Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

SUPERB LABOUR HUMILIATION

5 views
Skip to first unread message

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 6:33:34 AM1/2/04
to
Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
befallen a abour MP.
It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
distinctly uncomfortable.

Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.

Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
bill.

The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing home
owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops they
could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
his property.

Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".

The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers is
a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office. So
now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public. Of
course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the wishes
of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
the poll which was something about organ doners.

Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 6:38:19 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a Labour MP.

> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linked up with radio 4 for a poll to find out which
> single change in law people would most like to see on the statute book.

Andrew McGee

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 6:39:19 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
poll of this kind.

I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.

And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
the first place!


Elephar

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 6:54:43 AM1/2/04
to
The Rifleman wrote:
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
> humiliation befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of
> knee jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
> feeling distinctly uncomfortable.
>

I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
"The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"

ROTFL

Col

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:08:10 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
> single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>

Rumour has it that this poll was hijacked at the last minute by supporters
of Tony Martin.
Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to pursue
a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
to agree with it.

As I read this morning in my newspaper, 'Hoisted by his own petard!'

Quite.

Col
--
So where are they, Mr Blair?


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:02:07 AM1/2/04
to
Actually Laurence I think republicism is most certainly on the increase in
the UK, but the problem is the sheeple still believe the garbage spewed out
by the police and politicians.and when you have so many willing socialist
parasites who will do anything the politicians tell them so long as they get
their dole and benefits nothing will improve.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:02:59 AM1/2/04
to

"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote in message
news:bt3m63$2udv5$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de...

Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people
and ignore it.
>
>


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:07:46 AM1/2/04
to

> Rumour has it that this poll was hijacked at the last minute by supporters
> of Tony Martin.
> Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to
pursue
> a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
> to agree with it.
>
> As I read this morning in my newspaper, 'Hoisted by his own petard!'
>
> Quite.
>
> Col
Ah but Col it could have just as easily been hijacked by say the anti hunt
lobby, or the pro euro lobby and I am DAMN 1000% certain he would have
adopted it their and then cos the people have spoken ???


Wotan

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:47:45 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has really shown them up in their true

> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
humiliation
> befallen a Labour MP.

> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour
of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>

> Stephen Pound MP had linked up with radio 4 for a poll top find out
which
> single change in the law people would most like to see on the


statute book.
>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public
voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private
members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law
allowing home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a
strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with
murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the
cops they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries
affecting
> his property.

Yes, it does show the reptiles up in their true light.

They hope to be able to manipulate the public to fit in with
their own treacherous schemes - and when the public does not
- they are all condemned as "fascists" and "Nazis".

The problem Blair's subversive International Marxist scum have
is that the electorate are going to rip them to pieces.

Because Blair's maggot filth are not even nearly as clever as
they like to think they are - and the British people are a damn
sight more shrewd than they would like to believe !

Their days are numbered and the clock is ticking down to
the day of their doom and just desserts.


Wotan

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:50:08 AM1/2/04
to

"Andrew McGee" <amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bt3l97$p9d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

>
> "The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law
allowing
> home
> > owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, >

> I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.

Why ? Are you in favour of the yob culture and allowing thugs
to murder people in their own homes ?

> And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which
> was very low in the first place!

"EU" quislings have NO regard for democracy.

Wotan

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:52:56 AM1/2/04
to

"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ukmavvscirtjmfetg...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:33:34 -0000, "The Rifleman"
> <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snips for brevity

> |Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
with
> |Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour
party.
>
> I think it is time for the UK to have a London Tea Party on the
> Thames.

That day draws near.

The days of Blair and the criminal filth who protect him and keep
him in power are numbered - and the numnbers are low.


Wotan

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:54:16 AM1/2/04
to

"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote in message
news:bt3m63$2udv5$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de...

The open contempt for the people by Blair and his "EU" quisling
criminal scum is notorious. And they will pay a terrible price
for it.


rickb30...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:23:00 AM1/2/04
to

If you want a class on how to toss off the Royals,
let us know. :-)
That, or call Ghandi's bunch. :-)


Col

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:35:11 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3mu1$i3o$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

I'm sure he would, but that's politicians for you.
I think a Tory MP in the same situation would have done much the same
thing. I can't believe that he was stupid enough to think that there wasn't
some risk attached to this venture. it is well known that open polls such
as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!

Now I wonder if we really have to go through the farce of wasting parliamentary
time by introducing a bill that even the MP introducing it disagrees with?

Frank White

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:19:22 AM1/2/04
to
In article <bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk says...

<snip>

>Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
>Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.

So. Can we take this to mean you're not a fan of Labour?

^_^

FW

Elephar

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:39:55 AM1/2/04
to
Col wrote:
<Snip>

> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!
>

Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack took
place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
population?

Col

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:50:19 AM1/2/04
to

"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote in message
news:bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de...

Of course it could.
However there was a sudden rush of votes for this bill right at the end,
leading one to wonder.........

Jonathan Bratt

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:45:42 AM1/2/04
to
In message <3ff5...@212.67.96.135>, Wotan <Wo...@Valhalla.net> writes

>The days of Blair and the criminal filth who protect him and keep him
>in power are numbered - and the numnbers are low.

What might that number be bobby?
--
Jonathan Bratt

Jonathan Bratt

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:47:13 AM1/2/04
to
In message <bt3ml1$hss$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, The Rifleman
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes

A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
exercise, nothing more.
--
Jonathan Bratt

Jonathan Bratt

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:46:20 AM1/2/04
to
In message <bt3m63$2udv5$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
<ele...@pipex.com> writes

He was - I think - quoting an American politician from some time back.
--
Jonathan Bratt

Jonathan Bratt

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:49:15 AM1/2/04
to
In message <3ff5...@212.67.96.135>, Wotan <Wo...@Valhalla.net> writes
>Their days are numbered

Hazard a guess old fruit.
--
Jonathan Bratt

Jonathan Bratt

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 8:48:43 AM1/2/04
to
In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
<ele...@pipex.com> writes

No.

--
Jonathan Bratt

David Morton

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:07:00 AM1/2/04
to
In article <es50qHYsYX9$Ew...@aol.com>, jonny...@aol.com (Jonathan Bratt)
wrote:

> He was - I think - quoting an American politician from some time back.

Dick Tuck, after losing the 1966 California State Senate race.

Elephar

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:48:20 AM1/2/04
to

Yep, but it sounded heartfelt.
Put me in mind of a certain B'Stard MP on the box.....


Elephar

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:51:06 AM1/2/04
to

Spoken like a true New Lab politician.
If your not one, you missed your vocation.


Col

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:58:51 AM1/2/04
to

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Mccw2GZ7aX9$Ew...@aol.com...

I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea.
I'm sure a significant minority of people in this country would
vote for peadophiles to be nailed by their testicles to the nearest
lampost, if given the chance.........

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:59:11 AM1/2/04
to

<rickb30...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ff57072...@news.oxy.com...
> I'll say one thing about communism at least the commies knew how to deal
with the russian royal family.


Richard Miller

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 10:11:50 AM1/2/04
to
In message <bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, The Rifleman
<steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes

>Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
>undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
>befallen a abour MP.

[Snip]

> Of
>course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
>would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
>point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
>typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the wishes
>of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
>the poll which was something about organ doners.
>

>Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
>Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.
>
>

Thank God for a Labour MP with more sense than the general public.

First, the proposed new law would not have actually changed the law at
all. It cannot be changed without legitimising rape, child abuse,
torture and murder. The current law provides all the permission people
need to defend themselves.

Secondly, when comparing the risk that someone would want/need to defend
themselves in a way not presently permitted by law with the risk that
they will need a transplant and find no organs available, the risk of
the latter is exponentially higher than the former, so the transplants
bill will save and improve far more lives than the bill that won the
vote.

When I heard the result of the poll, I despaired that my fellow
countrymen were so stupid. I am greatly relieved at Stephen Pound's
obviously sensible decision.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 10:16:06 AM1/2/04
to
In message <bt3sba$2v867$1...@ID-46833.news.uni-berlin.de>, Elephar
<ele...@pipex.com> writes

Maybe.

Unfortunately, as threads about TM on these groups have illustrated, a
large proportion of the population fundamentally misunderstand what the
law of this country does and does not allow. Among those who have a
correct understanding, very few see any need for change.
--
Richard Miller

Graham Innocent

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 10:33:02 AM1/2/04
to
> Rumour has it that this poll was hijacked at the last minute by supporters
> of Tony Martin.

Almost certainly. However, that could be said about whichever
proposition won, and merely demonstrates the strength of support for
Tony Martin's plight.

> Still, it was rather brave (or rather stupid!) for an MP to promise to pursue
> a bill though parliament when they didn't even know that they were going
> to agree with it.

Yes. Although with a bit of luck all that arrogant bluster about not
being so keen on democracy when ordinary people disagree with him will
lose the twerp his seat.

Barry

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 10:39:20 AM1/2/04
to
Is your remark intended to convey that Michael Jackson is a criminal?

Well if so, I can see why you would make such a remark. I live in Canada
and have access to all the US TV news stations, all of whom have
convicted Michael Jackson and actively encourage their viewers to do the
same.

By the time he comes to trial, it will not be about a guilty verdict
because this has already been decided by the American public. It will be
about the jail sentence he gets.

Although the British justice system is far from perfect the case would
now be sub-judice which could never happen in the US, otherwise half
your TV and Radio stations would close down for lack of subjects.
Example - the Peterson case - oh! definately guilty heh! Has to be,
right! No other suspects and after all he did chop up his wife and rip
the out the 8 month old baby from her belly. Was that before or after
she was dumped in the water?

I have no love for some of the British justice system but that of the
USA is worse than that practiced in third world countries. It's more
about re-electing the officials who enact and dispense justice than
about the crime, where the accused is guilty before being proved
innocent.

Perhaps it's also the reason for the many fictional TV programmes that
are aired in the US. After all, that's the only way to see an accused
person be judged innocent. Could be why they are so popular.

Barry


"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ukmavvscirtjmfetg...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:33:34 -0000, "The Rifleman"
> <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snips for brevity


> |Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
with
> |Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour
party.
>

> I think it is time for the UK to have a London Tea Party on the

> Thames. Not drinking the tea, TOSSING IT OVERBOARD.
>
>
> Lg


Solon

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:06:56 AM1/2/04
to
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:47:13 +0000, Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com>
enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:

>>> I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
>>> "The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"

>>> ROTFL

>>Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people

>A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
>Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
>exercise, nothing more.

But it was a bit more than that, wasn't it? For whatever reason,
Stephen Pound said that he would use his "slot" to promote a Bill
chosen by the Today programme's listeners. No doubt he held himself
out as being very democratic and broad-minded about it, put on a
"brave" face on the possibility that "the people" might chose a Bill
with which he disagreed, and mouthed platitudes about being a "servant
of the people" etc etc.

Of course, it now turns out that the choice he was offering was an
"any colour you like so long as its black" type choice: and that he
has no intention of being bound by a choice with which he disagrees.

It certainly isn't the first time that a politician - even one as
amusing as Stephen Pound - has gone back on a promise but I do not
think that such an event can be dismissed as "an amusing exercise". At
best, this exercise speaks volumes about Mr Pound's judgment - at
worst, his honesty - and the frivolity with which he appears to view
his legislative authority.


--
Solon

Elephar

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:14:57 AM1/2/04
to

Ah, Richard, I see.
If I agree with you with regard to this subject then I am a sensible member
of the public.
If I disagree, it's just because I don't comprehend the facts.
Could it be that we might actually understand those facts but feel that
things are fundamentally cock-eyed?


Dirk Bruere at Neopax

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:18:48 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a humiliation
> befallen a abour MP.
> It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of knee
> jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP feeling
> distinctly uncomfortable.
>
> Stephen Pound MP had linkled up with radio 4 for a poll top find out which
> single change in K law people would most like to see on the statute book.

>
> Mr Pound LABOUR MP, PROMISED to adopt whichever proposal the public voted
> for and to pilot it through parliament in the form of a private members
> bill.
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing
home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder
> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops
they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>
> Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
> Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
> the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
> bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
> tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".

> The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers
is
> a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office.
So
> now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
> keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public.


Of
> course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
> would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
> point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
> typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the
wishes
> of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
> the poll which was something about organ doners.


People get what they deserve.
Labour (and Con and Liberal) are effectively the same party with minor
arguments over how the small change is to be spent.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org


Anthony Edwards

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:20:41 AM1/2/04
to
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:47:13 +0000, Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com> wrote:

> A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.
> Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
> exercise, nothing more.

Something I found ironic is that, according to reports that I have
read, the proposed new legislation voted for by those taking part
in the poll would only give home owners the right to use unlimited
(including lethal) force against intruders in their homes, and council
(and other) tenants would be given no such benefit, with existing
law remaining the status quo in such situations.

Why home owners feel that they should be entitled to more legal
protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
is beyond me. Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
detection and conviction rates that exist at present.

--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk

half_pint

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:33:28 AM1/2/04
to

"The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3kv0$v63$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The vote as it happened voted overwhelmingly for.........A law allowing
home
> owners to protect themselves and their homes by any means, IE a strident
> defence of the Tony Martin fiasco the farmer who was charged with murder

Wrong no vote allowing homeowners to shoot children in the back without
warning (or even with warning) was taken.
So sorry to dampen your squib.
Murder is still illegal in the UK despite the the efforts to legalise it as
a sport
to replace fox hunting for the landowbing classes.

> after killing a burglar on his remote farm after being told by the cops
they
> could not and would not protect him from a series of burglaries affecting
> his property.
>

And if police had indeed been there and acted as child murderer murderer
Martin had they would be behind bars too.


> Naturally bering a LABOUR MP with the typical morals of a LABOURITE , MR
> Pound LABOUR MP was forced into a humiliating retreat, turning his back on
> the 25,000 voters and his promise to adopt their vote as a private members
> bill was quoted as saying " MY enthiusiasm for democracy is now slightly
> tempered, I must admit this is quite a difficult result".


Of course there is nothing democratic about a poll of radio 4 listeners,
you might as well poll tory party head office.


>
> The " Martin" law vote won over 37 % of the vote which if one remembers
is
> a higher percentage of the amount of people who voted LABOUR into office.

And of course as I understand it the vote was rigged anyway which is typical
of the right wing child killing gun lobby.
Typical of the right wing who will cheat and murder to gain power.

>So
> now you have it folks you kknow exactly that labourites and the MPs do not
> keep the promises they make, nor do they respect the will of the public.
Of
> course the rest of the LABOUR establishment immeadiately said such a bill
> would never have been allowed anyway, if that was the case what was the
> point of the whole exercise, and even more slimily the lying cheating
> typical labourite MP has now said even though they dont recognise the
wishes
> of the public in the vote they will put forward the second place winner in
> the poll which was something about organ doners.
>

> Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids with
> Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the labour party.

Or trust them to Martin so he could shoot them in the back, like the
coward he is.

>
>

--
---------------
regards half_pint


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:41:15 AM1/2/04
to
> Why home owners feel that they should be entitled to more legal
> protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
> is beyond me.

They should not, all people in their homes bought or rented should have
equal protection under the law.


Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
> in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
> burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
> detection and conviction rates that exist at present.

Rubbish the last thing we need is anything else being done to the police,
even if we doubled their numbers nothing would improve in any worthwhile
manner, what people want is to be able tpo prevent themselves from becoming
victims in the first places, not to see how swift the criminals are caught
and released, the public wants to be in a position where they are not
becoming statistics for politicians and policemen to bandy about.
>.uk


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:42:18 AM1/2/04
to

> Ah, Richard, I see.
> If I agree with you with regard to this subject then I am a sensible
member
> of the public.
> If I disagree, it's just because I don't comprehend the facts.
> Could it be that we might actually understand those facts but feel that
> things are fundamentally cock-eyed?
>
> Well said.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:45:41 AM1/2/04
to

> When I heard the result of the poll, I despaired that my fellow
> countrymen were so stupid. I am greatly relieved at Stephen Pound's
> obviously sensible decision.
> --
> Richard Miller

And of course you wont have considered thats its everyone else who dispairs
at people like you, so smug and aloof at ones moral superiority over your
fellow countrymen, I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself if you
believe that you a minority are correct and the vast majority of people who
disagree with you are stupid.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:48:02 AM1/2/04
to

<user...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ne6bvv8ku6hdoipb8...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:11:50 +0000, Richard Miller
> <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> >>undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
humiliation
> >>befallen a abour MP.
>
> You really don't follow the news do you :) Politician breaks promise
> .... oh really hold the front page!
>
> Also defending your home by *shooting someone* is not an option for
> most people....if it were we would have a murder rate like that in the
> states.
>
> By shooting someone of course I mean shooting someone in the back who
> was headed away from the house.....or perhaps just anyone who takes
> your fancy.....
You are not really up to this adult debate are you, the vast majority of
people want the right to protect their homes and themselves from the
criminals, no one has mentioned shooting anyone, and I am certain that many
people would like the right to choose to be able to own a gun and have that
decision , instead of simply being the targets of criminal scum.


Robert Sturgeon

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:49:18 AM1/2/04
to
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:47:13 +0000, Jonathan Bratt
<jonny...@aol.com> wrote:

All majority political parties claim to represent the will
of the people. They confuse their claims of representation
with actual representation. When the actual will of the
people clashes with their own political agendas, they choose
their own agendas over the will of the people. Eventually
they lose their status as the majority party in elections
(or a civil war) and have to go back to listening to the
people instead of their own doctrinaires. The U.S.
Democratic Party finds itself in that transition right now.

Not being British, nor caring anything about that society of
(apparent) sheep, I don't know if the Labour Party is about
to undergo that humiliating process or not. I wouldn't be
surprised if it is.

Bill Clinton, despite of his moral failings, at least
understood the nature of democratic politics. He angered
the other politicians and the Deep Thinkers by consulting
the polls before making political decisions. He won a LOT
of elections that way. That Labour MP might consider paying
some attention to those uncouth responders. There just
might be a bit of a clue as to how a substantial portion of
his voters think about the question of self-defense. I take
it he belongs to the "Big Brother knows best" theory of
government, and so he won't bother listening to those
anti-social complainers.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 11:57:06 AM1/2/04
to

> Or trust them to Martin so he could shoot them in the back, like the
> coward he is.

> ---------------
> regards half_pint
>
> Dont worry even public opinion is against you, perhaps changing your name
to half wit would be more apt?


First Maje

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 12:08:57 PM1/2/04
to
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:49:18 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:

>Not being British, nor caring anything about that society of
>(apparent) sheep, I don't know if the Labour Party is about
>to undergo that humiliating process or not. I wouldn't be
>surprised if it is.

The problem in Britain is that all the major political parties are the
same. It was the Tories who introduced gun confiscation to Britain -
Thatcher with Hungerford and Major with Dunblane.

That's why I call Britian a Totalitarian Dictatorship. It is
structurally no different than Communist China where there is a single
ruling class. In fact Britain doesn't even have a Right side to its
political spectrum - everyone is a Leftist of one stripe or the other.


--

"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 12:21:58 PM1/2/04
to
> The problem in Britain is that all the major political parties are the
> same. It was the Tories who introduced gun confiscation to Britain -
> Thatcher with Hungerford and Major with Dunblane.
>
> That's why I call Britian a Totalitarian Dictatorship. It is
> structurally no different than Communist China where there is a single
> ruling class. In fact Britain doesn't even have a Right side to its
> political spectrum - everyone is a Leftist of one stripe or the other.
>
> Sadly the above comments are so true, I had a tory guy knock at the door
just after crombo he wanted to know if I would be likely to vote tory again
after I had fired off so many anti labour posts to the papers and to the
WWW, I told him I would not vote tory until the unjust, immoral and
unneccessary anti gun laws introduced since 1968 were repealed.. I know it
will be a cold day in hell before that happens , but I just wanted the local
tories who know me and my family why they are not getting back into power on
my back.


JNugent

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 12:45:40 PM1/2/04
to
Barry <bernard.verona@(Unwanted)cgocable.ca> wrote...

> > "The Rifleman" <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > snips for brevity

> > Jeez the people of the UK would be better off trusting their kids
> > with Michael Jackson than this country to the perveerts of the
> > labour party.

> Is your remark intended to convey that Michael Jackson is a criminal?

> Well if so, I can see why you would make such a remark. I live in Canada
> and have access to all the US TV news stations, all of whom have
> convicted Michael Jackson and actively encourage their viewers to do the
> same.

> By the time he comes to trial, it will not be about a guilty verdict
> because this has already been decided by the American public. It will be
> about the jail sentence he gets.

It is often so with high-profile criminal cases and particularly so with
high-profile defendants.

Should that automatically lead to acquittal?

> Although the British justice system is far from perfect the case would
> now be sub-judice which could never happen in the US, otherwise half
> your TV and Radio stations would close down for lack of subjects.
> Example - the Peterson case - oh! definately guilty heh! Has to be,
> right! No other suspects and after all he did chop up his wife and rip
> the out the 8 month old baby from her belly. Was that before or after
> she was dumped in the water?

You must be talking about a North American case, whilst under the impression
that this (ukpm or apb) is a North American NG.


JNugent

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 12:52:26 PM1/2/04
to
Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com> wrote...

> The Rifleman <steve...@day273723.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

> >"Elephar" <ele...@pipex.com> wrote:

> >> The Rifleman wrote:

> >> > Oh Joyous day a LABOUR MP has relly shown them up in their true
> >> > undemocratic , promise breaking true selves. Never has such a
> >> > humiliation befallen a abour MP.
> >> > It was the day democracy ( something all labourites hate in favour of
> >> > knee jerk hysteria) left the BBC and a publicity grabbing LABOUR MP
> >> > feeling distinctly uncomfortable.

> >> I just love his quoted remark in the Mail...
> >> "The people have spoken........the BASTARDS!"
> >> ROTFL
> >Naturally being a labourite he is going to look at the will of the people

> A poll on the Today programme does not represent the will of the people.

But he *said* he *would* take up the most popular proposal and try to push
it through as a PMB, and if he had an ounce of honour or scruple, he would
now do what he promised.

That he will not do what he promised proves (as if proof were needed) that
he is untrustworthy.

> Such polls are easily open to pressure groups. It was an amusing
> exercise, nothing more.

That isn't what he said before the poll was taken, is it? And anyway, the
newsworthiness of this is not "Labour MPs think burglars more deserving than
homeowners" (we knew that already, and it is a "dog bites man" story).

The story is "Labour MP breaks a public promise".

Clearly, the wrong pressure group (if there was one) prevailed.

I wonder which one Pound had primed?


JNugent

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 12:56:50 PM1/2/04
to
Anthony Edwards <use...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> wrote...

> Something I found ironic is that, according to reports that I have
> read, the proposed new legislation voted for by those taking part
> in the poll would only give home owners the right to use unlimited
> (including lethal) force against intruders in their homes, and council
> (and other) tenants would be given no such benefit, with existing
> law remaining the status quo in such situations.

> Why home owners feel that they should be entitled to more legal
> protection than other householders in their attempts to repel burglars
> is beyond me. Actually, what is needed is a drastic shake-up
> in policing methods, with police actually attempting to apprehend
> burglars and bring them to justice, as opposed to the extremely low
> detection and conviction rates that exist at present.

Of course, it is VERY unlikely that the voters specified the proposed law in
those terms.

You have simply retailed the summarised wording chosen by the BBC, perhaps
in the hope that someone like you would stand up on his hind legs and start
bleating about it, giving this Pound character the sort of "out" he needs.

There would, of course, be nothing to stop Pound using the word
"householder" in the Private Member's Bill he promised to introduce,
whatever the wording of the BBC's scriptwriter.


JNugent

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 1:01:07 PM1/2/04
to
Jonathan Bratt <jonny...@aol.com> wrote...

> Elephar <ele...@pipex.com> writes:

> >Col wrote:

> >> as this can be sabotaged by concerted groups of individuals.
> >> He must have known about this and taken a calculated risk.
> >> Unfortunately for him it blew up in his face!

> >Could it not just possibly be, even remotely possibly, that no hi-jack
took
> >place and the view expressed really was the view of the majority of the
> >population?

> No.

I have never thought of you as stupid, or as dishonest.

But you must either be stupid or dishonest if you answer "no" to that.

Which is it?


Gunner

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 2:30:50 PM1/2/04
to
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:39:19 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew McGee"
<amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>
>Well, I'm no fan of Labour, old or new, but it was a very silly idea to
>promise to put forward whatever half-baked idea came out of a self-selecting
>poll of this kind.
>
>I am very glad that it has no chance of becoming law.
>
>And it does nothing to dent my regard for democracy, which was very low in
>the first place!

You find a law, that allows home owners the right to protect their
home by any means necessary to be silly?

Gods blood, I hope you are not typical of the UK.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Gunner

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 2:34:37 PM1/2/04
to

Why would you feel that Council (and others) dwellers should have less
righ