tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post253641754578148116..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: How Can We Address Inner City Gun Crime?Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-81927928093979859252007-08-29T18:23:00.000+01:002007-08-29T18:23:00.000+01:00An armed society is a polite society. The presenc...An armed society is a polite society. The presence of guns has the desirable side effect of eliminating yobbishness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25405234775966388662007-08-29T13:55:00.000+01:002007-08-29T13:55:00.000+01:00Per John RedmanYou could at least quote the source...Per John Redman<BR/><BR/><BR/>You could at least quote the source correctly - the figure you give for the UK should be about 1.6 per 100,000. So the US figures are three times as high. The figure you give is for London -although we could compare that with major US cities and find that the gap is even wider.<BR/><BR/>As Verity has pointed out, "homicide" in the US includes citizens righteously offing scrotes who try to murder them. The homicide rate is thus likely to be higher simply because it is possible for citizens to defend themselves. <BR/><BR/>This is again garbage - you are right that the US figures include justifiable homicides, but these amount to only 500-600 per year about 5% of total homicides. If you don't believe me look at the US Dept of Justice figures here <BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf<BR/><BR/>There may be other arguments for the rights to carry arms - but to argue that it would lead to a reduction in the UK murder rate as you and Verity argue based on what happens in the US/Texas is just not sustainable.tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24220875345048175692007-08-28T21:32:00.000+01:002007-08-28T21:32:00.000+01:00I forgot to add that these sentences would be mand...I forgot to add that these sentences would be mandatory under the law. I think we need to taking sentencing out of the hands of judges until they get the message that society - any society - is basically conservative. Judges should preside over the case but not be involved in any way in sentencing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3651910094357723322007-08-28T20:57:00.000+01:002007-08-28T20:57:00.000+01:00I had an idea for crime control that I've been tou...I had an idea for crime control that I've been touting around for at least a couple of years, and it addresses the elephant in the living room: almost all serious crime (GBH) is executed by young men.<BR/><BR/>It could work in tandem with John Redman's suggestions, above. <BR/><BR/>Prison would be an awful, and at the same time boring, experience. No TV, computers, gym, etc. Having to work eight hours a day, inside the prison, to earn their keep.<BR/><BR/>I proposed that the first time one of these little shits was tried and found guilty, there should a mandatory prison sentence that would be long enough to give him an intense disaste for prison, but not long enough to corrupt him and/or enable him to find his way round and operate the system.<BR/><BR/>Second offence, a mandatory much longer sentence. Perhaps a mandatory five years with no parole. This would serve to concentrate their "minds" and at the same time, keep them out of the way of society at large.<BR/><BR/>Once out, if he commits a third offence, banged up until his 40th birthday. Mandatory. This is in recognition of thefact that crime is a young man's game. They run out of steam as they get older.<BR/><BR/>Also, at that age, some of their old mates will have come off the game and got employment. Some will have married and settled. Some will have moved away. In other words, there would be no old gang for our prisoner to slip back into. And 40 is too old to start looking for a new gang of mates with whom to commit offences.<BR/><BR/>Too bad and all that, but they would get their chance with their first sentence, which would not be so harsh as to harden them, but would show them what deterrents society has up its sleeve.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who is stupid enough to get banged up for the third time is not going to be a danger to anyone by age 40. Younger men won't want to know, and his old mates will be long dispersed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27761379986248675702007-08-28T17:53:00.000+01:002007-08-28T17:53:00.000+01:00JasperBritain has much worse crime rates than the ...Jasper<BR/><BR/>Britain has much worse crime rates than the USA. According to the UN Britain in 2002 had 9,766 crimes per 100,000 population. The equivalent figure for the USA was 8,517 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml). <BR/><BR/>According to http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf, the USA's homicide rate is about 5.6 per 100,000 compared to 2.6 in the UK and about 22 in Russia. So it's only about twice as high. <BR/><BR/>As Verity has pointed out, "homicide" in the US includes citizens righteously offing scrotes who try to murder them. The homicide rate is thus likely to be higher simply because it is possible for citizens to defend themselves. <BR/><BR/>If Tom ap Rhys Price (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/nstab14.xml) had had a gun, there would have been two dead scrotes instead of one dead lawyer. In the USA that is what you'd get and it shows in the statistics. So quite honestly it seems to me that the USA's homicide rate is <BR/>a/ something to be proud of and b/ something to be thankful for <BR/><BR/>because it is the reason why US crime generally is a lot lower.<BR/><BR/>The correct response to crime is to recognise that most of it is done by a tiny minority who have already come to police attention. So give them 3 strikes and they're out: on their third offence, they go to jail for ever. <BR/><BR/>This would entail building probably 50 prisons, but they would be excellent value. the costs of all forms of insurance would fall because nothing would be stolen any more; the costs of maintaining public infrastructure would fall because there'd be no more vandalism; and the cost and development times of new drugs would fall, because you could test them on the lifers in exchange for one extra cigarette a week, or soft toilet paper, or fewer beatings, or something else that the scrotes would appreciate in the pokey. <BR/><BR/>Once we have the criminals behind bars, we can start on the remainder of the problem, i.e. the police and the judiciary.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11553163741320490361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38241074002766606242007-08-28T00:32:00.000+01:002007-08-28T00:32:00.000+01:00Frankly, it didn't take much talent to guess you w...<I>Frankly, it didn't take much talent to guess you were a product of Massachusetts.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, given your lack thereof, I guess that's a good thing.<BR/><BR/><I>You have absolutely no idea how crime figures are compiled in Britain.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't be absurd. You're not seriously suggesting that it is impossible to compile statistics comparing different nations, are you? I don't need to know <B>how</B> crime figures are compiled in Britain, the USA, or any other state for that matter. Experts with far more knowledge about the subject than either of us have done the sums, and they're available for the googling.<BR/><BR/><I>You naively relate everything back to the United States, whose laws are absolutely irrelevant to Britain because THEY DO NOT APPLY.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not basing my arguments on US law -- please read more carefully. I'm basing my argument on the utterly non-controversial observation (at least according to the criminologists) that a well-armed criminal population is a deadly criminal population - no matter what the law says. Firearms simply make killing <B>easier</B>. That is, after all, what the infernal things were invented for.<BR/><BR/><I>You have nothing new to add. You have nothing to bring to the table. You are a dead weight.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm crushed by the withering wit of your stinging, highly original insults. You've read a lot of Oscar Wilde, haven't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-475311592355210732007-08-27T21:02:00.000+01:002007-08-27T21:02:00.000+01:00Jasper Don't worry zero respect from Verity is pre...Jasper <BR/><BR/>Don't worry zero respect from Verity is pretty much a badge of honour. <BR/><BR/>I always find it illuminating to go back to the first posting by Verity in any thread and see how it relates to the original posting. <BR/><BR/>In this case Verity offers a written consititution and Texas style gun law as the answer to gang violence and the c50 teenage child murders that we get each year in the UK - but has yet to offer any cogent mechanism as to how such measures would have any positive effect. In addition, we are governed by a Fascist government and the David Cameron is a socialist. Clearly the ramblings of a political genius.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps Verity is a satirical genius?tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-26984696581613415192007-08-27T15:09:00.000+01:002007-08-27T15:09:00.000+01:00Jasper - Well, I scored a direct hit there. Frank...Jasper - Well, I scored a direct hit there. Frankly, it didn't take much talent to guess you were a product of Massachusetts, a state for which I have zero respect. No guns and Teddy Kennedy. Jeez. How grim can it get?<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to reply to you point by point because your assumptions are so ignorant and naive that there is no starting point. You have absolutely no idea how crime figures are compiled in Britain. You just don't know. You naively relate everything back to the United States, whose laws are absolutely irrelevant to Britain because THEY DO NOT APPLY. You do not know who the major players are and how they got there. Geddit? Your silly little assumptions are based on your American experience - indeed, your MA experience, which is even worse.<BR/><BR/>Study British law for a few years, monitor this government and read the 10 years of its appalling history of mismanaging crime and the economy (they're related), and then come back to us with some suggestions not already made many times by genuine Britons who know the score. <BR/><BR/>You have nothing new to add. You have nothing to bring to the table. You are a dead weight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30589682899718999572007-08-27T14:14:00.000+01:002007-08-27T14:14:00.000+01:00Gun crime - Britain one-eighth of America, blah bl...<I>Gun crime - Britain one-eighth of America, blah blah blah ... By which set of figures, Jasper? British population around 60m - according to the government. American population around 320m. In which states do your figure apply?</I><BR/><BR/>Verily: Oh, you mean the US has a larger population than the UK? Geez, thanks -- a free lesson in demographics! (and here's a free one for you: America's population is estimated to now be at about 303 million, but thanks for the extra 17 million Yanks.).<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was referring, obviously, to the <I>per capita</I> homicide rate (I didn't say "gun crime rate, so please don't misquote). Admittedly, the rate I was quoting was from memory, but I think I'm on pretty firm ground in stating that Americans are significantly more murderous than their British cousins. Is this really controversial? And yes, I <I>am</I> from Massachusetts -- how'd you guess? (don't blame me, blame your bloody ancestors for setting us up in business!). And yes, apparently your compatriots' attitude with respect to firearms has traditionally been closer to this Yank's, given the UK's traditionally strict (and sensible, I might add) regulations. You sound to me like a disgruntled Brit pro-gun libertarian. Am I right? We've got plenty of room for you in Alabama if your lust for a Kalashnikov ever finally drives you from dear old Blighty! (-:<BR/><BR/><I>this statement is beyond stupid. You know nothing of British policing and British funding of police departments.</I><BR/><BR/>Why is it "beyond stupid" to suggest that Britain employ police specializing in the gun black market if said market is indeed a driver of violent crime? You may be right that the concept is not very likely to materialize in the UK given historical and political realities, of course, but merely asserting the idea is "stupid" hardly proves your case. (and any way, I'd frankly be surprised to learn that there are <B>no</B> British police concentrating on the guns black market; is this really so?) In his post Iain specifically states "We need to learn from from them how they have tackled it and reduced it." Well, as an American, I'm here to tell you we have this thing called the ATF Bureau which is a holdover from prohibition days whose main focus is now illegal firearms. Given the fact that in the US so much of the firearms trade isn't illegal, the ATF's scope may not be that large, nor its role that critical. But in a country such as the United Kingdom that rightly recognizes the link between widespread gun distribution and murder, police forces devoted specifically to the firearms black market could play an important role. Or at least I think they could. Of course, to disagree with me one probably would have to seriously believe that it's <B>not</B> easier to obtain an illegal gun in the UK than it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago, or that this greater availability has no bearing on Britain's murder rate. Right. Whatever. Thanks for giving me <I>my</I> morning chuckle. Tee hee. No need to turn on "BBC America" for a dose of Benny Hill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35850199378649347052007-08-27T13:20:00.000+01:002007-08-27T13:20:00.000+01:001. Build more prisons - urgently:2. Provide free h...1. Build more prisons - urgently:<BR/>2. Provide free heroin on prescription (also other highly addictive drugs, crack cocaine etc);<BR/>3. Remove administrative burden on police forces; more police presence on streets; re-introduce the 'sus' law;<BR/>4. Review sentencing policy, introduce 'deterrent' and 'tariff' sentences;<BR/>5. Abolish Human Rights Act;<BR/>6. Abolish 24 hour licensing;<BR/>7. Introduce costs orders on heads of households for court costs incurred by their progeny;<BR/><BR/>And that's for starters.<BR/>If Dave promised this he wouldn't lose any votes, I reckon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-76358267892066696012007-08-27T01:10:00.000+01:002007-08-27T01:10:00.000+01:00Jasper - Your post was so ignorant and naive that ...Jasper - Your post was so ignorant and naive that it's hard to know where to begin.<BR/><BR/>Gun crime - Britain one-eighth of America, blah blah blah ... By which set of figures, Jasper? British population around 60m - according to the government. American population around 320m. In which states do your figure apply? Is this in states where only criminals have guns, rather than law-abiding citizens (I suspect that is what you are quoting)? You lefties do like to confuse legitimate shooting to save life and propertyh with "gun deaths". <BR/><BR/>You will have to do me a per capita gun crime rate before I have any interest in your fanciful post. And even then, it would have to be "gun crime", not citizens defending their homes and businesses and killing perps as part of that.<BR/><BR/>You write, Jason, the controlling lefty statement that, "<BR/>I suspect Britain could redouble its efforts to remain a relatively firearms-free country."<BR/><BR/>Oh, really? Is that what you "suspect"? Did we vote for this? I must have missed this vote.<BR/><BR/>One: Do we want to? Not the hell as far as I am concerned, Jason. Are you from Massachusetts? You have the right level of self-righteousness and preachiness. Like Ted Kennedy. BTW, anyone died in his car lately?<BR/><BR/>Two: could you let us know, Jason, how Britain could "redouble its efforts" - of which I firmly disapprove - to remain a relatively country relatively free of firearms of which you personally, a non-British citizen, would approve? <BR/><BR/>What kind of mad ambition is that?<BR/><BR/>Jason notes: <I>"Again, this isn't cheap, and will likely mean hiring more police specifically charged with the task of going after the illegal guns trade."</I> <BR/><BR/>Even if I were on your side of the fence, sweetheart, which will not happen in this lifetime, this statement is beyond stupid. You know nothing of British policing and British funding of police departments. <BR/><BR/>"3) What government can do, of course, is provide swift, efficient justice and effective policing targeting those who commit violent crimes, and those who would seek to profit from violent crime through the sale of firearms."<BR/><BR/>Oh, God, Jason, the Marx Brothers have been so sorely missed! Thanks for some Sunday evening entertainment!<BR/><BR/>But, wait for it! It gets better! <I>"4) A big part of "3" (above) means putting violent offenders in prison, where they no longer represent a threat to the general public."</I> Hey! Why didn't <I>we</I> think of that?<BR/><BR/>"Imprisoning large numbers of people should make everyone a bit squeamish." Well, not me, but if it makes lefties like you squeamish, that's a plus. <BR/><BR/>(As a matter of record, I think you're criminally insane and should be locked up. But that's a matter for our American cousins.)<BR/><BR/>You are parochially ignorant of the laws and mores outside your own country. You are desperately ignorant of the issues. Lesson: British history (we go back 2,000 or more years, you know, so we have a stake in our territory) and we've had a Bill of Rights for over 800 years that Tony Blair tore up.<BR/><BR/>So, Jason, I have a suggestion for you, and I mean it kindly: You are nowhere near informed enough or worldly enough to be commenting on the legal issues of countries other than your own. You are also not eloquent enough and you seem to be bereft of original thought. You might want to consider that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13254743868681980562007-08-27T00:49:00.000+01:002007-08-27T00:49:00.000+01:00Intelligence on Gangs, special police squads and r...Intelligence on Gangs, special police squads and resources in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Nottingham Tough Action on Gangs and Guns. Aspire youngsters to simething better. Disrupt gangs by targeting drugs, key members and leaders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-84161442193885426262007-08-26T23:47:00.000+01:002007-08-26T23:47:00.000+01:00I'm late to the discussion here, but, to chime in ...I'm late to the discussion here, but, to chime in with a few points:<BR/><BR/>1) It seems to me targeting the sociological "causes of crime" approach is overly ambitious. Provide people with a good economy and solid education system by all means, but there's not a whole lot that government can do besides that. All this talk of lack of role models and the bad influence of gangsta culture leaves me underwhelmed. While no doubt these things do add to an atmosphere that encourages violent crime, what exactly can government do about them?<BR/><BR/>2) Last time I looked Britain's murder rate was still only 1/8th or so of America's, so you must be doing something right. As a Yank, I'd frankly be tickled pink if the USA had to deal with Britain's (much smaller) violence "problem". I mean no disrespect to the victims or families impacted by the recent violence, of course. But by world standards the United Kingdom is still a remarkably peaceful place.<BR/><BR/>3) What government <I>can</I> do, of course, is provide swift, efficient justice and effective policing targeting those who commit violent crimes, and those who would seek to profit from violent crime through the sale of firearms.<BR/><BR/>4) A big part of "3" (above) means putting violent offenders in prison, where they no longer represent a threat to the general public. Imprisoning large numbers of people should make everyone a bit squeamish. And America's record in this respect is frankly a national scandal (America imprisons a shockingly high percentage of its population). What I don't think is right is to put <I>non</I>-violent offenders in jail. But I don't see an alternative to putting away violent criminals. And without a doubt, such a strategy has played an important role in helping the US reduce the incidence of violent crime. It's not pretty. And it sure isn't cheap. But building prisons and confining violent criminals inside them has to play a role in any civilization's quest to protect itself from its most violent elements.<BR/><BR/>5) Finally, though there's not much that can be done about knives (we all have to cut out meat and vegetables, after all), I suspect Britain could redouble its efforts to remain a relatively firearms-free country. Again, this isn't cheap, and will likely mean hiring more police specifically charged with the task of going after the illegal guns trade. But making it once again difficult to obtain an illegal gun in Britain will surely go a long way toward reducing the level of murder and mayhem on British streets. As I argue incessantly (and regrettably to little effect) to pro-gun Americans, being forced to rely on knives and fists turns many a would-be murder into a survivable assault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54882554983439269962007-08-26T21:51:00.000+01:002007-08-26T21:51:00.000+01:00David Davis has provided some imaginative and welc...David Davis has provided some imaginative and welcome suggestions today. So let's see how Jacqui Smith responds - she needs to sort this business out.Mountjoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17385482147330173836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2432389797414372082007-08-26T14:41:00.000+01:002007-08-26T14:41:00.000+01:00Tory Boys NGU, Thanks for the link. Most of us ha...Tory Boys NGU, Thanks for the link. Most of us had never heard of Dunblane or Slimy Blair's excuse for disarming the British and making them dependent on a soviet police force and a Soviet "Home Secretary" for "protection".<BR/><BR/>It's terribly irritating to have to debate such unworldly people.<BR/><BR/>I will say this in simple terms. Think of me as your imam speaking to your lame-brained co-religionists:<BR/><BR/>Dunblane was the act of a madman. Most people are not bonkers. He was.<BR/><BR/>He was so bonkers that he should not have been allowed a firearm. He was on a register of bonkers people.<BR/><BR/>There are 60m people in Britain. One madman perpetrated an outrage 30 years ago. It follows that that 60m should be at the mercy of scum who have come by illegal guns into the foreseeable future. I don't see the sense in this, and neither, to be fair,does the left, but it's all about controlling the population and having them subservient.<BR/><BR/>The figures you quote showing we have a low gun death rate are fixed. Are you saying Switzerland, Norway, Sweden,Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, France, Spain,Finland, Portugal, Denmark, Holland, New Zealand,Germany all have higher gun deaths than we do? Why did I have to put down my cup of tea from laughing? <BR/><BR/>Who runs this Geneva Small Arms Survey outfit? Scared to tell us? Don't know? But you quote it anyway?<BR/><BR/>"The rate is roughly 100 times higher in the U.S." Where in the US? Do you understand that the US is a very big country with 50 states, all of them with many different laws? Do you understand that the UK would fit into Texas 3 1/2 times? Just to elucidate, that means that Texas alone is 3 1/2 times as big as Britain. There are 49 other states.<BR/><BR/>You've never been to N America, but I feel far safer in Texas than I do anywhere in Britain. That's because the police forces aren't run by stale old Trots reeking of marijuana fumes. They're run by elected officials answerable at the ballot box.<BR/><BR/>The degradation of Britain has been deliberate, from disarming a citizenry that had never been noticably dramatic around guns, to importing hordes of individuals from primitive cultures. It has all been part of making people dependent on the state and destroying the social fabric of the country.<BR/><BR/>How does the Texas murder rate compare with the UK? I don't know and I'm not going to Google it for you. But when you Google it yourself, feverishly seeking new evidence, be aware that "homicide" includes killing in self-defence or defence of one's property. So a lot of dead were oxygen thieves anyway.<BR/><BR/>The thing that irritates me about socialists is, you are all so predictable. If you would like to have the day to yourself sometime, let us know and we will write your posts for you.<BR/><BR/>Electro-Kevin - In Texas - yes, Texas again, because it works - people doing community service wear fluourescent orange overalls with the legend TEXAS PRISON SERVICE in large letters stencilled on the back. They clean the litter along the highways and freeways and they are extremely visible.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Eletro-Kevin. The Conservative Party should wither and die (it is anyway) as they are pointless and without direction. So far Cameron has claimed he's the heir to the hated Blair (wow! Talk about misapprehending the electorate!),he has quoted John F Kennedy that famous rich liberal president and Hillary Clinton, the probably Democratic nominee for president next year. He regurgitates their old leftie thoughts. Isn't anyone in the Conservative Party thinking of any new solutions to clean up the socialist destruction all round them? They have to hark back to a socialist American president and a social American would-be president? And the disgraced Tony Blair, for God's sake! They're a spent force.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60332366677149261352007-08-26T11:27:00.000+01:002007-08-26T11:27:00.000+01:00"Britain outlawed the possession of handguns in 19..."Britain outlawed the possession of handguns in 1997 in response to the massacre of 16 children, and the country has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world — 0.04 slayings per 100,000 people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey for 2004. The rate is roughly 100 times higher in the U.S.: 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people."<BR/><BR/>Taken from the Houston Chronicle at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5082624.html<BR/><BR/>Yet Verity argues for Texan gun laws to be introduced here! Completely bonkers! What next putting out fires using petrol?tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-10758120354836057132007-08-26T10:17:00.000+01:002007-08-26T10:17:00.000+01:00Just saw jack Straw on Sunday News 24 - he looked...Just saw jack Straw on Sunday News 24 - he looked and sounded like the Bhopal chief of operations engineer who had realised that his actions had caused so much destruction and misery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11295478128176191482007-08-26T01:24:00.000+01:002007-08-26T01:24:00.000+01:00A few questions:Why aren't offenders serving Commu...A few questions:<BR/><BR/>Why aren't offenders serving Community Service in high visibility clothing cleaning grafitti and litter ? This would improve the environment, humiliate offenders, make the law-abiders feel that justice had been done - it would also enhance confidence in the community.<BR/><BR/>Why didn't Mr Cameron mention 'zero tolerance' ? Or did I miss it ? Does he fully understand the publics' need for fear to be displaced on to the thugs ? <BR/><BR/>Why are magistrates still issuing driving bans to unlicensed drivers ??? I this a deliberate ploy to deceive the public that stern action is being taken against offenders ? They ain't foolin' no one.<BR/><BR/>Why are clever-dicks (who form the major part of our political and legal elite) so easily outwitted by chavs ? Do they not realise how diminished they are in the eyes of ordinary people ? Do they care ?<BR/><BR/>And the big one:<BR/><BR/>Why do the Conservatives (of all people) perpetuate the outright lie that we are ALL to blame ? They know full well the feelings and insecurities of the silent majority and have chosen to distance themselves from their natural supporters to fight a 'center ground' which is, in fact, way over to the left. We are left alone, abandoned ... and bloody frightened. Over the years our desires with regard to law and order have been ignored. Cameron's slight against the vulnerable and decent needs to be corrected in the interests of honesty and fairness.<BR/><BR/>If Mr Brown has any sense he will call a snap election - I feel that this could precipitate the end of the Conservative party if it misses this latest open goal against New Labour. Perhaps that would be no bad thing.Electro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-65824646069491464932007-08-26T01:12:00.000+01:002007-08-26T01:12:00.000+01:00Roger- How much more amatuerish do you want Law en...Roger- How much more amatuerish do you want Law enforcement to get, local communities know who the thugs are,not some numpty in Whitehall shoving out intiatives ! (like social covenant)Guthrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499979740864497256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-4276108839513416072007-08-26T00:03:00.000+01:002007-08-26T00:03:00.000+01:00Kris - While I appreciate your support - especiall...Kris - While I appreciate your support - especially as it is so unusual in wimpy, socialist Britain, I still have to make some corrections. I do so in the service of making Texas (and the law of around 32 or 33 other states) comprehensible to British people.<BR/><BR/>First, I never encountered any yobs in Texas. Never. Don't forget: an armed society is a polite society. You just don't get the threatening element you get in England.<BR/><BR/>Your "Little Missy" whatever that is supposed to be, would not have a gun. You can't get a gun permit until you are of legal age (can't remember whether it's 18 or 21.) And you can't shoot someone for being an asshole. You have to be defending your life or property or someone else's life.<BR/><BR/>If someone - let us say, a grandmother - shoots someone who is prying open her door, she is not, as you seem to think, feted as a hero. The incident will be mentioned on the news, especially if the perp died. Someone watching the news may say, "I see that asshole died." And the other person is likely to say, "Oh yeah? If you're goin' by the supermarket, we're out of hotdogs." In other words, it is not noteworthy. To imagine such a person would be a hero is spine-tinglingly naive. <BR/><BR/>One other point: the police in Texas are on your side. Very much so. When I had a late night intruder in my yard who crept up to my windows, the police were at my house in around five or six minutes. The first question they asked was, "Where do you keep your gun?"<BR/><BR/>I showed them the drawer in the bedside table, and they said, "Maybe take it out and leave it on top of the table for tonight."<BR/><BR/>They left, and 20 minutes later, the prowler was back. By now I was really frightened and called the cops again. This time they turned up in TWO squad cars, and in the second, they were carrying rifles. They checked the yard, but again, the guy had fled.<BR/><BR/>Before they left, they warned me, "If you shoot him, be sure and drag him over the threshhold before you call us."<BR/><BR/>Well, perhaps the guy was an excitement freak, because in fact, half an hour later, he was back. Again, I called the cops. Again, they came out with two squad cars and, this time, a helicopter with a very bright spotlight which hovered over the yard. I think now it was a neighbour who was watching all this and enjoying the thrill. But who knows? I was scared to death. The cops asked whether any neighbour had seemed unusually friendly and I said no. Again, they said, "If he comes back and you shoot him, make sure he's in the house before you call us."<BR/><BR/>By this time I was a nervous wreck and was carrying my gun from room to room with me. Finally, I called a friend to come and get me. And he came over with HIS gun and I went and stayed at their house for the rest of the night.<BR/><BR/>I looked round the yard, obviously, the next day, looking for anything. A dropped cigarette, a match, footprints in the grass, anything. But nothing that could actually be used as evidence. And he never came back.<BR/><BR/>Would I have shot him? Yes. And I'd have kept shooting until I got his heart or his head. Would I have been a nervous wreck afterwards? Yes. But I would have been alive and he would have been dead.<BR/><BR/>My respect for the various police forces in Texas knows no bounds. (The police chiefs are elected, it goes without saying. They serve the voters, not liberal judges.)<BR/><BR/>The saying, "If you take away the right own to guns, only criminals will have guns" has proved true in Britain, hasn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88802405231758059842007-08-25T23:37:00.000+01:002007-08-25T23:37:00.000+01:00guthrum: Put the pwer back in the hands of locally...guthrum: Put the pwer back in the hands of locally elected politicians<BR/><BR/><BR/>No No No. All that does is make the problem closer and even more amateur, ripe for some local baron to corrupt.<BR/><BR/>The power and responsibility needs to come back to the individual. The State needs to just get the heck out of so many things.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-513542253657619752007-08-25T20:43:00.000+01:002007-08-25T20:43:00.000+01:00Verity "Political parties in democracies have diff...Verity <BR/><BR/>"Political parties in democracies have differences that come from the soul and the belly."<BR/><BR/>Absolutely - and I don't think wild horses would ever get me to vote Tory. But that doesn't mean that you have to disagree on everything for the sake of it. Just like it being possible to oppose Al Quaeda and other Islamists without declaring war on all Moslems. <BR/><BR/>And so what is your solution - the right to carry arms as in Texas. Well that really worked there didn't it - so how does the homicide rate in Texas compare with the UK?<BR/><BR/>You may not like it - but sometimes consensus does actually work (and no i'd never vote Lib Dem either).tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89146820691897986442007-08-25T19:24:00.000+01:002007-08-25T19:24:00.000+01:00PACE isn't the problem- is the judges bending over...PACE isn't the problem- is the judges bending over backwards to keep the little angels out of the pokey. <BR/><BR/>And that, my friends, is down to Parliament. Parliament sets out the 12 years for murder tarriff etc. <BR/><BR/>The judges' hands are tied. If a murderer caught red handed pleas guilty, he gets an automatic 1/3 rd off his sentence. What a joke.<BR/><BR/>Further, Verity has a point. In Texas, you just know know if little missy has a handgun, so yobs (such as there are in Texas) tend not to mess with the unknown who can quite possibly kill them with impunity. Indeed, little missy would be lauded as a hero.<BR/><BR/>In this country, defend yourself against a poor little child with previous as long as your arm?! YOU are the one under scrutiny. <BR/><BR/>And to top it off, we pay these kids' benefit and give them the incentive to spend their days as wannabe gangsters rather than at work.<BR/><BR/>So no, Iain, David Camerian's "social covenant" doesn't do it for me.Krishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10634532301690071884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16502712258380918212007-08-25T18:20:00.000+01:002007-08-25T18:20:00.000+01:00My father always said we needed a written constitu...My father always said we needed a written constitution, and how prescient was his concern!<BR/><BR/>Elected police chiefs - absolutely. It works.<BR/><BR/>Also, the fascists in power will never do it and even if Cameron got in he is too lily-livered and socialist-leaning to do it, but we need the right to bear arms. As in Texas (and probably some of the other 35-or-so states where the citizenry has the right to bear arms) you can kill someone who has entered your homestead without permission. You have the right to assume that person means you harm and you can kill him. Of course, perps know this, and burglarly is fairly rare in Texas.<BR/><BR/>In Texas, they now have the right to carry concealed. When I lived there, you could carry, but not concealed. In other words, you had to have your gun lying on the dashboard or on the seat next to you. Now you can have it in the glove compartment or your handbag.<BR/><BR/>Perps know this, too. They know that anyone they approach may be carrying. (I believe around 40% do, but that is a big, big risk for a perp to take.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57006140748477524462007-08-25T16:11:00.000+01:002007-08-25T16:11:00.000+01:00The State has insisted that it has all the answers...The State has insisted that it has all the answers, Governments Left and Right have sequestered more and more power to a small cabal in Whitehall. Put the pwer back in the hands of locally elected politicians not time servers in Westminster who have never known a job of work. Put the Police back onto estates instead of fortresses surrounded by barbed wire.Above all chief constables should be elected and be hired and fired on their effectiveness. A social covenant is just more hot air, and is meaningless. Action is what is required and effective action at that. A written Constitution is the first step, a Bill of rights the second step,the third step a local democracy would put a Police officer in charge, that responded to the concerns of his/her electorate, not PC hate 'crimes'.Guthrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499979740864497256noreply@blogger.com