From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, why let fact get in the way of a good rumour.
I quoted the oft repeated comments that are spouted by the rabid
anti-shooting lobby.
As the point seems to be lost, why not consider the reality of things. If a
rumour is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in the mind of the listener
or reader.
As I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent individual, I am able to
use my own experience of life, of people, of my occupation and when a little
common sense is applied, I find that the assertions that I repeated are
wholly innaccurate and mostly false. Nevertheless, I repeated them. If you
read the responses to that post, despite the fact that I made it abundantly
clear that these were RUMOURS, the respondees have, without exception,
considered that these are views that I personally hold, or consider to be
true.
Now then. As it has been written that 66.6% of police officers are corrupt,
going by the above experience, eveyone is going to take that as gospel, when
in fact it is total, insulting, feverish and rabid CRAP!
It does get really boring reading the ill informed comments on the police.
Fine, if there is something tangible and informed, but to foster comments
such as 'I have heard that ...' is a waste of time!
While we are at it, lets deal with some of the comments, no doubt believed,
that were made by Norman.
<<nor the assertion that the UK police are the occupational
group most likely to possess illegal firearms for the
purpose of protecting themselves against the personal
malice of the criminals they are paid to pursue.>>
Where in the name of creation did this come from?
lol
Its like me saying......'actually, bank managers are the most likely people
to possess illegal firearms'
Benefit of experience......real experience not rumour fed
experience........there is not a problem with police officers having illegal
guns for self defence. Doesn't happen. Enlighten me if you know of something
that I don't, but try to be factual.
<<The matter of fraudulent police clear-up rates for
crimes like burglary has been extensively covered in
the national press and I don't see how IG can deny
that every member of the police is aware of what's
going on and presumably can live with it or we'd have
police demonstrations in Wembley Stadium protesting
about it.>>
The fraudulent clear up rates are a perennial bone of contention. The home
office decides what statistics will be used in clear up rates and in crime
recording figues. Instant reduction was made when attempted twoc was made a
summary offence with no power of arrest. The effect was..........when I got
called to a damaged vehicle, (locks smashed, ignition ripped out, etc) I
would record it as a clear attempted theft of a motor vehicle. As the
criminal attempts act reduced the attempt to a summary offence, it was not
therefore part of the home office recordable crime statistics. The crime
figures fell overnight!
A far as clear ups go, this debate has always centered on prison and
offender visits. An offender who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment would be visited in prison, and would make numerous admissions
of crimes. He or she would make these admissions for a number of reasons.
They knew that no action would be taken against them, as they were already
serving a term of imprisonment. They were therefore making sure that there
would be no charges waiting for them when they got released. They often got
rewards........cigarettes, chocolate, etc. (no, NOT drugs.) A day or so
talking to the police relieved the boredom of sitting in a cell. If you look
at the HMIC reports on every police force (available online from HMIC web
site) you will find all the information about crime statistics, including
the methods of compilation. Before running off at the mouth about things
like this, try doing some research about the real facts.
<<The situation of UK police corruption deriving from
the expanding drugs market in the UK and mirroring
what has happened in the US is something I would have
thought was fully accepted.>>
No, 'fraid not. No one I know accepts in any way, shape or form any form of
corruption. If a bent copper is caught, he goes to prison. Rightly so. I
have never met an officer who would hesitate to take action against anyone
who is involved in any form of drugs related corruption. If you have any
evidence that officers are involved in this, let me know - anonymously if
necessary, or through a third party, and I will publicly and openly take the
most stringent measures to ensure the longest term of imprisonment is
imposed on the guilty parties. I have no problem with that.
<<As for insanity, I personally consider it insane that
policemen are being put on the street without sidearms
to protect themselves with and that they are not
expected, as they are elsewhere, to go armed at all
times in uniform or not>>
Personal opinion, fine, I can live with that. My personal opinion is that it
would be totally insane (and unfeasable!) to expect police officers in the
UK to be armed as a matter of course, whether on or off duty. We dont need
to be. Yet. Neither do we want to be.
Personally, I couldnt give a stuff about elsewhere. Why are we so besotted
with comparing the UK to elsewhere? We are here, not there, so do what is
required for us, not what suits America, Russia, Patagonia, etc.
<<I consider it insane that our
government deny law-abiding people the right to carry
sidearms for their personal protection. >>
My opinion on this is that we dont need that either. The vast majority of
murders or offences of extreme violence are carried out by criminal against
criminal. If you are law abiding, the fear of crime is worse than the actual
likeliehood of being the victim.
Yes, someone can always say...'tell that to so and so who was raped, robbed,
murdered, etc'. The chances of them carrying a firearm and being able to use
it in self defence are slim anyway. Presumably you have heard about things
like 'action beats reaction', the continuum of force, ECHR (the right to
life), S3 CLA, common law, etc etc ad infinitum?
Lets examine the right to carry routinely for self defence. (as opposed to a
specific threat).
How would you administer that system? Who would qualify and who would not?
If a person is convicted of an offence, would that mean he or she would not
be allowed to carry a firearm? Would they not have the same entitlement to
defend themselves? Does a convicted drug dealer have the right of self
defense?
Should everyone, everwhere, under any circumstances have the total freedom
to possess firearms for self defence?
Not as simple as the insanity argument makes it out to be, is it?
If you think we should be more like the USA, then go live there!
<<I consider it insane that our elected government deny the people the
possibility of executing criminals on the thin ground
that the police have in the past accused innocent
people and got them hanged.>>
AGREED! At least have a referendum on it..........
<<I consider it absolutely beyond question that the
government and their agents the police have a vested
interest in preserving a certain level of crime in our
society, against the interests of the majority of the
citizenry, and that they deny honest people guns for
self-defence in pursuit of their anti-social "hidden
agenda>>
Government agents! Whew..makes me sound more important than I am!
What a load of old twaddle...vested interest!
Only people with a vested interest are the insurance companies!
Paranoia still rules eh!
IG
(006.5, Govenment agent, licensed to have an illegal firearm for
protection!)
hehehe
--
Actually the assertion was that 33.3% of police officers are
corrupt.
I long ago wrote a paper which is on our website about the
method for how firearms for self-defence should be reintroduced,
I was quite surprised that Nottingham Police seem to be doing
what I said.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
