The Brits are getting crazy again

[Cesiumsponge]

Cheap stamped samurai swords? I am amazed they missed that one. They already banned glass.

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

 

[TargetTerror]

From that article:

Last month, amphetamine addict Hugh Penrose was jailed for at least 19 years for hacking a 21-year-old woman with a samurai sword and then deliberately running her over.

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

 

[Duncan223]

First they took away guns...
Then they took away knives......
And now they're taking away money.....

UK Tax Rate Highest EVER!!!

Tax increase 'will harm middle Britain'

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
05/03/2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SWMAN]

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

 

[cbsbyte]

How about real handmade Samurai swords? Are they still Ok under the law?

 

[sterling180]

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

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

 

[Diamondback]

Most, if not all, free christian nations were born out of Europe, and we owe significant amounts to the people who first came here.The ones with enough vision to see that a place like America could exist in a world where no one thought it possible. The people who brought us the knowledge of the greek, and the romans.

...and witch burning, native genocide, and slavery

- Regards

 

[Sindawe]

Apologies for the temporary side track.

witch burning, native genocide, and slavery

None of those activities were/are confined to Christian nations. Remember, ancient Rome (a PAGAN society prior to Constantine) did all those things and worse. My own pagan ancestors in Northern Europe kepts slaves as well. The Janjaweed are still committing genocide against their neighbors in Africa.

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

 

[Diamondback]

None of those activities were/are confined to Christian nations. Remember, ancient Rome (a PAGAN society prior to Constantine) did all those things and worse. My own pagan ancestors in Northern Europe kepts slaves as well. The Janjaweed are still committing genocide against their neighbors in Africa.

..Oh relax...it was just some good natured sarcasm !

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

I have no sympathy for the hole they have dug themselves into. Although, they do have lots of practical experience hosting world wars sucessfully.....I just think this time around we should decline their RSVP ! We Yanks always have to bring our own food and drink to the party.....and then end up having to supply everybody there with clean silverware. Seems as if the only thing the Europeans can do with any regularity is to set the table properly before the party begins. After that they require massive assistance.

- Regards

 

[LightningJoe]

Samurai sword or gun or whatever wouldn't do you any good in England anyway. You're not allowed to defend yourself. You have to shout "Call the police" and die.

 

[agricola]

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

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

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



(pic - Firky at u75)

 

[longeyes]

"It starts when you're always afraid..."

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

 

[sterling180]

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

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

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



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

A quote,from the Wikipedia,encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

How about real handmade Samurai swords? Are they still Ok under the law?

Yes,they are.The ban is not active at the moment,it is probably in its draft stages,of development.

 

[NoPhilly]

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

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

 

[LightningJoe]

Sterling:


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


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


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

 

[sterling180]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Diamondback]

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

I respect your perspective, Sterling. My post above regarding US involvement in the two World Wars was primarily tongue-in-cheek. I think it is safe to say most Yanks admire the way in which the Brits stood together with such courage during the Battle of Britain. Also, given that perspective, I think that is why so many of us here across the "pond" are so disappointed to see your individual freedoms today being eroded piecemeal. I know you are too !

- best regards to you and all our British cousins !

 

[Crazy Uncle Al Gore]

I may be wrong, but wasn't the an incident last year where two unarmed police were getting mugged, only to be rescued by a sword wielding "ninja"? I believe the "ninja" then ran off.

 

[Nomoney]

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

"And now for something completely different."

 

[Prince Yamato]

I believe the "ninja" then ran off.

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

 

[mindwip]

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

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



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

A quote,from the Wikipedia,encyclopedia.

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

because your government wasn't interested at all.It didn't concern the USA at all and so it wasn't America's war-at all.

Hence Britain did the same thing when other countries were invaded.

 

[ozwyn]

Actually, the where's and when's of WWI and WWII aside, they need help over onthe other side of the pond to re-discover individual rights, and specifically the right to self-defense.

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

 

[Fosbery]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mindwip]

Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her

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

On WWII: Britain was in no danger from Germany until Britain declared war on her

Well please correct me if i am wrong but Britain had a pact with Poland, that if Poland was invaded by German, Britain would enter the war. German know about this and attacked Poland anyway. German was willing to take on Britain by attacking Poland. So Britain was in danger. And before that they had allowed Germany to break Packs and Treatys with out even stop them untill they invaded a Friendly nation.


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

Pss

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

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

 

[mike101]

Send this to the Brady Blog

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

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