Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on March 24, 2006, 02:31:03 PM
-
I can't believe it! Not that a man wielding a sharp instrument should get the better of the two gunmen, but that it happened within a mile of my house!!! What is the neighbourhood coming to! :eek: The sharp instrument in question was a foot long WW1 bayonet - LOL. Apparently the shop proprietor Bob Simon is an avid gun collector - though one assumes that his collection no longer includes handguns.
Story here: http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news_article.php?section=5&category=88&story=1270
I have used both of those stores! Glad I remembered to take money to pay for my purchases! :lol
I strongly suspect that the guns were fakes/toys/replicas. No shots were fired, of course. That would be so... un-British. :o
-
Pretty sure that a WWI bayonet like that is illegal in england... did the cops arrest the guy after he chased off the robbers?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Pretty sure that a WWI bayonet like that is illegal in england...
What makes you so sure of that?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Pretty sure that a WWI bayonet like that is illegal in england... did the cops arrest the guy after he chased off the robbers?
lazs
Yep, and he is going to jail for 30 years because of it.
British legal system:
Rubber if caught get fine.
Defenders get 30 years if successful.
-
There's nothing illegal about having a bayonet, or using it to defend yourself. It's illegal to carry one in public without good reason
-
to protect yourself from all the replica-gun-toting-thugs in the area robbing people.
-
P'raps Parliament can hustle up and work in a bayonet and replica bayonet ban into the upcoming Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
Should fit in well with the proposed ban on blank guns.
-
Goodness me, they appear to be considering a "drinking banning order"as well.
1
Drinking banning orders
(1)A drinking banning order is an order that prohibits the individual against whom it is made (“the subject”) from doing the things described in the order.
(2)Such an order may impose any prohibition on the subject which is necessary for the purpose of protecting other persons from criminal or disorderly conduct by the subject while he is under the influence of alcohol.
(3)The prohibitions imposed by such an order must include such prohibition as the court making it considers necessary, for that purpose, on the subject’s entering—
(a) premises in respect of which there is a premises licence authorising the use of the premises for the sale of alcohol by retail; and
(b)premises in respect of which there is a club premises certificate authorising the use of the premises for the supply of alcohol to members or guests.
When's the next flight to Qatar then?
-
In another thread I found Eagl's battle with the burglers to be chilling... and the ultimate final condemnation of a social system that prevents the protection of private property by deadly force. If the bad guys know you can't protect yourself, they have absolutely nothing to fear.. there is NO deterrent.
In this country, any burglar is fair game.
In England, it's the home owner that's fair game.
-
Nah, Hang... you just pull out your Webley and.... oh, wait...they took all the Webleys.
:)
-
Careful guys...you are gonna get the thread deleted.
....oh wait...these are digs against the UK. It is only digs against Texas that cause threads to get whacked.:rolleyes:
-
Goodness me, they appear to be considering a "drinking banning order"as well.
Don't they already have such things in the US? (it's an option for a judge to ban an offender who's been convicted of 3 seperate alcohol related offences from drinking). I'm pretty sure I've read of US courts imposing such orders on offenders.
In this country, any burglar is fair game.
In England, it's the home owner that's fair game.
No, under English law any level of force that's reasonable in the circumstances as the homeowner understands them to be, and proportionate to the threat he feels he faces, is legal. Up to and including lethal force.
As the government guidelines published a couple of years ago said:
"You are not expected to make fine judgments on the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you do only what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of your acting lawfully and in self-defence."
-
No, no, no.
Digs against Texas are deserved because they are ignorant, arrogant Amereekans.
Digs against England are totally improper, unfair and not sporting, old chap.
-
lol
Sorry, couldn't help but laugh when I saw the thread title, bravo Beet! :D
-
You'll be laughing when you're using your fingers to butter your croissant in the open air cafes on Picadilly Square, Frenchy!!!
-
"I chased him but stumbled over some beer behind the counter."
I'm surprised you guys didn't harp on this!
-
If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained" legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.
But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.
Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the US; our homes are still our castles. Californians, for example, are entitled to use force to protect themselves and their property. Legislation in Oklahoma which allowed the home-owner to use force no matter how slight the threat has reduced burglary by nearly half since it was passed 15 years ago. What British police condemn as "vigilante" behaviour has produced an American burglary rate less than half the English rate. And, while 53 per cent of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a 30-year low.
Whatever became of the Englishman's castle? He did not lose the right and means to protect himself at once. It was teased away over the course of some 80 years by governments claiming to be fighting crime, but actually fearful of revolution and disorder. When the policy began, crime was rare. For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.
The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain's 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers. Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person". Since these guidelines were classified until 1989, there was no opportunity for public debate.
Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon. Police were given broad power to stop and search anyone. Individuals found with offensive weapons were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by, and leave it to the professionals.
Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law, approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be "reasonable" is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law". Another legal scholar found it "unthinkable" that "Parliament should inadvertently have swept aside the ancient privilege of self defence. Had such a move been debated it is unlikely that members would have sanctioned it." She was confident that Parliament would quickly set things right: "In view of the inadequacy of existing law there is some urgency here." That plea was written 30 years ago, and the situation is infinitely more urgent now.
At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders. Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".
Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper.
This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.
In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
The impact on law-abiding citizens has been stark. With no way to protect themselves, millions of Britons live in fear. Elderly people are afraid to go out and afraid to stay in. Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a "natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need". This Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to defend themselves.
Joyce Lee Malcolm is Professor of History at Bentley College, Massachusetts, and Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. Her book, Guns and Violence - the English Experience, is published by Harvard University Press.
----------
We do not weep for you, England. American Gunowners are determined to remain the keepers of their own damn castles... and not powerless to proctect ourselves, our property or our way of life.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
That would be so... un-British. :o
So would sobriety. :rofl
-
HangTime - you forgot to provide a link to your source. Never mind, I'll do it for you: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixopinion.html
-
Only just noticed this -
Originally posted by Curval
....oh wait...these are digs against the UK. It is only digs against Texas that cause threads to get whacked.:rolleyes:
(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
HangTime - you forgot to provide a link to your source. Never mind, I'll do it for you: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixopinion.html
Ahhh but you see, I did indeed credit the author and her credentials and put the piece in it's entirety in full view here.
But.. since she's intelligent, an american, a gun owner and a woman who would, could and should shoot yer bellybutton if you attacked her I considered it unnecessary to show that it was a UK publication that printed the article to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
But.. since she's intelligent, an american, a gun owner and a woman who would, could and should shoot yer bellybutton if you attacked her I considered it unnecessary to show that it was a UK publication that printed the article to begin with.
Depends where. Not here, it would seem. :aok
-
I suspect she could kick yer bellybutton anywhere. Here, she'd just shoot yah and be thankful for the sterling opportunity to rid the planet of another woman beater.
-
Oh, oh! Score zero for originality, as always! :rofl
And... feel the HATE! I know you feel it, and I LIKE that feeling! :t
-
Actually, Hangtime, I remember seeing a pic of you next to your 5ft-4 daughter. She looked quite tall against you. Nice pic though. And I thought you were such a macho man - not the little weasel I see you as now.
-
How's the old toodle pip hangin, beetle?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How's the old toodle pip hangin, beetle?
Hangin' fine. And at least I can see mine. Oh wait - you can probably see yours by now. :rofl
-
Not hate, Beet. Disdain; yes, even disgust.
But not hate.
-
Oh, OK. I think we have something to work with. Might even invite you to the Drediock luncheon club! But not tomorrow - I have a day long date with tomato. Go figure. Guess you didn't know as much as you thought you knew. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Actually, Hangtime, I remember seeing a pic of you next to your 5ft-4 daughter. She looked quite tall against you. Nice pic though. And I thought you were such a macho man - not the little weasel I see you as now.
You mean this one, beet?
(http://www.hangtimes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Wedding.jpg)
I'm 6'1", 240lbs. She's 5'9", about 150.. and either one of us would enjoy immensely an opportunity to explain to you face to face how we feel about folks that beat up women.
Have a nice day, Beet.
;)
-
It seems that the smart thing that British citizens should do when they discover burglars in their homes would be to immediately rob them and clearly state their intention as robbers. - eskimo
-
Hangtime - I have never hit a woman. Never.
-
6-1 and 240? You fat git :lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
You'll be laughing when you're using your fingers to butter your croissant in the open air cafes on Picadilly Square, Frenchy!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Erm... where is "Piccadilly Square"? I have never heard of it.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... where is "Piccadilly Square"? I have never heard of it.
Piccadilly Circus. You know damn well what he meant, and you also have to admit it was funny.
Karaya
-
Oh, OK - must be some place in Devonshire that I haven't heard of!
-
Maybe you'd figure it out if I'd have used Trafalgar Circus.
-
ah yes, I used to work close to there - right by Charing Circle!
-
Exactly. I know EVERYTHING about London because I spent 4 days there once.
-
I just love it how this ignorant self proclaimed elite brit named beetle can come to these forums, time and time again showing nothing but continuous moronic, sophmoric, idiocy and yet not be banned.
Why do you remotely put up with beetle's garbage Hitech and crew?
This guy has been an utter stain on anything "pro-American" and at any time given, he has been first to the front in spouting off his utter ignorant, flame inciting, hate passive aggressive motivated posts.
Why is he not banned as of yet?
With nearly ALL posts created by him, the motive is to simply start political, ignorant and flame-starting threads. WHY IS THIS NOT BEING CORRECTED?
This is not a matter of free speech,.. it is simply a matter of this guy being a total salamander for no better purpose other than to do so and get away with it.
Again.. Why is he not banned yet?
Beetle,.. Grow the _ _ _ _ up and stop acting like a child. Your topics and views about "America" are so predictable and boring. I can't even truly imagine how utterly empty your life / days must be that you feel the need to embark upon an American bashing tirade here, day after day, post after post.
You seem to think you are being whitty, yet your character has been played out through and through. Pick a different topic and "try" to be an adult and live your life and leave the Americans to live with what revolves around theirs.
-Yeager2
-
Originally posted by Toad
Exactly. I know EVERYTHING about London because I spent 4 days there once.
LOL! How many days did you spend in Devonshire? :rofl
Excuse me, Yeager2 - but this thread is about a news item that appeared in a British newspaper, today. So I don't see what Beetle,.. Grow the _ _ _ _ up and stop acting like a child. Your topics and views about "America" are so predictable and boring.
has to do with it.
See Rule 2.
-
More than you spent in Qatar!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL! How many days did you spend in Devonshire? :rofl
Excuse me, Yeager2 - but this thread is about a news item that appeared in a British newspaper, today. So I don't see what has to do with it.
See Rule 2.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Karaya
-
LOL! I like Devonshire. My best friend has just bought a house there. Cute cottage, several hundred years old... When are you coming back?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Karaya
Please explain. I quoted a UK newspaper, and made no mention of America!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Please explain. I quoted a UK newspaper, and made no mention of America!
Here: (http://www.urbanites.plus.com/troll.gif)
Karaya
-
I still don't get it, Mash.
-
He's basically saying that people don't like you, and don't appreciate you making fun of them.
I don't feel much one way or the other... you can be irritating, but no moreso than they are.
-
A friend with a cottage in Devonshire! Oh, lucky sod ;)
BTW, weren't they referring to Leicester Circus, you know the place between Piccadilly square and Charing Junction, on the route I was once looking for a bookstore and turned left too quickly, only to find myself in China!
-
Guys, this is the way beet1e gets meaning in his life. He deserves pity and compassion, not anger.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Guys, this is the way beet1e gets meaning in his life. He deserves pity and compassion, not anger.
I guess you of all people would sympathize, it was your shared joy in life too, to come on the board and denigrate the USA.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I guess you of all people would sympathize, it was your shared joy in life too, to come on the board and denigrate the USA.
I guess you of all people would sympathize, it was your shared joy in life too, to come on the board and denigrate any other countries.
-
Maybe they were real guns but the two Brits didn't have the balls or knowledge of how to use them. That's what I find disturbing, the amount of balless Europeans.............dam shame, really.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
He's basically saying that people don't like you, and don't appreciate you making fun of them.
B-b-b-b-but all I did was quote a newspaper article about something that happened in my own town. I made no mention of any other towns, countries or BBS personalities.
:confused:
LOL Angus - sounds like you were looking for Foyle's book shop in Charing Circle Road! I have a .PDF document of that Devonshire cottage - I'll PM it to you if you're interested. I can't wait to visit it myself...
-
If the guns were replicas, well, those guys did not see the movie "Snatch" :rofl
-
Aww Beet, it pains me to see you being denied the acceptance you so desperately crave.
The problem is that people over here see you as being just a naive, city-slicker English limey. Your personal intelligence and attributes may be perfectly adequate for life across the big water, but it carries little weight in our culture.
For the small sum of $5,257, I can help you upgrade your image. Rest assured, only a small amount of that sum goes into my own pocket; the rest goes to defray expenses of the secret initiation. The high priest will only perform the ceremony if he is provided with a new sheet. Then I gotta pay the boys for catching the wild hog and gator, building the pen to hold em, gathering the poke salat, and preparing the sacrificial alter.
In addition, I provide various pariphernalia necessary to properly outfit you, the initiate: 67 Chevy pick-up; package of Red-Man; ceremonial cover-alls, Bowie Knife, catahoula hog dogs, gun of your choice (or spear if using a gun is objectionable.)
You gotta provide your own second cousin however.
While I cannot divulge the rites involved in the ceremony in this public forum, let me assure you, hardly anyone ever dies.
Once you complete the initiation, you emerge transformed, replete with New World he-man status. Henceforth, you will carry the title of Honorary South-Arkansas Semi-Cajun and River Rat.
Oh...almost forgot...you'll have to buy a couple of spitoons for the house. Your new image has to be reinforced from time to time after all.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
B-b-b-b-but all I did was quote a newspaper article about something that happened in my own town. I made no mention of any other towns, countries or BBS personalities.
Poor innocent Beet, I can't believe you're being persecuted like this. It must be hard to be so misunderstood! I'd blame you too, for this wank fest, but that would deny recognition to the folks who constantly and predictably rise to your bait. Even ones who should know better.
-
How come those guys didn't just use a real gun and shoot the bayonet weilder down?
It is extremely simple to rent, buy or make a real firearm in england... sawed off shotguns are easy to make with a hacksaw...
So why didn't they use a real gun? were they like....
Law abiding crooks?
lazs