On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000
Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

On Jan 8, 6:18*am, MIG wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

Meanwhile here on planet earth: The US State Department and British
Foreign Office are full of cowardly compromisers. There is a real
threat out there. We are at war, a war which has only just begun.

And, IMHO the police have shown commendable restraint while facing
gangs of vandals and thugs in Westminster. Would that they had taken
a more robust line. Rubber bullets and tear gas would soon restore
the streets to a civilized state.

On Jan 8, 6:52*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 8, 6:18*am, MIG wrote:





On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

Meanwhile here on planet earth: The US State Department and British
Foreign Office are full of cowardly compromisers. *There is a real
threat out there. *We are at war, a war which has only just begun.

And, IMHO the police have shown commendable restraint while facing
gangs of vandals and thugs in Westminster. *Would that they had taken
a more robust line. *Rubber bullets and tear gas would soon restore
the streets to a civilized state.

I was there and I am very very angry about what happened in front of
my eyes, and the unprovoked violence against children, elderly people
and anyone else in the path of the police baton and horse charges that
begain at 1530.

Perhaps you really are idiotic enough to believe that the police
attack at 1530 was somehow in response to minor vandalism that took
place at 1730 or 1930, after hours of unlawful imprisonment and
physical attacks.

However, given that I was there, I know that there was absolutely
nothing going on. I saw the police forming up according to a
prearranged schedule, not responding to anything external to them, and
charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

So, you've picked the wrong person to have an argument with and
confirmed what an idiot you are. You are exactly the sort of person
who constitutes a real threat to civilisation and decent values.

MIG ) wibbled on Saturday 08 January 2011 23:02:


However, given that I was there, I know that there was absolutely
nothing going on. I saw the police forming up according to a
prearranged schedule, not responding to anything external to them, and
charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

and kettling lods of people including small children onto Westminster Bridge
for upto 8 hours in freezing conditions. And "they" make me get a CRB so I
can go on a school outing surrounded by teachers!

Here are cites with photos:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...le-risk-crush-
hillsborough

http://www.newleftproject.org/index....ge_Cuts_to_Un/

--
Tim Watts

On Jan 8, 3:02*pm, MIG wrote:
On Jan 8, 6:52*pm, 1506 wrote:





On Jan 8, 6:18*am, MIG wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

Meanwhile here on planet earth: The US State Department and British
Foreign Office are full of cowardly compromisers. *There is a real
threat out there. *We are at war, a war which has only just begun.

And, IMHO the police have shown commendable restraint while facing
gangs of vandals and thugs in Westminster. *Would that they had taken
a more robust line. *Rubber bullets and tear gas would soon restore
the streets to a civilized state.

I was there and I am very very angry about what happened in front of
my eyes, and the unprovoked violence against children, elderly people
and anyone else in the path of the police baton and horse charges that
begain at 1530.

Perhaps you really are idiotic enough to believe that the police
attack at 1530 was somehow in response to minor vandalism that took
place at 1730 or 1930, after hours of unlawful imprisonment and
physical attacks.

However, given that I was there, I know that there was absolutely
nothing going on. *I saw the police forming up according to a
prearranged schedule, not responding to anything external to them, and
charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

So, you've picked the wrong person to have an argument with and
confirmed what an idiot you are. You are exactly the sort of person
who constitutes a real threat to civilisation and decent values.

Clearly so: You resort to ad-hominem barbs sans any understanding of
the other person's perspective. From the news, I am cognizant of an
attack on members of the Royal Family, Injured police horses, and
wanton destruction of property. If I lack an understanding of the
timeline, you COULD explain in a civil manner.

SarcasmYour side certainly has class/sarcasm

On 09/01/2011 09:24, 1506 wrote:
Clearly so: You resort to ad-hominem barbs sans any understanding of
the other person's perspective. From the news, I am cognizant of an
attack on members of the Royal Family, Injured police horses, and
wanton destruction of property.

Why is an attack on Charles Windsor and his wife any more serious than
an attack on any other citizens of the UK? They are just people like
the rest of us.

What about the earlier well-reported unprovoked attack by police on
peaceful protesters?
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

1506 wrote:

From the news, I am cognizant of an attack on members of the Royal
Family, Injured police horses, and wanton destruction of property.
If I lack an understanding of the timeline, you COULD explain in a
civil manner.

"Wanton" is certainly not an appropriate word. Replace it with "some".

Then reflect on the comparison between the incident you think is so
terrible in Central London, and the incident that has just taken place
in Arizona, and consider what you might do about developing a sense of
perspective.

In your country, even in 2001, more than twice as many people died
through the use of lawfully-held handguns than perished in the Twin
Towers, and in the decade since then, there have been very few deaths
caused by "islamists", whilst something of the order of 100,000 people
have died through gun use. Si bellum requiris, circumspice.

Timelines are the least of your problems if you are genuinely asking for
people to point out your lack of understanding.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683829.html
(158 767 at Halifax, 13 Oct 2000)

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:01:47 +0000
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:
1506 wrote:

From the news, I am cognizant of an attack on members of the Royal
Family, Injured police horses, and wanton destruction of property.
If I lack an understanding of the timeline, you COULD explain in a
civil manner.

"Wanton" is certainly not an appropriate word. Replace it with "some".

Then reflect on the comparison between the incident you think is so
terrible in Central London, and the incident that has just taken place
in Arizona, and consider what you might do about developing a sense of
perspective.

I think you'll find that wasn't caused by a policeman with a gun. Which is
the topic of the discussion. I don't think any sane person would want the
same sort of civilian gun ownership as in the states.

And before you bleat on again about repressive police with guns explain why
somewhere like Sweden - a liberal left poster country if ever there was one -
routinely arms their normal police.

B2003

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 15:02:21 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
I was there

What a surprise.

my eyes, and the unprovoked violence against children, elderly people
and anyone else in the path of the police baton and horse charges that
begain at 1530.

Tough. What do you expect if you go on a demonstration that was violent the
1st time and turned out violent the 2nd time as well?

Perhaps you really are idiotic enough to believe that the police
attack at 1530 was somehow in response to minor vandalism that took
place at 1730 or 1930, after hours of unlawful imprisonment and
physical attacks.

Oh cry me a river.

charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

You're breaking me up *sob*.

B2003