Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson
Kevin Warren
I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva,
Switzerland hereby declare:
1.. I firmly believe that there exist documents
held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would
yield important new evidence into the cause and
circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales,
Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in
August 1997.
2.. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991
and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents
that I believe would provide new evidence and new
leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard
various rumours which though I was not able to see
supporting documents I am confident were based on
solid fact.
3.. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern
European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally
involved in a large and complicated operation to
smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating
and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.
During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on
this operation. These files contain a wide
miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports,
photographs etc, from which it was possible to build
up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation
involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6.
On more than one occasion, meetings between various
figures in the operation took place at the Ritz
Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several
intelligence reports on these meetings, which had
been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the
time (identified in the file only by a coded
designation). The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz
Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by
a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his
information. I became curious to learn more about
the identity of this particular informant, because his number
cropped up several times and he seemed to have
extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I
therefore ordered this informants personal file from
MI6's central file registry. When I read this new file, I was
not at all surprised to learn that the informant was
a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always
target the security officers of important hotels
because they have such good access to intelligence. I
remember, however, being mildly surprised that the
nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my
memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in
recruiting a French informer. I cannot claim that I remember
from this reading of the file that the name of this
person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of
hindsight that this was he. Although I did not
subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6,
I am confident that the relationship between he and
MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would
never willingly relinquish control over such a well
placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul
will therefore contain notes of meetings between him
and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his
death. I firmly believe that these files will
contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes
of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with
the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.
4.. The most senior undeclared officer in the
local MI6 station would normally control an informant of
M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers
declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the
Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST)
would not be used to control such an informant, because it might
lead to the identity of the informant becoming known
to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M.
Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced
but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas
John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr
Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly
believe that either one or both of these officers
will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met
M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that
either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of
crucial importance in establishing the sequence of
events leading up to the deaths of M.Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and
the Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was
an extremely well connected and influential officer,
because he had been, prior to his appointment in
Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David
SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even
the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that
there may well be significance in the fact that Mr
Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before
the deaths.
5.. Later in 1992, as the civil war in the
former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work
primarily
on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became
acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born
1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge
of planning Balkan operations. During one meeting with Dr
Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page
document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline
plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President
Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed, and attached to a
yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a
formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in
existence. Fishwick had annotated that the document
be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice
KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations,
John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan
operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6
(designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the
Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard
FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the
then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL. This plan contained
a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic,
followed by three outline proposals on how to
achieve this objective. I
firmly believe that the third of these scenarios
contained information that could be useful in establishing the
causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of
Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. This third scenario suggested that
Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his
personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the
crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete
close to the road would ensure that the crash would be
sufficiently violent to cause death or serious
injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be
independent, casual witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested
that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate
the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device
which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example,
disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and
about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training. In
short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to
the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that
killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and
Henri Paul. I firmly believe that this document should be yielded
by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and
would provide further leads that he could follow.
6.. During my service in MI6, I also learnt
unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and
the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and
routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign
Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats
to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips. This
service would frequently extend to asking friendly
intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the
Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly
for their own protection. This was particularly the case for
the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing
without overt personal protection, even on overseas trips.
Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household
was officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt while in
MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between
certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members
of the Royal Household. I did not see any official
papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is
correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would
yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the
Royal Household, and would yield vital information
about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days
leading to her death.
7.. I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the
"paparazzi" photographers who routinely
followed the Princess of Wales was a member of
"UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide
miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance
and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this
photographer, or whether he was one of the
photographers present at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am
confident that examination of UKN records would
yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the
inquest to eliminate or further investigate that
potential line of enquiry.
8.. On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of
this information to Judge Herve Stephan, the
French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest
into the accident. The lengths which MI6, the CIA
and the DST have taken to deter me giving this
evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it,
suggests that they have something to hide.
9.. On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my
appointment with Judge Herve Stephan, the DST arrested me in
my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of
violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at
gunpoint that I received a broken rib. I was taken
to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours. Despite
my repeated requests, I was never given any
justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even
though I was released without charge, the DST
confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They
illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to
the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal
and caused me great inconvenience and financial
cost.
10.. On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a
Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a
flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give
a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television
company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when
an official boarded the plane and told me to get off. At the
airbridge, he told me that the airline had received
a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my
travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax,
but I was told that "it was not possible". I believe that this is
because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to
keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could
take further action against me. I had been back in
my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New
Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret
Intelligence Service, raided me. After being detained and searched
for about three hours, they eventually confiscated
from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST
had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't
get some of these items back until six months later.
11.. Moreover, shortly after I had given this
evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence
in a live television interview on America's NBC
television channel. I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday
30 August to give the interview in New York on the
following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F
Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight
told all passengers to return to their seats. Four US
Immigration authority officers entered the plane,
came straight to my seat, asked for my passport and identity,
and then frogmarched me off the plane. I was taken
to the immigration detention centre, photographed,
fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for
seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and
then returned on the next available plane to Geneva.
I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the
representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport.
The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic
to my situation and apologised for treating me so
badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions
from the CIA.
12.. In January of this year, I booked a chalet
in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for
a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I
picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the
evening of January 8, and set off for the French
border. At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was
detained. Four officers from the DST held me for
four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the
deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to
return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed
destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to
"Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior
DST officer, I told him that my destination was
"Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he
crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens",
without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe
this is because MI6 had told them of my true
destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on
my parent's telephone in the UK. My banning from
France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British
passport and am entitled to travel freely within the
European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have
me banned, and have not used any recognised legal
mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe
that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France
because they wanted to prevent me from giving further
evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the
time, I was planning to do.
13.. Whatever MI6s role in the events leading to
the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and
Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is
substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial
evidence in establishing the exact causes of this
tragedy. I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to
obstruct the course of justice by interfering with
my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms
my belief that they have something to hide. I
believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official
Secrets Act should be set aside in the public
interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic
and historically momentous events.
John Bartram
now collected and available at:
http://elint.server101.com
There is also a personal note there by me, on my knowledge of one of those
named on both lists.
Kevin Warren <kwa...@relaypoint.net> wrote in message
news:373FC313...@relaypoint.net...
ByeCats
on May 12, 1999 and posted on May 12, 1999 (according to RT's web
site). When did they say he posted "the list" (which he has denied) and
take his site down? Was the real reason the site was wiped because of
this affidavit? Is this his second statement for Stephan? (Please
forgive me if this has already been discussed, I'm way behind in this
group).
Kevin Warren <kwa...@relaypoint.net> wrote in article
<373FC313...@relaypoint.net>...
> AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD TOMLINSON
>
>
> I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva,
> Switzerland hereby declare:
>
> 1.. I firmly believe that there exist
documents
> held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would
> yield important new evidence into the cause and
> circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales,
> Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in
> August 1997.
>
<snip>
geoff steuart
ByeCats wrote in message <01bea078$f0b0f080$b40c0a04@baressfa>...
>I think an interesting thing about this affidavit is that it was sworn
>on May 12, 1999 and posted on May 12, 1999 (according to RT's web
>site). When did they say he posted "the list" (which he has denied) and
>take his site down? Was the real reason the site was wiped because of
>this affidavit? Is this his second statement for Stephan? (Please
>forgive me if this has already been discussed, I'm way behind in this
>group).
>
>
Hi ByeCats.
Tomlinson gave testimony to Stephan on about the 28th August, 1998 and he
gave one statement.
The above was not given to Stephan though I'm sure it provides strong
evidence of what Tomlinson did say to Stephan. You claim that it was sworn
on the 12th May 1999, so the statement itself has nothing to do with
Stephan.
As to your point about the UK and its actions. No the affidavit is not the
reason British Intelligence want Tomlinson stopped. As you have said, the
affidavit was sworn and posted, on the 12th May, but the crisis began on
about the 30th April with the UK's injunction in the courts in Switzerland.
On this basis the affidavit could not possibly be the reason. I think you
would agree....
Geoff.
Andrew Steven Reed
<kwa...@relaypoint.net> writes
>AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD TOMLINSON
>
>
> I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva,
>Switzerland hereby declare:
>
> 1.. I firmly believe that there exist documents
>held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would
> yield important new evidence into the cause and
>circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales,
> Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in
>August 1997.
>
> 2.. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991
>and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents
> that I believe would provide new evidence and new
>leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard
> various rumours which though I was not able to see
>supporting documents I am confident were based on
> solid fact.
>
> 3.. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern
>European Controllerate
"Controllerate" does not look like an authentic term to me.
Was HP working at the Ritz in 1992? Could this agent have been Hocquet
or HP's predecessor as deputy?
> Although I did not
>subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6,
> I am confident that the relationship between he
"between HIM and MI6", it should be. This is an unusual error for
someone with a British public school education - it is the kind of error
which is made by somebody who wishes to appear to have had a British
public school education.
> and
>MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would
> never willingly relinquish control over such a well
>placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul
> will therefore contain notes of meetings between him
>and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his
> death. I firmly believe that these files will
>contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes
> of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with
>the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.
>
> 4.. The most senior undeclared officer in the
>local MI6 station would normally control an informant of
> M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers
>declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the
> Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST)
>would not be used to control such an informant, because it might
> lead to the identity of the informant becoming known
>to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M.
> Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced
>but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas
> John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr
>Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly
> believe that either one or both of these officers
>will be well acquainted with M Paul,
"would have been well acquainted" - surely
"discreet" (tactful) is not the same as "discrete" (separate)
Apart from the odd errors -which are not conclusive indications- this
looks pretty authentic. Can you tell us anything about the provenance,
Kevin?
--
Andrew Steven Reed
John Bartram
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MYXK4HAZ...@lastings.demon.co.uk...
Byecats
list and unnamed site were taken down on May 12, the same day Tomlinson
posted his affidavit. Tomlinson was then named as the disseminator of that
list, which is false. The only names on his site were those in his
affidavit. Only problem is the plan backfired. Instead of censoring his
site, they drew attention to it. Instead of discrediting Tomlinson, they
encouraged thousands to search for more information on him, where they
learned the details of his May 12 affidavit regarding the M16/Diana angle.
The affidavit, which Kevin posted, was in fact sworn on May 12 and posted
to his site on May 12. I'm not claiming anything. This is a fact.
geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in article
<7hpi7i$k7o$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
geoff steuart
Byecats wrote in message <01bea201$60fe5420$6ebe1004@baressfa>...
>No, I don't agree. There was nothing on his site to justify censorship. The
>list and unnamed site were taken down on May 12, the same day Tomlinson
>posted his affidavit. Tomlinson was then named as the disseminator of that
>list, which is false. The only names on his site were those in his
>affidavit. Only problem is the plan backfired. Instead of censoring his
>site, they drew attention to it. Instead of discrediting Tomlinson, they
>encouraged thousands to search for more information on him, where they
>learned the details of his May 12 affidavit regarding the M16/Diana angle.
>
>The affidavit, which Kevin posted, was in fact sworn on May 12 and posted
>to his site on May 12. I'm not claiming anything. This is a fact.
>
>geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in article
Last month, Richard Tomlinson was threatening to put a list of MI6 agents on
his website based in Switzerland. The UK government acted and got an order
against him on the 30th April. The website came down.
Tomlinson was also prevented by Geocities from publishing his information,
after they heard about the action in Switzerland in the first week of May.
This was happening days and weeks BEFORE the affidavit was even sworn.
The answer to your question "Was the real reason the site was wiped because
of this affidavit?" is of course 'no'. How can you not agree?
Your reply is simply a repeat of your original error. You imply that the
censorship, removal of websites occured on the 12th. This, as you must see
from above, is not true.
Geoff.
John Bartram
geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7husta$7fb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
> Byecats wrote in message <01bea201$60fe5420$6ebe1004@baressfa>...
> >No, I don't agree. There was nothing on his site to justify censorship.
The
> >list and unnamed site were taken down on May 12, the same day Tomlinson
> >posted his affidavit. Tomlinson was then named as the disseminator of
that
> >list, which is false. The only names on his site were those in his
> >affidavit. Only problem is the plan backfired. Instead of censoring his
> >site, they drew attention to it. Instead of discrediting Tomlinson, they
> >encouraged thousands to search for more information on him, where they
> >learned the details of his May 12 affidavit regarding the M16/Diana
angle.
> >
> >The affidavit, which Kevin posted, was in fact sworn on May 12 and posted
> >to his site on May 12. I'm not claiming anything. This is a fact.
> >
> >geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in article
>
> Last month, Richard Tomlinson was threatening to put a list of MI6 agents
on
> his website based in Switzerland. The UK government acted and got an
order
> against him on the 30th April. The website came down.
>
> Tomlinson was also prevented by Geocities from publishing his information,
> after they heard about the action in Switzerland in the first week of May.
> This was happening days and weeks BEFORE the affidavit was even sworn.
*****************************************
I think this is unclear, Geoff, as the Geocities site did not contain the
"SIS" lists. I think that the Swiss site had no list also, but I am sure the
latter did not. The actions to close the two sites was, I believe,
pre-emptive. On this basis, I would say it is speculative to say, as you
did, that "Tomlinson was also prevented by Geocities from publishing his
information". Maybe he would have, maybe not. I know he threatened to and in
the view of the UK government, that was sufficient.
*****************************************
> The answer to your question "Was the real reason the site was wiped
because
> of this affidavit?" is of course 'no'. How can you not agree?
>
*****************************************
Bearing in mind the above, we cannot be certain, no matter how sure we may
feel, as to the motive of the UK government. I agree it is reasonable to
suppose the site was closed to avoid the list disclosure, but this issue
appears blurred. I am not sure we know the whole story, or the motives.
Personally, I believe RT's denial in publishing the list, but I know I could
be well and truly wrong. The night it appeared, I was playing a murder
mystery game and everyone missed the murderer. It shook my confidence.
*****************************************
> Your reply is simply a repeat of your original error. You imply that the
> censorship, removal of websites occured on the 12th. This, as you must
see
> from above, is not true.
>
> Geoff.
You seem to be correct, Geoff. I do not know the date of the removal of the
Swiss site, but it was before 12 May.
It does seem possible to me that - as I do not believe RT published either
list and despite circumstantial evidence against that (which RT admits to) -
the lists were released for a number of possible motives. For example: EIR
to stir the pot and get PR; Fayed for same reasons, and perhaps with EIR;
foreign (non-UK) agencies to harm the SIS/UK; or even elements within the UK
S&I establishments, for their own, obscure purposes, including as a
smokescreen for RT's testimony. Timings become confused if one admits that
RT's comms were monitored (as they seem to have been) and his actions
anticipated.
Its seems a dog's dinner of a mess.
geoff steuart
John Bartram wrote in message ...
>Comments follow:
>geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:7husta$7fb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>*****************************************
>I think this is unclear, Geoff, as the Geocities site did not contain the
the
>latter did not. The actions to close the two sites was, I believe,
>pre-emptive. On this basis, I would say it is speculative to say, as you
>did, that "Tomlinson was also prevented by Geocities from publishing his
>information". Maybe he would have, maybe not. I know he threatened to and
in
>the view of the UK government, that was sufficient.
>*****************************************
>Bearing in mind the above, we cannot be certain, no matter how sure we may
>feel, as to the motive of the UK government. I agree it is reasonable to
>suppose the site was closed to avoid the list disclosure, but this issue
>appears blurred. I am not sure we know the whole story, or the motives.
>Personally, I believe RT's denial in publishing the list, but I know I
could
>be well and truly wrong. The night it appeared, I was playing a murder
>mystery game and everyone missed the murderer. It shook my confidence.
>*****************************************
>You seem to be correct, Geoff. I do not know the date of the removal of the
>Swiss site, but it was before 12 May.
>It does seem possible to me that - as I do not believe RT published either
>list and despite circumstantial evidence against that (which RT admits
to) -
>the lists were released for a number of possible motives. For example: EIR
>to stir the pot and get PR; Fayed for same reasons, and perhaps with EIR;
>foreign (non-UK) agencies to harm the SIS/UK; or even elements within the
UK
>S&I establishments, for their own, obscure purposes, including as a
>smokescreen for RT's testimony. Timings become confused if one admits that
>RT's comms were monitored (as they seem to have been) and his actions
>anticipated.
>
>Its seems a dog's dinner of a mess.
>
>
On the timing of this crisis, I know I'm correct because I have a BBC report
which confirms it that way. I also have an interesting ditty from the BBC
interview with Tomlinson,
"My Swiss site was up for about a day before MI6 obtained an injunction. My
first Geocities site lasted about a weekend before MI6 found it. My second
Geocities site lasted about a week. None of these sites contained the list
that is causing all the fuss."
(Wednesday, May 19, 1999 BBC)
Byecats can not be correct, when they infer the affidavit and the
information contained within, are the reasons for closing the site.
Tomlinson helps us to get a clearer understanding of what the UK governments
motivations may be. He tells us that the 'list' was not at any of the
websites. It therefore took the mere 'threat' of publishing the names that
swung MI6 and the government into action.
As for Tomlinsons denials about publication, I believe him.
Tomlinson didn't publish them because he didn't need to, he had already
passed them to a third person who passed them onto EIR.
Geoff.
John Bartram
>
> John Bartram wrote in message ...
> >Comments follow:
> >geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:7husta$7fb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> ><snip>
> >*****************************************
> >I think this is unclear, Geoff, as the Geocities site did not contain the
> the
Thanks for the details regarding the sites: I was not aware of either the
recent nature of RT's Swiss site (I knew about another Swiss site which
contained a page on RT), or that there were 2 Geocities sites.
I suspect that you are at least partly right in the role played by a middle
man. The spelling of some of the names in the EIR lists appears to be
phonetic. I can imagine Fayed, for example, relaying to EIR a tape recording
containing some names.
One aspect of both lists that does not ring true with me is the way they ape
the Diplomatic List, in listing diplomatic postings, with dates, and putting
in Date of Birth. Nobody would remember detail like that. It seems to me the
list was partly constructed from this openly-available source. If one
accepts that the "SIS" lists have an element of construction about them,
then the question of authorship becomes open.
Andrew Steven Reed
Dear Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Steven Reed [mailto:asr...@lastings.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 17 May 1999 21:54
> To: spe...@worldcom.ch
> Subject: War
>
>
> Richard -
> I hear that the EIR list is not from you and that you have said that it
> contains no active agents. I note that the postings-distribution shows
> a strong Balkan-east Med bias (see my comments on acpd) Since the list
> is, in a sense at least, a spoof - but a very informed spoof - is it not
> likely that it was posted to EIR by SIS - in order to discredit you and,
> possibly, MAF also?
I think this is at least possible. What puzzles me about the list is
that
all the names I know are retired, resigned or widely "blown". So MI6
have
not lost much, if anything. Also, why did they give the list credibility
by
announcing that it was "real", shout about it by issuing D-notices, and
then
try to "censor" the website. There could be no better strategy to ensure
that this "leak" was widely publicised. If they had really wanted to
"limit
damage", they would have got a minor foreign office spokesman to dismiss
it
as a "fantasy" (like they have done with everything else I have said
about
MI6), then post a few "fake" lists on the web to get everybody confused.
>
> If the postings distribution reflects MI6 agent-distribution accurately,
> does this not indicate that SIS has been working to destabilise the
> Balkans for some time (among other things, arming the KLA to prompt Serb
> retaliation which could be used as an excuse to invade)?
I can't comment specifically, but in general terms MI6 and CIA spend a
lot
of time producing "intelligence" to justify western foreign policy.
>
>
In article <7hvcgd$mim$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, geoff steuart
<ste...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>John Bartram wrote in message ...
>>Comments follow:
>>geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:7husta$7fb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>><snip>
>>*****************************************
>>I think this is unclear, Geoff, as the Geocities site did not contain the
>>"SIS" lists. I think that the Swiss site had no list also, but I am sure
>the
>>latter did not. The actions to close the two sites was, I believe,
>>pre-emptive.
>Tomlinson didn't publish them because he didn't need to, he had already
>passed them to a third person who passed them onto EIR.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Andrew Steven Reed
Kevin Warren
Andrew Steven Reed wrote:
> In article <373FC313...@relaypoint.net>, Kevin Warren
> <kwa...@relaypoint.net> writes
> >AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD TOMLINSON
> >
> >
> > I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva,
> >Switzerland hereby declare:
> >
> > 1.. I firmly believe that there exist documents
> >held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would
> > yield important new evidence into the cause and
> >circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales,
> > Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in
> >August 1997.
> >
> > 2.. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991
> >and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents
> > that I believe would provide new evidence and new
> >leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard
> > various rumours which though I was not able to see
> >supporting documents I am confident were based on
> > solid fact.
> >
> > 3.. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern
> >European Controllerate
>
> "Controllerate" does not look like an authentic term to me.
I don't see any problem with the term. I have seen it before, although I
think the word "Directorate" would more probably be used.
>
>
> > of MI6 and I was peripherally
> > involved in a large and complicated operation to
> >smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating
> > and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.
It would be interesting to know where those weapons were going, and to who!
> >During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on
> > this operation. These files contain a wide
> >miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports,
> > photographs etc, from which it was possible to build
> >up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation
> > involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6.
> >On more than one occasion, meetings between various
> > figures in the operation took place at the Ritz
> >Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several
The Ritz pops up again. It seems the Ritz, for some time, has been a hotbed
of intrigue.
This undoubtedly is a direct challenge to Judge Stephan. If he doesn't make
a concerted effort to get those files, then we know he is in on the
coverup. Also, Stephan won't be able to claim later on that he saw no
evidence that HP was on the MI6 dole.
Tomlinson conveniently leaves out any mention of SR111. The unspoken
implication is that the circumstances surrounding the crash of the plane,
which Tomlinson was suppose to be on, although I am sure he knows was meant
to be a warning to him to keep quiet or else, backfired. Tomlinson is
sending a clear message, by not mentioning SR111, that he won't be
intimidated.
There is no doubt that it is authentic. I got it off of Tomlinson's
original web site, which I mirrored before the plug was finally pulled.
There is no doubt in my mind the web site was closed down because of the
afffidavit, and not the so-called "spy list" which Tomlinson claims he didn't
wiite, and which at any rate WAS NEVER PUBLISHED ON HIS SITE. Tomlinson had
merely stated that he MIGHT name names. But he didn't name them on his web
site (except of course for the 12 MI6 officers named in his affidavit). To
me the British made a big mistake. By making a big deal out of the spy list,
real or fake, they gave Tomlinson worldwide publicity, and have caused people
around the world to search the net for more information about him. I think
this is good for the forces of truth. Also, Tomlinson has once again
appeared on televison here. After SR111, he vanished from tv here in the
States. But yesterday public television rebroadcast parts of an interview he
gave for a Geneva station. All in all I think the flap over the spy list was
a big plus.
Kevin Warren
http://www.anaserve.com/~wethepeople/diforum.htm
Kevin Warren
John Bartram wrote:
> geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:7hvcgd$mim$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> >
> > John Bartram wrote in message ...
> > >Comments follow:
> > >geoff steuart <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:7husta$7fb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > ><snip>
> > >*****************************************
> > >I think this is unclear, Geoff, as the Geocities site did not contain the
> > >"SIS" lists. I think that the Swiss site had no list also, but I am sure
> > the
> > >latter did not. The actions to close the two sites was, I believe,
> > Tomlinson didn't publish them because he didn't need to, he had already
> > passed them to a third person who passed them onto EIR.
> >
> > Geoff.
>
> Thanks for the details regarding the sites: I was not aware of either the
> recent nature of RT's Swiss site (I knew about another Swiss site which
> contained a page on RT), or that there were 2 Geocities sites.
>
> I suspect that you are at least partly right in the role played by a middle
> man. The spelling of some of the names in the EIR lists appears to be
> phonetic. I can imagine Fayed, for example, relaying to EIR a tape recording
> containing some names.
>
> One aspect of both lists that does not ring true with me is the way they ape
> the Diplomatic List, in listing diplomatic postings, with dates, and putting
> in Date of Birth. Nobody would remember detail like that. It seems to me the
> list was partly constructed from this openly-available source. If one
> accepts that the "SIS" lists have an element of construction about them,
> then the question of authorship becomes open.
For whatever its worth, I remember reading someone who said that a similar
list, although not quite as extensive, had been published in a magazine (can't
remember the name), thirteen years ago. Apparently a great majority of the
names had been published in one form or another previous to this "outing."
Kevin Warren
http://www.anaserve.com/~wethepeople/diforum.htm
Trevjon
<kwa...@relaypoint.net> writes:
>> > of MI6 and I was peripherally
>> > involved in a large and complicated operation to
>> >smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating
>> > and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.
>
>It would be interesting to know where those weapons were going, and to who!
They were probably going to no-one, but were to be used to evaluate the Russian
technology.
This is where the terminology gets a bit suspect. I personaly have experience
of Russian avionics, although not specifically weapons systems. These could
not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as "advanced", unless the
term was being used in a relative term.
As an example, the current upgrade of MiG 29's, which is not due to be
completed until 2002, utilises Intel 486 chips. These can hardly be described
as "state of the art".
Trevjon.
Tab One
>
> In article <3741FE96...@relaypoint.net>, Kevin Warren
> <kwa...@relaypoint.net> writes:
>
> >> > of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to
> >> >smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.> >
> >It would be interesting to know where those weapons were going, and to who!
>
> technology.
>
> This is where the terminology gets a bit suspect.
Why suspect? Do *YOU* know what he is describing as weaponry? I don't
think so. He could have been referring to the finely engineered and
reliable, Russian underwater machine guns and fully auto hand guns.
> I personaly have experience
> of Russian avionics, although not specifically weapons systems. These could
> not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as "advanced", unless the
> term was being used in a relative term.
I personally have a great deal of experience with CURRENT Russian
surveillance equipment, and I don't mean the flea market night vision
crap that hunters are buying. Some of it is far superior to anything
made in the West. 'Serious' Russian long range optics are superb. Other
surveillance equipment is the equal of anything made in the West.
Russia has always gone for practical solutions, whereas the West have
just gone for solutions. Just because it costs ten times more to make,
does not make it better.
The only surveillance field they are behind in is multi-line (64 or
more) telephone monitoring and computer analysis of those phone lines.
The Danes are the 'Brand Leaders' in that field.
>
> As an example, the current upgrade of MiG 29's, which is not due to be
> completed until 2002, utilises Intel 486 chips. These can hardly be described
> as "state of the art".
But they can be described as very cost effective, readily available and
reliable.
>
> Trevjon.
tab1
Trevjon
writes:
>> They were probably going to no-one, but were to be used to evaluate the
>Russian
>> technology.
>>
>> This is where the terminology gets a bit suspect.
>
>Why suspect? Do *YOU* know what he is describing as weaponry? I don't
>think so. He could have been referring to the finely engineered and
>reliable, Russian underwater machine guns and fully auto hand guns.
He could be, but this sort of weaponry has always been available to the west,
via its many "satelitte" states. In the falklands the SAS used many weapons
designed for Soviet special forces. Many soviet weapons were , of course, made
in (or at least designed in ) Czechoslovakia.
>> I personaly have experience
>> of Russian avionics, although not specifically weapons systems. These
>could
>> not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as "advanced", unless
>the
>> term was being used in a relative term.
>
>I personally have a great deal of experience with CURRENT Russian
Why do you think my knowledge is not current?
>surveillance equipment, and I don't mean the flea market night vision
>crap that hunters are buying. Some of it is far superior to anything
>made in the West. 'Serious' Russian long range optics are superb. Other
>surveillance equipment is the equal of anything made in the West.
>Russia has always gone for practical solutions, whereas the West have
>just gone for solutions. Just because it costs ten times more to make,
>does not make it better.
The best "russian" (or soviet) optical equipment was always East German anyway.
I don't think any of the above fits into what anyone could regard as "advanced
weapon systems"
>The only surveillance field they are behind in is multi-line (64 or
>more) telephone monitoring and computer analysis of those phone lines.
>The Danes are the 'Brand Leaders' in that field.
You mean Swedish, surely?
And if Tomlinson had been trying to smuggle surveillence equipment, then why
not describe it as such?
>
>>
>> As an example, the current upgrade of MiG 29's, which is not due to be
>> completed until 2002, utilises Intel 486 chips. These can hardly be
>described
>> as "state of the art".
>
>But they can be described as very cost effective, readily available and
>reliable.
They can, true, but that hardly fits into the cateorgory of "advanced weapon
systems", now, does it?
Trevjon.
Tab One
>
> In article <3745F923...@pineland.net>, Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
> writes:
>
> >> They were probably going to no-one, but were to be used to evaluate the
> >Russian
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> This is where the terminology gets a bit suspect.
> >
> >Why suspect? Do *YOU* know what he is describing as weaponry? I don't
> >think so. He could have been referring to the finely engineered and
> >reliable, Russian underwater machine guns and fully auto hand guns.
>
> He could be, but this sort of weaponry has always been available to the west,
> via its many "satelitte" states. In the falklands the SAS used many weapons
> designed for Soviet special forces. Many soviet weapons were , of course, made
> in (or at least designed in ) Czechoslovakia.
>
> >> I personaly have experience
> >> of Russian avionics, although not specifically weapons systems. These
> >could
> >> not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as "advanced", unless
> >the
> >> term was being used in a relative term.
> >
> >I personally have a great deal of experience with CURRENT Russian
>
> Why do you think my knowledge is not current?
So, your knowledge on Russian surveillance equipment is current, did I
say it was not?
>
> >surveillance equipment, and I don't mean the flea market night vision
> >crap that hunters are buying. Some of it is far superior to anything
> >made in the West. 'Serious' Russian long range optics are superb. Other
> >surveillance equipment is the equal of anything made in the West.
> >Russia has always gone for practical solutions, whereas the West have
> >just gone for solutions. Just because it costs ten times more to make,
> >does not make it better.
>
> The best "russian" (or soviet) optical equipment was always East German anyway.
Oh really?
>
> I don't think any of the above fits into what anyone could regard as "advanced
> weapon systems"
>
> >The only surveillance field they are behind in is multi-line (64 or
> >more) telephone monitoring and computer analysis of those phone lines.
> >The Danes are the 'Brand Leaders' in that field.
>
> You mean Swedish, surely?
No, Danish! If I had meant out dated Swedish equipment, I would have
said so.
>
> And if Tomlinson had been trying to smuggle surveillence equipment, then why not describe it as such?
Who said he was smuggling surveillance equipment? I certainly did not.
I was just countering your denigration, by inference, of Russian
technology.
>
> >
> >>
> >> As an example, the current upgrade of MiG 29's, which is not due to be
> >> completed until 2002, utilises Intel 486 chips. These can hardly be
> >described
> >> as "state of the art".
> >
> >But they can be described as very cost effective, readily available and
> >reliable.
>
> They can, true, but that hardly fits into the cateorgory of "advanced weapon systems", now, does it?
You have a major problem with reading, don't you. Again, I was just
countering your denigration, etc.
>
> Trevjon.
Tab1
Trevjon
writes:
>So, your knowledge on Russian surveillance equipment is current, did I
>say it was not?
Please point out to me where I stated that I had any knowledge at all of soviet
surveillance equipment, current or otherwise.
If you had read my original post correctly (which is something you advised me
to do) you would have clearly seen that I stated that I have personal knowledge
of Russian Avionics, though not specifically weapons systems.
Your capitalising of the word Current inferred that my knowledge was not
current. I can assure you that it is.
Your points about Russian technology are noted, as is your definition of
"weaponry", but again I question the term "advanced", unless, as I previously
stated, it was being used in a relative sense.
Because something is "the best", it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the
most advanced. The AK-47 is, in most peoples eyes, the best assault rifle in
the world. Nobody in their right mind would describe it as "advanced", however.
The SA-80 is probably the most advanced Rifle in general use by any army in
the world today. It is a dog, however, and its innovative design features, and
its use of plastics, render it an unreliable weapon, in some circumstances.
As you stated, the Russians excell at making good, simple devices. It was the
use of the word "advanced" that I was querying, that is all.
Trevjon.
Tab One
Re: Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson
Date:
Sat, 22 May 1999 17:24:58 -0400
From:
Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
To:
Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam>
References:
1 , 2
Trevjon wrote:
>
> In article <3746F46F...@pineland.net>, Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
> writes:
>
> >So, your knowledge on Russian surveillance equipment is current, did I
> >say it was not?
>
> Please point out to me where I stated that I had any knowledge at all of soviet
> surveillance equipment, current or otherwise.
Well, I said this;
>I personally have a great deal of experience with CURRENT Russian
you cut in and said this;
"Why do you think my knowledge is not current?"
Then you left in this;
>surveillance equipment, and I don't mean the flea market night vision
>crap that hunters are buying.
Which reads, to simple 'ol me as;
"Why do you think my knowledge is not current regarding surveillance
equipment, and I don't mean the flea market night vision crap that
hunters are buying?"
>
> If you had read my original post correctly (which is something you advised me
> to do) you would have clearly seen that I stated that I have personal knowledge
> of Russian Avionics, though not specifically weapons systems.
>
> Your capitalising of the word Current inferred that my knowledge was not
> current. I can assure you that it is.
Your understanding of current Russian avionics may be 100%, but your
understanding of written english is not. Maybe if you were to first
read, then pause, then think, then reply we would not be wasting each
others time now.
> Your points about Russian technology are noted, as is your definition of
> "weaponry", but again I question the term "advanced", unless, as I previously
> stated, it was being used in a relative sense.
>
> Because something is "the best", it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the
> most advanced.
And I said this, where?
> The AK-47 is, in most peoples eyes, the best assault rifle in the world. Nobody in their right mind would describe it as "advanced", however.
In 1947, it really was advanced. And given a choice of what to carry,
the AK-47 as made for domestic use in China is not bad, but I preferred
(and still prefer) an MP-5. And please do not correct me as to what
(your) the definition of an assault rifle is.
> The SA-80 is probably the most advanced Rifle in general use by any army in
> the world today. It is a dog, however, and its innovative design features, and
> its use of plastics, render it an unreliable weapon, in some circumstances.
A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some circumstances" too. Why do you
feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
> As you stated, the Russians excell at making good, simple devices. It was the
> use of the word "advanced" that I was querying, that is all.
Oh!
No more comments about the Danish DNR-ENI computerised kit?
>
> Trevjon.
Have a nice day
The sun is shining, it's 92 degrees, and I am going down to my pond to
compare my MP-5 and my AK-47 with my SA-80.
tab1
tony
Tab One wrote in message
<374721DE...@pineland.net>...
Gentlemen, geltnleman, the word anorak comes to
mind :o))
(and I dont mean the new ones with the fancy
toggles)
Tab One
> >A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some
> circumstances" too. Why do you
> >feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
> >
> >> As you stated, the Russians excell at making
> good, simple devices. It was the
> >> use of the word "advanced" that I was querying,
> that is all.
> >
> >Oh!
> >
> >No more comments about the Danish DNR-ENI
> computerised kit?
> >
> >>
> >> Trevjon.
> >
> >Have a nice day
> >
> >The sun is shining, it's 92 degrees, and I am
> going down to my pond to
> >compare my MP-5 and my AK-47 with my SA-80.
> >
> >tab1
>
> Gentlemen, geltnleman, the word anorak comes to
> mind :o))
>
> (and I dont mean the new ones with the fancy
> toggles)
I keep forgetting, you guys still live in the land where you willingly
gave up the right to legally own firearms, so that only criminals and
the police could carry guns! No more firearm related crime. Oh, yeah,
right. Worked in N.I. too, didn't it!
tab1<happily living in Georgia where everybody has guns>
tony
Tab One wrote in message
Oh dear, you just blew any shreds of credibility
there. Unless of course youre being ironic, but as
thats an asset that Americans are famously lacking
I'll assume not.
Just go and take a look at the figures of armed
crime, or ANY sort, and if you can tell me that
Georgia had less incidents that the entire United
Kingdom I'll apologise. Sorry, though cant include
NI, after all only the USA can start a war without
incurring casualties, but you might find that
Georgia runs it close even if you did.
John Bartram
in a year.
How many Americans are killed with handguns each year? Then compare that
figure with the number killed in Viet Nam. Keep your guns, you're doing a
great job.
Tab One <ta...@pineland.net> wrote in message
news:37474DA3...@pineland.net...
tony
Thanks John
John Bartram wrote in message ...
Andrew Steven Reed
Yes, exactly.
>
>>
>>
>> > of MI6 and I was peripherally
>> > involved in a large and complicated operation to
>> >smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating
>> > and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.
>
>It would be interesting to know where those weapons were going, and to who!
>
To Zagreb and Sarajevo via Budapest, perhaps. Tudjman (Croat breakaway
leader) certainly received arms shipments via Hungary at this time. The
American Ambassador in Zagreb denies involvement; but (Clinton's Trade
Secretary) Ron Brown's shipments, shortly after, to Bosnia, are known to
have been funded by CIA drug-monies. MAF is said to have bought ex-
Warsaw Pact weaponry during this period also - this was the information
which RT said MI6's agent at the Ritz (HP?) had passed to London, was it
not?
--
Andrew Steven Reed
Trevjon
writes:
>> The AK-47 is, in most peoples eyes, the best assault rifle in the world.
>Nobody in their right mind would describe it as "advanced", however.
>
>In 1947, it really was advanced. And given a choice of what to carry,
>the AK-47 as made for domestic use in China is not bad, but I preferred
>(and still prefer) an MP-5. And please do not correct me as to what
>(your) the definition of an assault rifle is.
In 1947 it may have been advanced, but it was also heavy and very unreliable (
the rivets tended to work loose when it had been fired a few times). Its
original sight was also so inaccurate as to be useless. It took many
modifications until the "standard" that we know today was reached, in about
1959.
An MP-5 can hardly be compared to an AK-47, as that really is like comparing a
"Rolls Royce" to a mass produced family runabout car. The Heckler and Koch is
a very specialised weapon favoured by law enforcement and special services. I
am not aware of it being in "general issue" with any of the worlds armies. I
do agree that it is an excellent weapon though, and whilst not wanting to argue
about various terms to do with "assault rifles" etc, you may be interested to
know that H & K classify it as a "machine Carbine" (whatever that is!!).
The SA-80, of course, is also designed and manufactured by H & K, although
nowadays they are owned by British Aerospace.
Trevjon.
Trevjon
<<<Snip petty disagreement stuff>>>>
>Which reads, to simple 'ol me as;
Well, you said it (the simple bit, that is). I think it just a case of "you
say Tomatoes, and I say Tomatoes" :-)
>
<<<snip>>>
>
>And I said this, where?
In your post (go back and read it if you don't believe me) where you stated
that "some of it ( the russian stuff) is far superior to anything made in the
west"
Agreed you didn't actually use the word "best", but pray explain any other
conclusion one might tend to arrive at from this sentence!
>
<<<<SNIP>>>>
>A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some circumstances" too. Why do you
>feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
Because I have learnt by previous experience that to just pass off my opinion
in a NG, without fully qualifying it, tends to cause lots of replies merely
arguing over the opinion, and totally missing the point and failing to
recognise when something is being used as an example to qualify, or
demonstrate, a point, rather than to elicit a reaction. It therefore came as a
suprise to me that you, with your supposed greater command of the english
language, should not realise this, and therefore feel a need to comment.
Another reason is that the SA-80 is the standard weapon for the British army.It
is not intended to be the "Rolls Royce", but just the "family runabout". In a
European climate it is superb, and has advantages of lightness, accuracy and
firepower over many of its rivals. In a more hostile environment, such as a
desert or an area of high humidity, it requires far more maintenence than is
possible, to keep its performance anything like it should be. Its technological
advantages are therefore only applicable "in some circumstances". Now do you
understand, or would you prefer me to illustrate it in another way that "simple
ole you" might not find so taxing on the old grey matter!
>
>
>Have a nice day
I will try!
>
>The sun is shining, it's 92 degrees, and I am going down to my pond to
The sun is shining here also, its not 92 degrees, and I'm probably off down the
pub!!
>compare my MP-5 and my AK-47 with my SA-80.
>
>tab1
>
Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot :-)
Trevjon.
Tab One
>
> Tab One wrote in message
> >tony wrote:
> >>
> >> Tab One wrote in message
> >> <374721DE...@pineland.net>...
> >> >Subject:
> >
> >
> >
> land where you willingly
> >gave up the right to legally own firearms, so
> that only criminals and
> >the police could carry guns! No more firearm
> related crime. Oh, yeah,
> >right. Worked in N.I. too, didn't it!
> >
> >tab1<happily living in Georgia where everybody has guns>
>
> there. Unless of course youre being ironic, but as
> thats an asset that Americans are famously lacking
> I'll assume not.
Two things, no three things; One, I was not looking for credibility
here there or anywhere as I already have enough credibility, Two, I am
a Brit, and three, it is ironic that you wish not to compare before the
hand gun ban stats and post hand gun stats, but the UK with the USA.
Have you not heard of comparing Apples with Apples?
>
> Just go and take a look at the figures of armed
> crime, or ANY sort, and if you can tell me that
> Georgia had less incidents that the entire United
> Kingdom I'll apologise.
> Sorry, though cant include
> NI,
Even air weapons are banned there, lot of good that does. "Oh please
Mr. Terrorist, please surrender your weapons, we are asking nicely, we
have released some of your soldiers like you asked, and we promise not
to say nasty things about you, so please surrender your guns, you are
making Mr. Blurr look really, really silly.?"
> after all only the USA can start a war without
> incurring casualties,
What the fuck does this mean?
> but you might find that
> Georgia runs it close even if you did.
BTW, can't include NI? When did it secede? Is it going to be removed
from being mentioned on my passport any day soon?
Banning weapons, any weapons, means only honest people will abide by the
ban. Guns are the only commodity that INCREASES in value once stolen.
tab1
Tab One
Then we went to the Russian's not having any advanced weapons, then from
there Trevjon mistakenly mentioned the Swedes and went on to state that
the AK-47 was the preferred so called assault rifle, then I made an
aside about going to my pond to do a side by side comparison with other
semi automatic rifles that I own. Now we are into "Your bad guys kill
more than our bad guys, but don't include our REALLY bad guys, because I
reminded you that your HONEST residents quietly (comparatively) sold
their hand guns to the Home Office. Many of whom are still waiting to
get paid!
Let us continue;
John Bartram wrote:
>
> At the height of the "Troubles", LA had more murders in a week that Ulster
> in a year.
> How many Americans are killed with handguns each year? Then compare that
> figure with the number killed in Viet Nam. Keep your guns, you're doing a
> great job.
>
Thank you I shall, and yes, I think I am doing a great job, but how did
you know?
Again with the knee jerk comparisons.
How many killings in NI were with legally owned weapons?
How many killings in LA (I presume you mean Los Angeles and not
Louisiana also know as LA) were with legally owned weapons.
Neither of us can be certain, but I am guessing roughly the same number.
Viet Nam? Were you in Viet Nam? I was not. NI, oh yes, and carrying a
weapon or two. Even slept with one.
Tab One
>
> Nice to see soembody posting facts for a change.
> Thanks John
>
> John Bartram wrote in message ...
> murders in a week that Ulster
> >in a year.
> >How many Americans are killed with handguns each
> year? Then compare that
> >figure with the number killed in Viet Nam. Keep
> your guns, you're doing a great job.
> >
bitter retoric.
Two questions from me to you.
Now that there are no legally held hand guns (excluding BP) in the UK,
how come there is still armed crime in the UK?
And, what was the benefit of the ban?
But first, some facts.
All that happened was, those law abiding residents of the UK that
conformed to Chapter 27, of the 1968 Firearms Act, were pilloried and
made to feel outcasts because one person in Scotland, who did not
conform to said requirements, was granted and allowed to renew his FAC.
If the Scottish Police had done what was required by Chapter 27, he
would never have been granted and then subsequently renewed an FAC. For
this failure of the Dunblane Plod, many children needlesly died, and
over 1,000,000 honest people lost there hobby, some lost valuable
collections and historic artifacts.
tab1<I suppose I would be bitter too, if I had to return to the
agression of the UK.>
This thread is now, IMO, a lost cause.
Tab One
> >Nobody in their right mind would describe it as "advanced", however.
You wrote that, not me!
> >
> >In 1947, it really was advanced. And given a choice of what to carry,
> >the AK-47 as made for domestic use in China is not bad, but I preferred
> >(and still prefer) an MP-5. And please do not correct me as to what
> >(your) the definition of an assault rifle is.
>
> In 1947 it may have been advanced, but it was also heavy and very unreliable > (the rivets tended to work loose when it had been fired a few times). Its
> original sight was also so inaccurate as to be useless. It took many
> modifications until the "standard" that we know today was reached, in about
> 1959.
Oh?
>
> An MP-5 can hardly be compared to an AK-47, as that really is like comparing a
> "Rolls Royce" to a mass produced family runabout car. The Heckler and Koch is
> a very specialised weapon favoured by law enforcement and special services.
Who are you directing this at? I have examples of both weapons. I still
prefer to carry an MP-5.
> I am not aware of it being in "general issue" with any of the worlds armies. I
> do agree that it is an excellent weapon though, and whilst not wanting to argue
> about various terms to do with "assault rifles" etc, you may be interested to
> know that H & K classify it as a "machine Carbine" (whatever that is!!).
It is an American term meaning semi automatic loading short rifle.
Americans being the largest buyers of these useful tools.
> The SA-80, of course, is also designed and manufactured by H & K, although
> nowadays they are owned by British Aerospace.
? ? ?
>
> Trevjon.
Still not sure what that airing of you opinions was all about.
tab1
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>tony wrote:
>>
>> Tab One wrote in message
>> <37474DA3...@pineland.net>...
>> >tony wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Tab One wrote in message
>> >> <374721DE...@pineland.net>...
>> >> >Subject:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I keep forgetting, you guys still live in the
>> land where you willingly
>> >gave up the right to legally own firearms, so
>> that only criminals and
>> >the police could carry guns! No more firearm
>> related crime. Oh, yeah,
>> >right. Worked in N.I. too, didn't it!
>> >
has guns>
>>
Weren't the words clear enough for you ? What it
means my little half-wit is that only the USA can
start start a war without incurring casualties.
It's like this. the most tooled up nation in the
world puts its size 12's into a situation 7 years
too late but darent risk any of its own nations
lives in case it loses votes. But then when did a
teenage nation like the US ever understand grown
up issues that are older than it? Guns fall right
into that category too my friend.
You patently show a complete lack of understanding
of the NI situation. A good start to reducing
terrorist weapons would be for the stupid
Americans that have some fantasy that they are
actually Irish to stop supporting NORAID that pays
for these guns and bombs.
NI politics isn't about politics, or religion, or
self rule. It's about MOB RULE. A bit like the
Mafia running Naples. The "Nationalists" want this
power, and the "Unionists" will be buggered if
they will let them have it. QED stalemate and
conflict because neither will back down. If
Americans stop providing weapons it might help a
little.
>> but you might find that
>> Georgia runs it close even if you did.
>
>BTW, can't include NI? When did it secede? Is
it going to be removed
>from being mentioned on my passport any day soon?
>
>Banning weapons, any weapons, means only honest
people will abide by the
>ban. Guns are the only commodity that INCREASES
in value once stolen.
>
>tab1
Elsewhere in this thread, Trevjon provides the
informaiton that I was too lazy to look up about
gun crime comparisons for NI, and in this instance
LA.
What has the value of weapons got to do with it,
and do you even understand your own words? If the
value of weapons increases, it reduces the demand,
and therefore the supply. Whats your answer? Make
guns cheaper so everyone can kill someone without
having to steal one first ? Idiot.
When 14 year olds can get their hands on guns you
get massacres by schoolchildren. I dont remember
the last one we had one of those in the UK. I dont
remember the last Waco siege either. Also I dont
remember the last time we had NORAID on the
streets raising money so that terrorists can kill
and maim ordinary innocent people. No my friend,
all these things happen in the land of the free.
The ironic thing is though, youre not free are you
because its just too damned scary to go outside
any more without a gun!!!!
Tab One
>
> >Which reads, to simple 'ol me as;
>
> Well, you said it (the simple bit, that is). I think it just a case of "you
> say Tomatoes, and I say Tomatoes" :-)
Actually, I do.
> >
> <<<snip>>>
> >
> >And I said this, where?
>
> In your post (go back and read it if you don't believe me) where you stated
> that "some of it ( the russian stuff) is far superior to anything made in the
> west"
I was talking about covert surveillance equipment. Still am.
> Agreed you didn't actually use the word "best", but pray explain any other
> conclusion one might tend to arrive at from this sentence!
From one Brit to another, your understanding of English needs some work.
For instance, a Ford is far superior to a Yugo, but it is hardly the
best, now is it?
> >
> <<<<SNIP>>>>
>
> >A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some circumstances" too. Why do you
> >feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
>
> Because I have learnt by previous experience that to just pass off my opinion
> in a NG, without fully qualifying it, tends to cause lots of replies merely
> arguing over the opinion, and totally missing the point and failing to
> recognise when something is being used as an example to qualify, or
> demonstrate, a point, rather than to elicit a reaction. It therefore came as a
> suprise to me that you, with your supposed greater command of the english
> language, should not realise this, and therefore feel a need to comment.
I certainly do not make the spelling mistake you do. I also do not fall
into the grammatical cock-ups you do either.
>
>[patronising crap snipped]
>
> >
> >Have a nice day
>
> I will try!
>
> >
> >The sun is shining, it's 92 degrees, and I am going down to my pond to
>
> The sun is shining here also, its not 92 degrees, and I'm probably off down the
> pub!!
Didn't realise you were old enough! Damn, there I was thinking I was
talking with a 14 year old.
>
> >compare my MP-5 and my AK-47 with my SA-80.
> >
> >tab1
> >
> Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot :-)
Not likely. But BTW, I was shot in the foot once in NI, did not like it
at all, that is one reason I am careful around firearms.
>
> Trevjon.
Night night Trevjon.
tab1<beginning to sound like that Alan Hope person, that will never do.>
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>tony wrote:
>>
>> Nice to see soembody posting facts for a
change.
>> Thanks John
>>
>> John Bartram wrote in message ...
>> >At the height of the "Troubles", LA had more
>> murders in a week that Ulster
>> >in a year.
>> >How many Americans are killed with handguns
each
>> year? Then compare that
>> >figure with the number killed in Viet Nam.
Keep
>> your guns, you're doing a great job.
>> >
>Facts? What facts? Just more stupid bloody
biased questions. Such
>bitter retoric.
Why bitter? what rhetoric? Do you understand these
words? You're a troll aren't you ? nobody could
have such a low level of intelligence to have
these beliefs
>Two questions from me to you.
>Now that there are no legally held hand guns
(excluding BP) in the UK,
>how come there is still armed crime in the UK?
LISTEN CAREFULLY. Because criminals tend not to
pop into the gun shop to buy a gun.
>And, what was the benefit of the ban?
Oh dear, you're not thinking very clearly are you?
There are many benefits, but these would include
that the process of reducing the availablity of
handguns reduces the number that can be used by
criminals. That if you have possesion of one, it
is an imprisonable offence. That it reduces the
potential doubt over owners, because if you do
have a hand gun, youre probably the sort of person
who shouldnt have one in the first place.
>But first, some facts.
>All that happened was, those law abiding
residents of the UK that
>conformed to Chapter 27, of the 1968 Firearms
Act, were pilloried and
>made to feel outcasts because one person in
Scotland, who did not
>conform to said requirements, was granted and
allowed to renew his FAC.
>If the Scottish Police had done what was required
by Chapter 27, he
>would never have been granted and then
subsequently renewed an FAC. For
>this failure of the Dunblane Plod, many children
needlesly died, and
>over 1,000,000 honest people lost there hobby,
some lost valuable
>collections and historic artifacts.
>tab1<I suppose I would be bitter too, if I had to
return to the
>agression of the UK.>
>
>This thread is now, IMO, a lost cause.
>
Now who's spouting bitter rhetoric? You say that
you live in Georgia. Well I checked the Georgia
State Police crime figures for the month of
December 97 (the latest available) 42 murders (no
breakdown for gun crime though). For 1986 (latest
I can find) the whole US had 20,610 murders, 90
430 rapes, 542 780 violent robberies, and 834 320
violent assaults were reported.
Now you tell me what the UK figures are and tell
me that the US is a statistically or actually
safer place for you and your family.
Now this is the saddest and most frightening bit
of this post. I used www.yahoo.com to search for
usa+gun+death+statistics. Try it and the first two
results will take you to the page
www.cs.yorku.ca/~paige/Trio/trio.html
tony
tony wrote in message
<7i9t1f$k0e$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Tab One wrote in message
>>tony wrote:
>>>
>>> Tab One wrote in message
>>> >tony wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Tab One wrote in message
Aplogies for typo's - it's been a VERY long day
and I'm very tired.
Tab One
>
> Weren't the words clear enough for you ? What it
> means my little half-wit is that only the USA can
> start start a war without incurring casualties.
Both Blurr and that Dick Head Cook couldn't start bombing the Serbs fast
enough.
>
> It's like this. the most tooled up nation in the
> world puts its size 12's into a situation 7 years
> too late but darent risk any of its own nations
> lives in case it loses votes. But then when did a
> teenage nation like the US ever understand grown
> up issues that are older than it? Guns fall right
> into that category too my friend.
I agree with every part of that except the last sentence.
>
> You patently show a complete lack of understanding
> of the NI situation.
Without going into details *my friend* I was involved there for longer
than I care to remember. Including being shot twice. You been shot in
NI?
> A good start to reducing
> terrorist weapons would be for the stupid
> Americans that have some fantasy that they are
> actually Irish to stop supporting NORAID that pays
> for these guns and bombs.
90% correct. The ten percent left over is the willingness of occupants
of the Whitehouse to poke their fucking noses into a British Problem.
You are preaching to the choir master here.
>
> NI politics isn't about politics, or religion, or
> self rule. It's about MOB RULE. A bit like the
> Mafia running Naples. The "Nationalists" want this
> power, and the "Unionists" will be buggered if
> they will let them have it. QED stalemate and
> conflict because neither will back down.
It is more about money than anything else. ALL major crime is
controlled by one faction or another. It is not in their interests to
have the "Troubles" end. For what would they do for a living
afterwards? Well, some of the Hard Men have already moved south, and
now control the Drug Trade there.
> If Americans stop providing weapons it might help a
> little.
If wannabe Irish Americans stopped providing MONEY it would help a lot.
>
>
> What has the value of weapons got to do with it,
> and do you even understand your own words?
Yes, very well. If tonight your house is broken into and your VCR is
stolen, it will sell for 15 to 20% of its true value, whereas if a $250
gun is stolen, it will sell for $500 to $750.
> If the value of weapons increases, it reduces the demand,
> and therefore the supply.
To a criminal that pays no taxes, ignores laws, and feels a need for
one, a gun's cost is irrelevant.
> Whats your answer? Make
> guns cheaper so everyone can kill someone without
> having to steal one first ? Idiot.
Is everyone with an opinion opposed to your's an idiot?
>
> When 14 year olds can get their hands on guns you
> get massacres by schoolchildren. I dont remember
> the last one we had one of those in the UK.
From 14 year olds in schools to the mis-handling of the Waco sieged
first by ATF then FBI in one paragraph1 WOW!
> I dont remember the last Waco siege either.
There was only one, it was on TV, shame you missed it.
> Also I dont
> remember the last time we had NORAID on the
> streets raising money so that terrorists can kill
> and maim ordinary innocent people.
NORAID and the IRA are legal entities in the UK. They are proscibed in
Ireland, not England. There are still pubs in North London decked out
with the tri-color blantantly collecting for the PIRA and the INLA, as
well as the IRA. Which just shows how little you know of this subject.
> No my friend, all these things happen in the land of the free.
And North London. Did I see something about bombs in London, three
recently, I think? Oh, BTW, I am not your friend, could have been, but
you pissed on that, with your silly playing to an electronic audience.
>
> The ironic thing is though, youre not free are you
> because its just too damned scary to go outside
> any more without a gun!!!!
I am free to do as I please within the law. I chose to cary a gun,
because I always carried a gun. All the way back to 1959. Forty years
of legally carrying a gun.
Go and take a bow in from of your monitor. Continue the mental
mastubation!
Tab One
tony wrote:
>
> Tab One wrote in message
Tab One
>
>
> Aplogies for typo's - it's been a VERY long day
> and I'm very tired.
Oh dear, sighs for poor old Tony.
As in previous post, Good Bye Tony.
Aleeta E. Johnson
Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn warm here after waiting so
long.
I have to add my two cents worth on a matter you've been
discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping outside my door, although
there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be in, but I've got to tell you
I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing however and that doesn't stop
me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a wheel. Everyone gets cursed by
me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
Tab One wrote in message <37489F63...@pineland.net>...
Tab One
>
> Tony, Don't you know, you're suppose to check first? :o))
> Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn warm here after waiting so
> long.
> I have to add my two cents worth on a matter you've been
> discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping outside my door, although
> there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be in, but I've got to tell you
> I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing however
But has not yet reached the lunatic levels to be found on almost every
motorway in England. As is the "Who the FUCK you looking at?" attitude
in many working class pubs. You can tell a Brit almost anything, except
criticise his driving. And yes, I have had the sad experience of
driving there recently. (M4 then M3 to Poole to meet with some old
working associates, then M4 up M40 to Hereford for a reunion and to show
them some new kit.)
> and that doesn't stop
> me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a wheel. Everyone gets cursed by
> me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
> Tab One wrote in message <37489F63...@pineland.net>...
> >tony wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Aplogies for typo's - it's been a VERY long day
> >> and I'm very tired.
> >
> >
> >Oh dear, sighs for poor old Tony.
> >
> >As in previous post, Good Bye Tony.
Good Bye once more Tony. BTW, I have you filed under "W."
Aleeta E. Johnson
Aleeta
Trevjon wrote in message <19990523211820...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>In article <37487B17...@pineland.net>, Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
>writes:
>
>>Didn't realise you were old enough! Damn, there I was thinking I was
>>talking with a 14 year old.
>
>"when they start attacking the person, rather than the idea, you know you
have
>won the argument".
>
>
>Trevjon.
Trevjon
Trevjon
>> >A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some circumstances" too. Why do you
>> >feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
>>
>> Because I have learnt by previous experience that to just pass off my
>opinion
>> in a NG, without fully qualifying it, tends to cause lots of replies merely
>> arguing over the opinion, and totally missing the point and failing to
>> recognise when something is being used as an example to qualify, or
>> demonstrate, a point, rather than to elicit a reaction. It therefore came
>as a
>> suprise to me that you, with your supposed greater command of the english
>> language, should not realise this, and therefore feel a need to comment.
>
>I certainly do not make the spelling mistake you do. I also do not fall
>into the grammatical cock-ups you do either.
Maybe not (hey-nobody's perfect!), but at least I understand sarcasm when it
is
being used
(BTW, when using the word "either" in its conjuntive form,as above, surely it
should be preceded by a comma, as its relationship is with the previous
sentence, and not with the one in which it occurs. Although some may argue
that the inclusion of the adverb "also" is totally wrong, as it refers to the
verb "do", rather than its intended (presumably) reasoning that you do not
"fall" anywhere, not least into grammatical errors. Maybe you meant "Also I
do not... A further argument could be that the words "either" and "also" are
mutually exclusive, and so one of them must go.)
Trevjon.
Trevjon
>I was talking about covert surveillance equipment. Still am.
>
>> Agreed you didn't actually use the word "best", but pray explain any other
>> conclusion one might tend to arrive at from this sentence!
>
>From one Brit to another, your understanding of English needs some work.
>For instance, a Ford is far superior to a Yugo, but it is hardly the
>best, now is it?
Just to humour me for a minute then, would you be so kind as to enlighten me as
to who does manufacture the "best" equipment?
The reason I ask is that in your original post you said that the Russians make
stuff that is far superior to any made in the "west". Assuming that you are
using the term "west" in its political sense, rather than its geographical
sense, then I am puzzled as to where the "best" stuff must originate from
(pardon the bad grammar-its very late!!).
Trevjon.
Alan Hope
tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7i9t1f$k0e$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Weren't the words clear enough for you ? What it
> means my little half-wit is that only the USA can
> start start a war without incurring casualties.
Oh that's much clearer clearer.
> You patently show a complete lack of understanding
> of the NI situation.
Laughing my ass off.
> NI politics isn't about politics, or religion, or
> self rule. It's about MOB RULE. A bit like the
> Mafia running Naples.
Strictly speaking, the Mafia is Hollywood and press shorthand, and
not an actual organisation. Perhaps you mean Cosa Nostra?
AH
Sam
Tab One wrote in message <374873A2...@pineland.net>...
>Two questions from me to you.
>Now that there are no legally held hand guns (excluding BP) in the UK,
>how come there is still armed crime in the UK?
The British home invasion rate is NINE TIMES that of the United States. A
home invasion is essentially the breaking and entering of a dwelling while
the occupants are home. That it happens in Britain at a higher rate than the
US is probably because in the US you're likely to get shot by the dweller;
and in Britain thanks to rather draconian gun control you are not.
British burglars don't care if people are home as they can generally assume
the victims are unarmed.
(If things are so tranquil in Britain with all that gun control, how come
more and more Bobbies are packing iron?)
>And, what was the benefit of the ban?
Uhhh... pass.
tony
Sam wrote in message ...
I can't comment on your facts Sam, but whatever
they are I think it's more about a state of mind,
in that in the UK, pulling out a gun and killing
somebody isn't an option, and property crime is
very often drug related. If the householder had a
gun, the burglar (quite possibly drugged up) would
have a gun, result - lots more deaths of burglars,
AND householders. Property crime is really a bit
of a smokescreen used by the pro-gun people. The
evidence is there to see in the real statistics
between the US and the UK as to what everyone
having guns really results in. It's a downward
spiral I'm afraid, but you made a fair comment on
property crime.
Our Police do not carry guns as standard practice.
You will have seen them in airports with carbines,
but not on the streets. We actually have "Armed
Response Units" which act a bit like a low scale
version 2 man versions of your SWAT teams that are
called up specially when guns might be involved.
They carry the guns locked in cabinets in their
cars, not around their waist. It's all very
controlled and low key.
"Bobbies" as you call them (not heard that phrase
for years :o) just DONT carry guns. They aren't
trained, and dont carry them. My father was a
policeman for 30 years and never used a gun. A
friend is also a policeman, and he has just had to
finish his 2 year spell on the Armed Response
Unit, for which he had to undergo lots of
training, psychological profiling, etc. He was one
of the first ever to go through that didn't have a
wife and children - they like people who are
unlikely to be gung-ho!!! My city only ever has 2
ARU cars out at any one time unless something
special is happening. We just aint tooled up,
therefore our gun crime is lower!
>>And, what was the benefit of the ban?
>
>Uhhh... pass.
Hehe, different argument really that one :o)
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>Good bye Tony.
I'll accept that as your climb down on the issue.
>tony wrote:
>>
>> Tab One wrote in message
>> <374873A2...@pineland.net>...
>> >tony wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nice to see soembody posting facts for a
>> change.
>> >> Thanks John
>> >>
>> >> John Bartram wrote in message ...
>> >> >At the height of the "Troubles", LA had
more
>> >> murders in a week that Ulster
>> >> >in a year.
>> >> >How many Americans are killed with handguns
>> each
>> >> year? Then compare that
>> >> >figure with the number killed in Viet Nam.
>> Keep
>> >> your guns, you're doing a great job.
>> >> >
>> >Facts? What facts? Just more stupid bloody
>> biased questions. Such
>> >bitter retoric.
>>
>> Why bitter? what rhetoric? Do you understand
these
>> words? You're a troll aren't you ? nobody could
>> have such a low level of intelligence to have
>> these beliefs
>>
>> >Two questions from me to you.
>> >Now that there are no legally held hand guns
>> (excluding BP) in the UK,
>> >how come there is still armed crime in the UK?
>>
>> LISTEN CAREFULLY. Because criminals tend not
to
>> pop into the gun shop to buy a gun.
>>
>> >And, what was the benefit of the ban?
>>
tony
Aleeta E. Johnson wrote in message
<7ia7da$6vr$1...@slave2.aa.net>...
>Tony, Don't you know, you're suppose to check
first? :o))
>Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn
warm here after waiting so
>long.
>I have to add my two cents worth on a matter
you've been
>discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping
outside my door, although
>there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be
in, but I've got to tell you
>I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing
>me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a wheel.
Everyone gets cursed by
>me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
>>tony wrote:
:o)) I appreciate that I made big generalisations
Aleeta, it's a matter of degree really. In the UK
the real facts are that the chances violent crime
are very low. Move to the US, and those chances
increase markedly.
I dont think that I would be especially afraid to
be in the US either, but imagine how much better
you would feel in the UK!! :o) It gets better when
you know that half the people on the street
haven't got a gun n their pocket.
<snip>
tony
Alan Hope wrote in message
<01bea573$171dbec0$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
article
><7i9t1f$k0e$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>> Weren't the words clear enough for you ? What
it
>> means my little half-wit is that only the USA
can
>> start start a war without incurring casualties.
>
>Oh that's much clearer clearer.
Either you dont understand either or you are being
deliberately stupid! I dont much care either way
on this matter as youre general demeanour says it
all!
>> You patently show a complete lack of
understanding
>> of the NI situation.
>
>Laughing my ass off.
>
>> NI politics isn't about politics, or religion,
or
>> self rule. It's about MOB RULE. A bit like the
>> Mafia running Naples.
>
>Strictly speaking, the Mafia is Hollywood and
press shorthand, and
>not an actual organisation. Perhaps you mean Cosa
Nostra?
No, I mean like the Mafia. Take a trip to Naples
and you will understand what it is to be
frightened on the streets during the daytime.
If it's not the Mafia (or one of thier associates)
it's the drugged up US navy (I know, complete
generalisation, but you understand what I mean) on
shore leave!
tony
I was thinking I was
>>talking with a 14 year old.
>
>"when they start attacking the person, rather
than the idea, you know you have
>won the argument".
>
>
>Trevjon.
Too right, but dont you just love showing the
little toe-rags for what they are?
tony
Trevjon wrote in message
<snip>
>
>(BTW, when using the word "either" in its
conjuntive form,as above, surely it
>should be preceded by a comma, as its
relationship is with the previous
>sentence, and not with the one in which it
occurs. Although some may argue
>that the inclusion of the adverb "also" is
totally wrong, as it refers to the
>verb "do", rather than its intended (presumably)
reasoning that you do not
>"fall" anywhere, not least into grammatical
errors. Maybe you meant "Also I
>do not... A further argument could be that the
words "either" and "also" are
>mutually exclusive, and so one of them must go.)
>
>
>Trevjon.
Blimey TJ, I'd have a sit down after that :o))))
John Bartram
Where are you most likely to get shot dead - the UK, or USA? End of silly
argument.
If you do a little research on this, you can find out how many US
householders are killed by intruders' guns, versus their household guns. You
will see that by far the greatest danger is from within the household.
As a matter of (amusing?) interest, also find out by whose guns most US
police are shot with - their own.
Guns are not generally effective in self-defence - they are better at being
used to shoot somebody who is unprepared, whether or not that person is
armed.
The number of US citizens killed by handguns - very often their own - is
equivalent to that in a fair-sized war. This is a war being fought by the US
against itself.
Sam <lot...@NOSPAMiname.com> wrote in message
news:J7723.210$2t6...@nswpull.telstra.net...
>
> Tab One wrote in message <374873A2...@pineland.net>...
>
> >Two questions from me to you.
> >Now that there are no legally held hand guns (excluding BP) in the UK,
> >how come there is still armed crime in the UK?
>
> The British home invasion rate is NINE TIMES that of the United States. A
> home invasion is essentially the breaking and entering of a dwelling while
> the occupants are home. That it happens in Britain at a higher rate than
the
> US is probably because in the US you're likely to get shot by the dweller;
> and in Britain thanks to rather draconian gun control you are not.
>
> British burglars don't care if people are home as they can generally
assume
> the victims are unarmed.
>
> (If things are so tranquil in Britain with all that gun control, how come
> more and more Bobbies are packing iron?)
>
> >And, what was the benefit of the ban?
>
> Uhhh... pass.
>
>
>
>
Tab One
tony wrote:
> Tab One wrote in message
> <37489F03...@pineland.net>...
> >Good bye Tony.
>
> I'll accept that as your climb down on the issue.
>
> >tony wrote:
> >>
No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any subject with a fool, and
you are a fool.
Trevjon
writes:
>But has not yet reached the lunatic levels to be found on almost every
>motorway in England. As is the "Who the FUCK you looking at?" attitude
>in many working class pubs. You can tell a Brit almost anything, except
>criticise his driving. And yes, I have had the sad experience of
>driving there recently. (M4 then M3 to Poole to meet with some old
>working associates, then M4 up M40 to Hereford for a reunion and to show
>them some new kit.)
I have noticed that "road rage" is , IMO, actually declining over the last ,
say, 18 months, and I use the M4 and M25 on an almost daily basis. There is
the odd incident now-and -again, obviously, but since a few well publicised
"road rage" incidents I feel it has got much better.
You obviosly used an ex-NATO map if you went up the M40 from a starting point
somewhere on the M4 to get to Hereford -you didn't end up at a chinese
restaurant or a hospital did you?
You are obviously trying to ellude to the fact that you are ex-SAS, with your
previous postings, and your reference to Hereford. It would seem that the
standards required in the map reading exam have declined a lot over the last
few years, if the above example is anything to go by!
Trevjon.
Trevjon
>Good Bye once more Tony. BTW, I have you filed under "W."
He will be in good company then, amongst all your sent posts.
Trevjon.
Tab One
Trevjon wrote:
> In article <3748A983...@pineland.net>, Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
> writes:
>
> >But has not yet reached the lunatic levels to be found on almost every
> >motorway in England. As is the "Who the FUCK you looking at?" attitude
> >in many working class pubs. You can tell a Brit almost anything, except
> >criticise his driving. And yes, I have had the sad experience of
> >driving there recently. (M4 then M3 to Poole to meet with some old
> >working associates, then M4 up M40 to Hereford for a reunion and to show
> >them some new kit.)
>
> I have noticed that "road rage" is , IMO, actually declining over the last ,
> say, 18 months, and I use the M4 and M25 on an almost daily basis. There is
> the odd incident now-and -again, obviously, but since a few well publicised
> "road rage" incidents I feel it has got much better.
I try not to visit too often, so all I can do is compare with memories of the
last visit(s).
>
> You obviosly used an ex-NATO map if you went up the M40 from a starting point
> somewhere on the M4 to get to Hereford -you didn't end up at a chinese
> restaurant or a hospital did you?
>
> You are obviously trying to ellude to the fact that you are ex-SAS, with your
> previous postings, and your reference to Hereford. It would seem that the
> standards required in the map reading exam have declined a lot over the last
> few years, if the above example is anything to go by!
Wrong again. I also referenced Poole.
Not "elluding" to anything, and yes, I did get lost, but found a couple of nice
pubs that I had not visited in fifteen years. The last thing I would ever do, is
claim to be something that I am not, or was not. Especially not a past resident
of Sterling Lines! BTW, "Our lot" never were much for map reading, as we were
normally delivered to where we were needed.
>
> Trevjon.
aleeta
"tony" <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Aleeta E. Johnson wrote in message
> <7ia7da$6vr$1...@slave2.aa.net>...
> >Tony, Don't you know, you're suppose to check
> first? :o))
> >Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn
> warm here after waiting so
> >long.
> >I have to add my two cents worth on a matter
> you've been
> >discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping
> outside my door, although
> >there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be
> in, but I've got to tell you
> >I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing
> however and that doesn't stop
> >me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a wheel.
> Everyone gets cursed by
> >me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
> >>tony wrote:
>
> :o)) I appreciate that I made big generalisations
> Aleeta, it's a matter of degree really. In the UK
> the real facts are that the chances violent crime
> are very low. Move to the US, and those chances
> increase markedly.
>
> I dont think that I would be especially afraid to
> be in the US either, but imagine how much better
> you would feel in the UK!! :o) It gets better when
> you know that half the people on the street
> haven't got a gun n their pocket.
>
> <snip>
the house. I'll tell you the worse place to be and that is in
Tijuana, Mexico at night, all the wild drunks out and very bizzare,
but even at that I'm still here.
Aleeta
>
--
~AJ~
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
tony
Tab One wrote in message
Obviously "they" decided that you're lot weren't n
eeded here any more and sent you across the pond.
I thank God that I can sleep more safely in my bed
at night since that decision.
>>
>> Trevjon.
>
tony
Trevjon wrote in message
<19990524155641...@ngol07.aol.com>...
under "W."
>
>He will be in good company then, amongst all your
sent posts.
>
>
>Trevjon.
Why should he file his posts under Wonderful TJ?
tony
aleeta wrote in message
<7id3jk$170$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7ib4u6$epc$3...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "tony" <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Aleeta E. Johnson wrote in message
>> <7ia7da$6vr$1...@slave2.aa.net>...
>> >Tony, Don't you know, you're suppose to check
>> first? :o))
>> >Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn
>> warm here after waiting so
>> >long.
>> >I have to add my two cents worth on a matter
>> you've been
>> >discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping
>> outside my door, although
>> >there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be
>> in, but I've got to tell you
>> >I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing
>> however and that doesn't stop
>> >me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a
wheel.
>> Everyone gets cursed by
>> >me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
I always said that brass band music brings out the
worst in people :o)
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>
>
>tony wrote:
>
>> Tab One wrote in message
>> >Good bye Tony.
>>
>> I'll accept that as your climb down on the
issue.
>>
>> >tony wrote:
>> >>
>
>No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any
subject with a fool, and
>you are a fool.
Try asking around the NG in who's the fool. I
don't think that you will like the answer somehow.
Tab One
tony wrote:
> Tab One wrote in message
> <3749D814...@pineland.net>...
> >
> >
> >
> >Wrong again. I also referenced Poole.
> >
> >Not "elluding" to anything, and yes, I did get
> lost, but found a couple of nice
> >pubs that I had not visited in fifteen years.
> The last thing I would ever do, is
> >claim to be something that I am not, or was not.
> Especially not a past resident
> >of Sterling Lines! BTW, "Our lot" never were
> much for map reading, as we were
> >normally delivered to where we were needed.
>
> Obviously "they" decided that you're lot weren't n
> eeded here any more and sent you across the pond.
> I thank God that I can sleep more safely in my bed
> at night since that decision.
There's that funny smell? What is it? Oh right, it's Tony talking out
of his arse again.
What does "you're lot" mean? ('You are lot?')
And who do you think could send me across the pond? Who do you think
"they" are?
Prior to 1990, you could not sleep safely in your bed? Is that what
you're saying?
And now you can?
Good Bye Tony.
> >> Trevjon.
> >
Tab One
tony wrote:
> Tab One wrote in message
> <374955F2...@pineland.net>...
> >
> >
> >No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any
> subject with a fool, and
> >you are a fool.
>
> Try asking around the NG in who's the fool. I
> don't think that you will like the answer somehow.
I really have trouble comprehending your English.
Did you learn it recently?
Good Bye Tony.
Should I advise you when I come over so that you can find some safe bed
to sleep in?
As you told me you sleep better knowing I am living in America.
Wouldn't want you fretting about the temporary return of another Brit.
Alan Hope
tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7ib4u8$epc$4...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Take a trip to Naples
> and you will understand what it is to be
> frightened on the streets during the daytime.
> If it's not the Mafia (or one of thier associates)
> it's the drugged up US navy (I know, complete
> generalisation, but you understand what I mean) on
> shore leave!
I'm quite familiar with Naples, thanks. What frightens you on the
street in daylight won't necessarily frighten anyone else, though.
All those strange Italians with their funny language and their scary
hand-waving, for instance. Cars driving too fast, running red lights,
honking their horns, that sort of thing. It's a wonder you dare to
venture out the hotel door.
AH
Alan Hope
tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7idgvh$60l$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Tab One wrote in message
> <374955F2...@pineland.net>...
> >No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any
> subject with a fool, and
> >you are a fool.
> Try asking around the NG in who's the fool. I
> don't think that you will like the answer somehow.
Tab is quite right, of course. You are a fool, and this tragic
deluded response only proves it.
You seem to have this idea you're a popular guy around here, Tone.
Where does that come from? I wish you could see the emails I've had
about our little spat in the last couple of days. But of course I
can't post them by rights. You'll no doubt convince yourself I'm
making it all up.
Fact is, for all your dreary little jokes and sycophantic asides to
other posters, I see people ignoring you. You've tried to suck up and
be chummy
with Trevjon a number of times in recent hours and he blanks you
every time. What a life, eh? First the blokes in the club-house at
the golf club, now the same thing happens in cyberspace. Still, at
least the people you employ at your highly successful company laugh
at your wicked
sense of humour. When you're around, that is.
Just to put your little idea to the test - asking around the ng,
remember? - I've changed the subject line above. Anyone who thinks
I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this thread to say what a
diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can just wait here and
watch the responses roll in.
Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
AH
Tab One
Trevjon wrote:
> In article <37487B17...@pineland.net>, Tab One <ta...@pineland.net>
> writes:
>
> >I was talking about covert surveillance equipment. Still am.
> >
> >> Agreed you didn't actually use the word "best", but pray explain any other
> >> conclusion one might tend to arrive at from this sentence!
> >
> >From one Brit to another, your understanding of English needs some work.
> >For instance, a Ford is far superior to a Yugo, but it is hardly the
> >best, now is it?
>
> Just to humour me for a minute then, would you be so kind as to enlighten me as
> to who does manufacture the "best" equipment?
So I missed this one. Depends upon what items you had in mind. I have already
said the best surreptitious, multi line telephone monitoring equipment is made in
Denmark. The same company makes superb 5 GHz and higher body wires.
The best fax interception equipment is also made in Denmark, but by another
company.
The best accelerometers (both stereo and mono) that can listen through half a metre
of concrete are Russian. Soundly beating the Brit one and the two American ones.
The best amp'd microphones were designed in the U.K. and are now made in the States
as well as the U.K.
The best pager interception equipment is Australian.
The best slow scan flicker free integration colour CCD is made in Taiwan.
The best slow scan flicker free integration B&W CCD is made in Taiwan by another
company.
The best split head IR sensitive colour camera with the longest split between CCD
and process module is made in Taiwan. Better resolution than many fibre optic
systems.
Best fibre optic system designed and manufactured in the U.K.
The best covert installation wire was designed and made in the U.K.(Scotland if it
is still part of the U.K.) Now made in Germany and the States.
The best and smallest usable coax in made in France.
The best Gen. III intensifier tubes are Chinese.
The best covert video and audio transmitters are made in Taiwan.
The best HUMINT intelligence gathering unit is the RUC.
The next best is GNDU. (Both F & T Branches will dispute this of course.)
The best global monitoring service is GCHQ.
The best innovators in this field are the Brits and the Russians.
Who makes the best GSM cell phone interception/decrypt equipment? Classified,
sorry. If you have a specific interest, let me know. Now you should have a better
idea of what I do, and who I might have worked for. Maybe.
>
>
> The reason I ask is that in your original post you said that the Russians make
> stuff that is far superior to any made in the "west". Assuming that you are
> using the term "west" in its political sense, rather than its geographical
> sense, then I am puzzled as to where the "best" stuff must originate from
> (pardon the bad grammar-its very late!!).
Know the feeling. Oh, BTW, H&K did not design the SA-80. It was a continuation
from the late fifties design called the Bullpup. Produced in Enfield. If it was
someone else that said H&K did, I apologize.
tab1
>
>
> Trevjon.
Peter Hughes
<ah...@skynet.be> writes
>
>
>Just to put your little idea to the test - asking around the ng,
>remember? - I've changed the subject line above. Anyone who thinks
>I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this thread to say what a
>diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can just wait here and
>watch the responses roll in.
>
cheering any time.
For you Alan there is no Hope
--
Peter Hughes
Gary Stone
Alan Hope wrote:
> Just to put your little idea to the test - asking around the ng,
> remember? - I've changed the subject line above. Anyone who thinks
> I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this thread to say what a
> diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can just wait here and
> watch the responses roll in.
>
> Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
>
> AH
what does NG mean?
Gethryn
Tab One
Gary Stone wrote:
> Alan Hope wrote:
>
> > tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <7idgvh$60l$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> > > Tab One wrote in message
> > > <374955F2...@pineland.net>...
> >
> > > >[...]
> >
> > Just to put your little idea to the test - asking around the ng,
> > remember? - I've changed the subject line above. Anyone who thinks
> > I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this thread to say what a
> > diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can just wait here and
> > watch the responses roll in.
> >
> > Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
> >
> > AH
>
> what does NG mean?
> Gethryn
Dunno, what's a lemonade top, is that like a lager top?
I loved this one Mr. Hope; "..an excellent guy and would and would start
the
cheering any time." And would and would and would and would and would etc.
Tone's got a fan, a fan, a fan..................
Trevjon
>Tab is quite right, of course. You are a fool, and this tragic
>deluded response only proves it.
>
>You seem to have this idea you're a popular guy around here, Tone.
>Where does that come from? I wish you could see the emails I've had
>about our little spat in the last couple of days. But of course I
>can't post them by rights. You'll no doubt convince yourself I'm
>making it all up.
>
>Fact is, for all your dreary little jokes and sycophantic asides to
>other posters, I see people ignoring you. You've tried to suck up and
>be chummy
>with Trevjon a number of times in recent hours and he blanks you
>every time. What a life, eh? First the blokes in the club-house at
>the golf club, now the same thing happens in cyberspace. Still, at
>least the people you employ at your highly successful company laugh
>at your wicked
>sense of humour. When you're around, that is.
>
>Just to put your little idea to the test - asking around the ng,
>remember? - I've changed the subject line above. Anyone who thinks
>I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this thread to say what a
>diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can just wait here and
>watch the responses roll in.
>
>Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
>
>AH
>
>
Blimey, whats got into you today , Alan.
I'm staying completely neutral on this one , whilst you two batter each other
around the ears with your handbags.
I know its boring at the moment, but I think Tab one (which I believe stands
for Thick arrogant bastard, BTW) is causing enough flame wars at the moment,
without me getting lured into another one!!
Trevjon.
Trevjon
writes:
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
For someone who keeps on and on about reading and comprehension you really
ought to be taking your own advice.
Lets re-cap a little shall we.
In answer to one of my posts, you put this:-
"From one Brit to another, your understanding of English needs some work.
For instance, a Ford is far superior to a Yugo, but it is hardly the
best, now is it?"
And I replied thus:
>> Just to humour me for a minute then, would you be so kind as to enlighten
>me as
>> to who does manufacture the "best" equipment?
Which resulted in the following extremely tedious reply from you:-
>So I missed this one. Depends upon what items you had in mind. I have
>already (blah blah blah )
<<Lots of stuff snipped>>
>sorry. If you have a specific interest, let me know. Now you should have a
>better
>idea of what I do, and who I might have worked for. Maybe.
>
Which was a very comprehensive reply, but , once again you totally missed the
point. I am now going to explain it to you, so please try and concentrate for
a few minutes.
Now read the rest of my post (concentrate, because this is the important
bit)...
>>
>> The reason I ask is that in your original post you said that the Russians
>make
>> stuff that is far superior to any made in the "west". Assuming that you
>are
>> using the term "west" in its political sense, rather than its geographical
>> sense, then I am puzzled as to where the "best" stuff must originate from
>> (pardon the bad grammar-its very late!!).
>
Your reply to this was "I know the feeling", plus alot of inaccurate stuff
about SA80's. If usenet had sound-effects I would use the sound of something
whizzing above your head to accompany the above paragraph. Unfortunately, it
seemed to go so far above your head that I doubt if you would have heard it
anyway.
Do you get the point yet?
No, then let me help.
Is Denmark, politically speaking, in the West?
Is UK, politically, in the west?
Is Russia, politically, in the East?
Now, all of those countries you mentioned ( with maybe the exception of Taiwan,
which, broadly speaking, may be included as in the west) can be cateorgorised
as either East (ie Russia) , or West (ie everyone else). Therefore one or
the other must make the "best" equipment.
Now do you understand?
Of course, being as you are an expert on Grammar, you should also have picked
up that I used the Superlative adjective (ie "best"), rather than the
comparative (ie "better"). This was very sloppy of me, and I will try not to
let it happen again!
One of your constant themes in your replies to my posts (and to those of Tony)
is our lack of control over the English language. I admit I make spelling
mistakes, and the odd grammatical error. I am sure we all do. I can live with
it, but it certainly seems to bug you, and does your credibility no good at all
when you shoot yourself in the foot, constantly, by trying to correct minor
mistakes in others postings, whilst not realising that your own contain glaring
errors of the type you love to point out in others. This would tend to lead
people to the conclusion that you have an ego problem.
Also, I have noticed that you post in the Alt.Writer NG. If you aspire to be a
writer of any kind, I would suggest you try and master an understanding of
satire, irony and most of all, subtext, before you start criticising spelling
and grammar.
Please feel free to comment and reply to any of the postings here, but please
lose the "mr know-it -all" attitude. Nobody likes a know-all, especially one
who seems to know very little.
Trevjon.
Trevjon
>Know the feeling. Oh, BTW, H&K did not design the SA-80. It was a
>continuation
>from the late fifties design called the Bullpup. Produced in Enfield. If it
>was
>someone else that said H&K did, I apologize.
>tab1
Sorry, you are wrong on this one. It was designed by H&K, but the main
production is in Enfield, the old Lee-Enfield rifle works, which was then part
of the RoF, and then acquired by the ordnance department of British Aerospace.
At one stage they may also have been owned by Vickers, but am unsure of the
details. Also not sure about the dates, but am often at BAe, and so will check
on it. The original "bullpup" was also a collabaration between H & K and the
RoF, and was again produced at Enfield.
Trevjon.
Trevjon
writes:
>what does NG mean?
>Gethryn
It means News Group.
You may see other "shorthand" words (or acronyms, to be correct)
ACPD= alt conspiracy princess Diana
BTW= by the way
IMO = in my opinion
IMHO = in my humble opinion
FYI= for your information
FWIW= for what its worth
IIRC= if I recall correctly
ISTR= I seem to recollect
ROFL= Rolls on floor laughing
There are many more, but you will pick them up as you go along.
Trevjon.
Trevjon
writes:
>> Obviously "they" decided that you're lot weren't n
>> eeded here any more and sent you across the pond.
>> I thank God that I can sleep more safely in my bed
>> at night since that decision.
>
>There's that funny smell? What is it? Oh right, it's Tony talking out
>of his arse again.
>
>What does "you're lot" mean? ('You are lot?')
>
>And who do you think could send me across the pond? Who do you think
>"they" are?
>Prior to 1990, you could not sleep safely in your bed? Is that what
>you're saying?
>And now you can?
>
>Good Bye Tony.
>
Tony, did you just hear a big whooshing sound. I think it was your comments
flying right over Tabs head (again) !!
Trevjon.
tony
Alan Hope wrote in message
<01bea6ac$ce77dc60$LocalHost@default>...
The last time I was in Naples - in the daytime,
with Italian friends, not as a tourist - I had a
pistol pulled on me from the glove box of a Vespa.
It was only a warning because of some of the
people that I was with, but it was a serious
warning.
Now I'm sorry, but that's yet to happen to me in
Sheffield.
I really dont scare easily, and if you read my
posts you will have appreciated my belief that
people should stand up for themselves and not rely
on other people or governments to get them out of
their own mess. But, you know little else about
me. We know a lot about you however, because you
tell us. I wonder how much of it is really true
though - like the journalist and author bit.
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>
>
>Gary Stone wrote:
>
>> Alan Hope wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > Tab One wrote in message
>> > > <374955F2...@pineland.net>...
>> >
>> > > >[...]
>> >
asking around the ng,
>> > remember? - I've changed the subject line
above. Anyone who thinks
>> > I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this
thread to say what a
>> > diamond geezer they think you are. You and I
can just wait here and
>> > watch the responses roll in.
>> >
>> > Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
>> >
>> > AH
>>
>> Gethryn
>
lager top?
>
>I loved this one Mr. Hope; "..an excellent guy
and would and would start
>the
>cheering any time." And would and would and
would and would and would etc.
>
>Tone's got a fan, a fan, a fan..................
>
Gentlemen I take a bow :o) Hey Tab One and Alan
Hope, where are yours??
I'm sorry, but I'm sitting here with a big daft
grin on my face at the ludicrousness of this all
:o) It's good to know that there are lots of
others dont take it all to seriously and see the
irony :o))))
Still, on with the battle....... And gentlemen in
London still a'bed will wish themselves a curse
they were no here!
:o)
tony
Trevjon wrote in message
<19990525175026...@ngol02.aol.com>...
Nooo, nooo, noo, noo TJ. It was a cruise missile
on its way to the wrong target -Probably a school
in Georgia. :o)
aleeta
aleeta <ale...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <7ib4u6$epc$3...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "tony" <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Aleeta E. Johnson wrote in message
> > <7ia7da$6vr$1...@slave2.aa.net>...
> > >Tony, Don't you know, you're suppose to check
> > first? :o))
> > >Is the heat getting to you? It's pretty darn
> > warm here after waiting so
> > >long.
> > >I have to add my two cents worth on a matter
> > you've been
> > >discussing. Never have I ever feared stepping
> > outside my door, although
> > >there are some unfavorable neighborhoods to be
> > in, but I've got to tell you
> > >I've never been afraid. Road rage is growing
> > however and that doesn't stop
> > >me either. I'm terrible when I'm behind a wheel.
> > Everyone gets cursed by
> > >me and or flipped off.:o)) Never Fear, Aleeta
> > >>tony wrote:
> >
> > :o)) I appreciate that I made big generalisations
> > Aleeta, it's a matter of degree really. In the UK
> > the real facts are that the chances violent crime
> > are very low. Move to the US, and those chances
> > increase markedly.
> >
> > I dont think that I would be especially afraid to
> > be in the US either, but imagine how much better
> > you would feel in the UK!! :o) It gets better when
> > you know that half the people on the street
> > haven't got a gun n their pocket.
> >
> > <snip>
> > But that's something that I never give thought to when I leave
> the house. I'll tell you the worse place to be and that is in
> Tijuana, Mexico at night, all the wild drunks out and very bizzare,
> but even at that I'm still here.
> Aleeta
> >
>
> ~AJ~
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
-- Buenos dias, senor Antonio!!
Como esta usted?
Tiene usted una para diablo? :o))
Hasta luego.
Aleeta
tony
Alan Hope wrote in message
>
>> >No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any
>> subject with a fool, and
>> >you are a fool.
>
>> Try asking around the NG in who's the fool. I
>> don't think that you will like the answer
somehow.
>
and this tragic
>deluded response only proves it.
>
>You seem to have this idea you're a popular guy
around here, Tone.
I've never had that idea my little munchkin. Being
more "anti" than agnostic gets me a lot of stick,
so how do you arrive at that conclusion?
>Where does that come from? I wish you could see
the emails I've had
>about our little spat in the last couple of days.
But of course I
>can't post them by rights. You'll no doubt
convince yourself I'm
>making it all up.
I'm not convinced of anything, I'm certain that
you haven't had any emails except with the
exception perhaps of the socially inadequate Tab
One.
Post 'em if you've got 'em. Prove me wrong. Show
you've got "supporters". I won't hold my breath
waiting if you dont mind, because I enjoy oxygen
on a regular basis.
>Fact is, for all your dreary little jokes and
sycophantic asides to
>other posters, I see people ignoring you. You've
tried to suck up and
>be chummy
>with Trevjon a number of times in recent hours
and he blanks you
>every time. What a life, eh?
Is that a post from TJ I see below? Hmmmm. Go ask
him yourself. I'm not really looking for
sycophants because there seems to be a number of
people asking you to put up or shut up!
First the blokes in the club-house at
>the golf club, now the same thing happens in
cyberspace.
Sorry, gave up golf when I was 15 (handicap 12)
because of irritating old men with attitudes like
yours wanting to play through.
>Still, at
>least the people you employ at your highly
successful company laugh
>at your wicked
>sense of humour. When you're around, that is.
Nope, no hundreds of staff working directly for
me. Why give money to other people?
However, I do pay people to laugh at my jokes, and
I'm getting a new Bob Monkhouse Joke Anthology for
Christmas. It looks like being an expensive new
year.
>Just to put your little idea to the test - asking
around the ng,
>remember? - I've changed the subject line above.
Anyone who thinks
>I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this
thread to say what a
>diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can
just wait here and
>watch the responses roll in.
Fine, and thank you to Mr Peter Hughs for posting
some 18 minutes after your original message. Still
waiting for yours "mate".
>Fancy a lemonade top while we're waiting?
>
>AH
I'm quote happy to have a drink with you as long
as I pour - you haven't exactly shown yourself to
be trustworthy lately so I'll pass on the cloudy
lemonade if thats alright with you.
tony
Peter Hughes wrote in message
<+dVuJgA$$sS3...@peteh.demon.co.uk>...
asking around the ng,
>>remember? - I've changed the subject line above.
Anyone who thinks
>>I'm full of shit is welcome to post to this
thread to say what a
>>diamond geezer they think you are. You and I can
just wait here and
>>watch the responses roll in.
>>
and would start the
>cheering any time.
>
>--
>Peter Hughes
The cheques in the post Petey boy :o) Just one
thing - next time can you say what a real down to
earth sort of bloke I am too. Good job this one's
going by email, wouldn't want that nasty Alan Hope
to know!
Alan Hope
tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7ib4ub$epc$6...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> Trevjon wrote in message
> <19990523211820...@ngol03.aol.com>...
> >"when they start attacking the person, rather
> than the idea, you know you have
> >won the argument".
> Too right, but dont you just love showing the
> little toe-rags for what they are?
What a tosser. Oops.
See, what you just did, Tony mate, is you agreed with Trevjon that an
ad hominem attack is an admission of defeat. Right? With me so far?
Good.
Because what you did next is, in the very same sentence, you called
Tab One a "little toe-rag". Thus using an ad hominem insult. Thus
shooting yourself in the foot. Thereby showing up the poverty of your
debating skills. See how that works?
Too late now, of course, to claim you were being ironic. You're such
a proficient ironist, you see, that every time you use irony, you
stick a great big-nosed smiley on the end of your 'post'.
It's a dead-giveaway. It's your Laugh Here sign. And we need one.
Believe me, we need one.
AH
tony
Trevjon wrote in message
<19990525164429...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>>Gethryn
>
>
>You may see other "shorthand" words (or acronyms,
to be correct)
>
>ACPD= alt conspiracy princess Diana
>BTW= by the way
>IMO = in my opinion
>IMHO = in my humble opinion
>FYI= for your information
>FWIW= for what its worth
>IIRC= if I recall correctly
>ISTR= I seem to recollect
>ROFL= Rolls on floor laughing
>
>There are many more, but you will pick them up as
you go along.
>
>
>Trevjon.
You missed out TABONE - (you know the first
bit).... T A B O N E cstasy.
It's the only possible explanation.
tony
Tab One wrote in message
>
>
>tony wrote:
>
>> Tab One wrote in message
>> <374955F2...@pineland.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >No accept it as my reluctance to discuss any
>> subject with a fool, and
>> >you are a fool.
>>
>> Try asking around the NG in who's the fool. I
>> don't think that you will like the answer
somehow.
>
>Did you learn it recently?
>
>Good Bye Tony.
>Should I advise you when I come over so that you
can find some safe bed
>to sleep in?
Yes please, then shortly afterwards you can advise
the Police why you carried a gun around the UK for
40 years.
tony
Alan Hope wrote in message
No Alan, I understood exactly what I said and the
meanings behind it, and I expect that other
people did too. Just because you say "Too late
now, of course, to claim you were being ironic" it
doesn't make the original irony any less present.
How can it be too late when the irony was there to
start with? Idiot. You have no power behind your
debate because you have no fuel, and persist in
sniffing the exhaust fumes of others writings.
I'm going to say to you yet again. GET ON WITH IT.
Trevjon
>Fact is, for all your dreary little jokes and sycophantic asides to
>other posters, I see people ignoring you. You've tried to suck up and
>be chummy
>with Trevjon a number of times in recent hours and he blanks you
>every time. What a life, eh? First the blokes in the club-house at
>the golf club, now the same thing happens in cyberspace. Still, at
>least the people you employ at your highly successful company laugh
>at your wicked
>sense of humour. When you're around, that is.
Just because I don't post a reply to every comment added to one of my posts
does not mean I am blanking anyone. I am a great believer in the saying "If
you've got nowt to say, then say nowt".
If you look back over my postings you will find comments often added to my
posts, some positive, some negative. I reply to some, and not to others. It
also depends on other factors, such as time, workload, and even what mood I'm
in sometimes.
You yourself have often added comments to my posts, to which I haven't always
added anything else. Please don't think that this means I am blanking you, it
merely means I have nothing further to add.
Trevjon.
tony
aleeta wrote in message
<7ifc6c$mi6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Nahhden lass. Istha gooinabaat thinkin thas gonna
gerruz withi manky tork?
Alavaluk n fettel wat thas onabaat befooer gerrin
bak tithi int mooanin. anyrooad its slaartin it
daan ontej n catsaatseyd, so alav tgoen gerritin
afoor sheyputz wood intoil fo neyt.
Trevjon
writes:
>Buenos dias, senor Antonio!!
> Como esta usted?
> Tiene usted una para diablo? :o))
> Hasta luego.
> Aleeta
Hey Tony, my Spanish is bloody useless, but I think you've pulled!
Although a pint of Thrubshaws "Old Sheepshagger" in the "Ferret Stranglers
Arms" on a saturday night could be a bit of a culture shock after Tijuana.
Then again, a nice bit of Haddock with chips, and mushy peas, would be a
welcome relief after all that spicey food (how do you know when you're hungry
in mexico-your arse stops hurting).
Trevjon.
aleeta
"tony" <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> aleeta wrote in message
> <7id3jk$170$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> worst in people :o)
>
> Ich, leibe dich, un kline kinde Antony.:o))
Aleeta
PS You've no idea what you did to me on that last one.
Trevjon
<ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>Nahhden lass. Istha gooinabaat thinkin thas gonna
>gerruz withi manky tork?
>
>Alavaluk n fettel wat thas onabaat befooer gerrin
>bak tithi int mooanin. anyrooad its slaartin it
>daan ontej n catsaatseyd, so alav tgoen gerritin
>afoor sheyputz wood intoil fo neyt.
>
For the benefit of Aleeta, the above is written in one of the many regional
native dialects prevelant in the UK. It is a rather quaint one known as
"Yawksha"
I am not fluent, but the following is a rough translation.
Nahhden Lass.
"Greetings Madam"
Istha gooinabaat thinkin thas gonna gerruz withi manky talk
"Are you labouring under the misapprehension that your using of a language
unfamiliar to myself will enable you to gain any sort of advantage over me?".
Alavaluk n fettle what thas onabaat before gerrin bak tithi int mooanin
" Rest assured that I will utilise all available translation mediums, and will
contact you at the next earliest opportunity, so a meaningful dialogue may be
transacted"
anyrooad its slaarting it daan ontej n catsaatseyd
"Unfortunately. there is severe inclement weather, in the near vicinity of my
domicile residence at the moment, and my residing feline creature will require
to gain admittance to said abode"
So alav tgoen gerritin afoor sheyputz wood intoil fo nyet
"It will therefore be necessary for me to locate said creature and ensure that
aforementioned admittance is gained before my female partner makes all the
necessary security arrangements so the residence will be secure until the
following morning".
I hope this helps.
If I , as a non native speaker of Yawksher, have made any mistakes in the
translation, I do apologise, and feel sure that Tony will provide corrections
as necessary.
Trevjon.
Trevjon
>Nahhden lass. Istha gooinabaat thinkin thas gonna
>gerruz withi manky tork?
>
>Alavaluk n fettel wat thas onabaat befooer gerrin
>bak tithi int mooanin. anyrooad its slaartin it
>daan ontej n catsaatseyd, so alav tgoen gerritin
>afoor sheyputz wood intoil fo neyt.
>
Ayup! I seed er fost. Goo anget yer own las.
(And I bet they can't translate all this on Alta bloody vista!)
Trevjon.
aleeta
aleeta <ale...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <7id3jk$170$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aleeta <ale...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > ~AJ~
> >
> > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> >
>
> Como esta usted?
> Tiene usted una para diablo? :o))
> Hasta luego.
> Aleeta
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
Dusis alitbewt AT&T.
Aleeta
aleeta
Kevin Warren
John Bartram wrote:
> At the height of the "Troubles", LA had more murders in a week that Ulster
> in a year.
> How many Americans are killed with handguns each year? Then compare that
> figure with the number killed in Viet Nam. Keep your guns, you're doing a
> great job.
What you say is probably true. However, people miss the point of gun
ownership here in America. The founding fathers didn't so much view gun
ownership as a means of personal protection, but rather as a brake against the
intrusive powers of government, which they knew from personal experience would
over time become insufferable. A well armed citizenry was meant by them to be
the final "check-and-balance" against the forces who would rob the people of
their freedom. There is no doubt in my mind that if it weren't for the 200
million guns that Americans own, modern man would be finished as an on-going
concern. We certainly would all be slaves toiling away in the NWO.
The forces behind the current one world government movement know the threat
those 200 million guns pose to them. It has surely forced them to move slower
towards their goals than they otherwise would. They certainly will try to do
everything they can to try to disarm Americans. They will use tragedies like
the recent school shootings to their advantage. But it won't work. They may
chop around the edges of the laws effecting gun ownership, they will never be
able to take that right away, and I believe humanity will be the better for
it.
The reason I say this is right now I firmly believe that barring a miracle, it
will probably come down to violent revolution and/or uprising in this
country. Hence, the need for a well armed citizenry. The US government is so
out of control, so corrupt, it will be very difficult to clean house
peacefully, without violence. The corrupt forces are now entrenched and won't
willingly give up power. Getting rid of Clinton could have changed things
overnight, but that effort failed; it will probably be the last chance
Americans have to reform without having to resort to bloodshed.
But if the day does come when it is necessary to overthrow the present
government, and to establish a new government so as to best ensure the
peoples safety and happiness, the American people at least will have the arms
to do it.
Kevin Warren
http://www.anaserve.com/~wethepeople/diforum.htm
>
>
> Tab One <ta...@pineland.net> wrote in message
> news:37474DA3...@pineland.net...
> > tony wrote:
> > >
> > > Tab One wrote in message
> > > <374721DE...@pineland.net>...
> > > >Subject:
> >
> >
> > > >A Rolls Royce is unreliable "in some
> > > circumstances" too. Why do you
> > > >feel the need to qualify every thing you say?
> > > >
> > > >> As you stated, the Russians excell at making
> > > good, simple devices. It was the
> > > >> use of the word "advanced" that I was querying,
> > > that is all.
> > > >
> > > >Oh!
> > > >
> > > >No more comments about the Danish DNR-ENI
> > > computerised kit?
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Trevjon.
> > > >
> > > >Have a nice day
> > > >
> > > >The sun is shining, it's 92 degrees, and I am
> > > going down to my pond to
> > > >compare my MP-5 and my AK-47 with my SA-80.
> > > >
> > > >tab1
> > >
> > > Gentlemen, geltnleman, the word anorak comes to
> > > mind :o))
> > >
> > > (and I dont mean the new ones with the fancy
> > > toggles)
> >
> > I keep forgetting, you guys still live in the land where you willingly
> > gave up the right to legally own firearms, so that only criminals and
> > the police could carry guns! No more firearm related crime. Oh, yeah,
> > right. Worked in N.I. too, didn't it!
> >
> > tab1<happily living in Georgia where everybody has guns>
John Bartram
governments only a few years ago. None required an armed populace. The idea
of US citizens, more used to shooting themselves in error or depression than
in anger, using their handguns to overthrow the Federal government is
mind-boggling, to say the least.
Kevin Warren <kwa...@relaypoint.net> wrote in message
news:3744ED36...@relaypoint.net...
tony
Trevjon wrote in message
<19990525204204...@ngol03.aol.com>...>writes:
>
>>Buenos dias, senor Antonio!!
>> Como esta usted?
>> Tiene usted una para diablo? :o))
>> Hasta luego.
>> Aleeta
>
think you've pulled!
>
>Although a pint of Thrubshaws "Old Sheepshagger"
in the "Ferret Stranglers
>Arms" on a saturday night could be a bit of a
culture shock after Tijuana.
>Then again, a nice bit of Haddock with chips, and
mushy peas, would be a
>welcome relief after all that spicey food (how do
you know when you're hungry
>in mexico-your arse stops hurting).
>
>
>Trevjon.
Haddock? You're posh at your house. Anyway, they
only get a fish with their chips when I'm on a
promise.
tony
aleeta wrote in message
<7iftm8$2in$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7ifc6c$mi6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Como esta usted?
>> Tiene usted una para diablo? :o))
>> Hasta luego.
>> Aleeta
>>
>> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
==--
>> ---Share what you know. Learn what you
don't.---
>>
> Doinzha, jus doinzha thengk dot uniboddy kood
figiziz ewtital?
> Dusis alitbewt AT&T.
> Aleeta
Ahhhh! you must have studied in Leeds.
tony
Kevin Warren wrote in message
<3744ED36...@relaypoint.net>...
That's a good backing of US gun laws that I hadn't
heard before, and certainly one that bears more
merit than Tab Ones reasoning of 'I've got a
Kalshnikov (sp?) and I'll shoot the son of a bitch
that trys it on'.
I dont really agree because I'm not a really big
into NWO in the way that you are, but at least its
a more intelligent argument: :o)
Alan Hope
tony <ma...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7ifdgm$id3$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> You have no power behind your
> debate because you have no fuel, and persist in
> sniffing the exhaust fumes of others writings.
Oh very poetic. Exhaust fumes of writings. Tell me again about my
lack of writing skills.
> I'm going to say to you yet again. GET ON WITH IT.
Change the record. You don't see what's right under your nose, do
you?
AH