England: Police Searches

[JohnRich 4]

News #1:

Thugs committing 350 knife assaults EVERY DAY

Thugs are committing more than 350 knife assaults every day across England and Wales, latest crime figures reveal. Results from the British Crime Survey showed nearly 130,000 attacks took place last year. Separate figures recorded by police forces reveal 22,000 serious knife assaults including 231 attempted murders, almost 14,000 robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.

'We must get back to the time when members of the public accept that even if they have done nothing wrong, and are not carrying a knife, they must not object to a police officer questioning them and in some cases searching them."

Source: Mail Online

News #2:

Now there are 1,000 laws that will let the state into your home

The march of the Big Brother state under Labour was highlighted last night as it was revealed that there are now 1,043 laws that give the authorities the power to enter a home or business. Some 420 new powers of entry are the product of laws introduced since 1997. Householders can be fined up to £5,000 if they refuse entry or 'obstruct' an official.

Source: Mail Online

[Skyrad 0]

Unfortunatly I could not vote. Your options were to polarised. I woud have oted in the current climate in London that the Police should have the right to search anyone who gives them reasonable cause to do so but house searches should be restricted. In effect i'd vote for the current legal sitation in the UK.
As well you know John, the UK isn't the US and the same application of law can not be applied to both due to cultral differnces. Just as if the UK were to have the right to unrestricted firearms their would be even greater bloody shed than their is already (although knife crime would most likely fall)

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

if the UK were to have the right to unrestricted firearms their would be even greater bloody shed than their is already...

You may have noticed one sentence buried in the first story, that indicated that while crime overall is down, gun crime is up 2%. So once again we see that even the severe restrictions on guns as implemented in England, don't have any bearing on gun crime trends.

Do they really have police refrigerator inspections?
And what the hell are "bin police"? Do they inspect trash cans? For what?

[Scoop 0]

I too couldn't vote. The options are both at extreme ends.

Current search powers are more than adequate in my opinion.

Interesting side note, recently had an incident with a man with a knife who punched an old lady in the head and threatened to kill 3 kids (approx 9 years old). All I can say is I'm glad we got there quick enough. One day we may not. The right of a reasonable person without convicition to carry a firearm would have been useful here.

I would definately carry if allowed. I think it will happen just not right now. I'm 100% certain we will see the routine arming of police officers during my career.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

So once again we see that even the severe restrictions on guns as implemented in England, don't have any bearing on gun crime trends.

Its not possible to say that unless you have something to compare it with. by that I mean unrestricted access to firearms which we have not had in the UK in my life time. UK culture is violent and given unrestricted access to firearms I believe that it would be carnage on a scale worse than we see right now. Having said that I do agree that the gun ban has not had any noticeable effect on crime figures, because the only people it ever really effected were the law abiding firearm owners. But we never had the situtation of easy access to firearms that you have in the US. If we had and people had grown up with an understanding of firearms as tools rather than fashion accessories then maybe un restricted access wouldn't be such a bad idea.

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]

Quote

Do they really have police refrigerator inspections?

I guess that must be to do with restaurants and cafe's and food safety standards enforcement officers. I'm guessing that Scoop has better things to do than root around in peoples fridges

Quote

And what the hell are "bin police"? Do they inspect trash cans? For what?

Now this one isn't funny, they're not actually Police but interfering busy bodies from the council who go around making sure that the council regulations reagarding bins are not infringed eg: the lid closes, no garden waste all that shite. Actually thinking about them and maybe that really is an arguement to arm everyone. Wankers

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

[mnealtx 0]

What about the TV inspection / tax? I remember the commercials with the TV disguised as a microwave....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So once again we see that even the severe restrictions on guns as implemented in England, don't have any bearing on gun crime trends.

Its not possible to say that unless you have something to compare it with. by that I mean unrestricted access to firearms which we have not had in the UK in my life time.

You don't need to have "unrestricted" gun access to compare it with. You already have the previous less restrictive laws, when gun crime was lower. And that compares with the far more restrictive laws now, with higher gun crime. That's a valid comparison. And since the effect is opposite of what it was supposed to do, it proves that the gun control laws are ineffective.

[mnealtx 0]

>>You already have the previous less restrictive laws, when gun crime was lower. And that compares with the far more restrictive laws now, with higher gun crime. <<

That doesn't mean that the higher crime is BECAUSE of the stricter laws, however, only that the stricter law didn't affect gun crime - something we already know, as the criminals aren't following the law anyway. The side effect that I find most important are increases in 'hot' burglaries and similar crime, since the criminals know that there is no longer an effective means of defense.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So once again we see that even the severe restrictions on guns as implemented in England, don't have any bearing on gun crime trends.

Its not possible to say that unless you have something to compare it with. by that I mean unrestricted access to firearms which we have not had in the UK in my life time.

You don't need to have "unrestricted" gun access to compare it with. You already have the previous less restrictive laws, when gun crime was lower. And that compares with the far more restrictive laws now, with higher gun crime. That's a valid comparison. And since the effect is opposite of what it was supposed to do, it proves that the gun control laws are ineffective.

If everything else had remained the same then maybe your model would apply however it doesn't because it does not take into account other variables that have changed in the time that has passed since the laws were passed. The UK of today is very differnt in demographics from the UK of the time when the laws were passed. You are only taking into account one variable. So although I happen to agree that the ban on hand guns has made very little if any difference to crimes committed with a firearm I would argue that your methodology is flawed.

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

[DZJ 0]

Quote

The side effect that I find most important are increases in 'hot' burglaries and similar crime, since the criminals know that there is no longer an effective means of defense.

Red herring I'm afraid. Defence against burglary was (and is) not an acceptable reason for applying for a firearms licence, and firearms were required to be held in a securely locked gunsafe. And at any rate, the proportion of gun-owning households is so low (and lower in cities) that I doubt very much it ever entered/enters a burglar's calculations.

[bigairnut 0]

Quote

I too couldn't vote. The options are both at extreme ends.

Current search powers are more than adequate in my opinion.

Interesting side note, recently had an incident with a man with a knife who punched an old lady in the head and threatened to kill 3 kids (approx 9 years old). All I can say is I'm glad we got there quick enough. One day we may not. The right of a reasonable person without convicition to carry a firearm would have been useful here.

I would definately carry if allowed. I think it will happen just not right now. I'm 100% certain we will see the routine arming of police officers during my career.

What is scary to me is that anyone would vote that the police should be allowed to search you or your home anytime for any reason. I got into a debate with my best friend the other night about this very issue and he was adamant that he has nothing to hide so bring on the searches. I asked if he was ok with getting pulled over randomly for a quick search. No probable cause, just random. He was ok with it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Sad, but true. Not everyone places a high value on freedom.

The world is full of people who prefer a government-enforced sense of security to personal freedom.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The side effect that I find most important are increases in 'hot' burglaries and similar crime, since the criminals know that there is no longer an effective means of defense.

Red herring I'm afraid. Defence against burglary was (and is) not an acceptable reason for applying for a firearms licence, and firearms were required to be held in a securely locked gunsafe. And at any rate, the proportion of gun-owning households is so low (and lower in cities) that I doubt very much it ever entered/enters a burglar's calculations.

Only a red herring in your mind - stats from the Home Office showed that "hot" burglaries rose after the ban. Whether it is a 'valid' reason to apply for a license is immaterial.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

while crime overall is down, gun crime is up 2%.

Well, that's because the gun criminals are in a panic to get in as much gun crime as they can before their guns are confiscated and they lose their chance. Sort of like "last call" at the pub - except in this case it's not pints - it's shots!

[DZJ 0]

Sorry, but you seem to be claiming that a coincidence of date means that the two are related. This suggests to me an either a lack knowledge, or willful disregard of basic facts, namely that Britons before the ban were not buying firearms for home/self-defence, nor were they permitted to keep them accessibly for such a purpose anyway. Further, the firearm owning-population of Britain was and remains very small and I think you would struggle to find any proof that this had any impact on burglars before or after the ban. You seem to be applying a common US behaviour (i.e. that firearms are bought for self-defence) to a British context to which it is plainly inappropriate.

[mnealtx 0]

Incorrect, and willfull disregard on YOUR part. I never asserted that guns were being bought for self defense. I asserted that the LOSS of self-defense weapons emboldened the criminals, resulting in a rise of 'hot' burglaries.

The statements from the home office are out there - why don't you look them up yourself instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you, it can't be true"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706