England's "Big Brother"

[caz 0]

haha you actually made me laugh out loud at your comments Jamile , but to second third fourth whatever all the Brits comments on here, we really don't care about being filmed so why should you?

Speaking as a girl who has to travel through Wandsworth borough (featured in Johns original article) alone to and from work sometimes late at night via public transport, I openly welcome my every move being on film. So what if they catch me drunk and stupid from time to time? If people know they are being filmed the bigger deterent for doing something more serious as far as I'm concerned.

~~~ London Skydivers ~~~

[Skyrad 0]

John! John?....................Where'd he go?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[nacmacfeegle 0]

The Thought Police have dragged him back to Oceania.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Skyrad 0]

Ja, jy is reg ek dink so ook.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

www.spy.org.uk/n-mandrake.htm

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/061/2000061.htm

http://tash.gn.apc.org/face_rec.htm

www.rgnetworks.co.uk/numberplate1.html

www.spy.org.uk/atpc.htm

www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/stoa/stoa-atpc-so.htm

www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/cc_fact_sheet_enforcement.shtml

www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4601963-103630%2C00.html

www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/mhs/index.htm

www.guardian.co.uk/bigbrother/privacy/


Woohoo! Made my first clicky! Beer! Woohoo! made my first ! I'm going to be rat arsed at this rate!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There's been commentary about the US also, negative of course, but I was gonna let him look back on his own threads . . .

Yes, but those are now locked away in the old "Talkback" messages, which are no longer accessible through a search. Perhaps he was counting on that when he laid down his challenge to "find some"...

Despite his gloating, his original idea that only British citizens should be allowed to talk about British events, remains a bad idea.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think you missed the point, John, as Jamile put it, we don't care...

I don't think that you've been appointed to speak on behalf of everyone in England.

"Never could any increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty."
- Hilaire Belloc, English writer & M.P. (1870-1953)

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

[damion75 0]

Quote

I don't think that you've been appointed to speak on behalf of everyone in England.

No indeed, after all, why would we need him when we have YOU?!

You know sooooo much about our national psyche that perhaps you could come and tell us how we should really annoyed about it...

'Gloating' John? Come on - we are getting really close to a personal attack here...

I'm not gloating, I just havent made any nasty comments about the US. Why would I? I love it there - you have just the best weather for skydiving...

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

I think you missed the point, John, as Jamile put it, we don't care...

I'll second that.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

Stand By:

It's on the way here. It's called "Democrat"

Lets's see, a Republican controlled Congress passes the "Patriot Act" which is signed into law by a Republican president.

Your comment is asinine.

The Patriot Act was passed OVERWHELMINGLY in Congress. It wasn't just the Republicans who signed the bill.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I don't think that you've been appointed to speak on behalf of everyone in England."
I'm not, if I was, I'd have a truck load more to say.
I am allowed to voice my opinion from a Scottish perspective though.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

Here in the U.S., 38 states now issue concealed handgun licenses.

And crime has gone down every year for 10 years.

Now that's a strange way of looking at it. Charlton Heston was laughed out of the Oxford Union a few years back advocating thinking like that.

Let's think of an optimum:
No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings

So why do you want to increase the number of guns in circulation???

Let's face it, armed robberies in the UK aren't that common; wish the same could be said in the US Murder rates are a lot lower here as well. Our police aren't armed (except for specialist units) - and they don't need to be.

Crime may have been coming down in the US because of that action, but it's still damn serious when it happens. Sure I might get mugged in London (although that's unlikely), but I'll be alive afterwards...

Maybe, one day, I'll understand why an American would cherish the right to be able to own an automatic assult weapon? I doubt it: it's hardly for competing at Bisley, is it?

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[ScottishJohn 25]

"Never could any increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty."
- Hilaire Belloc, English writer & M.P. (1870-1953)


Maybe he would have had a different opinion if he lived during a time of terrorist attacks and a booming illicit drug activity, especially if he had the means to combat these two evils.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings.

Interesting how you assume the point you are trying to make as the basis for your argument. Isn't that some kind of logical fallacy?

Quote

Let's face it, armed robberies in the UK aren't that common; wish the same could be said in the US Murder rates are a lot lower here as well. Our police aren't armed (except for specialist units) - and they don't need to be.

Just curious...Is Belfast in the UK, by your definition?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Pendragon 1]

I take your point: we'll keep it to Great Britain then, as that excludes Belfast which is an oddity for well known reasons...

I still think it's ridiculous to think that you can curb gun crime by having more guns. Similarly, if police carry guns then criminals are also more likely to carry and use them. I'm sure you can make interesting comparisons between Belfast and Great Britain to see how different things can be.

The problem for the US appears to be that it has already gone too far down one line: US police officers probably do need guns now because they don't know what they'll meet up with.

Fortunately we haven't got to that situation in Great Britain, and hopefully we never will.

Edit: It's probably safer 'cause "big brother" is watching over here and, curiously enough, people don't care because they know that they can walk around without having to worry about a gun being thrust in their face nor have to carry a gun to combat a potential threat.

Similarly, freedom is always within certain constraints; where these lie is often cultural, but they are there.

To me, being "free" doesn't mean, for example, we have a God-given right to display racist material just because we feel like it. Actions always have consequences, and freedom must be constrained as not to interfere with others' rights and feelings.

I feel I have a right to walk down a street late at night without fear of being mugged at gunpoint. Besides, CCTV watchers have better things to do than pick up on every minor infraction.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[christelsabine 1]

How funny is that !

Just by throwing in few words - see post No. 17 of Mr. JohnRich and the direction, this thread went after that - JohnRich again turned this thread into a gun thread.

and the fire again is starting to burn high on both sides:

>Just curious ... Is Belfast in the UK, by your definition?<

this question will require a hot answer, anyhow it will end in a gun thread, no matter which ones !

or am i completely mad?

christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"or am i completely mad?"
You are crazy if you are taking any of this seriously.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[christelsabine 1]

OK, call me crazy, i don't mind, man from the island!


from time to time, i do take things serious, and gun point is a serious one. so what!

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

To me, being "free" doesn't mean, for example, we have a God-given right to display racist material just because we feel like it. Actions always have consequences, and freedom must be constrained as not to interfere with others' rights and feelings.

Constrained as not to interfere with others ... FEELINGS? You have GOT to be kidding me! MY freedoms need to be constrained so that I don't hurt your FEELINGS?

Un-freaking-believable. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

I don't understand what the problem is. like many right-wing supporter says of the Patriot Act: If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Obviously if you object to this, you are doing something illegal and have something to hide.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"I don't think that you've been appointed to speak on behalf of everyone in England."

I'm not, if I was, I'd have a truck load more to say.
I am allowed to voice my opinion from a Scottish perspective though.

Certainly, you can voice your opinion.

But then you should use the word "I" rather than "We". When you say "we", you seem to be presuming to speak for others, and I don't think everyone else has granted you that authority on their behalf.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Just by throwing in few words - see post No. 17 of Mr. JohnRich and the direction, this thread went after that - JohnRich again turned this thread into a gun thread.

It's amazing how some people can ignore the facts, in order to selectively see what they want to see.

My message #17 was in response to message #11, which made the first mention of guns in this thread.

Remedial homework: go back and read message #11, and then tell us once again who it was that turned this into a "gun" thread.

[Kennedy 0]

Haven't you heard? The PC Party passed a new amendment, "the right not to be offended."

.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Here in the U.S., 38 states now issue concealed handgun licenses. And crime has gone down every year for 10 years.

Now that's a strange way of looking at it. Charlton Heston was laughed out of the Oxford Union a few years back advocating thinking like that.

It may sound illogical, but it's a fact. Gun crime has gone down in America every year for 10 years now, to lows which haven't been seen in 30 years. All of this happened at the same time that more and more states are passing concealed handgun laws, putting more guns on the streets in the hands of honest citizens.

The truth is, that gun crime is not determined by the number of honest citizens carrying guns. It's the number of criminals carrying them that is the determining factor. And those types were already doing it anyway, before concealed carry laws. The concealed carry by honest citizens, suppresses the urge of the criminals to attack people, because they don't know who might fight back with deadly force. Thus, the criminals revert to things like property crime instead of attacking people in robberies.

More guns, less gun crime.

Quote

Let's think of an optimum: No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings

Your theory is already flawed, before you're even out of the starting gate. Concealed handguns in the hands of the law-abiding aren't a problem. Only in the hands of criminals. And criminals will carry concealed guns regardless of any laws to the contrary. Thus, you're "no shootings" premise is a fairy tale.

Quote

Let's face it, armed robberies in the UK aren't that common

The U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

And look what has happened to gun crime rates in the U.K. since all handguns and semi-auto long guns were banned and confiscated: (see attached diagram from the Home Office).

According to your theory, gun crime in England should have dropped to nearly nothing. But in fact, it went up! So there is something wrong with your theory. And that problem is that you only got guns away from the law-abiding who weren't a problem in the first place, and criminals will always get guns anyway through illegal means.

Quote

Maybe, one day, I'll understand why an American would cherish the right to be able to own an automatic assult weapon? I doubt it: it's hardly for competing at Bisley, is it?

You seem to be misinformed. But a lot of people have been fooled by the mass media misinformation about our so-called "assault weapon" ban. In fact, that law has nothing at all to do with machine guns.

Nevertheless, true machineguns have been regulated since 1934, and citizens can own them, after registering themselves and the gun with the government. There has been only one murder with such a legally owned machinegun, in the 70 years since.

So once again, the problem is not guns in the hands of the law-abiding.

It's the criminals. Criminals don't care about gun-control laws.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

I love it when a plan comes together! My post referred to US issues... last time I looked, Iraq was an issue for pretty much everyone, and certainly for the UK, which is also identified as one of the two occupying powers in Iraq under the Geneva convention...

So does this make me more qualified than you to comment? Perhaps not - but I think the minor fact that I am sitting in the middle of the Coalition HQ in Baghdad, and (no offence intended) probably know more ground truth about what is going on here than anyone else on this website... probably does make me more qualified... I think that the things I commented on are probably more of an issue to me than they are to you, regardless of nationality...

Do you take your humble pie with fresh cream or ice cream?

God I love the Brits! Talk about putting one back in short pants!!