Understated news is far more fun

Post by **spot** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:58 pm

The BBC News editor this evening is having great fun with understatement. We have "A teenager is recovering in hospital after a 25,000-volt electric shock which threw him 25ft (7.6m) onto a railway line in Wigan" which mentions that a British Transport Police spokesman said he was "very lucky to be alive. A shock such as that can be fatal", and another story of "A gunman involved in a shoot-out with police in south-west London has been shot dead" which states that a resident living in the square, who did not want to be named, said: "I looked out of the window and saw police running around with seriously big guns and I realised something serious was going on. I started hearing gunshots and I realised it wasn't safe".

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Tue May 06, 2008 4:55 pm

Guns and shootouts in London? I thought only us yanks indulged in that pasttime. My, my.:-3

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue May 06, 2008 10:31 pm

hoppy;858544 wrote: Guns and shootouts in London? I thought only us yanks indulged in that pasttime. My, my.:-3

Oh no, we have been watching your educational films from hollywood about how great it is to get tooled up and start shooting and how its always the best way to get around a problem, by shooting that problem, and then shooting yourself, and perhaps a few people who annoy you along the way. Therefore we have decided we too should get into this shooting trip, and buy some serious weaponry, like and then just try to keep it real. :wah:

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 4:27 am

Galbally;858638 wrote: Oh no, we have been watching your educational films from hollywood about how great it is to get tooled up and start shooting and how its always the best way to get around a problem, by shooting that problem, and then shooting yourself, and perhaps a few people who annoy you along the way. Therefore we have decided we too should get into this shooting trip, and buy some serious weaponry, like and then just try to keep it real. :wah:

Now your talking. We make the best how-to movies and the best weapons. If you need any further help, just ring our bell, pardner.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 5:03 am

Last time I checked, the number of gun deaths in England and Wales was under a hundred a year even including those shot by the police.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 5:11 am

Howv 'bout stabbings and beatings?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 5:51 am

No, let's ignore stabbings and beatings, let's consider the gross disparity in shootings first in sufficient detail shall we? Rather than just ignore inconvenient truths?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:01 am

spot;858854 wrote: No, let's ignore stabbings and beatings, let's consider the gross disparity in shootings first in sufficient detail shall we? Rather than just ignore inconvenient truths?

Why? Dead or wounded is dead or wounded. We yanks are always being fed BS about English and euro gun laws leading to a safer society. BS! You people are going to see a vast increase in violence. Better to be armed and not need it, than to desperately need to be armed, but aren't.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:03 am

Has anyone called you a fool recently?

You're a fool.

The total number of deaths by violence in the whole of England and Wales is under 800 a year and that figure's been steady for quite a while. The majority of it is spouses disagreeing with each other.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:07 am

spot;858865 wrote: Has anyone called you a fool recently?

You're a fool.

The total number of deaths by violence in the whole of England and Wales is under 800 a year and has been steady at around that figure for quite a while.

Yeah, mostly only limey's though. We kicked your butts and bailed you out so much that you guys are pretty much ignored by most Americans.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:15 am

hoppy;858868 wrote: Yeah, mostly only limey's though. We kicked your butts and bailed you out so much that you guys are pretty much ignored by most Americans.

Please try harder in the ignore department and I'll feel you're less of a blight, perhaps. You "kicked our butts"? You have the temerity to compare your current society with that noble bunch of traders back in 1776? You're not collectively fit to lick their boots clean.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:48 am

Ding ding ding ..

In this corner we have the mighty U. S. of A...

In the other corner we have the proud U.K...

Now give us a clean and fair fight and no asking help from the French..

Oh well what the hell. Anyone wanting help from the French go right ahead..

Now everyone laugh...:wah:

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 7:38 am

spot;858875 wrote: Please try harder in the ignore department and I'll feel you're less of a blight, perhaps. You "kicked our butts"? You have the temerity to compare your current society with that noble bunch of traders back in 1776? You're not collectively fit to lick their boots clean.

If the situation ever reverts to the same political atmosphere as in 1776, you will see there are still enough real Americans on tap.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:11 am

You're none of you descended from the residents of 1776 in any meaningful sense, they've been diluted out of the US entirely except for a small wealthy enclave in Boston who kept it in the family, so to speak.

A significant portion of where I live, Bristol, was actively involved in gaining US independence. One of our more famous citizens was a Cruger, he was mayor of Bristol, MP for Bristol alongside Edmund Burke and then a US Representative for several decades. I've more claim to an association with those who fought for US independence than you do.

If you want to emulate your honoured forebears, rebel against that bunch of criminals who control your government the way they did.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:19 am

Well, bully for you on your blue blood. A revolution here may be closer than you think. I agree, the USA is being torn apart from within. Have you looked at the ancestry of our current leaders? A lot of English blood there, eh, what?

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:23 am

hoppy;858868 wrote: Yeah, mostly only limey's though. We kicked your butts and bailed you out so much that you guys are pretty much ignored by most Americans.

So perhaps I won't be taking diplomacy lessons from Hoppy!

YZGI;858933 wrote: Ding ding ding ..

In this corner we have the mighty U. S. of A...

In the other corner we have the proud U.K...

Now give us a clean and fair fight and no asking help from the French..

Oh well what the hell. Anyone wanting help from the French go right ahead..

Now everyone laugh...:wah:

Now then Wisey, you should know by now that it's the French that do the asking...............:sneaky::rolleyes:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:28 am

Imladris;859096 wrote: So perhaps I won't be taking diplomacy lessons from Hoppy!

Now then Wisey, you should know by now that it's the French that do the asking...............:sneaky::rolleyes:
Oui Oui

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:19 am

Has someone been feeding spot meat again? tsk tsk.

Just to remind you ignorant yanks of your history - a bunch of British settlers fought off a mainly German army under a German King, with the help of the French. Therefore the British won the American War of Independence (made a right mess of it afterwards, though). Put that in your pipes and smoke it. :p

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:21 am

Clodhopper;859184 wrote: Has someone been feeding spot meat again? tsk tsk.

Just to remind you ignorant yanks of your history - a bunch of British settlers fought off a mainly German army under a German King, with the help of the French. Therefore the British won the American War of Independence (made a right mess of it afterwards, though). Put that in your pipes and smoke it. :p
:wah: Pretty cool way to put it.

Oh and Thanks, I was never much of a tea drinker though.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:31 am

Oh and Thanks, I was never much of a tea drinker though.

See? See how far you have fallen from the Paths of Righteousness and Good Assam into the Slough of Despond and Bad Coffee? Repent and brew Tea and you shall be perked up and saved from the Devilish jitters. Sigh. I always knew nothing good could come of a republic. It's not natural, I tell you.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 10:30 am

hoppy;858863 wrote: We yanks are always being fed BS about English and euro gun laws leading to a safer society. BS! You people are going to see a vast increase in violence. Better to be armed and not need it, than to desperately need to be armed, but aren't.

Some facts, then, to add to the general statement that England and Wales have a combined total of something under 800 unlawful killings a year.

Yesterday's London shooting wasn't, as you seem to suggest, an illegally armed desperado criminal that we all need to be armed to protect ourselves from. The police blew away, unlikely though it sounds, a depressed high-flying lawyer and the depressed high-flying lawyer's shotgun which he repeatedly fired at the police was - wait for it, roll the drums - properly licensed to the depressed high-flying lawyer and legally held. Put that in your pipe and smoke it before you push UK citizens to press for greater rights to bear arms. Increased gun ownership among the population of the UK would not add to the safety of our society, just as the removal of the right to bear arms among the law-abiding population of the US would make the US a far less safe place to live. Our societies are completely dissimilar, and not just around the issue of firearms.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:06 am

I must applaud your police for killing a (gag) lawyer. There is no better way to use ammo.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:12 am

It's sad that you post here at all, to be honest. Some family's just lost a son to a temporary mental crisis combined with a Metropolitan police force that bears a long-standing reputation for ineptly and unreasonably shooting people when they receive authority to fire their weapons.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:17 am

spot;859345 wrote: It's sad that you post here at all, to be honest. Some family's just lost a son to a temporary mental crisis combined with a Metropolitan police force that bears a long-standing reputation for ineptly and unreasonably shooting people when they receive authority to fire their weapons.

What is sad is that YOU brought the thread in this direction AFTER I tried to steer it away from shooting in general. Wallow in your own guilt, matey.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:19 am

In which direction? May I take a moment to describe you as crass, insensitive and brainless? Go away.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:22 am

Take all the time you need. I gotta go pee anyway. And pop another top. (That's get another beer to you englanders).

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:50 am

Crikey. What's caused all this ill-feeling? The issues in this thread don't seem sufficient to account for it...

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:52 am

It's all spot's fault. WAAAAH!

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Wed May 07, 2008 2:05 pm

The title said fun????:D

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 3:08 pm

Jester;859494 wrote:

Think about it. I don't think the common englishman should be allowed to bare arms.

Ban ALL gun ownership in the UK!

:wah::wah::wah: Jester! Something we agree on! Is it allowed?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:59 am

Other than routinely at the international airports and once at Christmas in the Birmingham Bull Ring I'm quite sure I've never seen a police officer carrying a gun in the UK. I'd find it very disquieting if I did. What the local force has done is equipped about 40 of its patrol cars with a safe containing firearms and these attend incidents where it's felt that they might be needed. We've a long-standing civil agreement in the UK that if criminals pull out fiercer weaponry than a handgun then the Army is entirely at the disposal of the police to be brought in with whatever's appropriate, Huey helicopters playing Wagner if need be. The essence of the agreement is that the police are fully in command at all times when such deployments occur. Mostly it's for Embassy sieges of which we've had three in the last forty years.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:42 pm

To add a little perspective to this debate(?), Switzerland has a far higher incidence of gun ownership than the US, and virtually no death by gunshot cases....................

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 2:08 pm

Chookie;860357 wrote: To add a little perspective to this debate(?), Switzerland has a far higher incidence of gun ownership than the US, and virtually no death by gunshot cases....................

It's the attitude that goes with it that counts - why people choose to own a gun.

I would hazard to guess that very few Swiss carry a gun.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu May 08, 2008 2:55 pm

Bryn Mawr;860361 wrote: It's the attitude that goes with it that counts - why people choose to own a gun.

I would hazard to guess that very few Swiss carry a gun.

We're back to the old have a gun if needed VS need a gun but can't have one. Let's put it simple. Your government don't trust you people with guns.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:00 pm

hoppy;860377 wrote: Your government don't trust you people with guns.Entirely reasonably. Neither would I.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:01 pm

hoppy;860377 wrote: We're back to the old have a gun if needed VS need a gun but can't have one. Let's put it simple. Your government don't trust you people with guns.

You have it arse about face - we, the people, do not trust anyone who feels the need to carry a gun.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:06 pm

hoppy;860377 wrote: We're back to the old have a gun if needed VS need a gun but can't have one. Let's put it simple. Your government don't trust you people with guns.

Our culture is not adjusted to the ready availability of weapons. It would be a nightmare.

This is not a physically big country: there are very few places where you could fire a gun (other than a shotgun) in the open and not risk injuring someone sailing, flying, climbing, walking or fishing.

Damn the Government - I don't trust us with guns.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:10 pm

Bryn Mawr;860382 wrote: You have it arse about face - we, the people, do not trust anyone who feels the need to carry a gun.

Back in the beginning of this thread I tried to steer it toward crime comparisons. Dear old spot choose to run with gun control. Maybe you can answer one question. Just how much force can you use in self defense? Any at all? Or is it run if you can?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:24 pm

Legally, I believe the answer is that the force must be proportional to the threat. It is without doubt a difficult point in law.

Speaking personally, if you try to smack me, I'll smack you.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:24 pm

hoppy;860389 wrote: Back in the beginning of this thread I tried to steer it toward crime comparisons. Dear old spot choose to run with gun control. Maybe you can answer one question. Just how much force can you use in self defense? Any at all? Or is it run if you can?

"Reasonable".

The meaning of the word reasonable is open to interpretation but, in a famous recent case it was deemed not to include the use of a gun after repeated break-ins. The problem being it was not just used in self defence as they broke in, it was also used as they ran away.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:28 pm

hoppy;860389 wrote: Back in the beginning of this thread I tried to steer it toward crime comparisons. Dear old spot choose to run with gun control. Maybe you can answer one question. Just how much force can you use in self defense? Any at all? Or is it run if you can?One is allowed to kill people lawfully.

Neither am I particularly keen on watching you steer threads off topic.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:50 pm

Bryn: Oh, so that was the reason (use as they ran away). shrug. Makes sense.

Hoppy: Notice the unanimity of our voices on this. It really does reflect the general opinion over here. On the subject of guns in the US, I've found spot's arguments interesting and certainly agree that taking them out of your society would be well nigh impossible. I still don't see that the private ownership of assault rifles improves society though.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu May 08, 2008 5:33 pm

Clodhopper;860416 wrote: Bryn: Oh, so that was the reason (use as they ran away). shrug. Makes sense.

Hoppy: Notice the unanimity of our voices on this. It really does reflect the general opinion over here. On the subject of guns in the US, I've found spot's arguments interesting and certainly agree that taking them out of your society would be well nigh impossible. I still don't see that the private ownership of assault rifles improves society though.

Over here, we hear horror stories about, for example, an old lady using a blank pistol to scare away intruders. She scared them so bad the intruders complained, causing her legal trouble.

Another man was confronted in his home by intruders. He used an old sword to defend his person and home. Guess who was punished.

I don't know how true these stories are. If they are true, is the described outcome just an occasional oddity or the norm?

That was my original goal. I did have an email friend from Manchester who was set upon as he was on his way home one eve. He was beaten and robbed and died in the hospital. Lot of that goes on here too.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu May 08, 2008 5:44 pm

rjwould;860488 wrote: Hoppy, you need to lay off the sauce and get right with Jesus...

How 'bout God? Or, don't He count anymore?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu May 08, 2008 5:47 pm

rjwould;860493 wrote: What, you don't believe in the trinity?:wah: BTW---its "nomore"

Don't you believe in the Easter bunny nomore?

Post by **spot** » Fri May 09, 2008 12:02 am

hoppy;860478 wrote: I don't know how true these stories are.Does that not give you a clue of how you might proceed, instead of churning out pointless urban legends? The actuality is far more exciting and it might leave you in the curious position of being taken seriously. The problem is that if you say "X happened" when you're merely repeating what you once heard then, for someone to engage you in meaningful discussion about the subject, X has to be looked up. There are few things harder than demonstrating that X didn't exist, it's why Snopes is so useful when someone's put the effort into tracking down an untruth or discovered a claim to be true. The actual state of English law on trespass, self-defence and the use of force is an absolutely fascinating topic, it has a very limited case law because there's rarely even two instances a year which set legal precedents, and it's impossible to talk it over with someone who flings urban myths around as though they were relevant.

Why not, in all seriousness, find out the truth? The truth is that, as I said, one is allowed to kill people lawfully. Some people try to kill intruders unlawfully and go to jail for it. They either apply lethal force to the intruder as the intruder flees, for example, having taken up floorboards in order to make escape more difficult and baited their trap because their single-minded long-term desire was to kill intruders - don't laugh, it's a major case over here - or they electrify portions of their property and leave it empty and then whinge when they go to jail after children die, there's all sorts of deliberate or careless over-reaction to intruders which gets penalized. On the other hand there are people who have killed intruders in self-defence and been sent home without a stain on their character because they did it in lawful circumstances. The decision in either instance is in the hands of the jury before whom they've stated their case for acting as they did.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri May 09, 2008 4:49 am

All I know is my english femail friend was killed. His widow gave me the details. We had never talked about crime in GB. Then I read about how typically english your laws are regarding arms, self defense and the means. I even read that pepper spray is illegal over there. So, I ask here about that sort of thing and get crap from some limey with an attitude problem. If you have nothing to offer in way of explanations, go put on your ruffled shirt and have a tea and crumpet.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri May 09, 2008 4:50 am

Femail should be EMAIL.