Sexual Assualt in London up 20%, + acid attacks and moped gangs

[swabian]

Both UKIP the Tories and the Brexit campaign are linked to Russian money and oligarchs don't like to be taxed. However the slow destruction was a calculated policy of the Conservative government who put money to banks and tax cuts and dodgy outsourcing firms over financing public services.

Yeah, because a bunch of Russian twitter trolls drove the UK mad. The mere fact that Russians tried to meddle does in no way mean that it had any effect above the second decimal place. The Russians want to raise their notoriety on purpose in order to intimidate the EU. To claim that Brexit was in any way engineered by the Russian government is nought but hair-raising tinfoil-hattery. It was a referendum that was decided fair and square. There is no way you can blame anything else than the unfiltered will of the British majority.

Cuts in policing will do that.

policing and ineffective criminal prosecution is not the cause, those are the symptoms of a weak immune system. The cause is a Muslim milieu that is not only getting cockier but also more tolerant towards anti-social acts commited in the name of Islam.

[mongrel]

Yeah, because a bunch of Russian twitter trolls drove the UK mad. The mere fact that Russians tried to meddle does in no way mean that it had any effect above the second decimal place. The Russians want to raise their notoriety on purpose in order to intimidate the EU. To claim that Brexit was in any way engineered by the Russian government is nought but hair-raising tinfoil-hattery. It was a referendum that was decided fair and square. There is no way you can blame anything else than the unfiltered will of the British majority.



policing and ineffective criminal prosecution is not the cause, those are the symptoms of a weak immune system. The cause is a Muslim milieu that is not only getting cockier but also more tolerant towards anti-social acts commited in the name of Islam.

I only mentioned the roubles. If people were daft enough to beleive half the crap both posted on both sides of the Brexit debate that is their failing.

Crap post I must say, Where is the evidence that Muslims set the police budget? Oh noes that was done by George Osborne not George Osman. And lets consider something you and I might know about, online crime, for example sending malicious communications/death threats. Muslims responsible for that too?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I'd heard about the mopeds. I thought it was a joke.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But in any case, mopeds are the least of Britain's worries, what with countless thousands of children being under Islamic sexual slavery with government acquiescence and everything.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Make sure not to speak a word of it, though. Keep your head down.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Police can only behave this way in a largely disarmed and unarmed country. If American police served warrants on people over political rhetoric promulgated by Twitter, they would draw a lot of gunfire and it would be well-deserved under those circumstances.


Free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are companions, they go hand in hand. We are witnessing the complete end to any semblance of freedom of speech in the UK, as well as the rule of law for that matter.

Britain may very well wind up being the first example in modern history of a society with a long democratic/representative tradition willfully transforming itself into an authoritarian Orwellian police/surveillance state without so much as a peep uttered in opposition.

[mongrel]

Police can only behave this way in a largely disarmed and unarmed country. If American police served warrants on people over political rhetoric promulgated by Twitter, they would draw a lot of gunfire and it would be well-deserved under those circumstances.


Free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are companions, they go hand in hand. We are witnessing the complete end to any semblance of freedom of speech in the UK, as well as the rule of law for that matter.

Britain may very well wind up being the first example in modern history of a society with a long democratic/representative tradition willfully transforming itself into an authoritarian Orwellian police/surveillance state without so much as a peep uttered in opposition.

This is so much hot air.

It would make bugger-all difference if they were armed. The fact remains that without an adequate budget, cut year on year , there aren't going to be suffcient police whatever they are armed with to do the job.The so-called right to bear arms would hardly be useful to anyone other than mass shooters and terrorists who woud no doubt benefit from a dwindling police presence.

Oh one cannot have a police state without police either.

We know what works because we had the solution before 2010, during the Blair years. More police equals less crime.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

This is so much hot air.

It would make bugger-all difference if they were armed. The fact remains that without an adequate budget, cut year on year , there aren't going to be suffcient police whatever they are armed with to do the job.The so-caled right to bear arms would hardly be useful to anyone other than mass shooters and terrorists who woud no doubt benefit from a dwindling police presence.

Oh one cannot have a police state without police either.

We know what works because we had the solution before 2010, during the Blair years. More police equals less crime.

You completely misread my post.

I am NOT trying to advocate for arming British police. I am advocating that British citizens be armed so they can prevent British police from suppressing their speech rights and so that the good Englishmen of the UK can stand up to the acid gangs and then deal with the police when the police arrive to try to protect the acid attackers and defend their "rights" to throw/spray acid.


British police are a hindrance to a healthy and properly functioning United Kingdom and if the British masses were armed they could do something about their nation's acid attack problem because they would be able to stop the police from interfering.

[mongrel]

You completely misread my post.

I am NOT trying to advocate for arming British police. I am advocating that British citizens be armed so they can prevent British police from suppressing their speech rights and so that the good Englishmen of the UK can stand up to the acid gangs and then deal with the police when the police arrive to try to protect the acid attackers and defend their "rights" to throw/spray acid.


British police are a hindrance to a healthy and properly functioning United Kingdom and if the British masses were armed they could do something about their nation's acid attack problem because they would be able to stop the police from interfering.

And as I pointed out I can imagine anything more disastrous than arming people at a tme when police resources are at breaking point. Have you read what you said? Moped gangs are confined to mostly to London, where the high value goods are around to be grabbed. How arming a Yorkshitreman or Welshman stop that? How is a London going to blast away troublesome riders in crowded urban situations without killing bystanders? And are you suggesting that Brits kill off the few policemen we have left, just because alt right Americans want Islamists and Nazis to infect the country? I have never seen such puerile nonsense.

As the more sensible posters have observed , crime fell like a stone during the Blair years thanks to a policy of increasing police numbers, zero tolerance of minor crimes and criminalising anything harmful to the public good. There is no reason why it can't work again.

[Heathen Hammer]

So people being able to defend themselves against criminals and oppressive government is "disastrous". Obviously, statism under Blair's rule didn't really work either.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

So people being able to defend themselves against criminals and oppressive government is "disastrous". Obviously, statism under Blair's rule didn't really work either.

I mean technically it did work. If you mean why was it ditched- that would be the economically illiterate and ideologically driven Conservative implementation of austerity.

When it comes to calls to 'arm populations' a debate can be had, but what a lot of pro-gun proponents seem to forget in fairness is much like economic or political models- it is night impossible to transpose a system in one country and expect it to work the same in another- you have to take into account historical contexts, political and social culture, 'type' of democratic tradition and state structures- the UK context is literally completely different to the US (particularly lack of a 'revolution from below' and the 'top down' creation of a democratic state) making attitudes both from the public and state towards mass gun ownership extremely negative- its literally an electoral no go. Unlike say Switzerland where you have a historical tradition providing legitimacy of citizen militias, or the US where the militia plus an anti-centralized inclined written constitution mean it is seen as an innate part of the political and cultural tradition. To provide a call for gun-ownership that you and Byzantinegamer are after, you'd need a new political party with mass appeal and a contextual precedent that the British public give a damn about, ideally that has historic roots- being an island with the attendant 'Island mentality' this is incredibly hard- tell us the Russians (or French) will invade and its a 'pfft'. The experience of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland which theoretically could be a stable example, actually contributes to putting people off gun-ownership even more here due to the chaos the IRA caused in England, and the various paramilitaries of both sides did in N.Ireland.

And all this isn't even going into the massive debate that is if gun ownership on the US model even 'works'- of which i won't comment.

So with this in mind the 'Statist' model under Blair- not only did work very well, but also was the best fit/model for the context of the UK.

[Heathen Hammer]

It didn't really work, since giving too much power to state rarely accomplishes desired goal, but usually ends up with catastrophic consequences.
As for gun ownership, Troubles as well as the recent muslim terrorist attacks in UK and Western Europe in general are the reason why population should be armed to defend themselves from terrorists and criminals in general (as well as from their own government if it choses to become tyrannical). Of course, the real reason behind draconian gun control in UK is quite the same as the absence of free speech - government officials would rather have the population unarmed and unable to speak their minds. At the same time, what makes the man free? Ability to own weapons, to speak one's mind and to own property. Britons already lost the first 2, the third one might be coming up next.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

It didn't really work, since giving too much power to state rarely accomplishes desired goal, but usually ends up with catastrophic consequences.
As for gun ownership, Troubles as well as the recent muslim terrorist attacks in UK and Western Europe in general are the reason why population should be armed to defend themselves from terrorists and criminals in general (as well as from their own government if it choses to become tyrannical). Of course, the real reason behind draconian gun control in UK is quite the same as the absence of free speech - government officials would rather have the population unarmed and unable to speak their minds. At the same time, what makes the man free? Ability to own weapons, to speak one's mind and to own property. Britons already lost the first 2, the third one might be coming up next.

This is the thing though, the UK has always been a rather centralized state (Beyond arguably a period of trialing a libertarian style 'nightwatchmen' in the early 19th century- which ended in disaster frankly and required/led to greater state intervention within the Empire as well as domestic issues).

I mean also its questionable under those constraints you've made in the last part of your post, if Britain even 'had' the first two- bearing in mind gun ownership has never been as widespread in the USA and 'free speech' is not the same here as the US and never has been due to the historical contexts. Its why of course you can say 'The US model is better', but in practice its not, because it can never happen. Your argument in regard to terrorist activity- what happened is the reaction to that has been for the public to be 'even happier' to give up control to centralized law enforcement- seen with the Conservatives Snoopers Charters and Investigatory Powers Act (I'll one day check that the latter one is the one i'm thinking of...)- beyond left-wing and liberal groups, no one has cared at the successive invasion of privacy- indeed when these issues are raised by liberal/left-wing advocates, the 'typical' reaction from the voting British right has been to shout them down as traitors or bring up the fact that greater security is needed. And indeed part of the reason for this is probably the experience of terrorism during the 'Troubles'.

Gun ownership just does not appear in the electoral discourse and can't under the current context, it would take decades of active change to make something like that palatable, and there needs to be a worse threat than Islamic terrorism...even then what would happen probably as in the past is the TA would merely be expanded so that the populace can 'play with' and learn to use firearms, but again under state-control and that would probably kill off any calls for private gun ownership.

So we're back to i'm afraid (depending on where we all fall in the argument ) the proper funding of Police, not only working when it was done, and working well -but also being the only 'viable' solution in a British context. The issue with the Conservatives is they have continued to centralize power (Snoopers) and security, and yet then fail to fund those apparatus properly. So its the worst of both worlds.

[mongrel]

So people being able to defend themselves against criminals and oppressive government is "disastrous". Obviously, statism under Blair's rule didn't really work either.

Given the daft proposal BPG offered yes. Also we can drop our kids off to school knowing that the class won't ber shot to ribbons.

[Heathen Hammer]

Gun rights aren't an election issue not because majority of population wouldn't want their right to fight back back, but because UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't controlled by the establishment that has proven to care very little about what electorate wants. The issue again, is with how representative democracy can be easily subverted by an oligarchy like it happens all over West and especially in UK, which is pretty much as free at this point as Putin's Russia,.

[PointOfViewGun]

Gun rights aren't an election issue not because majority of population wouldn't want their right to fight back back, but because UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't controlled by the establishment that has proven to care very little about what electorate wants. The issue again, is with how representative democracy can be easily subverted by an oligarchy like it happens all over West and especially in UK, which is pretty much as free at this point as Putin's Russia,.

I take it you're gonna follow this with say, a poll showing majority support for relaxed gun laws in UK?

[Heathen Hammer]

UK didn't really have polls in regards to gun rights, but there are polls in regards to arming police with guns. If nobody asked you a question, doesn't mean you don't have an opinion on a subject.

[PointOfViewGun]

UK didn't really have polls in regards to gun rights, but there are polls in regards to arming police with guns. If nobody asked you a question, doesn't mean you don't have an opinion on a subject.

Yet, you seem to pass judgment based on data you don't have...

[Heathen Hammer]

Yet, you seem to pass judgment based on data you don't have...

No I didn't. I said that election issues aren't picked form the grassroots and are handed down from "above" since UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't directly controlled by establishment.

[PointOfViewGun]

No I didn't. I said that election issues aren't picked form the grassroots and are handed down from "above" since UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't directly controlled by establishment.

That gun rights aren't an elections issue, that the political parties don't care about what the voters want. By your own admission, you don't know what the voters want. Yet, you pass sweeping judgment over it...

[Heathen Hammer]

That gun rights aren't an elections issue, that the political parties don't care about what the voters want. By your own admission, you don't know what the voters want. Yet, you pass sweeping judgment over it...

Again, not what I said. With mainstream parties being backed by establishment, they don't really need to concern themselves with what voters want because an establishment party would win anyways and they can fight over cosmetic issues.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, not what I said. With mainstream parties being backed by establishment, they don't really need to concern themselves with what voters want because an establishment party would win anyways and they can fight over cosmetic issues.

It's exactly what you say, almost verbatim:

Gun rights aren't an election issue not because majority of population wouldn't want their right to fight back back, but because UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't controlled by the establishment that has proven to care very little about what electorate wants. The issue again, is with how representative democracy can be easily subverted by an oligarchy like it happens all over West and especially in UK, which is pretty much as free at this point as Putin's Russia,.

UK didn't really have polls in regards to gun rights, but there are polls in regards to arming police with guns. If nobody asked you a question, doesn't mean you don't have an opinion on a subject.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Gun rights aren't an election issue not because majority of population wouldn't want their right to fight back back, but because UK doesn't really have mainstream parties that aren't controlled by the establishment that has proven to care very little about what electorate wants. The issue again, is with how representative democracy can be easily subverted by an oligarchy like it happens all over West and especially in UK, which is pretty much as free at this point as Putin's Russia,.

I can see the case your trying to make, but it is supposition at this point. Surely if gun rights were indeed something the electorate would support, there by now over the course of British modern history have surely been a growing movement for its support? The fact is it just does not appear. The experience there has been, particularly in Northern Ireland and the reaction to violent shootings (Be it Terrorist or Gang) is not that they want to 'arm up'- but it has been to ignite debate over whether the Police should be armed and to what extent.

What their has been though is a majority consensus seemingly to support either vocally or through not opposing- the expansion of the state security apparatus and its powers (Snoopers etc)- so from this we can also potentially see even less of a public appetite for personal armaments through their consent and agreement that the state should have greater power (confirmed at the 2015 and 2017 elections of still leaving the Conservatives as the 'largest' party- majority notwithstanding).