What the hell is wrong with British Police?
vince
This is totally unbelievable.
British Police have actually arrested 3 12yr old CHILDREN for playing with a
£3 toy gun. Not only that but AFTER discovering that the gun was plastic
they were taken to a police station and fingerprinted and DNA samples were
taken!
Let me say again CHILDREN - what the hell sort of country is Britain turning
into?
The charges were dropped but the DNA and fingerprints will stay on file -
what the hell were the police thinking of? How will those kids and their
families think of the police now? I was brought up to respect the Police and
as a kid I was always told if I was in trouble to "look for the nearest
policeman".
As I have asked before - how far is too far?
I am TOTALLY sickened by this.
Ah well they were obviousll evil children - if they hadn't been doing
anything wrong!
O...@oak.com
<cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm
>
>This is totally unbelievable.
>
>British Police have actually arrested 3 12yr old CHILDREN for playing with a
>£3 toy gun. Not only that but AFTER discovering that the gun was plastic
>they were taken to a police station and fingerprinted and DNA samples were
>taken!
Perhaps you let your media enflame you a bit too much. There is some
balance to this story, but there could be a lot more since folks like
you will naturally be upset by this seemingly innocent behavior. If
you look closely at the story and give the police some credit for
being human beings too, you will notice that their hands may have been
tied in this matter. To wit:
"Northumbria Police said new government guidelines on recording crime
brought in on 1 April forced officers to take a strict line on weapons
incidents."
>
>Let me say again CHILDREN - what the hell sort of country is Britain turning
>into?
>
>The charges were dropped but the DNA and fingerprints will stay on file -
>what the hell were the police thinking of? How will those kids and their
>families think of the police now? I was brought up to respect the Police and
>as a kid I was always told if I was in trouble to "look for the nearest
>policeman".
The kids were reprimanded which will stay on their record for three
years. The guns were very realistic looking and the actions of the
kids was of such a nature that it alarmed some people enough for them
to call the police to investigate. At this point, it may have been
out of the officers' hands to do anything else but what they did.
>
>As I have asked before - how far is too far?
>
>I am TOTALLY sickened by this.
>
>Ah well they were obviousll evil children - if they hadn't been doing
>anything wrong!
It was alarming enough for someone to call the police on them. The
guns looked identical to real guns. I think the judgment of the
children was perhaps not too good, but after all they were only 12. I
would like to hear a bit more from the police on this matter before I
passed judgment on them. The kids were not brutalized by the
police....no physical abuse. A reprimand that lasts three years and
then is expunged may be a little harsh, but really wont do them any
harm should they stay out of trouble. The DNA and fingerprinting is
not so awful either IMHO.
Kids do kill other kids. We have seen it in the US way too many
times. It could have turned out so much worse too. An impulsive
officer could have fired at them. To me it looks like the police did
the right thing. You have got a country that has strict laws against
firearms so that a situation like this one may be more alarming than
in other places where laws are not so strict. I would imagine that if
the incident took place here in the US and people had called the
police in alarm it might have turned out very similarly.
respectfully
Oak
>
guv
<cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>As I have asked before - how far is too far?
>
>I am TOTALLY sickened by this.
>
>Ah well they were obviousll evil children - if they hadn't been doing
>anything wrong!
Its inconceivable that kids of this age would of actually done
something to have warrented this. (OK if they were attempting to rob a
bank - it would of been different!)
If kids cannot play with toy guns - then they should be illegal, else
what are the they supposed to do with them? Look at them?
gandalf
"vince" <cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote in message
news:kUz29.3402$QZ3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm
>
> This is totally unbelievable.
>
> British Police have actually arrested 3 12yr old CHILDREN for playing with
a
> £3 toy gun. Not only that but AFTER discovering that the gun was plastic
> they were taken to a police station and fingerprinted and DNA samples were
> taken!
>
> Let me say again CHILDREN - what the hell sort of country is Britain
turning
> into?
>
I agree that the police were clearly out of order once the nature of the
'weapon' had been determined. Fingerprinting and DNA sampling for playing
with a toy is madness.
However, in some places in this country youngsters do have access to real
weapons that are deadly. And in fairness to the cops it must be a nightmare
deciding how to respond to any 'weapon' seen on the streets.
The following link helps get some idea of the scale of the problem:
http://www.brocock.co.uk/index2.htm
Now all the revolver types can easily be converted to fire real .22 ammo. I
suspect the same is true of the rifles and maybe the semi-automatic as well.
These air-weapons look and feel like the real thing. They even weigh about
the same as the real thing. Even before conversion the legal air-pellet is
dodgy enough at close range. Once converted it becomes a 'Saturday night
special' and deadly at normal small arms range. It may lack the punch of
it's genuine counter-part, but it's still lethal.
There are thousands of these things out there. Bought legally, converted
illegally. I played around with a couple of these things at our local
air-rifle club. They are impressively realistic. In their original 'air'
state they are quite puny but I still wouldn't stand around at let anyone
shoot at me with one.
Back to the kids. Yes heavy-handed behaviour on the part of the police. But
at least they didn't whistle up an armed response unit (or maybe they did
and held it back) and confront the poor little buggers with their MP5s and
Brownings.
I wouldn't consider cleaning my air-rifle on the patio in the current tense
circumstances, it could just get me killed. Sadly kids running about on the
street face the same risk playing with their 'toys'.
O...@oak.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:08:15 +0100, "vince"
><cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>As I have asked before - how far is too far?
>>
>>I am TOTALLY sickened by this.
>>
>>Ah well they were obviousll evil children - if they hadn't been doing
>>anything wrong!
>
>Its inconceivable that kids of this age would of actually done
>something to have warrented this. (OK if they were attempting to rob a
>bank - it would of been different!)
Well your press doesnt say much about that does it? They really didnt
even take the time to investigate it. Some people were alarmed enough
to call the police. I would think those folks might have been
interviewed to understand a bit more of the kids' behavior from their
perspective. But no, the BBC let that one slip by. Why? What was
the purpose of this story? Was it written solely for its shock value?
Did the BBC have an inkling whatsoever that people might have been
upset about this? Perhaps you folks have been had?
>
>If kids cannot play with toy guns - then they should be illegal, else
>what are the they supposed to do with them? Look at them?
When a toy so closely resembles the real thing, it may make it
difficult for observers to tell the difference. Would you take a
"toy" gun into a bank? Sneak it into a sports stadium? Play with
your adult friends and brandish it on the street? I would hope not.
For all I know these kids had no idea of the consequences that might
follow their actions and I will bet they will not do this again. I am
also fairly certain their friends may not engage in this behavior.
Here is another possible story headline: Youths Shoot and Kill Young
Girl as Bystanders Standby and Watch. Local residents assumed they
were watching kids play cops and robbers and were horrified when what
they thought was a toy fired and killed a young girl. "Had we known
they were real guns and that they were not playing, we would have
called the police." :-) Too farfetched?
Oak
vince
<O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
news:a1klku81ercbdbcoh...@4ax.com...
> It was alarming enough for someone to call the police on them. The
> guns looked identical to real guns. I think the judgment of the
> children was perhaps not too good, but after all they were only 12. I
> would like to hear a bit more from the police on this matter before I
> passed judgment on them. The kids were not brutalized by the
> police....no physical abuse. A reprimand that lasts three years and
> then is expunged may be a little harsh, but really wont do them any
> harm should they stay out of trouble. The DNA and fingerprinting is
> not so awful either IMHO.
>
> Kids do kill other kids. We have seen it in the US way too many
> times. It could have turned out so much worse too. An impulsive
> officer could have fired at them. To me it looks like the police did
> the right thing. You have got a country that has strict laws against
> firearms so that a situation like this one may be more alarming than
> in other places where laws are not so strict. I would imagine that if
> the incident took place here in the US and people had called the
> police in alarm it might have turned out very similarly.
>
> respectfully
> Oak
That is the WHOLE point Oak - in the USA - NOT repeat NOT in Britain!
Why should they be reprimanded when they haven't done anything wrong?
Why should people be fingerprinted and DNA tested? What is the next stage
Oak - a microchip in your neck like a dog?
And this isn't the first time it has happened either.
10 years ago kids running around the streets with toy guns wouldn't have
raised an eyebrow - the guns looked like real guns then as well - the
difference was people did NOT expect kids to be carrying real guns!
It is ONLY through the media that the idiot British public now believes that
when a 12 yr old is carrying a gun it is real.
The British Police have been watching too many movies as well. They now
demand flak jackets - long batons - mace and stun guns - things have NOT
changed that much. It all started when the British Police adopted the
American style police sirens - there was nothing wrong with the British two
tone - in fact it seems to clear traffic even quicker but no - British
police demanded American style ones - they claimed they could be heard
further away - CRAP! At 80mph on a motorway you won't hear either of them if
you are in front of the police car.
The British media are responsible for altering this country so much they
want shooting.
These days only about 5% of children about 10yrs old make their own way to
school. Twenty years ago it was more like 80%. The traffic chaos proves it.
The reason? The parents are terrified that their kids will be abducted by
some sicko. I have just seen the latest figures which show that there are no
more abductions now than there were 30 years ago - seriously - and yet
virtually no parent would let their kids go to school unescorted now. The
media have made them so scared they are afraid to let their kids out of
their sight.
Arthur Figgis
"vince" <cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>tone - in fact it seems to clear traffic even quicker but no - British
>police demanded American style ones - they claimed they could be heard
>further away - CRAP! At 80mph on a motorway you won't hear either of them if
>you are in front of the police car.
I doubt they are designed to be heard by people doing 80 mph on a
motorway, but more on 'normal' roads.
There has been research into the type of sirens which work best. IIRC
the rising and failing ones make it easier for someone to work out
which direction the sound is coming from.
Ooh, there's one outside my house, now!
<snip>
>These days only about 5% of children about 10yrs old make their own way to
>school. Twenty years ago it was more like 80%. The traffic chaos proves it.
>The reason? The parents are terrified that their kids will be abducted by
>some sicko.
Or because of increasing car ownership, making it easier to drop kids
off on the way to work, an option now available to a wider section of
the population.
Or because parents think it is too dangerous to let kids cross the
road, or cycle, or whatever (because of all the traffic taking kids to
school...?)
I have just seen the latest figures which show that there are no
>more abductions now than there were 30 years ago - seriously - and yet
>virtually no parent would let their kids go to school unescorted now. The
I see plenty when I cycle past a primary school on my way to work.
>media have made them so scared they are afraid to let their kids out of
>their sight.
So maybe things like crime shouldn't be reported, then everyone would
feel nice and cosy?
--
Arthur Figgis
vince
"gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:aiemh7$13llu9$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> The following link helps get some idea of the scale of the problem:
>
> http://www.brocock.co.uk/index2.htm
>
> Now all the revolver types can easily be converted to fire real .22 ammo.
I
> suspect the same is true of the rifles and maybe the semi-automatic as
well.
>
> These air-weapons look and feel like the real thing. They even weigh about
> the same as the real thing. Even before conversion the legal air-pellet is
> dodgy enough at close range. Once converted it becomes a 'Saturday night
> special' and deadly at normal small arms range. It may lack the punch of
> it's genuine counter-part, but it's still lethal.
I expect you brought this up following the bad PRESS regarding these airguns
being converted. There was quite a bit on the news saying how many of these
were being used in gun crime etc. They had a spokesman for the Police on who
said that over 50% of all gun crime was using these Brocock modified guns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/england/1779349.stm
In actual fact the figure was 5% - a bit different from 50% wouldn't you
say?
http://www.sportsmansassociation.com/actions/brocock.htm
But how much publicity did this mistake get?
Can't people see the manipulation the press are doing?
> I wouldn't consider cleaning my air-rifle on the patio in the current
tense
> circumstances, it could just get me killed. Sadly kids running about on
the
> street face the same risk playing with their 'toys'.
And what has caused " the current tense circumstances"? The bloody media!
Gun crime has only gone up a slight amount in this country - remember this
incident with the kids will be classified as a gun crime so the actual
figures are very low.
About the only place it really has gone up is with Black on Black drug
related crimes caused by the Yardies etc.
In 1972 6.25% of murders in the UK commited with a gun.
In 1975 9% of murders in the UK commited with a gun.
In 1997 7.9% of murders in the UK commited with a gun.
So where is the problem? Why are our police becoming armed more of the time?
Why are they wearing flak jackets?
http://www.gun-control-network.org/CrimStats0101.htm
This lot make me sick - just look at what they are saying.
They say that there has been only a small increase in gun crime since
handguns were banned - they then say the figures have remained pretty
constant for years as we have such tight guns laws - so why did they have to
ban handguns?
vince
"Arthur Figgis" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:3d4ad5f8...@news.clara.net...
> So maybe things like crime shouldn't be reported, then everyone would
> feel nice and cosy?
> --
> Arthur Figgis
Of course I am not saying that - what I am saying is that it is the media
that are responsible for making people think that the past were the good old
days where nothing bad ever happened!
A brilliant book to read is the Chronicle of the 20th Century - it covers
news events in the UK from 1900 to present day - armed gangs running around
London - Police armed - sieges in the streets - 1908 - the good old days!
O...@oak.com
The article made some reference to new standards or whatever that went
into effect 1 April. The police statement suggested they had no
choice in the matter but to follow procedures. I am not arguing for
or against your weapons laws, but I am saying to give the police the
benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence of wrong doing on their
part.
>
>Why should people be fingerprinted and DNA tested? What is the next stage
>Oak - a microchip in your neck like a dog?
Ask your MPs they made the rules most likely. I think the microchip
in the neck is a bit extreme. Finger print and DNA records could
actually be helpful in some future circumstances for these children.
When I applied for a community college teaching credential many, many
years ago, I had to be finger printed as part of their policy. It
didnt take me long to give up my aspirations to be a criminal. :-) I
also dont think that I have been adversely affected by allowing the
authorities to have this personal information about me, but perhaps
the knock on the door in the middle of the night is about to happen?
:-)
>
>And this isn't the first time it has happened either.
>
>10 years ago kids running around the streets with toy guns wouldn't have
>raised an eyebrow - the guns looked like real guns then as well - the
>difference was people did NOT expect kids to be carrying real guns!
>
>It is ONLY through the media that the idiot British public now believes that
>when a 12 yr old is carrying a gun it is real.
Is the media accurately reflecting social realities or do they have a
different set of motivations? It is hard for me to comment on this
without knowing the history of such things in your country.
>
>The British Police have been watching too many movies as well. They now
>demand flak jackets - long batons - mace and stun guns - things have NOT
>changed that much. It all started when the British Police adopted the
>American style police sirens - there was nothing wrong with the British two
>tone - in fact it seems to clear traffic even quicker but no - British
>police demanded American style ones - they claimed they could be heard
>further away - CRAP! At 80mph on a motorway you won't hear either of them if
>you are in front of the police car.
You know I bet there is shared information in this area between
countries. Many years ago, we got the two-tone sirens precisely
because they were said to be more audible. We also got blue lights on
our police cruisers that I think may have come from you folks. I dont
see anything wrong with your police being protected with the latest
technologies.
>
>The British media are responsible for altering this country so much they
>want shooting.
How well does your media police itself? I think many in the
journalism profession take self-criticism as a very important part of
the profession, but it obviously does not control every instance of
media abuse.
>
>These days only about 5% of children about 10yrs old make their own way to
>school. Twenty years ago it was more like 80%. The traffic chaos proves it.
>The reason? The parents are terrified that their kids will be abducted by
>some sicko. I have just seen the latest figures which show that there are no
>more abductions now than there were 30 years ago - seriously - and yet
>virtually no parent would let their kids go to school unescorted now. The
>media have made them so scared they are afraid to let their kids out of
>their sight.
I assume you mean that are no more abductions now *proportionate* to
30 years ago.
I dont know the stats, but I know your point is a good one. In the
past we would not see the breadth of coverage we now get. If a child
in Texas was abducted, only those local communities would probably
ever have learned of it unless it was the Lindbergh baby or something
similar. That is not the case now. Any crime with public appeal gets
reported because people are interested for whatever reason. It does
make it seem that we are facing an epidemic of specific crimes with
this type of coverage. Part of the responsibility for this type of
thing must fall back on the public as they have the power to make some
changes in the way the media conducts itself.
Oak
gandalf
>
> "gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:aiemh7$13llu9$1...@ID-139810.news.dfncis.de...
> > The following link helps get some idea of the scale of the problem:
> >
> > http://www.brocock.co.uk/index2.htm
> >
> > Now all the revolver types can easily be converted to fire real .22
ammo.
> I
> > suspect the same is true of the rifles and maybe the semi-automatic as
> well.
> >
> > These air-weapons look and feel like the real thing. They even weigh
about
> > the same as the real thing. Even before conversion the legal air-pellet
is
> > dodgy enough at close range. Once converted it becomes a 'Saturday night
> > special' and deadly at normal small arms range. It may lack the punch of
> > it's genuine counter-part, but it's still lethal.
>
> I expect you brought this up following the bad PRESS regarding these
airguns
> being converted.
No. I was aware of these guns prior to any press, good or bad, about them. I
think it's foolish to sell something that can be so easily turned into an
illegal weapon.
> There was quite a bit on the news saying how many of these
> were being used in gun crime etc. They had a spokesman for the Police on
who
> said that over 50% of all gun crime was using these Brocock modified guns.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/england/1779349.stm
>
> In actual fact the figure was 5% - a bit different from 50% wouldn't you
> say?
-------------
I would. And so would the Police spokesman who acually said "in excess of
50% of recovered weapons" were found to be this type of adapted airgun.
> http://www.sportsmansassociation.com/actions/brocock.htm
> But how much publicity did this mistake get?
>
-----------
Non, because it was never made.
> Can't people see the manipulation the press are doing?
>
----------
I think most of us here fully acknowledge the role of the press and the part
it plays in generating hate, love, anger or hope etc. All for the gain of
others.
> > I wouldn't consider cleaning my air-rifle on the patio in the current
> tense
> > circumstances, it could just get me killed. Sadly kids running about on
> the
> > street face the same risk playing with their 'toys'.
>
> And what has caused " the current tense circumstances"? The bloody media!
--------------
I'm sure they have done their bit to set us up for further loss of rights,
and acceptance of cops running about with guns. But the media plays to a
tune. That tune is called and paid for governments on the onehand and
powerful interests on the other. News doesn't get much of a look in. And
this formula works. People will believe anything if you say it often enough.
You will also have been influenced and will hold strong feelings, even
convictions, over something you have been spoonfed over years. You will be
unaware that you have been spoonfed lies and misconceptions. And you will
fight to defend your stance. The media is not a trustworthy single source of
information. But most here know this.
> Gun crime has only gone up a slight amount in this country - remember this
> incident with the kids will be classified as a gun crime so the actual
> figures are very low.
>
> About the only place it really has gone up is with Black on Black drug
> related crimes caused by the Yardies etc.
-------------
Careful. Facts and Blacks don't make you popular. The media has seen to
that.
> So where is the problem? Why are our police becoming armed more of the
time?
> Why are they wearing flak jackets?
---------------
It is all part of a general trend towards greater control of us, society,
but all for our own benefit of course. Invent the threat then impose the
solution.
>
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/CrimStats0101.htm
>
> This lot make me sick - just look at what they are saying.
>
> They say that there has been only a small increase in gun crime since
> handguns were banned - they then say the figures have remained pretty
> constant for years as we have such tight guns laws - so why did they have
to
> ban handguns?
>
---------------
Banning anything legal has sod all effect on those that do it illegally
anyway. But, that nut in Dunblane and that other nut in Hungerford both used
legal weapons. So, rather than tighten up the handing out of licences, which
would imply the cops were at fault and by implication the government. They
scrapped them.
Arthur Figgis
"vince" <cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>Of course I am not saying that - what I am saying is that it is the media
>that are responsible for making people think that the past were the good old
>days where nothing bad ever happened!
That's just human nature. Things never have been what they used to be.
--
Arthur Figgis
TWP
"Arthur Figgis" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:3d4ad5f8...@news.clara.net...
I don't accept that the yelp / wail sirens help you tell where the siren is
coming from. I didn't drive when the two-tone sirens were used, but you
could always seem to tell where they were coming from. In a built-op area
the high-frequency sound just reflects from everything!
In fact, its such a problem that experimental sirens that emit a burst of
white noise to help give them direction are being tried out.
http://www.pulseplanet.com/archive/May96/1247.html
TWP
TWP
http://www.premierhazard.co.uk/sirent.html
TWP
gandalf
"Arthur Figgis" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.....
Arthur Figgis
"gandalf" <gan...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>I agree that the police were clearly out of order once the nature of the
>'weapon' had been determined. Fingerprinting and DNA sampling for playing
>with a toy is madness.
What is this 'reprimand'? If it is a caution, issued instead of a
proscution, couldn't the kids have refused it, from vague memories of
what little law was taught at my school? There would be no chance of
them being prosecuted (have they actually done anything illegal?), and
it would all have been forgotten.
--
Arthur Figgis
O...@oak.com
Ummm...Things never have been what they used to be? LOL
sorry couldnt resist.
Bad Oak
vince
<O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
news:euplku4933j8fbg5v...@4ax.com...
> >Why should people be fingerprinted and DNA tested? What is the next stage
> >Oak - a microchip in your neck like a dog?
>
> Ask your MPs they made the rules most likely. I think the microchip
> in the neck is a bit extreme. Finger print and DNA records could
> actually be helpful in some future circumstances for these children.
> When I applied for a community college teaching credential many, many
> years ago, I had to be finger printed as part of their policy. It
> didnt take me long to give up my aspirations to be a criminal. :-) I
> also dont think that I have been adversely affected by allowing the
> authorities to have this personal information about me, but perhaps
> the knock on the door in the middle of the night is about to happen?
> :-)
http://www.adsx.com/prodservpart/verichip.html
Microchip in the neck extreme is it?
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_519410.html
Already being trialled - it WILL come - when they have made enough people
believe it is in their good interest!
> Is the media accurately reflecting social realities or do they have a
> different set of motivations? It is hard for me to comment on this
> without knowing the history of such things in your country.
The media SET the social realities.
Their power is awesome - do you realise it was the media that defeated the
Soviet Union and brought it crashing down? It was the media that were
directly responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of
Germany - something I predicited in the late 80s and was ridiculed for by my
so called superiors!
Yes they do a lot of good but they can do a lot of harm as well.
In Britain nobody is safe from them - except Rupert Murdoch that is! If Bill
Clinton had been a British Prime Minister there is no way he would have
stayed in power.
> You know I bet there is shared information in this area between
> countries. Many years ago, we got the two-tone sirens precisely
> because they were said to be more audible. We also got blue lights on
> our police cruisers that I think may have come from you folks. I dont
> see anything wrong with your police being protected with the latest
> technologies.
I am not against the sharing of information - only the fact that the good
old British Bobby used to be quite happy with his truncheon(no sick jokes
please).
> How well does your media police itself? I think many in the
> journalism profession take self-criticism as a very important part of
> the profession, but it obviously does not control every instance of
> media abuse.
In the 80s there was a satirical version of the muppets called "spitting
image". It was so left wing you wouldn't believe and did nothing but attack
Maggie and the Tories. There were also various other progs around doing the
same sort of thing. Now Labour are in power all these progs have vanished. I
actually saw an interview with Ian Hislop - the creator of "spitting image"
and he said that he had spent 10 years trying to bring down the Tory
government - and he openly admitted it as if that was fine. If somebody had
said they were deliberately trying to bring down Labour they wouldn't get
airtime!
> I assume you mean that are no more abductions now *proportionate* to
> 30 years ago.
Obviously
Arthur Figgis
O...@Oak.com wrote:
>Ummm...Things never have been what they used to be? LOL
Exactly. It was always better x years ago. But then, x years ago,
things had gone downhill from x' years ago...
Now, when I were a lad...
--
Arthur Figgis
vince
<TWP> wrote in message news:ukltmfn...@corp.supernews.com...
> I don't accept that the yelp / wail sirens help you tell where the siren
is
> coming from. I didn't drive when the two-tone sirens were used, but you
> could always seem to tell where they were coming from. In a built-op area
> the high-frequency sound just reflects from everything!
>
> In fact, its such a problem that experimental sirens that emit a burst of
> white noise to help give them direction are being tried out.
> http://www.pulseplanet.com/archive/May96/1247.html
>
> TWP
In my area Fire Engines are fitted with both types of siren - they don't
seem to get much response in a crowded street with the wailing one but my
god you should see people move when they here the twin trumpets - it has far
more of that - "get out of my way" urgency about it!
O...@oak.com
<cyclops.tech...@nospam.tesco.net> wrote:
>
><O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
>news:euplku4933j8fbg5v...@4ax.com...
>
<snip>
> I think the microchip
>> in the neck is a bit extreme.
<snip>
>
>http://www.adsx.com/prodservpart/verichip.html
>
>Microchip in the neck extreme is it?
>
>http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_519410.html
>
>Already being trialled - it WILL come - when they have made enough people
>believe it is in their good interest!
These uses seem primarily medical in nature, although they do state
they can be used for identification purposes. I guess I dont feel so
powerless about this sort of thing. I think we here in the US are a
long way from having implanted devices for security reasons, but check
back with me in 6 months. :-)
>
>> Is the media accurately reflecting social realities or do they have a
>> different set of motivations? It is hard for me to comment on this
>> without knowing the history of such things in your country.
>
>The media SET the social realities.
I think there is an interaction affect. Media reports something.
Public follows it. Media sees the following so prints more of same to
keep up readership. Public sees this as an important issue because of
the continual coverage...etc. etc. I dont see the media as some sort
of Big Brother.
>
>Their power is awesome - do you realise it was the media that defeated the
>Soviet Union and brought it crashing down?
That is the first time that I have heard that explanation. I had
always thought it was because the USSR out spent themselves trying to
keep up with us in the arms race.
>It was the media that were
>directly responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of
>Germany - something I predicited in the late 80s and was ridiculed for by my
>so called superiors!
The governments played no part in these events?
>
<snip>
>
>> You know I bet there is shared information in this area between
>> countries. Many years ago, we got the two-tone sirens precisely
>> because they were said to be more audible. We also got blue lights on
>> our police cruisers that I think may have come from you folks. I dont
>> see anything wrong with your police being protected with the latest
>> technologies.
>
>I am not against the sharing of information - only the fact that the good
>old British Bobby used to be quite happy with his truncheon
Did you hear the one about the Bobby and the...
>(no sick jokes
>please).
Oh, okay.
>> How well does your media police itself? I think many in the
>> journalism profession take self-criticism as a very important part of
>> the profession, but it obviously does not control every instance of
>> media abuse.
>
>In the 80s there was a satirical version of the muppets called "spitting
>image". It was so left wing you wouldn't believe and did nothing but attack
>Maggie and the Tories. There were also various other progs around doing the
>same sort of thing. Now Labour are in power all these progs have vanished. I
>actually saw an interview with Ian Hislop - the creator of "spitting image"
>and he said that he had spent 10 years trying to bring down the Tory
>government - and he openly admitted it as if that was fine. If somebody had
>said they were deliberately trying to bring down Labour they wouldn't get
>airtime!
I dont consider a satirical television show equivalent to a
professional discussion of the issues. We have the National Press
Club here that meets weekly and is broadcast on cspan where issues
related to the press are covered in a critically constructive manner.
CNN also had a forum expressively for examining how the media covered
events of the past week, but the name escapes me now.
<snip>
Oak
O...@oak.com
LOL
Yes I understand your point here Arthur. I was just struck by your
syntax as it seemed very close to a Yoggism. That is, things have
always been precisely what they used to be. :-)
Small joke..no offense meant.
Oak
Richard White
>
> <O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
> news:a1klku81ercbdbcoh...@4ax.com...
> > It was alarming enough for someone to call the police on them. The
> > guns looked identical to real guns. I think the judgment of the
> > children was perhaps not too good, but after all they were only 12. I
> > would like to hear a bit more from the police on this matter before I
> > passed judgment on them.
From the news account I heard, the boys were playing a realistic looking
abduction at gunpoint using replica guns. These guns were so realistic that
even on close examination the police were reported to have said that they
couldn't distinguish them from real ones. Only on taking hold of them and
checking the parts was it apparent that they weren't real guns.
> > The kids were not brutalized by the
> > police....no physical abuse. A reprimand that lasts three years and
> > then is expunged may be a little harsh, but really wont do them any
> > harm should they stay out of trouble. The DNA and fingerprinting is
> > not so awful either IMHO.
I think that the police *have* overreacted. It's one thing to give these
kids an informal caution and more importantly educate their parents about
the dangers of giving their children such realistic looking weapons etc..
But it's another thing altogether to give them formal cautions, fingerprint
and DNA test them.
These children weren't intimidating others with imitation guns, but playing
among themselves.
Unfortunately the "law" no longer allows what is known as "common sense" and
appropriate judgement by officers. Instead, everything has to be treated
rigidly according to a set of often inflexible procedures. This mentality
of our legal system, and those in authority (such as police chiefs and their
advisors) means that police officers probably weren't allowed to exercise
any discretion.
It's very sad when children's play has to be corrected in this way, and the
police can't be allowed to distinguish between harmless but alarming fun,
and serious mischief.
> > Kids do kill other kids. We have seen it in the US way too many
> > times.
This, Oak is *NOT* the US! We don't get that sort of thing over here. Yes,
there have been one or two child on child murders (Thompson and Venables
were aged 10 & 11 when they murdered a 2 1/2 y/o boy). But in the UK, we
have yet to have a child murder committed using a firearm. (Indeed, most
murders here are committed with knives and blunt instruments.)
> > It could have turned out so much worse too. An impulsive
> > officer could have fired at them.
Very much so. In recent years we have had a stark naked man shot dead by
police in his own bedroom when they raided him (officer acquitted by order
of the Judge by reason of perceived self defence), and a man shot dead by
police when a member of the public called them saying he was an Irishman
with a shotgun (he was actually a Scotsman carrying a replacement chairleg).
Our police aren't malicious, but some of them do seem to get trigger happy -
and they get away with it.
> > To me it looks like the police did
> > the right thing. You have got a country that has strict laws against
> > firearms so that a situation like this one may be more alarming than
> > in other places where laws are not so strict. I would imagine that if
> > the incident took place here in the US and people had called the
> > police in alarm it might have turned out very similarly.
> >
> > respectfully
> > Oak
>
> That is the WHOLE point Oak - in the USA - NOT repeat NOT in Britain!
>
> Why should they be reprimanded when they haven't done anything wrong?
They must have done something wrong (probably ignored the "keep off the
grass" warnings). To receive a police caution, the recipient has to admit
that they have committed the offence for which they are being cautioned.
Because they have admitted and offence, the police are entitled to
fingerprint and DNA test.
Under the circumstanced, I think that fingerprinting and DNA testing a 12
y/o child for over-realistic toy gun play is going too far.
> Why should people be fingerprinted and DNA tested? What is the next stage
> Oak - a microchip in your neck like a dog?
This is in the next European Directive on combatting terrorism :-). All
European citizens will be fingerprinted annually until age 18, photographed
every 5 years, and both DNA tested and microchipped at birth. Illegal
immigrants and "asylum seekers" will be exempt in order not to infringe
their rights. <lol>
[...snipped...]
> The British Police have been watching too many movies as well. They now
> demand flak jackets - long batons - mace and stun guns - things have NOT
> changed that much.
The flak jackets are more to protect the officers against being stabbed than
shot - this is a very necessary protection for them. The old style
truncheons weren't that much use against an aggressor wielding a long knife:
you try it. The CS Gas sprays are brilliant, as one copper explained to
me, when faced with a hyped up drunken yob he has a choice: beat the shit
out of him with a baton, or neatly spray him. In the latter case, the yob
will recover fully within half an hour. In the former, he'll have to go to
hospital.
Yes, sometimes there is an undesirable and serious consequence to using the
CS Gas spray - but these incidents are far fewer that would be the case if
officers had to rely on truncheons or batons.
[...snipped...]
vince
<O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
news:muvlkuoo60l7f27pf...@4ax.com...
> >Their power is awesome - do you realise it was the media that defeated
the
> >Soviet Union and brought it crashing down?
>
> That is the first time that I have heard that explanation. I had
> always thought it was because the USSR out spent themselves trying to
> keep up with us in the arms race.
>
> >It was the media that were
> >directly responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of
> >Germany - something I predicited in the late 80s and was ridiculed for by
my
> >so called superiors!
>
> The governments played no part in these events?
Not as much as the people! They could see how life was for people in other
countries - then when Lech started in Poland with solidarity the good word
spread like wildfire cos of the media.
If you remember the poor sods in China tried to do the same after seeing
media coverage of the events in Eastern Europe. Tiannaman Square was the
result. Unfortuantely the Chinks weren't ready for it but their time is
coming - hence the sensorship of many of their cyber cafes.
> I dont consider a satirical television show equivalent to a
> professional discussion of the issues. We have the National Press
> Club here that meets weekly and is broadcast on cspan where issues
> related to the press are covered in a critically constructive manner.
>
> CNN also had a forum expressively for examining how the media covered
> events of the past week, but the name escapes me now.
>
> <snip>
>
> Oak
Thats good - the media reporting how the media covered things! Like it!
TWP
That was a knee-jerk reaction to keep the Labour government "on the side of
the people". In the end it was the guy pulling the trigger who killed those
children. He could just as easily have killed them by gluing the doors shut
and throwing in a petrol bomb.
I can't say I feel any safer now than before Dunblane - if someone means to
do you harm they'll find some way - the cavemen managed it with pointed
sticks! :)
I'm sure some compromise could have been reached, such as allowing empty
guns at home, but if you wanted to use the gun it would have to be signed in
and out as empty, and only allow bullets to be available on-site at the
gunclub - all enforced by metal detection or I think they're called Kimball
tags (the ones shops use to set off the shoplifter alarms).
Banning weapons just exclusively favoured a pressure group that arose to
rationalise and justify the lives of those who died in a single act of
insanity over another group of people who largely for decades had kept to
themselves and hadn't in the most part caused any problems. I've no
interest in guns, but I detest a witch-hunt. In terms of young lives lost I
wouldn't be surprised if more kids had died at the beach over the years than
at the hands of handgun users.
TWP
O...@oak.com
<whi...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Oak:
>> > Kids do kill other kids. We have seen it in the US way too many
>> > times.
>This, Oak is *NOT* the US! We don't get that sort of thing over here. Yes,
>there have been one or two child on child murders (Thompson and Venables
>were aged 10 & 11 when they murdered a 2 1/2 y/o boy). But in the UK, we
>have yet to have a child murder committed using a firearm. (Indeed, most
>murders here are committed with knives and blunt instruments.)
Out of curiousity, do you have many drug related homicides in the UK?
If so, are children ever involved in committing these crimes?
>
<snip>
Oak
vince
<O...@Oak.com> wrote in message
news:gq4mkuk1ki9jmlprn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:16:34 +0000 (UTC), "Richard White"
> Out of curiousity, do you have many drug related homicides in the UK?
> If so, are children ever involved in committing these crimes?
> >
> <snip>
>
> Oak
Oak we only have about 760 murders a year in the UK anyway - of these about
70% are caused by someone known by the vicitm which leaves a very small
number of people who just happen to get murdered. Of these less than 8% were
by a gun.
Most popular were
Sharp Instrument 219 (kitchen knife most popular - BAN them)
Hitting/kicking 106
Blunt Instrument 70
Poison/drugs 64 (warped by our DR Shipman friend)
Shooting 62
Strangulation 57 (and they haven't banned rope)
How many of these were caused by drugs is hard to say - probably quite a few
of the shootings as the Black on Black problem of the drugs gangs is rearing
it's ugly head but unless you are in that sort of environment it is not very
likely you will be caught up in it.
Thankfully these are some of the lowest figures in the world - I bet if you
did a survey of the British public they would think the place is awash with
people being shot/raped/murdered/pillaged etc!
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t4-3.htm
O...@oak.com
for some libation.
Oak<hmmm ..getting low on booze...may need to make a trip to the
Libary>
David Buttery
2002:
<snip>
> These days only about 5% of children about 10yrs old make their
> own way to school. Twenty years ago it was more like 80%. The
> traffic chaos proves it. The reason? The parents are terrified
> that their kids will be abducted by some sicko. I have just seen
> the latest figures which show that there are no more abductions
> now than there were 30 years ago - seriously - and yet virtually
> no parent would let their kids go to school unescorted now. The
> media have made them so scared they are afraid to let their kids
> out of their sight.
All quite true, and pretty depressing. In fact, I did see some
figures (annoyingly, I can't find the source, so treat with caution)
that said that a child was *much* more likely to be killed in a road
accident on the school run than to be abducted by a stranger.
The other problem with the media hysteria over paedophiles (and
paediatricians...) is that it completely overshadows the far more
widespread occurrence of abuse within the family itself.
Finally, of course, if you don't ever let a child out of your sight,
how the hell are they going to cope when they go off to uni or
otherwise leave home? When I lived in Toxteth (90% of which is just
the same as any other inner city suburb) I quickly learnt that the
worst possible thing to do is to look worried and helpless. If you've
barely been allowed to cross the road on your own before you're 18,
then this is going to be bloody difficult to overcome, and
consequently you'll be in a lot more danger in the long run.
--
"After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
vince
"David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > All
quite true, and pretty depressing. In fact, I did see some
> figures (annoyingly, I can't find the source, so treat with caution)
> that said that a child was *much* more likely to be killed in a road
> accident on the school run than to be abducted by a stranger.
>
> The other problem with the media hysteria over paedophiles (and
> paediatricians...) is that it completely overshadows the far more
> widespread occurrence of abuse within the family itself.
>
> Finally, of course, if you don't ever let a child out of your sight,
> how the hell are they going to cope when they go off to uni or
> otherwise leave home? When I lived in Toxteth (90% of which is just
> the same as any other inner city suburb) I quickly learnt that the
> worst possible thing to do is to look worried and helpless. If you've
> barely been allowed to cross the road on your own before you're 18,
> then this is going to be bloody difficult to overcome, and
> consequently you'll be in a lot more danger in the long run.
> The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
So true - most parents these days wrap their kids in cotton wool. My mates
little boy(10) is a classic example. Until i got to know them the boy had
never been on a boat - had never been on a train and had never seen a sheep!
Seriously and we live in Wales!
The boy's mother is terrified when he goes with me walking in the Brecon
Beacons or similar and yet she doesn't bat an eyelid if I take him for a
trip to London - he has far more chance of being injured in a car accident
than he does wandering around the mountains with me.
Also parents feel reassured when their sprogs are being looked after by
people who are qualified. A nanny these days has to have a string of
certificates to look after a kid. a woman who has 6 of her own just doesn't
come up to scratch compared to a 18yr old girl with loads of certificates!
I see it all the time with outdoor pursuit type places - parents feel quite
happy sending their kids there if the instructors are all qualified. What a
load of crap - the world's best climbers don't have fancy bits of paper to
prove it.
So many times I have seen kids being taken into caves etc by so called
qualified instructors in conditions I would have questioned going in myself.
There have been another 2 deaths in the Brecon Beacons this week - 17yr old
on army excercise drowned in one cave and a 15yr old drowned in a river
about 2 miles away. Oh it was alright - the people were qualified to look
after them.
Bloody Nanny state!