits disappeared to make way for slumped, unemployed teenagers in shell suits.

The judges stopped being gnarled, disillusioned veterans of the criminal courts and made way for Sixties idealists who think criminals need help. The law became a favourite profession for people whose views were so wildly Left-wing that they could never win an election, but who wanted political power anyway.

It was a clever move. At least until the Blair victory in 1997, elite liberal lawyers and judges, radical Home Office civil servants progressive' prison governors and Left - wing police chiefs were the most powerful radicals in the country.

Piece by piece, they took control of the law so that it defied common sense and instead served their crackpot, guilt-driven ideas of social justice.

Martin had to be punished severely because he had tried to impose the old conservative law, which has now been abolished. Anyone who was thinking of doing the same thing had to be warned that on this, at least, the law would come down hard.

There was something very symbolic about the way Martin, once convicted, was then seen being led away handcuffed to a female guard, about as politically correct a message as you could send. Was it perhaps deliberate?

And it was only when he claimed to have been sexually abused as a child, the standard liberal excuse for all kinds of misdeeds, that his conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter.

Interestingly, police officers who shoot suspects rashly or by mistake tend to get let off. It wasn't because he had killed someone that Martin was being punished, but because he had challenged the new liberal monopoly of force.

All that would be bad enough. But what makes it unbearable, and what brought it to boiling point for Martin, is that the police have vanished at the same time.

As police have been withdrawn from foot patrol, police houses and stations in the countryside have been shut down in great numbers.

The combination of weak law and absent constables has hit isolated country dwellers first. They know that if they call for help, none will come in time, whereas the rest of us just suspect that this is so. Rural people and those who rob them have realised - as the rest of the country is just beginning to do --that we are now halfway back to the Dark Ages.

The ridiculous temporary police station now sitting next to Martin's farm does nothing to overcome this since it will sooner or later have to be dismantled, and then where will Martin be?

And it is because Martin is a rather batty and quick-tempered eccentric that he has been the first property holder to discover the real nature of the new law. A more normal, reasonable person would have submitted, or moved away, or simply got rid of any valuable property so he had nothing to steal.

Many of us already adapt and change our lives in this defeatist way. Lots of police forces will give you a printed label to say that there is nothing valuable in your car, for instance.

But as we make these little surrenders, we know in our hearts that we are running away from a foe we really ought to confront, and leaving our children a legacy of lawlessness and chaos.

It may be wise to give in, but it is also shameful. And that is why so many of us are pleased when we see someone fighting back, however foolish it may be for him to do so.

[agricola]

zedicus,

quite simply because I looked for those links in news archives and found precisely nothing. As it happens, I am of the opinion that you made them up to make a point, but I was trying to give you a chance to show me these stories.

[jimpeel]

Searched on "torso" on the Daily Telegraph and got this. Will this do in the absence of Zedicus supplying same?

LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F07%2F30%2Fntors30.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=185558)

Torso in the Thames: 21 people arrested in police raids
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
(Filed: 30/07/2003)


Police investigating the murder of a young African boy whose dismembered torso was found in the Thames have arrested a gang suspected of bringing hundreds of people, including many children, into Britain illegally.

Senior detectives said yesterday that they believed the gang was responsible for trafficking Adam - the name given by police to the boy whose torso was found - into the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/07/30/ntors30.jpeg
Voodoo artefact: an animals skull pierced with a nail recovered during one of the raids


Scotland Yard is convinced that he was brought here to be murdered in a ritualistic sacrificial ceremony. It is thought the gang passed Adam on to those who killed him for the "benefit" of whoever commissioned the sacrifice of the boy, who was aged between four and seven and whose mutilated torso was found floating near Tower Bridge in September 2001.

Trafficking of children for such murderous purposes is extremely rare and it is not suggested the people held yesterday were bringing in people for sacrifices.

However, they are suspected of being a significant presence in the West African end of the multi-million-pound people smuggling trade, which brings thousands of illegal immigrants into Britain every month. One officer said the gang may have brought "hundreds, if not thousands" of people into Britain.

One police and Home Office estimate suggests 250 children enter Britain every month illegally, many with parents or relatives but others on their own.

It is suspected that some African children are trafficked onwards to locations such as Italy where they work, effectively, as domestic slave labour.

More than 200 Metropolitan Police officers, some in riot gear, raided addresses in south, south-east and north London and arrested 21 people yesterday. One had a young baby.

Most were from the Benin City area of Nigeria. Forensic tests on Adam suggest he came from the region around Benin City. Ten of the 21 were said to be illegal immigrants.

Tests were being carried out last night on what police described as "substances" - including types of soil and clay - and on an unidentified animal's skull, with a nail driven through it, which was found wrapped in cloth in a suitcase.

Scotland Yard described the skull as a "bizarre voodoo artefact". A spokesman said: "The object appears to be that of an animal skull with a large metal hook driven into it by a rock. It has been wrapped in what appears to be black thread."

Detectives want to establish whether any of the items are similar to elements of what was believed to be a ritualistic concoction, including ground bone, fed to Adam before he was killed.

DNA tests will establish whether any of those arrested were related to Adam. Detectives believe there are links between the gang arrested yesterday and a man and a woman arrested in Ireland and Scotland earlier in the inquiry.

Det Chief Insp Will O'Reilly, who heads the Adam case, said: "We are pretty convinced we are into the group of individuals who would have trafficked Adam into the country."

People smuggling - bringing them illegally, but voluntarily, into the the country to make their own way - is big business, attracting organised criminals.

"Trafficking" - the continued exploitation of illegal immigrants in the UK, such as east European teenagers in the sex trade - is also criminally profitable but takes place on a lesser scale.

The trafficking of children is rare, though it features in the West African context.

Scotland Yard said yesterday that it was clear that children had passed through some of the addresses raided. Cdr Andy Baker, head of the Yard's murder squad, said yesterday: "There is very little evidence of people being brought in for the sex trade. But there is some evidence of putting them to work.

"It is not necessarily slavery, but children working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year amounts to some form of slavery."

[jimpeel]

This seems to lend credibility to the "lack of police resources" allegation.

LINK (http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86419&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86416&contentPK=6704956)

FIVE-HOUR TRAUMA FOR RAPE VICTIM (AND THAT WAS AFTER THE ATTACK)


11:00 - 14 August 2003

A Suspected rape victim endured a five-hour wait for a medical examination because there was no police doctor available. The woman, who had claimed she was raped by four men, was told she could not drink any water or go to the toilet during the delay, in a bid to preserve evidence.

The office worker, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said the delays left her feeling "sick and dirty".

The incident took place on December 22, 2001, but details have only just emerged after the case against the four men accused of raping her collapsed.

Less than eight per cent of rape allegations in Bristol result in a guilty conviction and the woman at the centre of the case has spoken out to draw attention to the disparity in figures.

The five-hour wait was caused because there was only one Force Medical Examiner on call.

The examiner, a GP who covers Easton, St Paul's and the city centre for her police work, was called at 6.30am but she was engaged on another job and she did not begin the full medical examination until 11.30am.

The woman at the centre of the allegations said: "Victims of sex assaults should not have to wait several hours for a medical examination to begin.

"I felt dirty. It was a nightmare and there didn't seem to be any end. I just wanted to shower but I knew I couldn't. After what had happened I felt these delays just prolonged the agony.

"The actual police investigation was excellent and no stone was left unturned. I don't want to put off rape victims from coming forward but I have to speak out."

The woman, who is in her 20s and from Bristol, claimed she had been raped by four men at a house in Filton after a night out in Bristol.

She has no memory of a four-hour period from midnight and said she woke up at 4am naked in a room to find a stranger having sex with her.

The woman raised the alarm as soon as she was on her own, at 5.50am.

The importance of early medical intervention is vital in preserving evidence and checking for date rape drugs, which can disappear from the system within a few hours of being consumed.

Police spokesman Paul Gainey said: "The Force Medical Examiner is contracted to the police on a shift-to-shift basis. We don't have any jurisdiction over them. There is one examiner per district. Ideally an examination would not be delayed, but on rare occasions it does happen.

"The officers took advantage of the time caused by the delay to investigate the case. The woman was driven to identify the house where the incident allegedly took place. Although the full medical examination wasn't carried out for five hours, mouth swabs were taken by a police officer.

"Two officers worked on the case and four men were charged."

c.maguire@bepp.co.uk

[jimpeel]

LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/15/nbuck15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/08/15/ixportal.html)

Police ignored seven alarms and five CCTV shots of royal intruder
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
(Filed: 15/08/2003)

The intruder who kissed Prince William at his 21st birthday party penetrated police security despite triggering seven alarms and being captured five times on CCTV, a Scotland Yard inquiry has found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/08/15/nbuck15.jpeg
Aaron Barschak was recorded
on CCTV as he made his way to
the party room

Protection officers failed to respond to electronic warnings and no one patrolled the area of Windsor Castle where Aaron Barschak, a self-styled "comedy terrorist", entered.

A catalogue of failings, including inadequate planning and supervision, is highlighted by Cdr Frank Armstrong, of the City of London force, who was asked to investigate one of the Metropolitan Police's most embarrassing episodes.

Cdr Armstrong, formerly head of Tony Blair's personal protection team, warned that "complacency as a result of routine" (BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA) was a danger. Similar deficiencies to those at Windsor had been uncovered in a report into an intrusion at St James's Palace last December.

He called for a major review of royal security involving the Government, Royal Family and police.

Cdr Armstrong said police knew that every member of the Royal Family, except the Earl of Wessex, would be at the party, and that it had attracted huge public interest.

But the number of officers on duty actually fell after the party started. The most senior officer, a chief inspector, appeared to have left the party an hour after it began.

"The intrusion was not a complete systems failure but a failure to operate and maintain the systems correctly." (BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

Party activity - first the work of contractors, and then the arrival of guests - repeatedly set off the alarms in some areas. Contractors' vehicles also blocked alarms and cameras. But police failed to compensate for these difficulties by using patrolling officers.

On June 21, the day of the party, Cdr Armstrong found that "there were numerous alarm activations between midday and midnight. The police levels at Windsor were insufficient to provide the necessary response".

There appeared, he added, "to have been an over-reliance on officers being deployed at static posts, rather than patrolling".

Barschak scaled an embankment, two trees and a wall to enter Windsor. Cdr Armstrong said there was "an over-reliance" on the physical security provided by the castle wall. A programme of security improvements had done "little to prevent" another intrusion.

Barschak then activated alarms "in geographical sequence" and was recorded on CCTV as he made his way to the party room. "There appears to have been no operational police response to these alarm activations or the CCTV recordings."

The police "operation order" was "not comprehensive and was not completed" until the day before the party, allowing "insufficient time for effective oversight and necessary changes".

The report added: "The command structure was inappropriate and not sufficiently resilient for a royal event of this significance." Working conditions, resources and supervision in the police control room at Windsor were all inadequate.

The incident, Cdr Armstrong said, "should be the catalyst to review security at all royal residences in London and elsewhere in conjunction with the Home Office, Royal Household and relevant police services".

The report makes clear that the party was policed with "low key" security. The guest list was not handed over until the day of the party. However, the Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, said there was no evidence that the Royal Family had "interfered in the security".

"We are looking for a balance," Sir John said. "No one wants a security regime which is incredibly restrictive. What we are looking for is that the technology is right and the response to that technology is right."

Cdr Armstrong's report does not apportion blame to any officers. Eight members of the royal protection squad including the chief inspector and a Pc who accepted Barschak's claim that he was a "lost" guest after a contractor found him wandering are subject to the inquiry. He also proposes the creation of a new criminal offence of trespass in royal residences.

Barschak, who was never prosecuted, yesterday welcomed improved security but said a trespass offence would not deter somebody determined to harm a member of the Royal Family.

[agricola]

jimpeel,

With regards to the link about the torso - not really, as Zedicus was rather specific that a head had been washed up on the shores of Loch Lomond, and that Police were treating that death as non-suspicious. The case of "Adam" has seen almost unprecedented efforts by the AMIP teams to both identify the boy (they've narrowed it down to a small area in Nigeria) and to locate his killers.

The issues around the availability of the FME in county forces are well-dcoumented.

[KC]

Why was it that the case against the alleged attackers collapse? (For the above mentioned rape case.) Too long a time between the attack(s) and a medical examination? Or did the defence convince someone that she had been 'asking for it'?

I've heard some real horror stories about what socialized medicine has done to people, but this is probably one of the worst. What is the official justification for this unpreparedness? From what agricola said, the authorities know about it; are they actually doing anything to resolve this deficiency? Or, is it similar to situations in France, where some aspects of society don't want to hear about crimes like rape, and ignore it in the hopes that it will go away?

Incidently, what is the general public's reaction to the dissmissal/'collapse' of this case?


KC

[agricola]

KC,

I gather the prosecution were unable to prove that the sex was not consensual - the delay in the FME's arrival would probably have delayed blood samples being taken to establish the presence of any date-rape drugs.

Incidentally KC this is not down to "socialized medicine" - over here the only people permitted to take forensic medical samples from the living are the FMEs, which while they are paid by the Police for their callouts are not strictly speaking employed by Police.

[KC]

agricola:

"over here the only people permitted to take forensic medical samples from the living are the FMEs"

:eek:
So, if a woman claims she is raped, it almost makes more sense for her to go to a police station than a hospital, as the emergency room personel at a hospital are not legally qualified to take blood samples?

KC

[Keith]

So, if a woman claims she is raped, it almost makes more sense for her to go to a police station than a hospital, as the emergency room personel at a hospital are not legally qualified to take blood samples?

Sounds like law enforcement is every bit as messed up as the health care system.

Keith

[agricola]

KC,

They can take samples, its just for it to be evidential they usually have to come from an FME. If a woman has been raped, then yes, its better for her to call the Police as well as medical help because the sooner Police are involved the higher the chance of the perpetrators being caught.

[jimpeel]

Then will this do?

Searched on loch lomond +head

LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F12%2F18%2Fnhead18.html)

Teenager was victim of 'head in bag' killing
By Auslan Cramb and Richard Savill

A SEVERED head found on a Scottish beach was that of a "popular and well-respected" teenager who disappeared after a works night out, police said yesterday.

His killer decapitated and dismembered his body before dumping the parts at sites more than 60 miles apart, raising fears that the teenager was the victim of a psychopath who may kill again. Detectives leading the inquiry have not ruled out the possibility that the murderer may have claimed previous victims. Det Supt John Geates said they had no reason to believe the murder was the result of a homosexual attack.

Barry Wallace, 18, a supermarket worker, was last seen walking through a taxi rank in the centre of Kilmarnock at around 1.45am on Sunday, Dec 5. Police divers found his severed legs and arms on the east shore of Loch Lomond two days after he disappeared. Earlier this week, a woman walking her dog found his head in a carrier bag on Barassie beach in Ayrshire, 10 miles from his home in Kilmarnock.

His father Ian, 49, a BT engineer, said two days ago that he was "99 per cent certain" his son was not the victim. But the teenager was identified by DNA testing and by a family friend.

Before his son's identity was confirmed, Mr Wallace said: "I asked him if he was coming home after the works party, but he said he would be going to another party with friends. His last words were that he would see me tomorrow." A police source said the victim had no previous convictions and was "squeaky clean".

The dead man's torso has not been found and officers have not ruled out the possibility that the murderer is taunting them by leaving bits of the body in different locations. More than 60 Strathclyde Police offers are involved in the murder inquiry and an incident room has been set up in Kilmarnock.

A police source said: "No motive for Barry's murder has emerged. He was single and lived with his parents and older brother Colin, aged 21. He was a popular, well-respected young man." Mr Wallace worked as a shelf stacker for a Tesco store near his home and had taken the day off on Dec 4 to prepare for the party.

Workmates said he had danced during the party at the Foxbar Hotel before leaving to join friends at another venue. Mr Geates said: "We have no clear suspect. We have a number of lines of inquiry to follow. We cannot rule out anything at this moment." Chief Supt Bill Campbell, divisional commander for Kilmarnock and Ayr, urged revellers not to go for a night out unaccompanied.

For further info see:

More remains found in Loch Lomond (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F2000%2F01%2F10%2Fnloch10.html)

DNA test may match head with loch body parts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F12%2F17%2Fnparts17.html)

Alert for killer of dismembered man (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F12%2F20%2Fnkill20.html)

Police file name of suspect in 'limbs in loch' murder (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F12%2F21%2Fnkill21.html)

[KC]

agricola:
"They can take samples, its just for it to be evidential they usually have to come from an FME. If a woman has been raped, then yes, its better for her to call the Police as well as medical help because the sooner Police are involved the higher the chance of the perpetrators being caught."

I think you misunderstood part what I wrote. From my impression of procedure (at least in England) the first stop a woman who claims to have been raped is a police station, as only police personel, of whom the Forensic Medical Examiner I percieve to be a member of, is legally qualified to collect physical evidence from the alleged victim's body. We have established that only an FME can take blood samples, but does this also include semen samples and other physical remenants?

My point is that, assuming even *basic* competency of nurses in England, they should be able to draw a blood sample and store it in such a fashion that it remains in the evidence train. (My understanding is that this is part of the standard procedure and components of "rape kits" in most metropolitan hospitals in the US.)
The idea that such a sample(s) is valid only if gathered by an FME is ludicrous! I do not understand why such an absurd situation would be allowed to perpetuate itself, unless some labor union is protecting it's turf. If true, it is doing so at great expense to the safety of the public at large, and ought be held criminally liable.


"Chief Supt Bill Campbell, divisional commander for Kilmarnock and Ayr, urged revellers not to go for a night out unaccompanied."
Yes truly: when guns and other means of self-defence are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. Whatever cretin thought that to be a good idea needs to be confined to a lunatic asylum for the criminally insane. (Or, here's a good one; anyone that endorses this nonsense is charged as a member of a criminal conspiracy for every crime that occurrs with an 'illegal' weapon? Now wouldn't that be fun...Sahrah Brady up on the hot seat:evil: )

[agricola]

jimpeel,

thats the only link i could find - but zedicus was adamant that the Police had treated the death as "non-suspicious" - wheras that case led to a murder conviction, so I was forced to discount it.

KC,

they can and do do that (nurses); but our lawyers are just as sneaky as yours, and they can and do introduce doubt, cloud the issue, and attack the competencies of anyone they can in order to get their client off - which is why Police are reluctant in the extreme to do anything that might jeopardize the subsequent conviction, so the book must be followed to the letter. If an A+E doctor could stand up in front of a jury and state what his or her expertize was, and how many victims of rape he or she had examined, and what the evidence meant, then we probably would use them more than as merely a last resort. Hopefully we can expand the system so that its like yours in some respects, but (ironically due to the commercialization of the NHS) theres unlikely to be the money for that.

upon a complaint of rape, the victim usually taken to (if she isnt already at) a police station, where consent is sought to take various samples, the means for taking all of which are contained in whats colloquially called the "rape kit". The FME takes these samples and conducts an examination (Police can take mouthswabs, but thats it), seals them up, makes a statement regarding the procedure and so on.