CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes many laws are bans. But there is an important distinction to be made, between the banning of objects and the banning of actions. IMO the banning of actions (e.g. murder, theft, fraud) is most morally sound. The banning of objects is less so and, more importantly, largely ineffective. Julian, The creation of new crimes, statutory "absolute" offences, is arguably unknown to our constitution. . "Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt...No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained." Stones Justice's Manual. Preface to 1990 Edition. The authoritative "Taylor Upon Evidence" has this to say about burden of proof; "The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character to himself and his family, and the evil consequences that would result to society if charges of guilt were lightly entertained, or readily established in Courts of justice:- these are the real considerations which have led to the adoption of the rule that all imputations of crime must be strictly proved." The Firearms Act 1920 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 are based on the principle that Parliament can create new offences, that everyone is guilty from the date of their adoption, and then allow exceptions at the discretion of the police. They have shifted the burden of proof onto the defence, which is something that never happened before. This purported power of Parliament was objected to strongly by many MPs in the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. They generated about 90 pages of debate in Hansard on a Bill that was little more than one page long. Several MPs were only prepared to accept the Bill as a short-term emergency measure to be reviewed after five years. The Government claimed that the measure was necessary to deal with an outbreak of violent crime. James Carmichael (MP for Glasgow, Bridgeton), pointed out that Scottish crime figures had actually dropped significantly in the preceding years and the Bill was an over-reaction to misleading press reports (Hansard, 26 March 1953). Several references were made to the fact that at that time the assurances given by Ministers that the police would act responsibly and with restraint was worthless because what had been said in Parliament could not be referred to in the Courts. The Bill was passed, and soon the presumption of innocence was set aside in other legislation without a murmur. ( But Pepper v. Hart came to the rescue). This has resulted in the proliferation of Statutory absolute offences. In the common law guilt could only be inferred from a persons actions and evidence of his mental intent at that time. Thus stealing is the taking of property belonging to another with evidence of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. The Statutory offence of simple possession of an unlicensed "prohibited weapon" is purported to be a crime regardless of the circumstances as are selling apples by the pound or beef on the bone. Statutory "crimes" are whatever the legislature decides. A victim or intent is not required. We seem to have come to a point where the ancient rightness of the common law has been set aside. The Courts have given up legislative supremacy to Parliament. And they have been allowed to do this because no one has gone before a Court and claimed his common law rights. Those rights of the subject are written, but have been hidden and forgotten. And here lies the danger to us all. The only power that Government has is to manufacture criminals. If Government believes that it can do as it wishes without the restraint of a Constitution which is enforceable through the Courts then no one and nothing is safe from the whims and prejudices of the legislators. John Locke, the philosopher, was a major influence in the education of the generation that debated what became the English Bill of Rights in 1688. We can have an insight into the mischief that the representatives of the people sought to avoid with the passing of the Statue which "Declares the Rights and Liberties of the subject...in all time to come". "Man is a maker of things, and a property owning animal... From the right to self-defence and protection of property comes the right to the rule of law, and a multitude of like rights, such as the right to privacy expressed as 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. A ruler is legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals." The following
CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: Neil Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sit and watch breathlessly for the questioner to point out L100 million was spent on banning handguns and at least four times as many people have been murdered with them since the ban as were murdered at Dunblane. You'll never get this - this is a pretty specialist piece of information - I doubt most journalists know of it. I've listened to interviews where an obvious follow up queston is just smacking everyone in the face and the interviewer doesn't ask it. Anyway - idiot of the day goes to a Conservative spokesman talking about pensions on Radio 5 this morning. Crapping on about how the Tories would be so much nicer by increasing the 75p etc the interviewer proposed that all he had said so far was short term - what about the long term - the next 20 years? You know what he said - wait for it Most of the pensioners would be dead in 20 years time. Seriously - and the interviewer never said a damn thing. Neil Francis Trowbridge, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've spoken to several journalists over the years, from all the major papers and Channel 4 and the BBC, and as soon as you tell them what the truth actually is they fall into a coma and at best you stop them from running the story. Steve. Steve, Maybe you need to ignite their imagination? If the liars who are the fronts for the legislation that has been passed were made to actually stand up and defend their words with actual facts that can be applied to each and every shooter who has done no harm to anyone . . . It seems to me that if you were to be invited to a program which was sponsored by one of the news media that was constantly in support of the antis view, and if you could manage to expose the fact that none of the laws had accomplished any of the supposed benefits promised beforehand, But to get there from where you are now is going to be a challenge, simply because the ones with the agenda don't want a different perception getting out. So far, it is only the GCN et. al., perceptions that are being heard; and as you stated previously, Pearston is seemingly always at hand with a ready remark or comment - ever incendiary. Okay, then that means you need at least two other pro-freedom people who are equally as ready and just as versed in Pearston's arguments so as to effectively disarm her position, and be just as incendiary. And, BTW, if you shooters want to be seen as a balanced lot, it behooves you to have as many women as speakers as you can muster. Pearston would be just flabbergasted to have to come up against another woman who was a more than her match. Chances are she would avoid every open debate in order to forestall her loss in a public forum. But that only means that your women shooters must be making press releases on a daily basis, going to the various media outlets and hounding them in the same fashion as Pearston, since she has set the tone, let here live with the results of it. If it takes just getting motivated, I have a feeling that there are some really well qualified speakers who shoot, and who are of the fairer sex over yonder in Britain. If the media is hounded on a daily basis by the rest of you in support of your women spokespeople, who are making every attempt to get an open debate on the issue going between them and Pearston, and if Pearston isn't talking, then you raise the level of the anti a whole measure higher by making it one of the daily things you do: call/write/e-mail the media and demand a showdown - since it is the media that made Pearston their bloody hero. Sooner or later their house of cards is going to collapse -- please try to make it happen sooner. ET -- I don't think you realise the situation here, who is that idiot who presents for Channel 4 news? John Simpson? He is as anti-gun as they come. I had a real fight on my hands to stop them from running some idiotic story a few years back. Journalism isn't about reporting the news, it's about increasing ratings or selling more newspapers. They're not vaguely interested in "fair" or the "truth", IMO. At best they are crusaders for what they think is "right", just like politicians really, so maintaining the status quo is the furthest thing from their minds. You can succeed with local papers and local TV but our TV is not like in the US where you have lots of local stations, they're nearly all national. They do have local news so it is possible to get something pro-gun on if you try hard enough, but expecting the BBC to give a semblance of fairness to this issue is a joke. I mean I was only just watching Jack Straw attempting to explain why 5,000 extra police officers actually means 2,500 less. I sit and watch breathlessly for the questioner to point out L100 million was spent on banning handguns and at least four times as many people have been murdered with them since the ban as were murdered at Dunblane. But they don't ask the question because the journalists are just as anti as everyone else. However, having said all that, we do need some spokespeople on call. You need to be listed in Who's who and have some decent PR done to get in the journalist's filofaxes, at least then you get to have a soundbite in the middle of a pile of anti-gun dross. Michael Yardley seemed to be the man of choice but he seems to have fallen off the radar scope of late. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: Norman Bassett, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get the feeling that you won against Tony Hill because he wasn't there to talk about bans generally and hadn't done any thinking about it. All laws are "bans". How effective are they generally and in particular, and should we abandon them because they don't work 100%? Aren't the Firearms Acts "bans"? The current debate is not about "bans" as such, it's about what should and shouldn't be banned and why. Anne Pearston is successful as a campaigner because she's available on the phone when a journalist needs a quote in a hurry and people know her by reputation. She keeps saying things because she's emotionally motivated. Accessibility is professional campaigning and reputation is the result of doing it regularly. You might care to compare the most famous pro-shooting campaigner, erm? No, I don't know a famous pro-shooting campaigner either. Whose damn fault is that with about 15 shooting associations? On the subject of noise, a shot or two fired at game might be regarded as normal country noise but I don't think shooting at clays all day can be. I foresee shotguns being fitted with silencers, like motor vehicles. Regards Norman Bassett -- Well, he was certainly there to talk about banning handguns, and it's perfectly valid to draw a comparison with other bans. The studio staff seemed to think I had won the argument at that point. We do need to get more shooting reps in the laptops of journalists, but I've found that they don't like the ones we put forward, because we tell the truth and it ruins their story. You see the truth that there is no real problem with people owning guns is rather dull, and they want an exciting story to wind up the viewers with. That's why Anne Pearston and co. get more press, they're better s--- stirrers and sell more papers. I've spoken to several journalists over the years, from all the major papers and Channel 4 and the BBC, and as soon as you tell them what the truth actually is they fall into a coma and at best you stop them from running the story. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve's account of how he floored Tony Hill by asking him for an example of a successful ban was most satisfying, if that's the way to describe a hearty cackle. Just in case the antis have thought up a reply to the question, can anyone supply an answer, with the inevitable ifs and buts? Yours sincerely Jeff Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public PGP Key at: ldap://certserver.pgp.com -- You don't need to with these people, it's basic psychology. Their argument is all kneejerk emotion, so you can floor them with their own strategy. If you ask someone in the street for an example of something that is banned, 99% will say "drugs". If you ask them if the ban is effective, most of them will say "no", because it has been drilled into them via TV and the news and dramas and so on that drugs are readily available (and a pretty fair proportion of people you will ask will have tried them). That's how these people think, kneejerk, kneejerk, kneejerk. I knew that the first thing that would come into his head was drugs when I asked that question. Emotional arguments don't work in debates unless the person you're debating is pretty hopeless at debating. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
