Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Flit on January 18, 2006, 09:05:48 PM
-
WTG ! First post got locked !:aok Thats gotta be a record of some kind !
Just so y'all know, He is not a troll or a shades account.
I was telling him about some of the discussions here on the AH bbs and told him to check it out.
So lets not be too harsh on the guy, he 's brand new here
-
He knows nothing about England, which is what his post was about. Press controlled by the government? What bollocks.
As for getting his first post locked, I saw one guy who went one better and whose first post got him banned. Look for Cliff.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Press controlled by the government? What bollocks.
Yes, completely unheard of and unbelievable. :rofl
-
doesn't england like control the only TV station?
lazs
-
why everyone knows british subjects are the freest people on earth. next thing they'll be accused of is governmental confiscation and destruction of all personally owned weapons. you watch, some troll will do it soon.
-
The only Press controlled by the government is Tony Blair's trouser press. :p
-
so the bbc doesn't get funding from the government?
oh... and I never troll and I have never been on here with any other handle.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so the bbc doesn't get funding from the government?
Correct.
-
who pays for it? Where does the money come from?
lazs
-
wait, the BBC world service gets a government grant. For details of the licence fee and how the money is spent, go to the BBC website page on licensing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/#spent
The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence. This allows it to run a wide range of popular public services for everyone, free of adverts and independent of advertisers, shareholders or political interests. 95.6% of the UK population used the BBC every month in 2004/5.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
He knows nothing about England
Pot meet Kettle.
Like you know anything about America. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DipStick
Like you know anything about America. :rolleyes:
Lived there 3 years and been to 41 states, which is more than you. :p
-
Let's see. When you buy a TV in England you have to have a License.
"Using a television without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence. Every day we catch an average of 1,200 people using a TV without a licence. There is no valid excuse for using a television and not having a TV Licence, but some people still try - sometimes with the most ridiculous stories ever heard. Our detection equipment will track down your TV. The fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection."
-- from the official website of the British Television Licensing Authority, May 2003
It would seem to be a government agency:
In the United Kingdom, citizens must pay a licence if they own a television set. That's right, a TV tax. For Americans, the whole idea of an annual tax to own a television borders on the absurd. However, in the UK, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a government agency that has the power to tax and enforce laws. In order to obtain funding, the BBC requires that anyone using its services must pay for them. So, if you own a TV set and live in the UK, you could conceivably turn on the BBC broadcasts, so therefore you better pay.
A colour television licence is £116 a year (around $192 US) and a black and white TV licence costs £38.50 a year (around $64 US). The cost goes up each year and this has lead some lawmakers to question the way the BBC is funded. However, until the law is changed, the TV licence remains -- leading to harassment of those who proclaim not to own a TV set and jail time for those that own TV sets and don't pay the tax.
And, of course, the Enforcers:
the fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection... We can detect a TV in use, in any area. That's because every TV contains a component called the 'local oscillator', which emits a signal when the television is switched on. It's this signal that the equipment on our vans picks up." The websight also contains anecdotes that are presumably meant to humanize the inspectors, but which come across as rather chilling. Witness, for example, the one about the husband and wife who refuse the inspector entry, hurriedly shut their curtains, attempt to sneak the TV into the trunk of their car, and drive off.
So, which branch of the government has such terrifying powers as to send grown men and women scurrying into the night like common criminals? Is such mighty authority vested in the hands of Scotland Yard, or MI5? Nope: the men hunting through the mean streets of London for rogue local oscillators are employees of the BBC, which may be the only pay network in the world with the authority to forcibly acquire customers. And you thought HBO had a brilliant business model.
:rofl
-
I see.... so the government collects the money as a "licence" that everyone is entitled to pay.... or go to a government run prison?
In that respect your healthcare is also a provate concern? Isn't most of your "fees" for it spent on the healthcare?
I liked that bit aout how popular the bbc was.... why, 97% of the population has it! the other 3% are hiding from the government I suppose pretending to not have a TV at all or in prison.
lazs
-
That's right, a TV tax. For Americans, the whole idea of an annual tax to own a television borders on the absurd.
For Britons, the whole idea of being bombarded with adverts for 5 minutes out of every 13 borders on the absurd.
But - America has the answer - channels WGBH Boston, known as Channel 11 in Chicago. And guess what? They cost... money! For this reason, every few months they will have "pledge weeks"... where the audience is invited to donate.
When I lived in CA I got ONE TV channel, so had to pay a cable company $28/mo for service - considerably more than the BBC licence.
You pays your money and takes your choice!
:aok
-
Do you still have to pay the yearly license fee if you get a satellite service? Or do you not have satellite service available there?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lived there 3 years and been to 41 states, which is more than you. :p
Wrong Mr. Brainsurgeon. I've lived here 46 years and been to all 48 states.
When it comes to the US you don't know your beetle from a hole in the ground.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But - America has the answer - channels WGBH Boston, known as Channel 11 in Chicago. And guess what? They cost... money! For this reason, every few months they will have "pledge weeks"... where the audience is invited to donate.
Excellent Beet!
Nice try at obscuring the obvious.
Yes, we voluntarily[/b] pay for Cable and we voluntarily[/b] donate to Public television.
However, we are also free to choose NOT to pay for either Cable or Public and we can still watch some pretty decent TV in all categories like News, Drama, Comedy, etc., etc.
Tell us again what happens if you choose NOT to pay and watch "free" TV in England?
-
nothing. I have never payed that when I was in UK, and I never had a note nor a fine.
of course, our UK expert from Dixon will know better...
-
Ooopps...
I thought ya' had ol' beet on the run there for a minute...until you said "ALL 48 states". Ooof. (I think ya missed a couple)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, we voluntarily pay for Cable and we voluntarily[/b] donate to Public television. [/B]
Just like I voluntarily own a TV set! And don't forget - if no-one supported those private channels like WGBH Boston, they would cease to exist. So voluntary, my arse! :lol Like putting a guy in a gas chamber and telling him that inhaling the fumes is "voluntary" :rofl
Your TV is no more "free" than health care in the UK is "free".
Let's review the TV options in the UK and the US. - US Network Basic package - Depending on where you live, you'll get a number of network TV stations - all free, no licence. What this equates to is "13 channels of chit", to paraphrase the lyrics of a certain song by Pink Floyd. Besides all the crappy programmes, which have to be for simple minds in order to have mass appeal, there will be adverts interrupting the programme every few minutes. The average Brit would be driven nuts, just as I nearly was! There are a few decent channels, but these have to be paid for by pledges from the viewers. You'll know when it's a pledge week because your hour long programme will be interrupted for ten minutes - twice.
- US Cable option - same as the above. You'll still get 13 channels of chit, but you'll get HBO/Showtime etc., at extra cost. And that won't include support for the Public Broadcasting channels like WGBH - you'll still be asked to pay for those.
- What I had in Concord,CA - ONE TV channel, lousy reception caused by being surrounded by a mountainous area. If I wanted more than that, I had to PAY!!! But guess what? The payment was.... voluntary! :lol It cost me $28/mo which, at that time was at least twice as much as the UK TV licence cost. I got 23 channels, including 13 channels of chit, and despite paying this exorbitant charge, the network channels were still stuffed with adverts, and the cost did not support the Public Broadcasting channels which IMO were the only ones worth having.
- What I have now - a TV licence pays for the BBC. I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't subscribe to any optional packages so I receive the five terrestrial channels - no special antenna needed. I could subscribe to Sky, but their programmes are too much like American TV network programmes. I could buy a decoder box, which would unlock about another 10 channels, and I wouldn't have to pay for them. BBC1 & BBC2 have no adverts at all! ITV and Ch4 have ads, but only about half as many as US network TV. Ch5 is like an American channel - ads every ~10 minutes. When I watch a movie, I'll record it to DVD and then edit out the ads before watching it.
I've tried all four options, but my preference is for the UK option. I don't want want to pay for HBO/Showtime - would rather buy DVDs using eBay, share them with friends and/or sell them at the end.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What I had in Concord,CA - ONE TV channel, lousy reception caused by being surrounded by a mountainous area.
Wow, just lost a lot of credibility. What Concord, CA u live in the was Surrounded by mountains?
I have lived in east bay for over 13 years, in fact in concord as i type looking out office window. Hardly surrounded by mountains. The only thing near that one would consider a mountain would be mt. diablo, which borders south east side of concord, hardly surrounds it though.
-
A laudable effort, however:
You voluntarily own a TV set as we do. You INVOLUNTARILY pay a tax to do so. We do not.
Cable: On BOTH sides of the Atlantic, viewers voluntarily pay to have this service, which is as it should be.
Public TV (BBC in UK, PBS in the US): The UK folks INVOLUNTARILY and mandatorily pay for their Public TV. Failure to pay can and often does result in fines and/or puts one at risk of going to prison.
In the US, VOLUNTARY donations are asked for by PBS stations. If enough donations are not received, the station may close down, which is as it should be. If no one values the service, why should it continue?
Basic TV for Free: Unavailable in the UK, unless you choose to break the law. Available in the US with a mix of worthwhile and junk programs. Commercials? TIVO, my lad; an additional pay-for-service option that makes commercials a non-factor as well as allowing one to watch programs at any time one chooses, not mandatorily on the network schedule. This is another VOLUNTARY option, which is as it should be.
It all boils down to what we've discussed so many times. You seem to enjoy allowing your government to make decisions for you. Further, as long as YOU personally agree with what the government decides you've no regard for the rights and concerns of those who do not agree with what the government decides.
Like Paine or Jefferson (it's attributed to both), I think
That government is best which governs least."
I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much, on what TV I prefer to watch and choose to pay for. I'm glad the rest of my fellow citizens have the same choice[/i] and are not nannied.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
nothing. I have never payed that when I was in UK, and I never had a note nor a fine.
It seems rather unenforceable in the main. How many little black-clad "enquiry officers" do they have anyway?
-
In England there is no law giving freedom to the press, on the contrary
The Official Secrets Acts (1889, 1911, 1989) make unlawful the “unauthorised communication of information about matters which must remain secret in the interests of the safety of the state, These include limits about the information a reporter may gather about government activities, crime and libel laws that restrict what journalists can write on people without proof. There are laws covering the gathering and reporting on courtreporting, defamation, human rights, race relations, foreign affairs, etc.
In reality the English goverment rarely interferes with the reporting of information, the issue is access to information in the first place.
despite earlier promises for a Freedom of Information act,
the Labour government elected in 1997 took almost three years to vote such legislation,which was then heavily criticised as being a watered down version of the access to information which was hoped for.
-
My post was just an informational response to some post that claimed that crime in England (Europe) was less because of the restriction of the public to keep and bear arms. I thought it might be better for discussion to dispel these notions and provide some facts on this theory.
However the second amendment to the Constitution did not provide the right to bear arms to be free of crime. The actual intent of the second amendment was to provide security against the oppressive abuses of a large federal government.
We can see this in the original wording of the second amendment.
"Because standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to the liberties of free men, the right of the militia and the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon"
The founding fathers were so adamant about this, that in their writings in the federalist papers, this amendment was the most sought after by all the colonies. and in fact is the only one of the orginal ten amendments to have only 1 purpose.
The militias were defined as the state militaries, and the original design of the state militias was to prevent and fight against the armies of the federal goverment.
The ability to protect oneself and keep in bear arms is a fortunate by-product of this constitutional guaruntee. but also almost a requirement in the US.
The protection of ones body and property in the US is the responsibility of the individual. The US supreme court has ruled 3 times that the state and federal goverment have no duty to protect someone. This includes a 1959 ruling by Chief Justice Blackwell, which states that the protection of ones person and property has never been provided by any goverment nor guarunteed by any Law, therefore no claim of damage can be founded upon any govermental body.
Anyone who thinks that the police can protect you are deluded. If the police could protect an indivdual , dont you think they would.
does anyone seriously think that the goverment or police have the ability to protect someones life and just chose not to.
-
In England there is no law giving freedom to the press, on the contrary
Of course there isn't a law "giving" the press freedom. Freedom is something they have. Laws restrict freedom, not grant it.
The Official Secrets Acts (1889, 1911, 1989) make unlawful the “unauthorised communication of information about matters which must remain secret in the interests of the safety of the state
And you think other countries don't?
These include limits about the information a reporter may gather about government activities,
No, the official secrets act applies to government employees, and those they pass classified material to. It does not apply to journalists who "gather" information, unless the information they gather is stolen classified documents.
crime and libel laws that restrict what journalists can write on people without proof.
No, a journalist can write anything he likes without proof. If it's defamatory, the person he defames can sue him for damages.
-
My post was just an informational response to some post that claimed that crime in England (Europe) was less because of the restriction of the public to keep and bear arms. I thought it might be better for discussion to dispel these notions and provide some facts on this theory.
I see. So the murder rate in the UK isn't really a third of the US rate, it's just as high, but we aren't allowed to know that.
:noid
(never had a cause to use this smiley before, but it's perfect)
-
Originally posted by DipStick
Wrong Mr. Brainsurgeon. I've lived here 46 years and been to all 48 states.
When it comes to the US you don't know your beetle from a hole in the ground.
All 48 States?
You do know there are Fifty (http://www.infoplease.com/states.html) states, right?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
All 48 States?
You do know there are Fifty (http://www.infoplease.com/states.html) states, right?
:rofl
there are only 49 states, Hawaii is a colony
-
"Hawaii , 50th state of the United States, comprising a group of eight major islands and numerous islets in the central Pacific Ocean, c.2,100 mi (3,380 km) SW of San Francisco."
It seems many of you Americans don't know much about your own country...or the Columbia University Press are wrong. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0823005.html) But, you are all experts on England...lol...and you are adept at accusing Brits of knowing nothing about the US.
You can use the internet to look stuff up guys. It's not hard.
:rofl
-
You can use it to toss topwater lures into the waters around Bermuda too.
Apparently you can get a strike or two. ;)
-
hawaii is a state only on paper, it is really occupied territory, we must free hawaii from the imperial yoke of the dole pineapple company
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Of course there isn't a law "giving" the press freedom. Freedom is something they have. Laws restrict freedom, not grant it.
And you think other countries don't?
No, the official secrets act applies to government employees, and those they pass classified material to. It does not apply to journalists who "gather" information, unless the information they gather is stolen classified documents.
No, a journalist can write anything he likes without proof. If it's defamatory, the person he defames can sue him for damages.
So, The Official Secrets Act only applies to goverment employees, which means that anyone working for the BBC who gives out "news" that is bad for the british goverment can be accused of "breaking the Officail Secrets Act" because the bbc is a goverment agency that collects "Taxes" to run it's programming,which, of course, is always cleared thru the goverment so that noone will get in trouble for breaking the "law".
And this is called what ? A free press ?
Ok, if you say so.:O
-
Originally posted by Toad
You voluntarily own a TV set as we do. You INVOLUNTARILY pay a tax to do so. We do not.
No, we don't have to pay for a TV licence unless we actually plan to use the TV. In the US, you don't have to pay for your cable service, unless you actually plan to use the TV. But here we have an additional choice - we can use the TV without bothering to pay the licence - that's what I did in my "poor" days. Luckily I never got caught. It would have been unenforceable though. I lived in a top floor flat with two other people. There was no way for the TV licensing authorities to know that the house was split into multiple dwellings. So :p to Mr. Toad! ;) TIVO, my lad; an additional pay-for-service option that makes commercials a non-factor as well as allowing one to watch programs at any time one chooses, not mandatorily on the network schedule.
Sounds great! Do you have a link? I'd like to read about this. Do you have a DVD recorder, Mr. Toad? I do, and one of the best things about it is being able to record a programme, but start watching it without having to wait for the recording to finish. If I'm going to be watching something on ITV, I'll start recording it and then use the time-slip feature to begin playback about 15 minutes into the programme. That way I can FF through the commercials.
Back in the day, not only did we have a TV licence but also a radio licence! That got scrapped in the 1960s sometime, partly because cars started being made with radios fitted; but you didn't need a radio licence for your car if you had one for your house... too damn complicated, so it was scrapped.
-
All DVR's (Digital Video Recorders, TiVO...) I am aware of can do that Beet. Some have jump buttons to simply skip 30 seconds instantly each time they are pressed (mine does). I have not seen a commercial on over 2 years.
I can record two shows at a time, while watching a previously recorded bit. And I can watch both shows being recorded, at the same time, in a split screen format.
No charge for any of that. I have DiSH, at the moment, but I am looking at Verizon's FIOS (Fiber I/O Service) TV service (just waiting for them to stop using that dang Motorola tuner box). About the same price as DiSH, but with better channel selection and a full range of HD broadcasts.
-
This is laughable... TV is free in the states if you want it...If you own a TV you can put up an antanae and get at least 5 or six stations if that is what you want... it is all "free" you do not need to give the government any money at all.
If you want superior programing you have many choices. You can pay as little as about $20 for about 60 stations to well over $100 (per month)
I realize that if you don't want to watch TV and don't do it that you don't have to buy a licence in england.... I do realize also tho that the goverment takes fees and distributes them to a soley funded station. If you want any choice at all other than what the government offers then...... just like us.... you pick and pay.
The only difference is that your government has their hands in and controls the initial lack of choice.... if you have cable TV in england and a TV and you never watch a minute of BBC..... you still have to pay to support them.
lazs
-
Skuzzy - yes, DVRs are neat. However, in about 2-3 years, British TV transmissions are going digital. There will be no analogue transmission after that. We will all have to upgrade, but I think it might be a case of buying a converter box.
Originally posted by mydavis
My post was just an informational response to some post that claimed that crime in England (Europe) was less because of the restriction of the public to keep and bear arms. I thought it might be better for discussion to dispel these notions and provide some facts on this theory.
However the second amendment to the Constitution did not provide the right to bear arms to be free of crime. The actual intent of the second amendment was to provide security against the oppressive abuses of a large federal government.
We can see this in the original wording of the second amendment.
"Because standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to the liberties of free men, the right of the militia and the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon"
Oh Suuuurrrrrrreeeeeee...........
The Second Amendment at Work
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fd01.jpg)
How it Ended Up
ooops...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fd02.jpg)
Just another day in LA, but oh! the freedom.....
:rofl
-
Just another day in LA, but oh! the freedom.....
The freedom to make movies about car chases and violence... You against that Beet1e?
-
It really is trivial to nitpick the negative side of anything Beet. In 51 years, I have never witnessed anything like you depicted.
DiSH, and DirecTV are already fully digital transmissions. Verizon FIOS is pure digital with the bandwidth to send full HD (High Defination) content at high resolutions.
I already have an HD television set, so no need for a D/A converter, but those converters will be available so analog televisions will be able to continue to work.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It really is trivial to nitpick the negative side of anything Beet.
Like TV licenses and equating them to govermnet control of the media?
lol
;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It really is trivial to nitpick the negative side of anything Beet. In 51 years, I have never witnessed anything like you depicted.
Balance, skuzzy, balance - In my 51 years, I have never witnessed anything akin to the sharp objects atrocities depicted by certain people on this board.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Like TV licenses and equating them to govermnet control of the media?
lol
;)
:rofl
-
curval.... how is a government "licence" with penalties including fines and incarcerations..... NOT government control?
lazs
-
Because they do not control the CONTENT lazs...just the licensing and policing those licenses.
-
Of course there isn't a law "giving" the press freedom. Freedom is something they have. Laws restrict freedom, not grant it.
Actually no, Constitutional laws in both England and US, promote freedoms not restrict them. in Fact every single amendment to the US constitution contrains the power of the federal goverment.
If fact the founding fathers of the US left the ultimate constraint in the tenth amendment.
"Those powers no specificly grant to the federal goverment by this document are reserved for the states and the people respectively"
and in reality England is the only major modern country without a constitutional law insuring freedom of the press. However England traditionaly closely follow US law and the press in recent years and with the advent of IT, has enjoyed ennormous freedom. But its the freedom to gather information from the goverment that is constrained in England, which is really the most important source of information, because no one else knows anything of importance in the areas we are discussing.
quote:The Official Secrets Acts (1889, 1911, 1989) make unlawful the “unauthorised communication of information about matters which must remain secret in the interests of the safety of the state
And you think other countries don't?
Actually the first amendment to the US constitution gauruntees freedom of the press. In fact the entire reason the US has the first amendment was to insure against the abuses of the Crown (King of England) in restricting and controlling the printed handbills of the time. (percursor to the newspaper)
England since that time has never passed legislation insuring that the goverment may not abrige the press.
quote:These include limits about the information a reporter may gather about government activities,
No, the official secrets act applies to government employees, and those they pass classified material to. It does not apply to journalists who "gather" information, unless the information they gather is stolen classified documents.
Of course, you dont have to restrict the people who dont know the information, they cant pass on information they dont have in the first place.
you only have to restrict the people who have the information and everyone they tell.
no matter , I didnt post to argue the merits and realities of the english law.
I see. So the murder rate in the UK isn't really a third of the US rate, it's just as high, but we aren't allowed to know that.
Actually the Murder rate in england is higher than that of the US on a per capita basis, (based on United nations studies)
handgun violence which is historicly less than the US, has been rapidly gaining.
here are some studies from people in England.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96"
by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., BJS Statistician and
David P. Farrington, Ph.D., BJS Visiting Fellow, University of Cambridge
This report compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Crime rate in England 'is worst in the world'
by David Taylor, Englands Home Affairs Correspondent
England has the worst crime record in the industrialised world, according to alarming findings published today.
The figures, which are a blow to Tony Blair's crusade against crime, show there are 58 offences for every 100 inhabitants of England and Wales each year.
That puts us joint top of the world league with Australia, with a record far worse than America, which has an annual rate of 43 crimes per 100 inhabitants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."
-
Originally posted by Curval
Like TV licenses and equating them to govermnet control of the media?
lol
;)
I have no idea how TV works outside of the US, other than it is PAL based versus our antique NTSC.
The upshot of what I have read in this thread suggests it is illegal for anyone in England (Britain?) to watch television without paying something for it. The upside to this method appears to be there are no commercials at all.
Here, we can get free TV, which does have commercials and even the stuff we pay for has commercials. Note, some channels do not show any commercials during a movie, but rather may lump them all together at the end or beginning. There are also channels which ask for money as that is how they chose to fund themselves so all content can be commercial free.
Seems both countries have up and down sides to viewing television.
-
Okay... maybe it's the cough medicine... or bait I just can't pass up...
but Beetle... did you just point out that a scene from a movie is american reality? Wow. Seriously, that's like me saying I should expect to see guys just like this on the streets of london...
(http://www.ukquad.com/aligindahouse.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I have no idea how TV works outside of the US, other than it is PAL based versus our antique NTSC.
The upshot of what I have read in this thread suggests it is illegal for anyone in England (Britain?) to watch television without paying something for it. The upside to this method appears to be there are no commercials at all.
Here, we can get free TV, which does have commercials and even the stuff we pay for has commercials. Note, some channels do not show any commercials during a movie, but rather may lump them all together at the end or beginning. There are also channels which ask for money as that is how they chose to fund themselves so all content can be commercial free.
Seems both countries have up and down sides to viewing television.
I agree totally Skuzzy. If you look ^ though you will see many people trying to equate the licenses in the UK to some sort of Stalinist or Orwellian control over the viewers.
-
Good Lord, what simple-minded thinking.
Find a couple of highly-questionable photographs...and frames from a damn movie, no less!!...and suggest that this is somehow irrefutable evidence that a man has no right to arm and defend himself and his family? Do you really intend to judge American society from stupid action movies?? Really no credibility here, just noise.
Sheep never seem to think they ought to defend themselves, do they.
My house was broken into, and my family terrified, by some low-life dirtbag punk as recently as this past Halloween. Whether you like it or not, I am even more firmly convinced that my ability to let him hear me chamber a 12 gauge round into my shotgun was the determining factor in his decision to drop everything and run, when he turned and looked down that very black muzzle. It was even more fun to set the dogs on him (King Shepherd and a Mastiff), but the little SOB got away. WITH all my Christmas money(guess he didn't actually drop 'everything').
Furthermore, mydavis was absolutley correct in his statement concerning the actual motivation behind the Amendment. Our Founding Fathers saw what your form of government (at the time) was worth, and what freedom meant in 18th-century Britain, so they made sure that in America, bad personalities could never pervert a good system by emasculating the will and ability of the people to overthrow their government. Yup...to retain the ability to overthrow a corrupt government. Crime was not part of the equation. To this day, that remains the most legitimate arguement for the protection of the 2nd amendment. There are other arguements as well, many of note, but this remains the primary and original motivation.
God forbid (and I mean that) that you ever have to see your wife and children that afraid, or be that afraid for them. I'm sure you'll be comforted by your lack of anything more threatening than a soda straw and harsh language when your beloveds are in grave peril. I, for one, will never leave myself helpless in the face of a violent aggressor.
Movie pictures...please.
-
Like we do not have the government scrutinizing everything we watch? We have the FCC handling censoring various things on TV.
-
Actually the Murder rate in england is higher than that of the US on a per capita basis, (based on United nations studies)
handgun violence which is historicly less than the US, has been rapidly gaining.
Source?
Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96"
by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., BJS Statistician and
David P. Farrington, Ph.D., BJS Visiting Fellow, University of Cambridge
This report compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England."
Can't see any mention of the murder rate being higher there.
In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
Well, that one mentions the murder rate, but admits the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
And you think other country's police don't?
A very large number of crimes are never reported to police, because they are too trivial, or because both parties involved are reluctant to go to the police (eg, one drug dealer stealing from another)
That's why there are victim surveys, which aim to get a better idea of actual crimes, rather than police recorded crimes.
In the UK, that's the British Crime Survey. In the US it's the BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey.
NCVS: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv04.htm
BCS: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0405.html
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
What's interesting in the British crime figures is the police recorded crime has been going up in recent years, because of the changes in counting crime. The BCS survey, which gives a better indication of actual crime, rather than recorded crime, has been falling pretty fast.
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."
It certainly doesn't. Maybe in a highly regulated state like Singapore recorded crime might be almost the same as actual crime, but that's not true in the western world.
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."
Source for this, please, because it's complete and utter rubbish.
Oh, it's OK, I've found the source: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
Just a hint, but just because a pro gun web site says something, it doesn't mean it's true.
The actual way murder is recorded in Britain is 1 case of homicide for every victim, regardless of whether a suspect exists.
It's exactly the same in the US, despite what the website claims, 1 crime of homicide is recorded for every victim, regardless of how many attackers there were.
The only major difference in the recording of homicide is that the UK includes negligent manslaughter, the US excludes it, thus making the US figures artificaly lower.
Now, is http://www.gunowners.com the only source you have for the claim the murder rate in Britain is actually much higher, or do you have another.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Like we do not have the government scrutinizing everything we watch? We have the FCC handling censoring various things on TV.
A very good point.
I'm sure the Brits have a simialr watch-dog though.
-
actually I meant Crime rate in general, specificly we are discussing Gun Crime and Gun control
The murder rate in England is reported to be actually lower than the united states but gaining fast.
But Rape, muggings, robbings, assaults, are all much higher. This being in a country with secure borders and 1/6 the population.
we can assume, that these general crimes are not being done with Twinkies. Knowing the toughness of the english, nothing but a gun would allow these crimes to occur.
logicly then, we can say that either the english are much more likely to assualt/rape/mug thier victims and then not kill them, or that English medical care is better after they are shot, or as many suggest the reporting is in error.
Either way, the argument for gun control working in england does not seem to be valid.
Assuming the criminials in the US and England have the same morals and motivations, we can look at a micronism in the US as a sterling example of how gun control doesnt work.
In the District of Columbia, (nations capitol) which has very strict gun control similiar to Englands, the crime and murder rate has skyrocketed.
In an 8 mile square city surrounded by water (similiar to england) there are over 500 murders per year, more than half are unsolved.
the State of Virginia, (right next door ) which borders DC has some of the most lenient citiizen gun laws in the US, any citizen who is not a felon or considered mentally impaired can apply for and carry a concealed weapon,
Virginia with over 1000 times the population and 1500 times the land mass, has less murders than the District of columbia.
Murder rates in US are highly skewed because of cities like New york and DC where the citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Like we do not have the government scrutinizing everything we watch? We have the FCC handling censoring various things on TV.
Wouldnt be that way if people learned how to just change the channel when they didnt like something.
Had somebody call and complain about a program we were airing. They even mentioned FCC regulating this and that. I told them to just change the channel and they said they didnt have to.
Why is it folks want to be so "spoon fed" on everything.
-
I did a quick Google of "Crime rate United Nations" and came up with this (http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/data/i_VIC.HTM)
In the "Nationwide Surveys of Industrialized Countries", it shows that in 1995, 24.2% of Americans were effected by crime.
Scotland; 25.6%, England and Wales; 30.9%, Canada; 25.2%, Netherlands, 31.5%; France; 25.3%, New Zealand; 29.4%, Sweden; 24.0%....
-
additionaly, we can look at studies done by talking to the actual criminials.
In a comprehensive study, over 10 years done by the Bureau of Prisons in the US. They asked felons who had been incarcerated for violent crimes, what they would be wary of when commiting a crime, The results are astonishing.
almost 100% of these felons reported that they would not be deterred from a crime because of the police, whom they considered too slow to respond, too ineffective to catch them, and not focused enough to gather enough information to convict them.
So they asked the home robbery felons what would deter them from breaking and entering a home.
# 1 reason they would not break into a home. Homes with dogs. Fear of getting bit was the number one reason.
#2 homeowners with Guns.
in the same study, they asked criminials what would deter them from assaulting someone on the street (outside of the home)
#1 reason, again someone walking a large dog. (fear of getting bit)
#2 citizens in a concealed carry state. violent criminials reported that the 2nd biggest deterrent to assualting/mugging/raping somone was the fear that the person might be carrying a gun, or someone near by would.
They also reported that the problem with Concealed weapons is that you cant quite figure out who has one until its too late.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Wouldnt be that way if people learned how to just change the channel when they didnt like something.
Had somebody call and complain about a program we were airing. They even mentioned FCC regulating this and that. I told them to just change the channel and they said they didnt have to.
Why is it folks want to be so "spoon fed" on everything.
Beats the heck out of me Wolf. If I see something I do not like on TV, I just flip to another show. I think some people are so miserable, the only way they can feel good (even though it is a false sense of feeling good) about themselves, or their lives, is to make others miserable.
Unfortunately, I think that is fast becoming a very large portion of our country/society.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
additionaly, we can look at studies done by talking to the actual criminials.
In a comprehensive study, over 10 years done by the Bureau of Prisons in the US. They asked felons who had been incarcerated for violent crimes, what they would be wary of when commiting a crime, The results are astonishing.
almost 100% of these felons reported that they would not be deterred from a crime because of the police, whom they considered too slow to respond, too ineffective to catch them, and not focused enough to gather enough information to convict them.
So they asked the home robbery felons what would deter them from breaking and entering a home.
# 1 reason they would not break into a home. Homes with dogs. Fear of getting bit was the number one reason.
#2 homeowners with Guns.
in the same study, they asked criminials what would deter them from assaulting someone on the street (outside of the home)
#1 reason, again someone walking a large dog. (fear of getting bit)
#2 citizens in a concealed carry state. violent criminials reported that the 2nd biggest deterrent to assualting/mugging/raping somone was the fear that the person might be carrying a gun, or someone near by would.
They also reported that the problem with Concealed weapons is that you cant quite figure out who has one until its too late.
side note of interest car jackers here hit cars that have democratic party bumper stickers. something for you pinheads to think about.
-
In this thread, one thing is obvious, and one thing has not been mentioned.
Obvious:
1) Beetle confuses television action dramas with real life.
Not yet mentioned:
2) British tv is painfully boring, and drives many Brits to the bottle.
-
actually I meant Crime rate in general, specificly we are discussing Gun Crime and Gun control
So you've backed away from the claim that the murder rate in the UK is actually three times the reported level?
The murder rate in England is reported to be actually lower than the united states but gaining fast.
Not really. The US experienced a large drop in murder in the 90s, but the figures for both countries have been stable since 2000.
But Rape, muggings, robbings, assaults, are all much higher.
Let's compare, shall we?
Rape:
FBI recorded rapes: 94,635
England and Wales: 12,354 (the US has approx 5.5 times the population)
Robbery:
FBI: 401,326
E&W: 88,710
Assault:
FBI: 854,911 (the FBI only records "aggravated assault", which they define as "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm."
England and Wales: 43,829 (includes attempted murder, threats or conspiracy to murder, wounding or other acts endangering life)
The assault categories don't compare well together, because the FBI only records serious assaults, whereas the UK records all assaults. However, breaking down the British figures as above gives a fairly close approximation. The US figures are so high because assault with a weapon, even if it is not fired, counts as aggravated assault.
we can assume, that these general crimes are not being done with Twinkies. Knowing the toughness of the english, nothing but a gun would allow these crimes to occur.
Nothing but a gun allows robbery, assault, rape?
The police record firearms crime, the percentages of crimes involving firearms (which includes replica guns and air weapons):
Robbery: 4.1% (ie 4.1% of robberies were carried out with guns or imitation guns)
Burglary: 0.095%
Rape: not recorded
Assault: 0.75%
The only comparable figure for the US is:
Robbery: 40.6%
Burglary figures don't record the use of firearms, assault figures are only for aggravated assault, which is the most serious form of assault.
logicly then, we can say that either the english are much more likely to assualt/rape/mug thier victims and then not kill them, or that English medical care is better after they are shot,
Or that the abscence of guns means they are far less likely to get shot.
Look at the comparable figures again. The use of firearms in robberies in the US is ten times as high as the UK, and a great many of the UK robberies are with imitation guns, because the real ones are so hard to get hold of.
or as many suggest the reporting is in error.
Can you give any credible source that suggests that? ie, not a pro gun lobby group.
This is a bit like arguing with certain Russians, who claim that the press in the US only reports what the government allows them to report. It's complete nonsense.
Either way, the argument for gun control working in england does not seem to be valid.
It doesn't if you make assumptions that the crime rate is higher than it is, that more people are getting murdered than reported, that guns are used in far more crimes, etc.
Assuming the criminials in the US and England have the same morals and motivations, we can look at a micronism in the US as a sterling example of how gun control doesnt work.
In the District of Columbia, (nations capitol) which has very strict gun control similiar to Englands, the crime and murder rate has skyrocketed.
In an 8 mile square city surrounded by water (similiar to england) there are over 500 murders per year, more than half are unsolved.
How hard is it for someone from DC to buy a gun in a neighbouring state? IIRC, about 60% of the guns traced in DC come from Virginia and Maryland.
This argument is rather like the old left wing local governments in Britain in the 1980s, who declared themselves "nuclear free zones". Pointless, if it's just a local policy.
the State of Virginia, (right next door ) which borders DC has some of the most lenient citiizen gun laws in the US, any citizen who is not a felon or considered mentally impaired can apply for and carry a concealed weapon,
Virginia with over 1000 times the population and 1500 times the land mass, has less murders than the District of columbia.
Virginia has 1,000 times the population of DC? DC has a population of 570,000, if Virginia had a population 1000 times that, it would have about double the population of the entire US. As Virginia is part of the US, I don't see how that could work.
Virginia actually has a population about 12 times that of DC, and has about twice as many murders, although a much lower murder rate. More facts from gunowners.com?
Murder rates in US are highly skewed because of cities like New york and DC where the citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
Actually New York has a lower murder rate than the US average, so skews the rate downwards. Arizona, which has amongst the least gun restictions, has a murder rate substantially above the US average. Louisiana, which has the highest murder rate of any state, allows pretty free access to guns.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
....jail time for those that own TV sets and don't pay the tax.
Nonsense. The maximum penalty is a £1000 fine, according to the TV Licensing website: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/detectionandpenalties.jsp#link1 Using a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) without a valid TV Licence is against the law and could lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000, not to mention the embarrassment and hassle of a court appearance.
What I want to know is where some Americans dig up all this propaganda. If someone went to jail, it would be because they refused to pay the fine. That would in itself constitute contempt of court, an entirely different offence. Oh wait, I've just found Mr. Toad's link: http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/international/bbc.html The author, pontificating about TV licensing in the UK is Ron Kaufman, who appears to be an American (surprise, surprise) anti-TV campaigner, amongst other roles. No bias at all then! :aok
Nashwan - - nice post this morning. I could have warned mydavis not to spout propaganda and pass it off as "facts" when you were around, but then again it was just too much fun to see him step right into the mire up to his neck.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
in Fact every single amendment to the US constitution contrains the power of the federal goverment.
Is this another of your "facts"? The text of the 18th amendment is as follows: Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
In what way does this amendment "constrain the power of the federal government"?The murder rate in England is reported to be actually lower than the united states but gaining fast.
Nope. According to Home Office stats, it's remaining fairly constant. The chart that follows shows the number of homicides over a period of 10+ years. There has been a gradual increase in the number, consistent with the rise in population. That is to say the homicide rate has remained fairly static. You will notice a spike for 2002 - this was caused by the murders committed by the serial killer Doctor Harold Shipman being lumped into that one year after the case against him was closed. Shipman actually committed hundreds of murders over many years.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/vc02.jpg)
Actually no, Constitutional laws in both England and US, promote freedoms not restrict them.
England does not have a constitution. Try again. Either way, the argument for gun control working in england does not seem to be valid.
Read my sig.
SOB! Sorry dude - your query got lost in the fur! Yes, we have Satellite TV. In fact I have a satellite dish on the side of my house left there by the previous owner, but I don't use it. Here's a link about Sky Digital TV satellite broadcasting: http://www.freesatellite.co.uk The neat thing about it is that the channels can be viewed in other parts of the world. So for example, next week when I'm 2000 miles from home in the Canary Islands, I'll still be able to watch English football matches on the SkySports channel.
-
curval... you are really gonna try to tell me that the government collecting a fee (tax) for every TV in the country and then giving it out to only one company.... that the government has no real control over content?
That is the basic difference between our countries.... you simply trust an all powerful government to do the right thing with YOUR money. We do not.
Your documents suggest rights so long as they are "reasonable" (defined by the government) ours are rock solid "shall not" against a government that we realize gets more corrupt the more power it has.
No thread has proved how a subject is different than a citizen in every way more than this one.... thanks for that.
lazs
-
"That is the basic difference between our countries.... you simply trust an all powerful government to do the right thing with YOUR money. We do not."
So, when you paid your taxes (no doubt by deduction rather than actually physically paying) you told your government how to spend it and they agreed?
lol
Try again lazs.
-
well.... I didn't pay em a seperate tax in order to watch TV. I didn't pay em half of every dollar or more at the pumps to do as they pleased nor did I ask em to tax me to socialize medicine...
I admit that we pay too much in taxes and that we are not following our constitution as much as we should be but.... we still have it better than anyone else. And... the vast majority of us will do everything to keep it that way..
The fact that you don't see any difference in the tax paid and amounts of socialism in the various countries seems odd given your profession.
The fact that you don't understand people can probly be attributed to living on a tiny little island and is not your fault.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The fact that you don't see any difference in the tax paid and amounts of socialism in the various countries seems odd given your profession.
I think you are the one who is confused...again.
You said THIS a while back:
"curval... you are correct. your little island of fantasy under the socialist umbrella is like well... a resort for the socialists.. enjoy it... "
So, my little island is a socialist one according to you in this older thread.
But now you are equating socialism to more tax...and yet we have NO income taxes here.
Your efforts to box me into your classic stereotypes is quite funny.
-
Originally posted by Curval
So, when you paid your taxes (no doubt by deduction rather than actually physically paying) you told your government how to spend it and they agreed?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif) (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif) (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif) (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Just another day in LA, but oh! the freedom.....
from a michael douglas movie made by hollyweird.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Is this another of your "facts"? The text of the 18th amendment is as follows: In what way does this amendment "constrain the power of the federal government"?
You probably should have chosen another amendment as an example. You may have heard that the 18th was an admitted failure and was repealed.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
from a michael douglas movie made by hollyweird.
Go to the LAPD website. In the search window, enter drive-by shooting - I have just done this, and came up with 1317 hits. That's 1317 reports of drive-by shootings in Los Angeles. Didn't take me long to find one that was "gang related".
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You probably should have chosen another amendment as an example.
I was waiting for you to come up with one of your hair-splitting retorts. But this won't do. mydavis categorically stated that "every single one" of the constitutional amendments had constrained the federal govt. You may have heard that the 18th was an admitted failure and was repealed.
Wonder how long it will be before the same fate befalls the second amendment! :lol
-
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lapd01.jpg)
Like I said, just another day in LA. :cool:
-
Beetle
I said constitutioanal law----
The UK is one of the few countries in the world today that does not have a codified constitution, relying instead on customs and separate pieces of constitutional law.
and wait a minute, you actually believe that England a country of 52+ million people had only 68 gun murders last year. a rate slightly higher than 1 in 1,000,000. This would be the lowest rate ever By FAR, in the known world.
That would be incredible. The rest of the known world has a rate measured in % of 100,000 normally between 5 - 9% but by your count England has a rate of gun murder of 1% per 1,000,000.
That is Awesome !!
interestingly enough the incarceration rate in england is comparable every other industrialized nation, England just like the US , has problems with prison costs and overcrowding. but with the rate of crime as low as you say,
I wonder who is in englands prisons.
Oh England must be locking up criminals from the rest of the world, since it has almost no criminals of its own.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
and wait a minute, you actually believe that England a country of 52+ million people had only 68 gun murders last year. a rate slightly higher than 1 in 1,000,000. This would be the lowest rate ever By FAR, in the known world.
That would be incredible. The rest of the known world has a rate measured in % of 100,000 normally between 5 - 9% but by your count England has a rate of gun murder of 1% per 1,000,000.
That is Awesome !!
I created that sig. block in 2004, which was when Nashwan said what he said, so he was referring to 2003. Yes, the number of gun homicides in Britain is about 50-90 a year, but as far as I am aware the tally has never exceeded 100. Gun homicides in Britain represent less than 10% of the overall homicide tally, which is usually around the 750 mark.
And now here's another LAPD report - this drive-by shooting was committed using an assault weapon - hey, isn't that the kind used by those guys in my movie stills??? :eek: Well, who would have thought it. :(
The second amendment at work - again
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lapd02.jpg)
-
I concede your amendment 18, I should have been more specific
Every one of the amendments of the original constititution (Bill or Rights )
constrains the power of the federal goverment.
Yes england does not have a bill of rights, or a constitution ( give us a call when you win your freedom)
-
Beetle
who is in your prisons ?
-
One day I'll figure out how to post a link !
-
I bet Los Angeles would be a crime-free utopia if only they could get rid of the guns.
-
I say keep the guns and get rid of the gang bangers
-
Originally posted by mydavis
Yes england does not have a bill of rights, or a constitution ( give us a call when you win your freedom)
*cough* magna carta *cough*
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1137109117_20029211530-0-swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by mydavis
Beetle
who is in your prisons ?
TV licence fee dodgers, according to Toad. ;)
-
swoop... we actualy did copy the magna carta and other british laws when we made our constitution... they are noble documents.
Problem is... they lack the force of guarantee... words like "reasonable" (as determined by the government) were not deemed strong enough by our founders. We seen how "reasonable" the british government could be to us "colonials" and fired the shot heard round the world to rid ourselves of your "reasonable" rule.
curval... I make up your mind... are you talking about england or your tiny little island? I have admited that your little palyground is a tax haven/shelter in the past. I think you live under a lot of restrictions that are silly and laughable and that any freedoms you do have are yours only by the grace of your rulers... you really have no guarentees.
What we were talking about was england.
Certainly I would like to have your taxes but.... nothing more of your island. You seem to be defending english taxes tho by saying that the U.S. pays taxes too.... My reply was that it was nothing near as severe as british socialism in my country.... I feel infinitely better off.
lazs
-
Beetle
LOL !
( thats a pretty good comeback)
-
sheesh mydavis... don't encourage him...
Mark my words... in a month or maybe 6... beet will be using your quote to prove what a wit he is and how everyone was impressed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sheesh mydavis... don't encourage him...
Mark my words... in a month or maybe 6... beet will be using your quote to prove what a wit he is and how everyone was impressed.
lazs
i feel like puting this in my sig just for the point of it ROFLMAO :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... I make up your mind... are you talking about england or your tiny little island? I have admited that your little palyground is a tax haven/shelter in the past. I think you live under a lot of restrictions that are silly and laughable and that any freedoms you do have are yours only by the grace of your rulers... you really have no guarentees.
What we were talking about was england.
Now lazs, I'll quote what "I" was responding to again, just to be clear:
"The fact that you don't see any difference in the tax paid and amounts of socialism in the various countries seems odd given your profession."
When you say "various countries" you mean England? Is that what your convulted post is trying to say?
See...I will respond to the things you WRITE not the things you "mean". Please don't act like my wife and expect me to mind read.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I was waiting for you to come up with one of your hair-splitting retorts. But this won't do. mydavis categorically stated that "every single one" of the constitutional amendments had constrained the federal govt. Wonder how long it will be before the same fate befalls the second amendment! :lol
According to Beet1e, the repeal of the 18th amendment is a hair splitting retort.
Noted.
The fact that you chose the failed amendment that proves the sentiment of mydavis' point that the constitution limits government and by doing so protects the rights of the people mydavis categorically stated that "every single one" of the constitutional amendments
[/i] shows me that if any hair splitting was done, perhaps it was by you.
-
curval... I am saying that in your profession that you have a fair knowledge of "various" countries tax structures since many of em come to your little island (I do not consider it a country) to escape paying what the peasants have to pay.
If you do consider bermuda a country and you have no experiance in tax laws of "various countries" then perhaps I was wrong. I had allways understood that bermuda was a territory and not a country. If that is true... then "various countries" would be easy enough of a statement for you to understand.
And beet.... the original "Bill of Rights" is what I believe we were talking about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to Beet1e, the repeal of the 18th amendment is a hair splitting retort.
No, I said I was waiting for a hair splitting retort - but none was forthcoming.
Toodle Pip - and I really am going this time. I'll be back after the next sunrise.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I was waiting for you to come up with one of your hair-splitting retorts. But this won't do. mydavis categorically stated that "every single one" of the constitutional amendments had constrained the federal govt. Wonder how long it will be before the same fate befalls the second amendment! :lol
This will never happen in the US.
If you think it will, well, fine, but I can assure you it will never happen;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, I said I was waiting for a hair splitting retort - but none was forthcoming.
So I gather that since my retort passed muster as "Beet1e certified non-hair splitting", that you admit your error in choosing an amendment that has no standing in constitutional law due to its repeal.
Or is your reply noting that you were "waiting" another hair split...
use your expertise and be the judge.
-
and wait a minute, you actually believe that England a country of 52+ million people had only 68 gun murders last year. a rate slightly higher than 1 in 1,000,000. This would be the lowest rate ever By FAR, in the known world.
That's part of the conspiracy, is it? The press aren't reporting most of the gun murders, and the police aren't counting them? :noid
And it's hardly the lowest rate in the world. Japan has about twice Britain's population, about half as many firearms murders a year.
That would be incredible. The rest of the known world has a rate measured in % of 100,000 normally between 5 - 9% but by your count England has a rate of gun murder of 1% per 1,000,000.
That is Awesome !!
Yes, it is pretty good.
Take for example the shooting of policemen. There have been 3 fatal shootings of police officers in Britain in the last decade. There are about 50 a year in the US. That's the advantage in making guns hard to get.
interestingly enough the incarceration rate in england is comparable every other industrialized nation, England just like the US , has problems with prison costs and overcrowding. but with the rate of crime as low as you say,
I wonder who is in englands prisons.
Oh England must be locking up criminals from the rest of the world, since it has almost no criminals of its own.
Oh, we've got plenty of criminals of our own. It's just that lacking access to firearms, they are a bit less dangerous. About 12% of the people in prison in the UK are foreign citizens.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So I gather that since my retort passed muster as "Beet1e certified non-hair splitting", that you admit your error in choosing an amendment that has no standing in constitutional law due to its repeal.
Or is your reply noting that you were "waiting" another hair split...
use your expertise and be the judge.
Well, even mydavis himself conceded his mistake, but still you beat this horse. OK let's forget about the 18th Amendment. Let's turn instead to the 21st Amendment. That's the one that states The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
And since alcohol is freely available in the US, I take it that the 21st Amendment has not been repealed. So please tell me, in what way does the 21st Amendment constrain the federal govt.?
-
What about the sixteenth amendment? Can't see how that "constrains the government".
-
what nashwan fails to understand or, ignores is that sociological differences and geographical ones all come into play.
I don't know if england reports their homicides accurately or not... let's say they do.
That being the case... then getting rid of guns has not changed anything. (except to increase overall crime) in 1920 when there were little or no restrictions and all the way up into the late 20th when the most deadly firearm around (the shotgun) was sold over the counter to anyone with no restrictions.... the homicide rate was the same.
that is england. in the U.S. we had less homicide in the "wild west" and had a huge upsurge when the feds started getting involved in vice (prohibiton) 1968 gun control acts made for an upsurge in crime and homicide here all the way up to about 10/100k since then we have had most all states affirm the right to carry law. the rate has been going down ever since.... amoung whites in America it is about the same as canada say and not much more than lilly white england.
lilly white socialist england keeps its subjects under a tight yoke. But now... minorities are starting to be a factor (can't keep em out forever) and as england decays... crime increases... soon there will be an increase in not only other violent crimes but homicide as well..
Americans understand that in a vibrant country crime is fluid... and that guns don't cause ir but can, on a personal level, give some protection against it.
england is in for a big shock. it's citizens have no options. more and more of it's police are being armed... more and more guns are entering the country every day.
no criminal in england can not get a firearm... there are plenty to go around... they just aren't.... right now.
American understand all this. we have lived with lots of firearms and without em. We don't want our whole country to be D.C. We see that diarming the citizens does no good.
nashwan acts like the low rate of cops being killed is because there are no guns ... that the criminals can't get em so.... everyone is safe... this is not only stupid and laughable but harmful thinking.
Does he think that a shotgun couldn't have killed a cop? that his criminals don't shoot cops because... because they can't get a gun? I know you are smarter than that..
I could get a gun in england within a week of getting off the plane. does that make you feel safe? does hiding under the bed while thugs ransack your home make you feel safe? Maybe more armed police and government forces would make you feel safe?
What gun laws anywere in the world have decreased the homicide or crime or accident rate?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So please tell me, in what way does the 21st Amendment constrain the federal govt.?
You resurrected the horse by bringing up an amendment that does not have any legal standing.
As for the 21st, it seems pretty clear to me that the government cannot enforce any law based upon the 18th as the 21st rendered any law based on the 18th as obsolete. That is a fairly clear limitation on government.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You resurrected the horse by bringing up an amendment that does not have any legal standing.
As for the 21st, it seems pretty clear to me that the government cannot enforce any law based upon the 18th as the 21st rendered any law based on the 18th as obsolete. That is a fairly clear limitation on government.
So the 21st Amendment did not constrain the federal govt., and has not been repealed. :aok
-
I guess you did not read my answer to your previous post.
By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.
The argument you are looking for is within this thread, and it is not related to prohibition or it's repeal.
-
Another Murders per capita source >> (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.
No. You can't on the one hand argue that the 18th Amendment cannot be used as an example of an amendment NOT constraining the federal govt. if you then go on to add that repealing it DID constrain the federal government, as one amendment merely cancelled out another, and restored the status quo. An interesting point though - rather like saying that the abolition of the 55mph fuel saving speed limit of the 1970s constrained the powers of the various highway law enforcement services.
-
no... but it would prove that both were bad ideas based on the government haveing too much power and...... In my mind...
give proof that the original bill of rights was the way to go.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No. You can't on the one hand argue that the 18th Amendment cannot be used as an example of an amendment NOT constraining the federal govt. if you then go on to add that repealing it DID constrain the federal government, as one amendment merely cancelled out another, and restored the status quo. An interesting point though - rather like saying that the abolition of the 55mph fuel saving speed limit of the 1970s constrained the powers of the various highway law enforcement services.
As the 18th is no longer law and the 21st is law it seems fairly clear that one is in effect and the other is not.
As I do not get a ticket for driving 58 mph on the open highway and by that fact the various municipalities cannot fill their coffers with fines, your 55 mph example is on the money.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I guess you did not read my answer to your previous post.
By limiting the governments ability to enforce any law based on the 18th, the 21st does indeed constrain the government.
No, because according to the experts, most crime is alcohol related. The 21st allows the free supply of alcohol. Therefore, people can get more drunk, commit more crimes, and the government then has more power over these criminals when they are imprisoned for their alcohol induced wrongdoings.