England Gun Ban Update

[30 cal slob]

ingsoc doubleplus good.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_English_people_have_bad_teeth

Why do English people have bad teeth?
In: English History

Answer
Nationalized (socialist) medicine only takes care of the basics. Teeth are not high prioritiy in a government run medical system.

Dental work is available in England, but most either cannot afford it or don't have the money after all of their other expenses.

 

[30 cal slob]

slavery is freedom.

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/SentencesOrdersandAgreements/ASBO/

Anti-Social Behaviour Order

An Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) can be used against anyone who is 10 years of age or over and has behaved in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to someone or some people who do not live in their own household.

An ASBO stops the young person from going to particular places or doing particular things. If they do not comply with the order, they can be prosecuted.

Any one of the following agencies can apply for an order, subject to a legal obligation to consult with other agencies.

* Local authorities: district councils, London boroughs, the Corporation of London, the Isle of Wight, Welsh counties or county boroughs and English county councils

* Police Forces

* British Transport Police

* Registered Social Landlords (as defined by Section 1 of the Housing Act 1996)

* Housing Action Trusts (as defined by Section 62 of Housing Act 1988)

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Let's just go over a little list of questions, shall we?


You guys seem to be be fine as far as religion goes, freedom of speech, though somewhat infringed isn't so bad... I guess. What about peaceable assembly and protest?

In terms of people having arms, I think getting a shotgun is pretty easy, right? Rifles are a PITA, semi autos are near impossible(except rimfires), as are handguns. Carry is strictly forbidden for your average Joe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you be randomly searched on the street? You already addressed the warrant less search thing.

Do you have to right to not talk to police and if you choose to exercise it can it be held against you at trial?

Do you have the right to counsel and the right to be tried by a jury of your peers?

Do you have a right to know what you are being arrested for?

Can you be arrested and held just because the government doesn't like you?

Can you be tried for the same offense twice?

 

[barman]

How do you equate having guns to having more freedom than other "civilized" countries (as if we, the western world, are civilised in any manner)?

Please spare us that white guilt B.S.


You are just a stereotypical left-winger who just likes to believe he can think for himself but in fact you’re just repeating all the things you’ve been taught to digest as the “one and unique truth”.
You probably hate yourself and the whole Western civilization because you’ve been spoon fed with ideas like whites are to blame for everything, even 150 years after the end of slavery and more than 50 years after de-colonization.

The problem is, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN POWs, but weren't. Why? If they were POWs they would have been subject to the geneva convention, this suggests something is not right. Then we could talk about Abu Graib, the secret prisons in other countries, poland if my memory serves me.

To be a POW and be treated accordingly to the Geneva convention, it is stated that you must wear a uniform, which is never the case with Islamic insurgeants. Otherwise you are just a… Guess what? A terrorist. Many countries, mine included (France), have such laws that allow them to detain almost indefinitely people involved in acts of terrorism.
Being ruthless with people who are not ready to fight following a certain number of rules seems perfectly OK to me.

I am not a troll, i am a person with an opinion

You may have an opinion, but in the end you’re a person with no interest whatsoever in firearms nor shooting sports. You just came on this board with the intent to spread some anti-gun rant and /or clichés about American imperialism. You are a troll.

I am from a country that had a "great" empire, people still say "put the great back in Britain" but i do not see how we were great, just because we were able to take advantage of, kill, abuse, enslave other people does not make us great. In fact we are more great because we managed to give all of that up, allow other countries to gain their freedom.

Yes, Great Britain was “Great” when it had an Empire, just like France was greater too. Why is it so hard to understand that colonies did benefit massively from their former colonizers? Who built the infrastructures of these countries? Who managed to keep law and order in lots of savage areas of Africa for example?

 

[Fleetwood_Captain]

I think England does offer dental coverage, but I've heard that the offices are so backlogged that government dentists often favor pulling a tooth rather than performing a series of major surgical work on it.

I've heard that the private practices are excellent though.

 

[glink]

OMPD

Quote:

How do you equate having guns to having more freedom than other "civilized" countries (as if we, the western world, are civilised in any manner)?

Damn good question:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/lora/lora1.html

The Failure of the Second Amendment

by Manuel Lora

Exclusive to STR

January 4, 2008

(It is not the purpose of this article to promote violence.)

Gun rights advocates often point out that the purpose of having access to firearms is not just to keep the occasional thief of murderer at bay but also to be used as a check on government. The idea is that an armed citizenry can and would scare off the state in case it became too tyrannical.

The problem with the view that “guns will keep us free” is that if the majority of the population does not want freedom, then no amount of private gun ownership will make a difference. Indeed, this is what is happening today in the United States. There are millions of firearms in private hands yet the government continues to violate more rights as it grows ever more powerful.

Gun ownership has, however, served its purpose. There are thousands of defensive gun uses and many lives have been saved because of them. Burglars, for example, have to think about the possibility of the homeowner being armed and willing to use a 12-gauge to defend life and property.

But use of privately owned guns against ordinary (“private”) criminals is just part of the equation. Why is it that throughout the history of the United States, given the availability of guns, the government has not grown smaller and smaller? By now we should be the freest people on the planet!

The answer has to do with ideology. When most of society is composed of people who support state actions, then nothing will change even if they themselves own firearms. It is not an exaggeration to say that more than 99% of people are socialist. They are socialist to the degree that they implicitly or explicitly support any and all government programs. If you support universal healthcare, you are a medicinal socialist; if you love the government military, you are a defense socialist; and if you want sanctions, tariffs, subsidies, taxes, licenses and regulations, you are a plain old Red.

Since these ideologies all coexist in the same society, it is rarely ever possible to find even one issue that everyone can agree on. And because it’s so difficult to find that one issue, when people are prosecuted for non-crimes (such as tax evasion or drug entrepreneurship), there is nothing remotely close to a consensus and therefore the “criminal” will be seen as a menace to society. There will be no one major group of people who will oppose the multitude of ways the state oppresses us. This is the reason why an armed society is totally useless. Government worship, statolatry, rules.

Gun ownership by itself is in the long term incapable of changing the power of the government. What society needs are intellectual weapons instead. There is nothing more disarming than the desire to be free. Opposition and resistance by millions is worth more than a few armed rebels. The role of the armed rebels is important, of course, but they can only thrive when the majority of the population supports the ideals of liberty, otherwise they would themselves be seen as criminals.

It seems that the U.S. is going to continue becoming more despotic, both domestically and internationally, at least for a few more decades. What’s ironic is that this nation will have hundreds of millions of slaves and those slaves will be heavily armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, yet they will choose to continue to be slaves. What a shame.

 

[30 cal slob]

Miniluv bellyfull prole

Council spy cases hit 1,000 a month
By Gordon Rayner and Richard Alleyne
Last updated: 2:09 AM BST 14/04/2008

More than 1,000 covert surveillance operations are being launched every month to investigate petty offences such as dog fouling, under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations.

Councils and other public bodies are using legislation designed to combat terrorism in order to spy on people, obtain their telephone records and find out who they are emailing. The full extent to which local authorities take advantage of new powers given to them by the Government came to light after a Dorset council admitted spying for more than two weeks on a family it suspected of lying on a school application form.

Privacy campaigners said figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph showed the extent to which Britain has become a "surveillance state", and likened the tactics employed by councils to the Stasi secret police in the former East Germany.

Last year, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for "directed surveillance", according to figures released by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. This was almost double the number for the previous year.

In contrast, applications from police and other law enforcement agencies fell during the same period, to about 19,000, and one local government body admitted that councils and other public bodies would soon carry out more surveillance than the police.

Councils are increasingly using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) to investigate anything that can be classed as a criminal offence. The Home Office website describes the legislation as a tool for "preventing crime, including terrorism".

But it is used to spy on otherwise law-abiding people committing minor offences such as fly-tipping and failing to pick up dog mess and to gather evidence that can be used to instigate fines.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said: "I am astonished that this very serious legislation is being misused in this way in cases which seem to be petty and vindictive. We have just completed an inquiry into the surveillance society and we have noted that there has been a huge growth in the use of these laws.

"The people responsible have some very serious questions to answer."

Gosport borough council in Hampshire said yesterday that it was currently using Ripa for an undercover investigation into dog fouling. Council officers equipped with digital cameras and binoculars are spying on dog walkers.

Chris Davis, the council's head of internal audit, said: "We have strategically placed members of our enforcement team to blend in with the natural environment and observe people walking dogs. They are using digital cameras to get hard evidence. Dog fouling is a real issue and in this case it is happening close to a leisure facility where children play."

Stoke-on-Trent city council said it used Ripa to investigate "illegal building work", while several councils have put cameras in tins and piles of twigs to catch fly-tippers.

When Ripa was passed in 2000, only nine organisations, such as the police and security services, were allowed to use it, but that number has risen to 792, including 474 councils.

In 2006, more than 1,000 applications per day were being made to use Ripa powers. The Act allows councils to authorise surveillance, obtain phone records and details of email traffic from personal computers (though not their contents) and obtain details of websites individuals are logging on to.

Councils cannot bug telephones, a power reserved for the police and security forces and which must be authorised by the Home Office.

As the Joyce family of Poole, Dorset, found, Ripa allows council staff to spy on people suspected of lying in school applications. Tim Joyce, 37, his girlfriend Jenny Paton, 39, and their three daughters were followed on school runs and watched at their home by Poole borough council to make sure they lived in the catchment area of the school their three-year-old daughter attends.

Miss Paton described the council's actions as "a grotesque invasion of privacy". Mr Joyce said: "It used to be that the Home Secretary had to talk to a judge to get surveillance through the police. Now it seems the world and his wife can carry out surveillance whenever they feel like it."

Gus Hosein, of the campaign group Privacy International, said: "We are on a par with China. The tactics of local authorities are more like the behaviour of the Stasi."

Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584808/Council-spy-cases-hit-1,000-a-month.html

 

[Tyris]

You know what I do from time to time whenever I need a good laugh?

I goto google news, and search for "yobs":
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=yobs&btnG=Search+News

You get a first hand example of a country of complete pussies terrified to fight back against a bunch of ferral youth.

To top it off, I forward some of the stories on to my neighbor who is a Hillary Clinton campaigner who happens to think England's CCTV system is the bees knees.

England, you've become the butt of my jokes.

-T

 

[fletcher]

The problem with the view that “guns will keep us free” is that if the majority of the population does not want freedom, then no amount of private gun ownership will make a difference.

Wasn't that the case with the revolution? I recall being taught that it was a minority that wanted independence, and an even smaller number that would actually fight for it, but it still won out.

 

[30 cal slob]

who watches the watchers?

http://www.publications.parliament....rd/cm080128/wmstext/80128m0001.htm#column_3WS

Intelligence Services Commissioner/Interception of Communications Commissioner (Annual Report)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports for 2006 of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson (HC 253), and the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Paul Kennedy (HC 252). Some sensitive information has been excluded from both reports in accordance with Sections 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

 

[30 cal slob]

"All Your Encryption Keys Are Belong To Us"

Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect

A controversial new British law requires individuals and businesses to decrypt data sought in police investigations.

Jeremy Kirk
PC World
Monday, October 1, 2007; 10:19 AM

British law enforcement gained new powers on Monday to compel individuals and businesses to decrypt data wanted by authorities for investigations.

The measure is in the third part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), legislation passed in 2000 by the U.K. Parliament to give law enforcement new investigation powers with respect to evolving communication technologies.

The government contends law enforcement more frequently encounters encrypted data, which delays investigations. But RIPA Part III wasn't activated when the act was passed due to the less prevalent use of encryption.

But as of Monday, those served with a "Section 49" notice have to either make decryption keys available or put the data in an intelligible form for authorities. Failure to comply could mean a prison sentence of up to two years for cases not involving national security or five years for those that do.

A Section 49 request must first be approved by a judicial authority, chief of police, the customs and excise commissioner or a person ranking higher than a brigadier or equivalent. Authorities can also mandate that the recipient of a Section 49 request not tell anyone except their lawyer that they have received it.

Critics countered RIPA Part III could put corporate data at risk if mishandled by government officials, although the government wrote a code of practice concerning the handling of encryption keys.

Spy Blog, a Web site that comments on privacy and data security issues, called on the government to publish regular statistics on the number of Section 49 notices served. The site furthercalled for feedbackfrom organizations served with notices.

The U.K. Home Office addresses only one specific type of device and technology in its publishedguidance on RIPA Part III: the BlackBerry, the omnipresent handheld for business people.

E-mails sent to a BlackBerry are decrypted on the device, meaning neither Research in Motion Ltd., the BlackBerry's manufacturer, nor the wireless operator handling the data transfer are privy to the encryption keys, the Home Office guidance said.

If investigators want encrypted data, they will have to go directly to the device owner, the Home Office said. Also, RIPA Part III only applies to data stored in the U.K., so encrypted data that transited through the U.K. would not fall under the legislation.

 

[30 cal slob]

zzzzzzzz.....

UK Parliament passes biometric ID card plan
By Laura Rohde

The U.K. Parliament's House of Commons easily passed a bill on Thursday to establish a system of potentially compulsory biometric identity cards and a central database of all of its citizens. However, the bill's primary sponsor, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said the ID card bill may hit stiff opposition in the House of Lords.

The Identity Cards Bill, introduced to Parliament on Nov. 29, seeks to create by 2010 a system of ID cards with embedded chips that carry personal information and biometric identifiers. The information will include each citizen's name, address and biometric information such as fingerprints, facial scans and iris scans, all of which will be included in a massive database called the National Identification Register.

The ID Cards Bill, which is expected to cost up to £5.5 billion (US$10.3 billion) to implement, was approved in the House of Commons by a vote of 224 to 64. The plan calls for a standalone biometric ID card to be issued alongside a biometric passport. It would most likely become compulsory for everyone living in the U.K., including children, by 2012. The U.K. population is about 60 million.

The vote came on the same day that the U.S. House of Representatives approved its own version of electronic ID card legislation in a 261-161 vote. The U.S.'s Real ID Act would require states to issue driver's licenses and other ID cards with physical security features such as a digital photograph and other basic data, using what the bill describes as machine-readable technology. That could include a magnetic strip or RFID (radio frequency identification) tag.

U.K. Prime Minster Tony Blair and Secretary of State for the Home Department Charles Clarke have said the biometric ID cards are a crucial part of the government's fight against identity fraud, illegal workers, illegal immigration, terrorism and abuse of programs such as the National Health Service (NHS). The Labour government has indicated that they want to get the ID card law in place before the general election expected in May.

"The reason why this measure is supported not only by the Government but by the police and the security services is that people believe that, particularly when we have biometric passports and the biometric technology available, we can construct an identity card that gives us the best possible protection against crime and terrorism," Blair said in the House of Commons on Wednesday. "I do not think it is wrong or a breach of anyone's civil liberties to say that we should have an identity card. Most people carry some form of identification anyway. I think it is long overdue, and we should get on and do it."

Still, Clarke indicated this week that the bill may face opposition in the House of Lords, where it is now headed. The House of Lords is the second of the U.K.'s two Houses of Parliament and has the power to block bills passed in the House of Commons.

The U.K. has already determined that a chip with biometric facial identifiers will be included in all newly issued British passports by the end of 2005. The U.K. Passport Service (UKPS) would use that information and technology as a basis for the ID card plan, a spokesman for the Home Office said.

UKPS recently completed a six month trial of biometric technology involving 10,000 volunteers, and plans to issue the findings within the next few months, the spokesman said.

The trial, run by Atos Origin SA, tested three biometrics types: electronic fingerprint, an iris scan and a full face scan. Atos Origin was responsible for the delivery and installation of the equipment and the software used for the trial; NEC Corp. supplied the fingerprint identification system; Identix Inc. the fingerprint capture and facial matching technology, and Iridian Technologies Inc. the iris recognition technology.

Despite the government's apparent faith in the accuracy of biometric technologies, some banks and credit card companies have yet to implement them on the grounds that they are not accurate enough.

"We've found that the false positive (identifications) are still too high," said Johan Gerber, associate vice president of MasterCard International Inc.'s risk products division, in an interview earlier this week. "We don't feel that it's ready to roll out just yet."

MasterCard is interested in using biometric technology in credit cards in the future and biometrics are already used on a much smaller scale to grant access to regular visitors of some of its offices, he added.

Groups such as the Law Society, the professional body for lawyers in England and Wales, have expressed concerns that the ID card program tries to achieve too much and that the Home Office has not shown that the program would stop identity fraud. Additionally, security experts have warned that such a massive database could be subject to attacks by hackers, terrorists or other criminals.

According to Ovum Ltd. analyst Graham Titterington, the legislation lacks measures to ensure the accuracy of the data being entered or to allow individuals to check their information in the database.

Richard Allan a Member of Parliament (MP) and board member of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, has opposed the ID Cards Bill because he sees the technology behind it as unproven and too expensive. Allan is active in several technology groups for MPs including the Internet Group and the eDemocracy Group

"There are so many unknowns about the biometric technology," Allan said in a posting on his Web site blog, "... that it would be irresponsible to approve the scheme at present."

Posted February 11, 2005 05:02 PM

 

[30 cal slob]

 

[glink]

Fletcher:

Quote:

Wasn't that the case with the revolution? I recall being taught that it was a minority that wanted independence, and an even smaller number that would actually fight for it, but it still won out.

Yep you are correct. About 3% took a stand. I think data suggests a similar percentage would stand today. However the motivation of the bystanders does not compare, at least in my opinion. Folks back then were much more self dependent. Today's potential bystanders are totally reliant on the current system.
Their meal tickets, healthcare, education, cell phone providers, and sources of entertainment would be put at risk. They would actually become quislings to a higher percentage than then, at least I supect.

However the point of the article is not to promote violence; it is to point out that RKBA is not enough to promote and preserve true freedom. It is societal values that must be preserved. I thought it was interesting and related to OPMD's direction.

 

[OMDP]

Fleetwood captain

We have a system in place that allows for reasonable self defence. It is a far more flexible system than in place than in the US, even though it is very similar.

In the UK it would not be the job of a municipality, either county or city, to pass such a thing.
The law comes from the central government of the UK, i'm not sure if Scotland has its own law on this or not.
But the law is clear, you are allowed, in all situations, to defend yourself in a reasonable manner.

 

[edrice]

We have a system in place that allows for reasonable self defence. It is a far more flexible system than in place than in the US, even though it is very similar.

In the UK it would not be the job of a municipality, either county or city, to pass such a thing.
The law comes from the central government of the UK, i'm not sure if Scotland has its own law on this or not.
But the law is clear, you are allowed, in all situations, to defend yourself in a reasonable manner.

I just jumped to the end of this thread, but I find this post highly intriguing, and couldn't bear not to ask -

If one is in a fight for his life, his very survival, I'm curious as to what manner of self-defense would not be reasonable to thwart a mortal assault?

Ed

 

[Telperion]

We have a system in place that allows for reasonable self defence. It is a far more flexible system than in place than in the US, even though it is very similar.

How is it more flexible, pray tell? As in the Crown has more flexibility to prosecute you?

 

[OMDP]

Tyris

As an example, there are plenty of white supremacist and neo-nazi groups in the US, their speech is protected by law.

Your claim that there is little difference between the UK and US speech laws is full of crap.

US > UK. No freedom in the UK. Go be a good little sheep.

The speech of the BNP is also protected. However if they incite violence, that is something quite different. Do you seriously think that if there was a full theatre, filled half with black people, half with skin heads and one skin head stood up and shouted, "Let black people burn" that he would seriously get away without anything happening?
You have libel laws for example, a limit on the freedom of speech which is the same in the UK. In fact i cannot find one example of myself or people i know, or even from newspapers of people not being able to say what they wanted to say.

One is not more free than the other in terms of self defence.

Hmm. I can shoot/stab a street mugger in self defense here and not sweat it.
In the UK, I'd have to flee the scene to avoid imprisonment.

How exactly is that equal in your twisted little world?

Well, as far as i can understand the castle doctrine, it has to be self defence. If there were cases of people not defending themselves then it would be manslaughter or murder. The same in the UK, Tony Martin was NOT defending himself, he shot and killed someone who was running away. Therefore british law says that that was not self defence, US law would also.

Let's take an example

Alabama
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-3-23.htm

"(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose."

1) deadly force
2)Physcial force
3) Kidnapping
4)Unlawful entry

Now to British law, see if we can find a difference.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1186125

Criminal Law Act 1967

3. Use of force in making arrest, etc.— (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Seems to be about the same as the unlawful entry, kidnapping, physcial force and deadly force parts of the alabama statute.
Now the difference here seems to be the word reasonable. The Alabama law does say reasonable, the british law also says reasonable, the difference seems to be the conviction by americans that the law allows them to use ANY force in defending their property, and that means shooting someone who is running away, when surely the term reasonable sticks out here.

Personally see no difference in the law, i see a difference in the perception of what the law says from the general public.

 

[OMDP]

Fleetwood captain

Tyris, I think he was mistakenly thinking about laws pertaining to "Inciting Riot," as theres no such thing as a law against "Inciting Racial Hatred."

Of course, such laws pertaining to inciting riot are rarely enforced in the US. Thus Spike Lee can call for Charlton Heston to be shot, Rev. Michael Pfleger can call for the "snuffing" of pro-gun legislators, and Pat Robertson can advocate "taking out" Hugo Chavez.

What i am saying is, both systems have something in place, they may go about it in a different manner, but the essentials are the same. Now if i say that someone should be shot, nothing in the UK will happen unless it causes serious problems, the same as in the US.
We have this law against racial incitement, and in the US if it were to happen there is a chance this person would get arrested for it.

 

[roscoe]

Yeah, and we're proud of it, too. If we want to change the way the country is run then we do it

Well, the minoritues sure better hope the majority is feeling generous.

 

[OMDP]

30 cal slob

I think you should look at ASBOs, they are effective, they could be better used perhaps, but generally they prevent people from going to prison who should not be going to prison.
The US works differently, you have local police, we have police forces that cover a county or area, which means it is a lot harder to deal with local problems, so we introduce ASBOs.

The cases you read about are the minority that don't work. You generally don't get the success that has come from ASBOs, like a reduction in crime.

 

[OMDP]

OMGWTFBBQ

You guys seem to be be fine as far as religion goes, freedom of speech, though somewhat infringed isn't so bad... I guess. What about peaceable assembly and protest?

The practice is much better than the theory. The queen is church of England, her prime minister helps the appointment of the archbishops etc. The prime minister has to be protestant, and cannot be catholic, though i am sure this would change were we to have a potential leader who was not protestant. Tony Blair for example changed his religion after he left the job. Disraeli was a jew who converted to christianity to advance in the policital world.

In terms of people having arms, I think getting a shotgun is pretty easy, right? Rifles are a PITA, semi autos are near impossible(except rimfires), as are handguns. Carry is strictly forbidden for your average Joe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

About right.

Can you be randomly searched on the street? You already addressed the warrant less search thing.

This is allowed, or was at least. A group or two kicked up a fuss and this was stopped. However in the US this is also a bit of a dodgy one i think, especially with local police, for example drinking alcohol in the street.

Do you have to right to not talk to police and if you choose to exercise it can it be held against you at trial?

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...156203&ActiveTextDocId=2156249&filesize=48131

Silence cannot be the only factor in sentencing a person.

"(4) This section does not render the accused compellable to give evidence on his own behalf, and he shall accordingly not be guilty of contempt of court by reason of a failure to do so."

However European Law can be given which said

"the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6."

Do you have the right to counsel and the right to be tried by a jury of your peers?

Yes and for the right to jury trial for serious cases, and middle cases it can go either way depending on the defendant, serious cases are by jury and minor case are not.

Do you have a right to know what you are being arrested for?

Yes.

Can you be arrested and held just because the government doesn't like you?

Well it depends, but then it depends in the US. The terrorist laws through which this can be done have a number of safe guards, ie, you would need a lot of people to be in on it, so much so that it would be easier just to make the person disappear.
Generally though this cannot happen.

Can you be tried for the same offense twice?

Yes, but only with new evidence that a judge believes could result in a conviction. Ie, there is a process that has to be gone through in order for this to take place.
Personally i am in favour of this. If someone has committed a crime and got off for various reasons, like incompetancy and the courts believe they would have been found guilty had other evidence been presented then it is a good idea. The safe guards in place mean they cannot just try someone again just because they want to.

 

[Odd Job]

But the law is clear, you are allowed, in all situations, to defend yourself in a reasonable manner.

The problem is that you have difficulty doing it if you don't have the tools.
What the law says is reasonable is not necessarily what is effective.
If you are faced with a group of yutes here in the UK, you have to run, or stay and get beaten up.
There is a lot to be said for being able to even the odds. The trouble is, you are not allowed to.

 

[barnetmill]

OMDP you raised some good points and so did my fellow country men raise some good points.

For me the major point of difference is not freedom, but that of equality and individual civil rights. You in England are subjects, we are citizens. A basic premise of our bill of rights is that the government is not to be trusted and must be restrained by law from over stepping its stated purposes. Through our courts we wage a constant battle against that happening. Relative to selfdefense and possession of firearms I do not see that your laws in the UK give you any protection to bear and possess arms. It only you gives the right to be a sheeple or a victim. A related point is that a man's home is still his castle in much of the US. I do not think that it is in the UK. To require the permission of cop to keep arms at home is plain wrong.

As recall the first firearm laws in the UK were intended to prevent leftists and striking workers from going against the government. I believe good ole Winston Churchill was involved in that. There was shootout in london with some sort of anarchists and then there were strikes in the Welsh coalfields (alway strikes there) that were put down by troops. While the english had guns, crime was never a problem like it is now.

In my opinion the UK sucks.

 

[OMDP]

Barman

You are just a stereotypical left-winger who just likes to believe he can think for himself but in fact you’re just repeating all the things you’ve been taught to digest as the “one and unique truth”.
You probably hate yourself and the whole Western civilization because you’ve been spoon fed with ideas like whites are to blame for everything, even 150 years after the end of slavery and more than 50 years after de-colonization.

And you have got all this from what i have said? Well i'm not any of the things you have said. I just don't like things being dressed up to be something they are not. My country did bad things, i acknowledge that, because it happened, it has done good things as well.
But what i don't like is nationalistic ignorance, to put it in a way, seeing things in a different way because that would mean your country would be seen as bad.

To be a POW and be treated accordingly to the Geneva convention, it is stated that you must wear a uniform, which is never the case with Islamic insurgeants. Otherwise you are just a… Guess what? A terrorist. Many countries, mine included (France), have such laws that allow them to detain almost indefinitely people involved in acts of terrorism.
Being ruthless with people who are not ready to fight following a certain number of rules seems perfectly OK to me.

France, as in the country that invented guilty before being proven innocent?
There are so many different aspects to this debate, but the one that should not appear is that people can be taken, locked up and that is it.
Either they are POWs and the geneva convention kicks in, they have committed a crime in US territory and therefore are afforded the protections of the US constitution, just like McVeigh was.
Or they have been kidnapped.

Either way, there is a process to deal with all of these, instead the US govt choose to ignore all of this. The fact is, they did not even prove that most of those people were actually guilty, in fact some of the "cases" were just people picked up who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now, the founding fathers could have been seen as terrorists.

You may have an opinion, but in the end you’re a person with no interest whatsoever in firearms nor shooting sports. You just came on this board with the intent to spread some anti-gun rant and /or clichés about American imperialism. You are a troll.

Again, you are wrong. But i am not sure i need to justify myself to someone who does not seem willing to debate, but merely tell every person who has an opinion to the left of his that his is wrong plain and simple.
Just because i am new on this message board, does not mean i have not been on similar boards for the last decade.

Yes, Great Britain was “Great” when it had an Empire, just like France was greater too. Why is it so hard to understand that colonies did benefit massively from their former colonizers? Who built the infrastructures of these countries? Who managed to keep law and order in lots of savage areas of Africa for example?

Let's see about the british colonies. Australia, the aborigonies were kept and still are kept in their place, under the white man (or are you going to take offence at this truth?), The US, well, look at the lot of the native american in the US, how about leonard peltier, and the AIM, what happened to them, silenced to prevent "problems"

Canada, again, the natives were invaded and i really don't think they have had a native leader. Yes Canada is better than most in this issue, but that is now, not before.

Zimbabwe, well, what do i need to say, british rule there lead to a great disaster.

India would probably have been better, the problems between the muslims and hindus may have happened anyway, but i'm not sure we have bettered their land.

South Africa, a land of crime which suffered from apartheid. It is trying to improve, but may have done better without british rule.

The middle east, what more can i say but a complete and utter disaster?

Great huh?

What do you mean by, keeping order in savage areas? Europe was once a savage area, i would suggest that WW1 and WW2 were much more savage than anything the africans ever thought up, and i bet most of the wars there are fought with weapons that western countries, including Russian and the former USSR produced.

Great job.

Now these are the facts, how i am supposed to take these and look at them in a positive light? How is it that i am a supposed troll and someone who does not think for himself when this is the case.

Maybe if i spoke about something more obscure like Kosovo you might think i was a little less of a non-free thinker. Or maybe you want to discuss the second amendment in full detail. Because i can bet you my views are different from most people.