From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am afraid that the world of constant anti police and anti authority
extremism is not my world.
I had hoped, being a keen shooter, to be involved in discussions about
shooting, not constantly responding to people who dissect every sentence I
make, put their own
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term we use is 'barrack room lawyer'.
Someone who thinks he knows it all, but can't put it into practise.
But does that make them wrong? If they have the luxury of being able to sift
through law as it was written and find the original meaning, as
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The present problem in the UK is that the establishment is getting away with
exceeding their authority. For example, IG is happy to state that in his
official capacity he does not recognise the RKBA and he gets away with it,
except in this discussion group
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes but as you say the statute law has been differently
interpreted in recent years. With reference cases by
way of 'stated cases' taking preference over the Bill
of Rights, etc.
Unless there can be a well documented case where it is
demonstrated that
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If IG is still with us and has any concerns about this
please let us know. Until recently I was unsure about these things myself
but not now. And I have a duty to put him right g.
The term we use is 'barrack room lawyer'.
Someone who thinks he knows it all, but
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You aren't going to get away with that, that's not what you said,
you said under certain circumstances you could accept that some
people had justification for a firearm for self-defence.
I despair.
That's hardly in my official capacity is it??
Can there be
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow me this: My perception from the past
discussions is that IG understands that the current law
is indeed in violation of the top law, but because he
has sworn an oath to uphold 'the' law, that he is not
at liberty to either ignore or condemn 'the' law.
From: Neil Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An "act of self defence" and then found guilty of having an
offensive weapon - strange days indeed.
Indeed - now although the court seemed to agree this was self defence why
doesn't it also claim that the weapon was actually a defensive weapon in
these
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daily Mail 1.12.00
Mercy for boy who cut bullies
A COURT yesterday showed mercy to a schoolboy who used his
penknife to attack playground bullies who had terrorised
him for two years.
The 15-year-old lashed out after being kicked and punched
and
