Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
economic incompetence.

Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
for half an hour - no one came.

When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
roving gangs that rule our streets.

I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
that they're going to be sorry.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> economic incompetence.
>
> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> for half an hour - no one came.
.
--snipped political rant--

If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious 
robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house, 
PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.

I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour". 
Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the 
door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? It's 
a strange comment to make because most people, if they were complaining 
about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and reported the 
robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a statement."

"Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say - 
not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the arrival 
of the police at their door.

If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to 
what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had 
just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the 
vicinity for the police to arrive?

I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.

Ret.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious 
>robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house, 
>PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.

>I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour". 
>Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the 
>door

I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the same
time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to have
one officer assigned to each task (and probably another officer to
monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate toilet
breaks).

(The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
home.)

-- 
Cynic

On 11 Feb, 09:49, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > economic incompetence.
>
> > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> .
> --snipped political rant--
>
> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house,
> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>
> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
> door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? It's
> a strange comment to make because most people, if they were complaining
> about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and reported the
> robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a statement."
>
> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say -
> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the arrival
> of the police at their door.
>
> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to
> what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had
> just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the
> vicinity for the police to arrive?
>
> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> Ret.

I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst she
was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.

charlie6@mail.org wrote:
> On 11 Feb, 09:49, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
>>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
>>> economic incompetence.
>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
>>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
>>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
>>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
>>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
>>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
>>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
>>> for half an hour - no one came.
>> .
>> --snipped political rant--
>>
>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
>> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house,
>> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>>
>> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
>> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
>> door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? It's
>> a strange comment to make because most people, if they were complaining
>> about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and reported the
>> robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a statement."
>>
>> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say -
>> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the arrival
>> of the police at their door.
>>
>> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to
>> what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had
>> just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the
>> vicinity for the police to arrive?
>>
>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>
>> Ret.
> 
> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst she
> was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
> turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
> to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.

That's horrible. That makes me mad.
We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a Polish 
boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he recovered 
consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by the police 
person to go to the nearest police station to report it, and that 
station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before police came to 
interview him.

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
>> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
>> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
>> your assailants.
>
>> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
>> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
>> knock on the door
>
> I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
> surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
> watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the same
> time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to have
> one officer assigned to each task (and probably another officer to
> monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate toilet
> breaks).
>
> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
> watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
> home.)

But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged and 
then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in that 
fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last 
night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take a 
statement."

Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up could mean 
a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police were 
completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it could mean 
that there were no officers available at that time. Having said that, if the 
post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should have taken priority 
over over more minor matters and I cannot imagine that the entire division 
was tied up with even more serious crimes than a robbery.

Hopefully we'll hear a bit more about this incident because if it is 
genuine, then 'Oppressed Subject' should already,by now, have made an 
official complaint to the police about their response to his report.

Ret.

Ret. wrote:
|| Cynic wrote:
||| On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
|||
|||| If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
|||| serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
|||| to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
|||| your assailants.
|||
|||| I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
|||| hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
|||| knock on the door
|||
||| I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
||| surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
||| watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the
||| same time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be
||| to have one officer assigned to each task (and probably another
||| officer to monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate
||| toilet breaks).
|||
||| (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
||| watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that
||| he had already told us that the street is between his home and a
||| shop just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible
||| from his home.)
||
|| But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently
|| mugged and then disappointed by the police response, would not word
|| his post in that fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed
|| out, "I got mugged last night. I reported it to the police but they
|| never even turned up to take a statement."

But then some police apologist would quite likely say "How do you know they 
didn't turn up - perhaps you missed them, did you watch the street looking 
out for them?"

-- 
Rob

Maria wrote:
> charlie6@mail.org wrote:
>> On 11 Feb, 09:49, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
>>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
>>>> government's economic incompetence.
>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back
>>>> and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past
>>>> a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a
>>>> football. I got mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with
>>>> knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were minors. They
>>>> relieved me of cash and groceries, scattering most of the shopping
>>>> along the street. I called the plod on my PAYG mobile when I
>>>> arrived home and watched the street for half an hour - no one came.
>>> .
>>> --snipped political rant--
>>>
>>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
>>> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
>>> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
>>> your assailants. I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street 
>>> for half an
>>> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
>>> knock on the door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported 
>>> the
>>> attack? It's a strange comment to make because most people, if they
>>> were complaining about such an incident, would say; "I called the
>>> police and reported the robbery but no-one turned up at my house to
>>> take a statement." "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous 
>>> informant
>>> would say - not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was
>>> awaiting the arrival of the police at their door.
>>>
>>> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am
>>> puzzled as to what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely
>>> that youths who had just committed a serious knife robbery would
>>> remain hanging around in the vicinity for the police to arrive?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>>
>>> Ret.
>>
>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
>> turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
>> to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.
>
> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
> police came to interview him.

The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that the 
police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are simply 
overwhelmed by the demand for their services. I've just asked a local 
electrician to replace my old fuse box. He says he is snowed under with work 
and the earliest he can get to me is the 30th March. Now no-one bats an 
eyelid when they hear this from a tradesman - but somehow they always expect 
the police to be able to respond to any call within a matter of minutes.
Certainly, in cases of serious violence, then if all officers are tied up 
(which is frequently the case) then you would expect the control room to 
direct an officer dealing with a less serious matter to drop what he is 
doing and go and deal with the more serious matter. That is not always easy 
however, and depends very much upon what the other officers are already 
dealing with. If an officer is dealing with a serious road traffic accident, 
he cannot just drive away from it for obvious reasons.
You cannot just assume, that when police officers do not respond immediately 
to a call, it's because they are idle, or negligent, etc. If there is no-one 
to attend, then there is no-one to attend.

This situation is being exacerbated in urban areas by the need to divert a 
lot of manpower to deal with the anti-social behaviour that is becoming the 
norm during the early hours. Fights, glassings, assaults, etc are 
commonplace in many town centres now. If police officers are in the process 
of arresting someone for an assault, they cannot just dump their prisoner 
and move onto another job.

In many areas now, and particularly during the evenings and early hours, it 
is quite common for the control room to have a pile of jobs awaiting police 
attendance. Officers dealing with a job are told to hurry it up because 
there are another x number of jobs requiring attention.

Ret.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:YbmdnehMmOXtlA7UnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@pipex.net...
> Maria wrote:
>> charlie6@mail.org wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb, 09:49, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
>>>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
>>>>> government's economic incompetence.
>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back
>>>>> and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past
>>>>> a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a
>>>>> football. I got mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with
>>>>> knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were minors. They
>>>>> relieved me of cash and groceries, scattering most of the shopping
>>>>> along the street. I called the plod on my PAYG mobile when I
>>>>> arrived home and watched the street for half an hour - no one came.
>>>> .
>>>> --snipped political rant--
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
>>>> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
>>>> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
>>>> your assailants. I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street 
>>>> for half an
>>>> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
>>>> knock on the door - or didn't you provide your details when you 
>>>> reported the
>>>> attack? It's a strange comment to make because most people, if they
>>>> were complaining about such an incident, would say; "I called the
>>>> police and reported the robbery but no-one turned up at my house to
>>>> take a statement." "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous 
>>>> informant
>>>> would say - not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was
>>>> awaiting the arrival of the police at their door.
>>>>
>>>> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am
>>>> puzzled as to what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely
>>>> that youths who had just committed a serious knife robbery would
>>>> remain hanging around in the vicinity for the police to arrive?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>>>
>>>> Ret.
>>>
>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
>>> turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
>>> to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.
>>
>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
>> police came to interview him.
>
> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that the 
> police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are simply 
> overwhelmed by the demand for their services. I've just asked a local 
> electrician to replace my old fuse box. He says he is snowed under with 
> work and the earliest he can get to me is the 30th March. Now no-one bats 
> an eyelid when they hear this from a tradesman - but somehow they always 
> expect the police to be able to respond to any call within a matter of 
> minutes.
> Certainly, in cases of serious violence, then if all officers are tied up 
> (which is frequently the case) then you would expect the control room to 
> direct an officer dealing with a less serious matter to drop what he is 
> doing and go and deal with the more serious matter. That is not always 
> easy however, and depends very much upon what the other officers are 
> already dealing with. If an officer is dealing with a serious road traffic 
> accident, he cannot just drive away from it for obvious reasons.
> You cannot just assume, that when police officers do not respond 
> immediately to a call, it's because they are idle, or negligent, etc. If 
> there is no-one to attend, then there is no-one to attend.
>
> This situation is being exacerbated in urban areas by the need to divert a 
> lot of manpower to deal with the anti-social behaviour that is becoming 
> the norm during the early hours. Fights, glassings, assaults, etc are 
> commonplace in many town centres now. If police officers are in the 
> process of arresting someone for an assault, they cannot just dump their 
> prisoner and move onto another job.
>
> In many areas now, and particularly during the evenings and early hours, 
> it is quite common for the control room to have a pile of jobs awaiting 
> police attendance. Officers dealing with a job are told to hurry it up 
> because there are another x number of jobs requiring attention.
>
> Ret.
Tiz strange how they find you (amongst their heavy work load) and write you 
up for a faulty light or give you"advice" regarding going through on amber 
or perhaps doing 35 in a 30 mph area

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:pe2dnTHYENOvnA7UnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@pipex.net...

> But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged and 
> then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in that 
> fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last 
> night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take a 
> statement."

I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet,  I'd be busy on the phone to the 
Daily Mail.

I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to 
interview the victim.

The story sounds like a dud...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Richard Bird"  wrote in message 
news:MYDkl.28115$n_6.21@newsfe22.ams2...

> Tiz strange how they find you (amongst their heavy work load) and write 
> you up for a faulty light or give you"advice" regarding going through on 
> amber or perhaps doing 35 in a 30 mph area

I think you'll find that the traffic police and the rest of your local 
police service don't do the same job,  aren't controlled by the same people 
and may well not get on terribly well together...


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Just another twelve months and this current New Labour lot should be
history, hopefully this time for good.

I've lived through two Labour Governments now and both times witnessed
a great country being brought to its knees in all respects.

I'm not expecting miracles from the Tories just a little optimism and
common sense would be a start because they’ve a hell of a f**king mess
to clear up.

A return to the optimism of the eighties would be a f**king hundred
years away from this depressing clueless lot.

Yes there was hardship under Thatcher (every last bit of it inherited
from Labour mind) but you knew at the end of it things would be better
and they were – shed loads.

The Tories will be far from perfect and will make mistakes but at
least they will have a sense of direction and, despite being chinless
wonders, more f**king brain cells because fewer just isn't possible.

On 11 Feb, 16:47, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> >> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
> >> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
> >> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
> >> your assailants.
>
> >> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
> >> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
> >> knock on the door
>
> > I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
> > surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
> > watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the same
> > time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to have
> > one officer assigned to each task (and probably another officer to
> > monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate toilet
> > breaks).
>
> > (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
> > watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
> > had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
> > just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
> > home.)
>
> But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged and
> then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in that
> fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last
> night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take a
> statement."

I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction. Is your callous
disregard for victims other than those who fit your victim template
characteristic of the rest of the plod or is it just you? Should I
paint the rest of the plod with the same brush you are painting those
who do not give your "ideal victim statement"?

> Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up could mean
> a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police were
> completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it could mean
> that there were no officers available at that time. Having said that, if the
> post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should have taken priority
> over over more minor matters and I cannot imagine that the entire division
> was tied up with even more serious crimes than a robbery.

I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
country. I can not remember the last time I have seen police on foot
patrol. Away from the main road, I have never seen a patrol car - with
or without sirens. This surely is not news to you and I am sure even
with your most idealistic impressions of the police, you will concede
there are places the police don't go to. It is my misfortune to live
in such an area.

> Hopefully we'll hear a bit more about this incident because if it is
> genuine, then 'Oppressed Subject' should already,by now, have made an
> official complaint to the police about their response to his report.

Please explain exactly what a complaint will do to either remedy the
situation or bring justice to the louts? Perhaps hustle up some brave
police to venture into my area to see what evidence they can find
almost 12 hours hence or which "bunch of youths with a football" they
can pick up for questioning?

I'm sorry but you know as well as I do that complaints are ineffectual
and will draw attention to any effective response I were to mount
against these louts.

allandetracy@live.co.uk wrote:
> more f**king brain cells because fewer just isn't possible.
Amen to that:-))

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.

------------------------

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

-------------------------

I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
country.

--------------------------

I used to do that as well.

I moved...


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 11 Feb, 17:35, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnTHYENOvnA7UnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> > But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged and
> > then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in that
> > fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last
> > night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take a
> > statement."
>
> I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet,  I'd be busy on the phone to the
> Daily Mail.

Like the rest who bring their story to the papers hoping it would
change the system? And apart from some minor bruising from being
shoved around, what substance is there to my story apart from "ex-army
vet gets mugged?"

In this context, exactly what change has people publishing their
various plights in the papers brought to this country?

> I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> interview the victim.

Believe what you want.

> The story sounds like a dud...

I may seem incredibly collected as someone who got mugged. While I
served in the army, I have been shot at, had grenades lobbed at me and
had to disarm or destroy some of the most devilish devices a twisted
mind could come up with. To me, punks with knives are a good day.

It is a damn shame when I hung up my uniform and flew home for the
last time, I thought "I'm home, I'm safe." Now it looks like things
have gone full circle.

>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> ------------------------
>
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> -------------------------
>
> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> country.
>
> --------------------------
>
> I used to do that as well.
>
> I moved...

I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.

> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:d3d0cd99-48c0-4043-9590-9a282d12554e@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 17:35, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnTHYENOvnA7UnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> > But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged 
> > and
> > then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in 
> > that
> > fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last
> > night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take 
> > a
> > statement."
>
> I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet, I'd be busy on the phone to 
> the
> Daily Mail.

Like the rest who bring their story to the papers hoping it would
change the system? And apart from some minor bruising from being
shoved around, what substance is there to my story apart from "ex-army
vet gets mugged?"

In this context, exactly what change has people publishing their
various plights in the papers brought to this country?

> I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> interview the victim.

Believe what you want.

> The story sounds like a dud...

I may seem incredibly collected as someone who got mugged. While I
served in the army, I have been shot at, had grenades lobbed at me and
had to disarm or destroy some of the most devilish devices a twisted
mind could come up with. To me, punks with knives are a good day.

It is a damn shame when I hung up my uniform and flew home for the
last time, I thought "I'm home, I'm safe." Now it looks like things
have gone full circle.


----------------------------------

Assuming your story is true,  and to be honest I don't believe for one 
second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a 
violent crime,  have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout 
walking-stick or a  dog of reasonable size?

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:c44cad7e-e973-40c1-be27-24dc01f08b29@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> ------------------------
>
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> -------------------------
>
> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> country.
>
> --------------------------
>
> I used to do that as well.
>
> I moved...

I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.

---------------------------

I live over 200 miles from my sister.

And you're an arsehole.


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:

> Assuming your story is true,  and to be honest I don't believe for one
> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
> violent crime,

Well, I am still waiting.

> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> walking-stick or a  dog of reasonable size?

Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that he
still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
little friend.

It is childs play to cobble together the real deal.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:25:30 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
 wrote:

>Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
>is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
>economic incompetence.



Do you usually post as Maria?

On 11 Feb, 18:44, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:c44cad7e-e973-40c1-be27-24dc01f08b29@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> >news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com..> > I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> > doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> > ------------------------
>
> > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> > -------------------------
>
> > I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> > country.
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > I used to do that as well.
>
> > I moved...
>
> I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
> to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.
>
> ---------------------------
>
> I live over 200 miles from my sister.
>
> And you're an arsehole.

I suppose the moral equivalency of you buggering off to greener
pastures and turning your nose up at those still left behind, and
walking out on your sister getting raped is beyond you.

Suffice to say if you wish to offend me with foul language, you are
going to have to try a little harder.

> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 11, 5:35 pm, "William Black" 
wrote:

> I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet,  I'd be busy on the phone to the
> Daily Mail.

Aye but he'd have to give a name then. That's why he, and many others,
prefer to complain in here.

They can say exactly what they damn well like and no one will be any
the wiser as to who they are. Next week they will have a different
nym.

> I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> interview the victim.

I wouldn't scold a dog on the basis of what I read here.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:c44cad7e-e973-40c1-be27-24dc01f08b29@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> ------------------------
>
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> -------------------------
>
> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> country.
>
> --------------------------
>
> I used to do that as well.
>
> I moved...

I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.

---------------------------

I live over 200 miles from my sister.

And you're an arsehole.


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:ff44704b-a701-4162-8396-b6c973d5cf3b@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:

> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for one
> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
> violent crime,

Well, I am still waiting.

> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?

Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that he
still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
little friend.

-------------------------------

They're not weapons,  they're a deterrent.

The muggers don't like the look of people with sticks or dogs and they go 
elsewhere.

But your rather rabid response seems to indicate that I was right,  no 
attack ever took place...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
news:ff44704b-a701-4162-8396-b6c973d5cf3b@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:

> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for one
> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
> violent crime,

Well, I am still waiting.

> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?

Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that he
still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
little friend.

-------------------------------

They're not weapons,  they're a deterrent.

The muggers don't like the look of people with sticks or dogs and they go
elsewhere.

But your rather rabid response seems to indicate that I was right,  no
attack ever took place...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> 

> And you're an arsehole.
> 
> 
So are you Billy boy,we all are at one end,the other end is your gob.
Strange you can see barbeques but not that you are just a tube, as are 
we all:-))

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for one
>> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the
>> victim of a violent crime,
>
> Well, I am still waiting.
.
If that genuinely is the case - this is a very serious matter. You have 
reported a violent robbery and no-one has even bothered to turn up at all. 
Have you been down to your local police station to make an official 
complaint - and if not, why not? This is a matter that should go straight to 
the IPCC.

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 11 Feb, 16:47, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
>>>> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
>>>> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
>>>> your assailants.
>>
>>>> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
>>>> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
>>>> knock on the door
>>
>>> I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
>>> surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
>>> watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the
>>> same time.* I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to
>>> have one officer assigned to each task (and probably another
>>> officer to monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate
>>> toilet breaks).
>>
>>> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
>>> watched the street. A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
>>> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
>>> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
>>> home.)
>>
>> But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently
>> mugged and then disappointed by the police response, would not word
>> his post in that fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed
>> out, "I got mugged last night. I reported it to the police but they
>> never even turned up to take a statement."
>
> I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction. Is your callous
> disregard for victims other than those who fit your victim template
> characteristic of the rest of the plod or is it just you? Should I
> paint the rest of the plod with the same brush you are painting those
> who do not give your "ideal victim statement"?
>
>> Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up
>> could mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the
>> police were completely negligent in their dealing with this report -
>> or it could mean that there were no officers available at that time.
>> Having said that, if the post is genuine, a violent robbery with
>> knives should have taken priority over over more minor matters and I
>> cannot imagine that the entire division was tied up with even more
>> serious crimes than a robbery.
>
> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> country. I can not remember the last time I have seen police on foot
> patrol. Away from the main road, I have never seen a patrol car - with
> or without sirens. This surely is not news to you and I am sure even
> with your most idealistic impressions of the police, you will concede
> there are places the police don't go to. It is my misfortune to live
> in such an area.
>
>> Hopefully we'll hear a bit more about this incident because if it is
>> genuine, then 'Oppressed Subject' should already,by now, have made an
>> official complaint to the police about their response to his report.
>
> Please explain exactly what a complaint will do to either remedy the
> situation or bring justice to the louts? Perhaps hustle up some brave
> police to venture into my area to see what evidence they can find
> almost 12 hours hence or which "bunch of youths with a football" they
> can pick up for questioning?
>
> I'm sorry but you know as well as I do that complaints are ineffectual
> and will draw attention to any effective response I were to mount
> against these louts.

The fact that you have not bothered to make an official complaint about an 
extremely serious matter suggests to me that this is, indeed, an invention 
of your fevered mind.

Ret.

I am so sorry to hear what happened, most forces have a "priority
list" of sorts, which goes from about 10 mins for a GRADE 1 (offender
still present at scene, continued violence/threat to property or life)
to GRADE 3 or 4 for stuff like long term issues or "advice sort" kind
of jobs which they will answer in about 24 hrs.

I am surprised that they did not turn out in force, if you had
mentioned the keywords  > ROBBERY, WEAPONS, OFFENDERS STILL AT SCENE,
because technically, although you escaped intact, the little bastids
are still on scene with weapons, potentially might target another
member of the public.

Have you called into you local cop shop? Well worth putting a
complaint in or at least seeking out your neighbourhood inspector and
directing the complaint to him, requesting a written reply.

If you are comfortable divulging it - which area is this?

Regarding carriage of weapons - I think you are thinking about it,
now, hotheaded from the recency of your incident. BUT, be careful of
carrying any. Thinking rationally, you live in a dodgy area. The
chances of being stop-searched are higher in violent or crime ridden
areas so the chances of you being found carrying would be higher and
depending on local crime stats, the chances of harsh conviction can be
higher too - lose-lose if you know what I mean. Conversely, if this
happened again and you dished out some "squaddie-love" barehanded to
someone, and possibly held the miscreant for the local cops to
collect, you might find your local area's condition might ensure a
more understanding investigation of events......:P

I am not really up with politics, but you got to wonder just HOW MANY
of these wonderful people actually step up to the plate or take the
helping hand offered by all the govt organisations in your area.

Warmest Regards




On 11 Feb, 08:25, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>>SNIPPED FOR BREVITY<<<<<<<<<<
>
>  I got mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives;

>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIPPED<<<<<<<<<
>
> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> that they're going to be sorry.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:e063ac29-f9b7-4161-acf9-c3a826273a59@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 18:44, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:c44cad7e-e973-40c1-be27-24dc01f08b29@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> >news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> > doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> > ------------------------
>
> > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> > -------------------------
>
> > I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> > country.
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > I used to do that as well.
>
> > I moved...
>
> I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
> to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.
>
> ---------------------------
>
> I live over 200 miles from my sister.
>
> And you're an arsehole.
>
> I suppose the moral equivalency of you buggering off to greener
> pastures and turning your nose up at those still left behind, and
> walking out on your sister getting raped is beyond you.

You've spent a good amount of time moaning about it here, while doing bugger 
all to prevent it happening to somebody else. What's that morally equivalent 
to?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
 wrote:

>On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>> Assuming your story is true,  and to be honest I don't believe for one
>> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
>> violent crime,
>
>Well, I am still waiting.
>
>> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
>> walking-stick or a  dog of reasonable size?
>
>Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
>has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that he
>still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
>little friend.

http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158

"A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced to
handover his walking stick to police because it was considered to be
an ‘offensive weapon’."

>
>It is childs play to cobble together the real deal.

Ret. wrote:

> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case
> that the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain
> times, are simply overwhelmed by the demand for their
> services.

Or perhaps because many (most?) police officers have cushy backroom jobs of 
some description, and far too few are out on response duties. 
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include 
a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they 
like.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include a 
>crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they 
>like.

Might it be possible to make up a crime number?

Oppressed Subject wrote:

> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> country.

Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you sure 
you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.

inetnum:        62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
  netname:        DE-KEYWEB-I
  descr:          Keyweb AG IP Network
  country:        DE

Martin wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
>> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
>> country.
>
> Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you
> sure you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.
>
> inetnum:        62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
>  netname:        DE-KEYWEB-I
>  descr:          Keyweb AG IP Network
>  country:        DE

It is quite obvious that this whole post is utterly bogus. 'Oppressed 
Subject' clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder and he is inventing 
incidents in order to support his prejudices.

Ret.

DVH wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
> news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include a 
>> crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they 
>> like.
> 
> Might it be possible to make up a crime number? 

Yes, but it is also possible to check it with the local police force.


-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> economic incompetence.
>
> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> for half an hour - no one came.
>
> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> that they're going to be sorry.

   I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
himself in his own home
 and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
entered his home with the
intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
enough and shot one of them.
The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
"evil eye" to the jury,
whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
received the George Cross
for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
it would seem,
is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
But what can one expect
 when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
by, The Trots of "Old"
Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
o not appearing
to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
lives and property of their
constituents count for nothing.

On Feb 11, 10:27 am, "William Black" 
wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:d3d0cd99-48c0-4043-9590-9a282d12554e@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Feb, 17:35, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>
> >news:pe2dnTHYENOvnA7UnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> > > But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged
> > > and
> > > then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in
> > > that
> > > fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last
> > > night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take
> > > a
> > > statement."
>
> > I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet, I'd be busy on the phone to
> > the
> > Daily Mail.
>
> Like the rest who bring their story to the papers hoping it would
> change the system? And apart from some minor bruising from being
> shoved around, what substance is there to my story apart from "ex-army
> vet gets mugged?"
>
> In this context, exactly what change has people publishing their
> various plights in the papers brought to this country?
>
> > I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> > interview the victim.
>
> Believe what you want.
>
> > The story sounds like a dud...
>
> I may seem incredibly collected as someone who got mugged. While I
> served in the army, I have been shot at, had grenades lobbed at me and
> had to disarm or destroy some of the most devilish devices a twisted
> mind could come up with. To me, punks with knives are a good day.
>
> It is a damn shame when I hung up my uniform and flew home for the
> last time, I thought "I'm home, I'm safe." Now it looks like things
> have gone full circle.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> Assuming your story is true,  and to be honest I don't believe for one
> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
> violent crime,  have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> walking-stick or a  dog of reasonable size?

  You sound like that *sots twit whose advice is just like yours i.e.
"Get a big dog".
Did it ever occur to you that not everyone can afford to keep a dog,
big or otherwise?
The walking stick is a good idea, but as I already advised the O.P.,
who knows what a sharp
crack across the skull could do, why he might even knock the poor thug
unconscious,
And if so, would probably be sued by said thug and dragged into court
for causing
body injury to said thug and God forbid that said thug would kick the
bucket, *then* its a case of murder and we all know what happened to
Tony Martin, don't we.  The days when
a person could defend themselves in Britain are long gone and more's
the pity.
Bullets are so much cheaper than a big dog, so my advice would be to
shoot first
and worry about it later.
>
> --
> William Black

snip daft sig. Waste of space.
>

> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 11, 11:01 am, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:35 pm, "William Black" 
> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet,  I'd be busy on the phone to the
> > Daily Mail.
>
> Aye but he'd have to give a name then. That's why he, and many others,
> prefer to complain in here.
>
> They can say exactly what they damn well like and no one will be any
> the wiser as to who they are. Next week they will have a different
> nym.

Pathetic.  You remind me of the jews and other loony lefties  who hate
capital punishment except when the victims are their fellow jews.
>
> > I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> > interview the victim.
>
> I wouldn't scold a dog on the basis of what I read here.

If you are calling the O.P. a liar, then say so, don't be shy about
it.   His story sounds
very truthful to me especially since it happens on a daily basis in
"New" Labour Paradise.
Would you believe that some kid in *otland was actually kidnapped and
set on fire?
It's true. He died, or was it all made up to make the Pakis look bad.

No wonder they call the loony left the loony left.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:RJOdnTdILbmnAg_UnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@pipex.net...
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
>> economic incompetence.
>>
>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
>> for half an hour - no one came.
> .
> --snipped political rant--
>
> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious 
> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house, 
> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.

As far as I know, street robbery reported from the scene attracts an 
immediate response, attendance within ten minutes, normally.
>
> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour". 
> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the 
> door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? 
> It's a strange comment to make because most people, if they were 
> complaining about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and 
> reported the robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a 
> statement."

I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the robbery 
but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during which a 
description of the suspects could have been circulated.
If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been 
downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.
>
> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say - 
> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the 
> arrival of the police at their door.

He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you 
would infer that.
Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence 
and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a 
better response.

>
> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to 
> what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had 
> just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the 
> vicinity for the police to arrive?
>
> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> Ret.
>
I reckon he's probably genuine, but if he's made a half- hearted report of 
robbery, why should he expect more than a half- hearted response?

>

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:bbr5p49ri4f5fccgr8nqm14coa2d64t1e5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
>>robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house,
>>PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>
>>I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
>>Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
>>door
>
> I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
> surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
> watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the same
> time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to have
> one officer assigned to each task (and probably another officer to
> monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate toilet
> breaks).

I reckon Ret. is right.
Read between the lines.
If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have been 
robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.

>
> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
> watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
> home.)
>
So why watch it?
Everything he said leads to the assumption that he called anonymously.
Then again, who knows?
Maybe he could enlighten us.

On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, "DVH"  wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:e063ac29-f9b7-4161-acf9-c3a826273a59@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Feb, 18:44, "William Black"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> >news:c44cad7e-e973-40c1-be27-24dc01f08b29@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com..> > On 11 Feb, 18:16, "William Black"  wrote:
>
> > > "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:84715d27-fe1b-4369-847e-1b28476b55ae@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> > > I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
> > > doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction.
>
> > > ------------------------
>
> > > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
> > > -------------------------
>
> > > I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> > > country.
>
> > > --------------------------
>
> > > I used to do that as well.
>
> > > I moved...
>
> > I did not expect anything more from a compliant coward. Don't forget
> > to leave the room when your sister is getting raped.
>
> > ---------------------------
>
> > I live over 200 miles from my sister.
>
> > And you're an arsehole.
>
> > I suppose the moral equivalency of you buggering off to greener
> > pastures and turning your nose up at those still left behind, and
> > walking out on your sister getting raped is beyond you.
>
> You've spent a good amount of time moaning about it here, while doing bugger
> all to prevent it happening to somebody else. What's that morally equivalent
> to?

He *did* do something, he called the police. What did you want him to
do?   Did he say
what race his attackers were? Perhaps he's afraid to be labeled one of
them "racists".
I have a similar story only mine took place on the London Tube.  A
gang of whatnots
was going from car to car  stealing wallets and whatever else they
could find. I felt
something  touching my handbag, some vule gypo had managed to open it
and took my wallet.  Fortunately I caught him at it and chased him
when he ran from the train.  He was gone before I caught up with him.
I reported it immediately to the rail people who said they were aware
of the gang
but had been unable to catch them. They knew where the thugs dumped
the wallets after taking out the money and I got it back minus the
cash.  I described all 5 of them, a mixture
of God knows what - gypos, blacks and Asians.  I was told that the
authorities were not
allowed to name them by race, only by sex when they made their report.
I asked how the
hell were the public supposed to assist the authorities if they didn't
know what to look for!!

This is the state of today Britain a nation once known for its low
crime rate and the finest
Police Force in the world.




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:buedndV5KLBPng7UnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Ret. wrote:
> || Cynic wrote:
> ||| On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> |||
> |||| If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
> |||| serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
> |||| to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
> |||| your assailants.
> |||
> |||| I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
> |||| hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
> |||| knock on the door
> |||
> ||| I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
> ||| surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
> ||| watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the
> ||| same time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be
> ||| to have one officer assigned to each task (and probably another
> ||| officer to monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate
> ||| toilet breaks).
> |||
> ||| (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
> ||| watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that
> ||| he had already told us that the street is between his home and a
> ||| shop just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible
> ||| from his home.)
> ||
> || But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently
> || mugged and then disappointed by the police response, would not word
> || his post in that fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed
> || out, "I got mugged last night. I reported it to the police but they
> || never even turned up to take a statement."
>
> But then some police apologist would quite likely say "How do you know 
> they didn't turn up - perhaps you missed them, did you watch the street 
> looking out for them?"
>
If he had given his address, then by their own standards, they would have 
been obliged to call him on his mobile phone to let him know the reasons for 
the delay.
We've all read about police delays before, but I think you'll find they are 
quite hot on recalls even if they don't turn up for whatever reason.
Some forces have policies with regards to recalling members of the public if 
they do not attend within the specified time and they are normally strictly 
adhered to.

On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alang  wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:
>
> >> Assuming your story is true,  and to be honest I don't believe for one
> >> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the victim of a
> >> violent crime,
>
> >Well, I am still waiting.
>
> >> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> >> walking-stick or a  dog of reasonable size?
>
> >Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
> >has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that he
> >still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
> >little friend.
>
> http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158
>
> "A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced to
> handover his walking stick to police because it was considered to be
> an ‘offensive weapon’."

It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
not stop an attack,
but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
around  the head
of some braindead  thug.
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:d3d0cd99-48c0-4043-9590-9a282d12554e@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 17:35, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnTHYENOvnA7UnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> > But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently mugged 
> > and
> > then disappointed by the police response, would not word his post in 
> > that
> > fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed out, "I got mugged last
> > night. I reported it to the police but they never even turned up to take 
> > a
> > statement."
>
> I wouldn't be posting an account to Usenet, I'd be busy on the phone to 
> the
> Daily Mail.

Like the rest who bring their story to the papers hoping it would
change the system? And apart from some minor bruising from being
shoved around, what substance is there to my story apart from "ex-army
vet gets mugged?"

In this context, exactly what change has people publishing their
various plights in the papers brought to this country?

> I just don't believe that after a violent robbery the police failed to
> interview the victim.

Believe what you want.

> The story sounds like a dud...

I may seem incredibly collected as someone who got mugged. While I
served in the army, I have been shot at, had grenades lobbed at me and
had to disarm or destroy some of the most devilish devices a twisted
mind could come up with. To me, punks with knives are a good day.

It is a damn shame when I hung up my uniform and flew home for the
last time, I thought "I'm home, I'm safe." Now it looks like things
have gone full circle.

Just out of interest, and to clear things up, did you call the police 
anonymously to report this robbery?

On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
> like.

Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
who posts in usenet,
except those you agree with?  There is nothing unusual about someone
being attacked whilst
just going about their business.  My only regret is that he wasn't
able to put them in hospital.
Naturally, if he had, he would have to  to stand trial for it - would
he?

What on earth would you have done with a "crime number"?  Would you
have called
the police station and asked them "Did someone report a crime to you,
I have the crime number"?  Duh.
>

On Feb 11, 2:29 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> >> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> >> country.
>
> > Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you
> > sure you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.
>
> > inetnum:        62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
> >  netname:        DE-KEYWEB-I
> >  descr:          Keyweb AG IP Network
> >  country:        DE
>
> It is quite obvious that this whole post is utterly bogus. 'Oppressed
> Subject' clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder and he is inventing
> incidents in order to support his prejudices.

So who is he prejudiced against?  The garbage that mug, rape,
carjack??  I would
hope that everyone is prejudiced against them, aren't you?
>
> Ret.

Steve O wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:bbr5p49ri4f5fccgr8nqm14coa2d64t1e5@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
>>> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house,
>>> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>>> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
>>> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
>>> door
>> I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
>> surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
>> watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the same
>> time.*  I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to have
>> one officer assigned to each task (and probably another officer to
>> monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate toilet
>> breaks).
> 
> I reckon Ret. is right.
> Read between the lines.
> If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have been 
> robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.

I reckon Ret is right but also he posts as though he's not actually in 
the UK and is using relays in Germany. Why would a former soldier be 
such a wimp as to do that?

However, when I had to call 999 twice, once for the police and second 
for the fire brigade, I was able to stand watching the street rather 
than wait in my house because my DECT phone stretches that far and I was 
able to direct the incoming when I saw then arrive.

Fire brigade were brilliant when I called them to a car on fire.

The fact the police didn't drive into the estate to arrest the thugs 
fighting with baseball bats outside my kitchen window but stayed outside 
chatting to their colleagues was a different matter. Getting threatened 
with arrest when I butted in and asked them why they weren't just 
driving a further 300 yards and arresting the fighters made me go 
indoors and carry on watching the fight. Then the cheeky feckers rang me 
up asking if I'd be willing to make a statement! They could have 
arrested all of them, but preferred to call me a week later to ask if I 
knew what flat they lived in!

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
>> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
>> like.
> 
> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> who posts in usenet,

Yes

> except those you agree with?  There is nothing unusual about someone
> being attacked whilst
> just going about their business.  My only regret is that he wasn't
> able to put them in hospital.

Sounds like a made up story.

> Naturally, if he had, he would have to  to stand trial for it - would
> he?

No. Not if it were self defence.
Of course, if he shot them in the back while they were trying to escape, 
then yes.

> What on earth would you have done with a "crime number"?  Would you
> have called
> the police station and asked them "Did someone report a crime to you,
> I have the crime number"?  Duh.

Possibly, likely via the Daily Mail.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
>> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
>> like.
> 
> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> who posts in usenet,

Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP address 
is in Germany

He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a troll 
anyway.

On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > wrote:
> >> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
> >> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
> >> like.
>
> > Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> > who posts in usenet,
>
> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP address
> is in Germany
>
> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a troll
> anyway.

     No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
by a gang of thugs whilst
  he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
police when he got
 home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
unusual about that
just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
in the streets of Britain,
 in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?

DVH wrote:


> You've spent a good amount of time moaning about it here, while doing bugger 
> all to prevent it happening to somebody else. What's that morally equivalent 
> to? 
> 
> 

You/Me/Us:-)

On Feb 11, 5:57 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > wrote:
> >> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
> >> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
> >> like.
>
> > Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> > who posts in usenet,
>
> Yes

Then I assume you aren't bothered if other posters feel the same way
about you and your opinions.
>
> > except those you agree with?  There is nothing unusual about someone
> > being attacked whilst
> > just going about their business.  My only regret is that he wasn't
> > able to put them in hospital.
>
> Sounds like a made up story.

Only to suspicious people like you.  Now tell us why you think he made
it up.
>
> > Naturally, if he had, he would have to  to stand trial for it - would
> > he?
>
> No. Not if it were self defence.
> Of course, if he shot them in the back while they were trying to escape,
> then yes.

I'm only sorry that Tony Martin didn't manage to get all of them
instad of only one. They
had no right to be on his property did they? Tell us how *you* would
have handled it.
Let me guess, you would have tackled all of them, tied them up, called
trhe police and sat around waiting for them to come to your place and
arrest them. Presuming of course, that they
hadn't done *you* some bodily harm by the time the plod arrived.
>
> > What on earth would you have done with a "crime number"?  Would you
> > have called
> > the police station and asked them "Did someone report a crime to you,
> > I have the crime number"?  Duh.
>
> Possibly, likely via the Daily Mail.

   So you are not willing to believe what posters say in usenet, but
you believe The Daily Mail.

  "Householders in *cotland will have their tax bills frozen until
2012 in a 210 pound million deal
   funded by English taxpayers".
   Daily Mail. Feb 12, 2009.

   Oops. I meant to post *that* in some *cots group so that they could
do what they usually
do, post that "It's a lie".
>
> --
> Dirk
>
>

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:e063ac29-f9b7-4161-acf9-c3a826273a59@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


I suppose the moral equivalency of you buggering off to greener
pastures and turning your nose up at those still left behind, and
walking out on your sister getting raped is beyond you.

---------------------

Let's try again shall we...

You claim that you were mugged by  gang of youths.

You also claim that the police did not attend when informed of this serious 
crime and still have not attended.  You have made no mention of any incident 
number or follow-up letter or visit by the local 'victims of crime' unit.

That someone got robbed is not unusual in the UK of today.

That the police did not attend and have shown no interest is of major 
interest.

You claim that you have not informed either the press of anyone else of 
this,  but have posted on Usenet in some detail about the incident,  but so 
far have not mentioned the place or the constabulary involved.

That the local 'victims of crime' unit didn't get in touch afterwards is 
also more than a touch odd...

Occam's razor says it didn't happen...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:DbednY0irJIDtQ7UnZ2dnUVZ8rqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>> On 11 Feb, 16:47, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a
>>>>> serious robbery with knives used and police should have been around
>>>>> to your house, PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of
>>>>> your assailants.
>>>
>>>>> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an
>>>>> hour". Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a
>>>>> knock on the door
>>>
>>>> I realise that non-binary thinking is difficult for you, but I am
>>>> surprised that you didn't think of the possibility that the OP was
>>>> watching the street and listening for a knock on the door *at the
>>>> same time.* I expect the normal procedure in the police would be to
>>>> have one officer assigned to each task (and probably another
>>>> officer to monitor the radio, and a fourth as back-up to facilitate
>>>> toilet breaks).
>>>
>>>> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
>>>> watched the street. A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
>>>> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
>>>> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
>>>> home.)
>>>
>>> But I would still maintain that anyone who *had* been violently
>>> mugged and then disappointed by the police response, would not word
>>> his post in that fashion. He would say, as I have already pointed
>>> out, "I got mugged last night. I reported it to the police but they
>>> never even turned up to take a statement."
>>
>> I see. So you have a template victim statement and anything that
>> doesn't fit your template gets rejected as fiction. Is your callous
>> disregard for victims other than those who fit your victim template
>> characteristic of the rest of the plod or is it just you? Should I
>> paint the rest of the plod with the same brush you are painting those
>> who do not give your "ideal victim statement"?
>>
>>> Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up
>>> could mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the
>>> police were completely negligent in their dealing with this report -
>>> or it could mean that there were no officers available at that time.
>>> Having said that, if the post is genuine, a violent robbery with
>>> knives should have taken priority over over more minor matters and I
>>> cannot imagine that the entire division was tied up with even more
>>> serious crimes than a robbery.
>>
>> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
>> country. I can not remember the last time I have seen police on foot
>> patrol. Away from the main road, I have never seen a patrol car - with
>> or without sirens. This surely is not news to you and I am sure even
>> with your most idealistic impressions of the police, you will concede
>> there are places the police don't go to. It is my misfortune to live
>> in such an area.
>>
>>> Hopefully we'll hear a bit more about this incident because if it is
>>> genuine, then 'Oppressed Subject' should already,by now, have made an
>>> official complaint to the police about their response to his report.
>>
>> Please explain exactly what a complaint will do to either remedy the
>> situation or bring justice to the louts? Perhaps hustle up some brave
>> police to venture into my area to see what evidence they can find
>> almost 12 hours hence or which "bunch of youths with a football" they
>> can pick up for questioning?
>>
>> I'm sorry but you know as well as I do that complaints are ineffectual
>> and will draw attention to any effective response I were to mount
>> against these louts.
>
> The fact that you have not bothered to make an official complaint about an 
> extremely serious matter suggests to me that this is, indeed, an invention 
> of your fevered mind.

Well yes,  I said that and so far have been roundly abused for it.


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:jY2dnUnFcvyytQ7UnZ2dnUVZ8rydnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black"  wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for one
>>> second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the
>>> victim of a violent crime,
>>
>> Well, I am still waiting.
> .
> If that genuinely is the case - this is a very serious matter. You have 
> reported a violent robbery and no-one has even bothered to turn up at all. 
> Have you been down to your local police station to make an official 
> complaint - and if not, why not? This is a matter that should go straight 
> to the IPCC.

No mention of any incident number,  no visit,  or even a letter, from the 
local 'victims of crime' unit.

It doesn't add up.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

In article ,
Steve O  wrote:
>I may seem incredibly collected as someone who got mugged. While I
>served in the army, I have been shot at, had grenades lobbed at me and
>had to disarm or destroy some of the most devilish devices a twisted
>mind could come up with. To me, punks with knives are a good day.

Perhaps you sounded so calm when you spoke to the police
that they didn't believe you could have been mugged and so
wrote you off as a hoaxer, as other posters have done.

Francis

In article ,
Steve O  wrote:
>I reckon Ret. is right.
>Read between the lines.
>If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have been 
>robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.

Is it not possible to watch and listen simultaneously? I imagine
many people, when expecting a visit from someone, look out for
their approach. That seems entirely within the bounds of normal
behaviour.

Francis

In article ,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
>> who posts in usenet,
>
>Yes

More than other people you encounter day-to-day?

Francis

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alang  wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black" 
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for
>>>> one second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the
>>>> victim of a violent crime,
>>
>>> Well, I am still waiting.
>>
>>>> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
>>>> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?
>>
>>> Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
>>> has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that
>>> he still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
>>> little friend.
>>
>> http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158
>>
>> "A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced to
>> handover his walking stick to police because it was considered to be
>> an ‘offensive weapon’."
>
> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
> not stop an attack,
> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
> around  the head
> of some braindead  thug.
.
Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far 
more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:29 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>
>>>> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
>>>> country.
>>
>>> Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you
>>> sure you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.
>>
>>> inetnum: 62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
>>> netname: DE-KEYWEB-I
>>> descr: Keyweb AG IP Network
>>> country: DE
>>
>> It is quite obvious that this whole post is utterly bogus. 'Oppressed
>> Subject' clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder and he is
>> inventing incidents in order to support his prejudices.
>
> So who is he prejudiced against?  The garbage that mug, rape,
> carjack??  I would
> hope that everyone is prejudiced against them, aren't you?
.
Nope - he's prejudiced against the police and that's why he posts this bogus 
tale in an attempt to have us all gasping in horror at the fact that they 
failed to turn up when he reports a vicious armed mugging.

Ret.

In article ,
Steve O  wrote:
>He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you 
>would infer that.
>Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence 
>and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a 
>better response.

That sounds plausible.

>I reckon he's probably genuine, but if he's made a half- hearted report of 
>robbery, why should he expect more than a half- hearted response?

Because of the seriousness of the crime. That's assuming the police
believed his report. Presumably they have discretion in rating the
priority of an alleged incident to a level below the threshold for
further action based on gut feelings, rather than being obliged to
follow a fixed procedure each and every time.

Francis

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:57 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax dirk.bru...@gmail.com
.
> I'm only sorry that Tony Martin didn't manage to get all of them
> instad of only one. They
> had no right to be on his property did they? Tell us how *you* would
> have handled it.
> Let me guess, you would have tackled all of them, tied them up, called
> trhe police and sat around waiting for them to come to your place and
> arrest them. Presuming of course, that they
> hadn't done *you* some bodily harm by the time the plod arrived.
.
Clearly you have not studied the Tony Martin case in any detail because, if 
you had, you would know exactly why he was jailed for this shooting.

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>> whatever they like.
>>
>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
>>> who posts in usenet,
>>
>> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
>> address is in Germany
>>
>> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
>> troll anyway.
>
>      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
> by a gang of thugs whilst
>   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
> police when he got
>  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
> unusual about that
> just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
> in the streets of Britain,
>  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?

Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in 
his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to 
defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.

Ret.

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article ,
> Steve O  wrote:
>> I reckon Ret. is right.
>> Read between the lines.
>> If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have
>> been robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.
>
> Is it not possible to watch and listen simultaneously? I imagine
> many people, when expecting a visit from someone, look out for
> their approach. That seems entirely within the bounds of normal
> behaviour.
.
I don't disagree - but it was the way he worded his post - it just didn't 
ring true. Nothing that he has since posted leads me to believe that I was 
mistaken. The fact that he seems to have faded away from this thread without 
any real attempt to defend his position speaks volumes. If this story was 
true then he should have been down the police station to make a serious 
official complaint - but he hasn't done. Why is that do you think?

Ret

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn0o0e$bd5$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
> news:e063ac29-f9b7-4161-acf9-c3a826273a59@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I suppose the moral equivalency of you buggering off to greener
> pastures and turning your nose up at those still left behind, and
> walking out on your sister getting raped is beyond you.
>
> ---------------------
>
> Let's try again shall we...
>
> You claim that you were mugged by  gang of youths.
>
> You also claim that the police did not attend when informed of this 
> serious crime and still have not attended.  You have made no mention of 
> any incident number or follow-up letter or visit by the local 'victims of 
> crime' unit.
>
> That someone got robbed is not unusual in the UK of today.
>
> That the police did not attend and have shown no interest is of major 
> interest.
>
> You claim that you have not informed either the press of anyone else of 
> this,  but have posted on Usenet in some detail about the incident,  but 
> so far have not mentioned the place or the constabulary involved.
>
> That the local 'victims of crime' unit didn't get in touch afterwards is 
> also more than a touch odd...
>
> Occam's razor says it didn't happen...

In between getting mugged and posting at 8.25am, he appears to have 
travelled to Germany and then Luxembourg, depending on which IP number one 
credits.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  posted
>DVH wrote:
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message
>>news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>include a  crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>whatever they  like.
>>  Might it be possible to make up a crime number?
>
>Yes, but it is also possible to check it with the local police force.
>

Ha ha. "Excuse me, officer, somebody's given me this crime number, would
you mind just looking it up in your records and giving
me the reported details of the crime?"

"Certainly sir. Anything you say. Would you like me to have the
information chiselled on marble tablets and embossed in gold, then
specially couriered to your address by a motorcycle convoy escorted by
armed officers? No trouble at all, sir. All part of the service. Have a
nice day."

Aaaaaahhh, ha ha ha.




-- 
Les
If people know by taking part in protests there is a danger of being searched,
they should think about not putting themselves in that position.

Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up could 
>mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police were 
>completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it could 
>mean that there were no officers available at that time. Having said 
>that, if the post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should have 
>taken priority over over more minor matters and I cannot imagine that 
>the entire division was tied up with even more serious crimes than a robbery.

Kev, Kev. You need the scales to fall off your eyes. It is completely 
*routine* for the police not to bother turning up for a street robbery. 
A few years back my son was attacked and robbed of his bike by two young 
men. When he got home a few minutes later, my wife called the police and 
was told she had to come down to the station and wait in a  queue to 
fill in a form. The officer refused even to record the crime over the 
phone let alone take any action over it.

Needless to say, we took no further action. Why would we, when the 
people we pay handsomely to deal with these things (until they retire at 
48 on gigantic pensions also paid for by us) cannot be arsed? Why on 
earth would we go to the trouble of making a complaint, when it would 
simply be dealt with by another idle, inconsiderate police officer?

So the crime went unreported, which was doubtless partially responsible 
for the Met's proud record of reducing street crime.

-- 
Les
If people know by taking part in protests there is a danger of being searched,
they should think about not putting themselves in that position.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>> Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up
>> could mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police
>> were completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it
>> could mean that there were no officers available at that time. Having 
>> said
>> that, if the post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should
>> have taken priority over over more minor matters and I cannot
>> imagine that the entire division was tied up with even more serious 
>> crimes than a
>> robbery.
>
> Kev, Kev. You need the scales to fall off your eyes. It is completely
> *routine* for the police not to bother turning up for a street
> robbery. A few years back my son was attacked and robbed of his bike
> by two young men. When he got home a few minutes later, my wife
> called the police and was told she had to come down to the station
> and wait in a  queue to fill in a form. The officer refused even to
> record the crime over the phone let alone take any action over it.

Can you provide a bit more detail on this incident?  Was the bike just taken 
from him - or, when you use the word 'attacked', was he beaten and injured? 
It's all relevant when a decision has to be made which of many incidents to 
send a busy police officer out to. If the bike was just taken from him then 
that may be a lot less serious than other ongoing jobs that had to be seen 
to first.

You seem to have the idea that there are forty or fifty police officers, sat 
in the canteen, just waiting to dash out to every job that comes in. It's 
not like that. In many areas, and particularly at busy times, the few 
officers out on patrol are snowed under with the number of jobs coming in. 
Now, if you were in control of these officers, which jobs would *you* 
prioritise as requiring immediate attention from the first officer to become 
free from the job he is already dealing with?

The fact that you were told to come down to the station and 'wait in the 
queue' was some indication that work was piling up was it not?

>
> Needless to say, we took no further action. Why would we, when the
> people we pay handsomely to deal with these things (until they retire
> at 48 on gigantic pensions also paid for by us) cannot be arsed? Why
> on earth would we go to the trouble of making a complaint, when it
> would simply be dealt with by another idle, inconsiderate police
> officer?

How do you know who it would have been dealt with? Unless you are trying to 
suggest that *all* police officers are idle and inconsiderate.

Without knowing the precise circumstances of this incident it is difficult 
for me to comment - but many people, usually from watching too many 
fictional police progs on the telly, have a totally unrealistic view of what 
can be achieved.
>
> So the crime went unreported, which was doubtless partially
> responsible for the Met's proud record of reducing street crime.

The Met has a lot to answer for - but then they do have a lot on their 
plate.

Ret.

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:xOc2KUIClClJFwwk@satan.hell...
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  posted
>>DVH wrote:
>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message
>>>news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>>include a  crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>>whatever they  like.
>>>  Might it be possible to make up a crime number?
>>
>>Yes, but it is also possible to check it with the local police force.
>>
>
> Ha ha. "Excuse me, officer, somebody's given me this crime number, would
> you mind just looking it up in your records and giving
> me the reported details of the crime?"

Try:

'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it took 
place?'


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:eun9yeKsoClJFwWw@satan.hell...
> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>>Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up could 
>>mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police were 
>>completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it could mean 
>>that there were no officers available at that time. Having said that, if 
>>the post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should have taken 
>>priority over over more minor matters and I cannot imagine that the entire 
>>division was tied up with even more serious crimes than a robbery.
>
> Kev, Kev. You need the scales to fall off your eyes. It is completely 
> *routine* for the police not to bother turning up for a street robbery. A 
> few years back my son was attacked and robbed of his bike by two young 
> men. When he got home a few minutes later, my wife called the police and 
> was told she had to come down to the station and wait in a  queue to fill 
> in a form. The officer refused even to record the crime over the phone let 
> alone take any action over it.

It must have been quite a few years back.

They haven't used police officers to answer telephone calls from the public 
for over half a decade now.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Francis Burton"  wrote in message 
news:1234431683.786179@irys.nyx.net...
> In article ,
> Steve O  wrote:
>>He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you
>>would infer that.
>>Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence
>>and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>>Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a
>>better response.
>
> That sounds plausible.
>
>>I reckon he's probably genuine, but if he's made a half- hearted report of
>>robbery, why should he expect more than a half- hearted response?
>
> Because of the seriousness of the crime. That's assuming the police
> believed his report. Presumably they have discretion in rating the
> priority of an alleged incident to a level below the threshold for
> further action based on gut feelings, rather than being obliged to
> follow a fixed procedure each and every time.

They have strict guidelines which defines incidents in terms of seriousness 
and urgency.
Most forces divide reports into four different kinds, from level 1 to level 
4.
Level 1 requires immediate response, level 2 within the hour, level 3 within 
24 hrs and level 4 can be a telephone response.
Factors such as weapons used, offenders still at scen, etc, classify the 
response.
If this guy walked home, failed to give a descent description, failed to 
give his name or address, couldn't say whether the offenders were nearby or 
not then his incident would have been downgraded, even if it was a robbery.

William Black  posted
>
>'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
>confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it 
>took place?'

To which the reply would be, "Did you make the complaint sir? No? Is it 
any of your business? No? Goodbye. "

That's if you can get the police to answer the phone, which they often 
don't around here.

-- 
Les
If people know by taking part in protests there is a danger of being searched,
they should think about not putting themselves in that position.

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:FvUrCGVgFElJFwU1@satan.hell...
> William Black  posted
>>
>>'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
>>confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it took 
>>place?'
>
> To which the reply would be, "Did you make the complaint sir? No? Is it 
> any of your business? No? Goodbye. "

If you make a claim on your insurance for a theft or criminal damage you'll 
find they won't pay without an incident number.

It's what's know as 'a matter of public record'.

Anyone can ask.

> That's if you can get the police to answer the phone, which they often 
> don't around here.

And where is 'around here?'

The various police forces in the UK publish how long it takes them to answer 
the phone.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
> news:FvUrCGVgFElJFwU1@satan.hell...
>> William Black  posted
>>>
>>> 'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can
>>> you confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what
>>> time it took place?'
>>
>> To which the reply would be, "Did you make the complaint sir? No? Is
>> it any of your business? No? Goodbye. "
.
To which you reply: Yes, I made the complaint and my name is Opressed 
Subject..............

Ret.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn1ev2$l90$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
> news:xOc2KUIClClJFwwk@satan.hell...
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  posted
>>>DVH wrote:
>>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message
>>>>news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>>>include a  crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>>>whatever they  like.
>>>>  Might it be possible to make up a crime number?
>>>
>>>Yes, but it is also possible to check it with the local police force.
>>>
>>
>> Ha ha. "Excuse me, officer, somebody's given me this crime number, would
>> you mind just looking it up in your records and giving
>> me the reported details of the crime?"
>
> Try:
>
> 'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
> confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it took 
> place?'
>
And the answer would be, "Are you the victim? If not, I'm afraid I can't 
discuss any of the details with you"

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn1f1e$m43$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
> news:eun9yeKsoClJFwWw@satan.hell...
>> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>>>Either way, if the story is true, the fact that no-one turned up could 
>>>mean a number of things. It certainly *could* mean that the police were 
>>>completely negligent in their dealing with this report - or it could mean 
>>>that there were no officers available at that time. Having said that, if 
>>>the post is genuine, a violent robbery with knives should have taken 
>>>priority over over more minor matters and I cannot imagine that the 
>>>entire division was tied up with even more serious crimes than a robbery.
>>
>> Kev, Kev. You need the scales to fall off your eyes. It is completely 
>> *routine* for the police not to bother turning up for a street robbery. A 
>> few years back my son was attacked and robbed of his bike by two young 
>> men. When he got home a few minutes later, my wife called the police and 
>> was told she had to come down to the station and wait in a  queue to fill 
>> in a form. The officer refused even to record the crime over the phone 
>> let alone take any action over it.
>
> It must have been quite a few years back.
>
> They haven't used police officers to answer telephone calls from the 
> public for over half a decade now.

That isn't correct.
Most crime recording bureaus are mainly staffed with police officers- they 
have to have a reasonable training in law to distinguish the appropriate 
crime and ensure that National Crime Recording Standards are adhered to.
If it's a general enquiry and not a crime, you could still be put through to 
a police officer in the  Calls and Handling Department as many of them work 
there for overtime.
On the rare occasion where you might actually get through to the Area 
Control Room you will find that most sections have a few police officers 
working as radio despatchers together with non police staff.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn1hbk$h5e$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
> news:FvUrCGVgFElJFwU1@satan.hell...
>> William Black  posted
>>>
>>>'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
>>>confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it took 
>>>place?'
>>
>> To which the reply would be, "Did you make the complaint sir? No? Is it 
>> any of your business? No? Goodbye. "
>
> If you make a claim on your insurance for a theft or criminal damage 
> you'll find they won't pay without an incident number.

They are not usually interested in incident numbers- they usually want a 
crime number.
>
> It's what's know as 'a matter of public record'.
>
> Anyone can ask.

But not everyone will get an answer.
Incident records and incident numbers are a confidential record of police 
action taken during an incident and the police do not disclose details of 
incident logs to the public or outside agencies, except through the 
appropriate Data Protection Officer or if requested by a court..
Insurance companies do not get access to incident logs- they can however, 
get access to crime report records and crime report numbers, which are 
different from incident log numbers and incident records, however, they 
normally have to pay a fee to get the details.
Most don't bother.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:57 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they include
>>>> a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up whatever they
>>>> like.
>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
>>> who posts in usenet,
>> Yes
> 
> Then I assume you aren't bothered if other posters feel the same way
> about you and your opinions.

Less so about me because I do not post under a pseudonym and when I 
state something as a fact I can usually back it up. Note that I was not 
questioning this posters opinions, but his alleged treatment by the police.

>>> except those you agree with?  There is nothing unusual about someone
>>> being attacked whilst
>>> just going about their business.  My only regret is that he wasn't
>>> able to put them in hospital.
>> Sounds like a made up story.
> 
> Only to suspicious people like you.  Now tell us why you think he made
> it up.

A) Because it sounds unlikely
B) Because there was no supporting evidence provided eg crime number

>>> Naturally, if he had, he would have to  to stand trial for it - would
>>> he?
>> No. Not if it were self defence.
>> Of course, if he shot them in the back while they were trying to escape,
>> then yes.
> 
> I'm only sorry that Tony Martin didn't manage to get all of them
> instad of only one. They
> had no right to be on his property did they? Tell us how *you* would
> have handled it.
> Let me guess, you would have tackled all of them, tied them up, called
> trhe police and sat around waiting for them to come to your place and
> arrest them. Presuming of course, that they
> hadn't done *you* some bodily harm by the time the plod arrived.

Tony Martin was not convicted for shooting in self defence but because 
he shot a fleeing robber. Had he shot the guy in the front while being 
attacked he would have got off.

>>> What on earth would you have done with a "crime number"?  Would you
>>> have called
>>> the police station and asked them "Did someone report a crime to you,
>>> I have the crime number"?  Duh.
>> Possibly, likely via the Daily Mail.
> 
>    So you are not willing to believe what posters say in usenet, but
> you believe The Daily Mail.

No, I'm saying that I would call plod and then the DM if it was shown to 
be true.


-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article ,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
>>> who posts in usenet,
>> Yes
> 
> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?

Yes. Here there is no accountability at all. In daily life there is face 
to face contact at least.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Steve O wrote:
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gn1ev2$l90$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
>> news:xOc2KUIClClJFwwk@satan.hell...
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  posted
>>>> DVH wrote:
>>>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:6vgsjnFjut2kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>>>> include a  crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>>>> whatever they  like.
>>>>>  Might it be possible to make up a crime number?
>>>> Yes, but it is also possible to check it with the local police force.
>>>>
>>> Ha ha. "Excuse me, officer, somebody's given me this crime number, would
>>> you mind just looking it up in your records and giving
>>> me the reported details of the crime?"
>> Try:
>>
>> 'I am enquiring about incident number XX 12/312/09-1234 Please can you 
>> confirm that a violent attack has been reported and at what time it took 
>> place?'
>>
> And the answer would be, "Are you the victim? If not, I'm afraid I can't 
> discuss any of the details with you"

Really? Then there's no harm publishing the crime number is there?
Here's a number for a crime I reported last year:
J28957-2008

Go for it...

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:28:41 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>I reckon Ret. is right.
>Read between the lines.
>If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have been 
>robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.

Are you someone else who is unable to use eyes and ears at the same
time?>

>> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
>> watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
>> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
>> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
>> home.)

>So why watch it?

If the street with the gang is visible from your window, I cannot
imagine *not* watching to (a) see whether the gang reappear and (b) to
see whether the police arrive and take any action.

If the gang reappear, it is possible that you may get information that
the police would be interested in - getting a good look at their
appearance, perhaps overhearing a name being used.

*I* would certainly be interested in watching people who had just
attacked me, if I could do so from a place of safety, wouldn't yuou?

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
>>> turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
>>> to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.
>>
>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
>> police came to interview him.
>
>The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that the 
>police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are simply 
>overwhelmed by the demand for their services.

So why do they not prioritise?  We often read of clampdowns on this
and clampdowns on that, which usually involve stopping and searching
people at random (sorry, "intelligence" led stop-and-searches), and
tie up a lot of police manpower on the *offchance* that a crime might
be detected.

Surely a known crime should take preference in manpower allocation
that such fishing expeditions?

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:00 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the robbery 
>but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during which a 
>description of the suspects could have been circulated.

People living in such a neighbourhoods don't always carry mobile
phones on their person in case they get them nicked.   In this case,
if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him would
surely have taken it?  THerefore I assumed that he had left his phone
at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the police.

>If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been 
>downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.

He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.

>> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say - 
>> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the 
>> arrival of the police at their door.

>He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you 
>would infer that.
>Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence 
>and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a 
>better response.

Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg.  So it's
not *always* a waste of time.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:1vp8p45g2scjcpsn515f5q1adrgp0c6l4d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:28:41 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>I reckon Ret. is right.
>>Read between the lines.
>>If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have been
>>robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.
>
> Are you someone else who is unable to use eyes and ears at the same
> time?>

Not at all.
I'm not saying with certainty that he went anonymous, I'm just pointing out 
that it seems likely from what he posted.
Everything within his post lent itself to the idea that he simply called the 
police as a test, to see how long it would take them to respond, and that he 
was watching the street from his home to see if they turned up instead of 
waiting for them to call.
That's if the incident happened at all, and he wasn't just making it up.


>>> watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that he
>>> had already told us that the street is between his home and a shop
>>> just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible from his
>>> home.)
>
>>So why watch it?
>
> If the street with the gang is visible from your window, I cannot
> imagine *not* watching to (a) see whether the gang reappear and (b) to
> see whether the police arrive and take any action.

Do you think that gangs of lads rob people with knives, then hang around at 
the scene of the robbery for a long time?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:6eq8p4tm7brhpm6l12j89k7skv0h73ka9l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police. They
>>>> turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside her house
>>>> to frightened to go in and watching for the police to arrive.
>>>
>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
>>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
>>> police came to interview him.
>>
>>The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that the
>>police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are simply
>>overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>
> So why do they not prioritise?

They do prioritise.
They go to the most urgent incidents first, then catch up with the rest.
That's why there are sometimes such long delays.


 >We often read of clampdowns on this
> and clampdowns on that, which usually involve stopping and searching
> people at random (sorry, "intelligence" led stop-and-searches), and
> tie up a lot of police manpower on the *offchance* that a crime might
> be detected.

Police in this area have specific operations from time to time. They take up 
a lot of time and manpower, and quite frankly, are usually publicity 
exercises.

>
> Surely a known crime should take preference in manpower allocation
> that such fishing expeditions?

The officers who are drawn to a specific operation are usually earmarked for 
that operation  and don't assist the local response officers unless there 
was an extremely  major incident occuring

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:hrq8p45ua4ra5i6kckqjitamgiimp2icss@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:00 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the robbery
>>but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during which a
>>description of the suspects could have been circulated.
>
> People living in such a neighbourhoods don't always carry mobile
> phones on their person in case they get them nicked.

  >In this case,
> if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him would
> surely have taken it?  THerefore I assumed that he had left his phone
> at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the police.

The poster stated that he had his cash and groceries stolen, and that he 
called the police from his PAYG mobile phone.
He didn't make any mention of twhether he was carrying the phone with him at 
the time of the robbery or whether it was taken from him.
>
>>If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been
>>downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.
>
> He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
> attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.

But not within sight of his front window.
Even more reason to disbelieve him.

>
>>> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would 
>>> say -
>>> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the
>>> arrival of the police at their door.
>
>>He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you
>>would infer that.
>>Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence
>>and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>>Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a
>>better response.
>
> Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
> police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg.  So it's
> not *always* a waste of time.

It wasn't the anonymous call which resulted in the police making a decision 
to fire, it was the idiot drunk with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag, 
pointing it at armed police officers and pretending it was a weapon while 
ignoring the officers who were screaming at him to put the weapon down which 
made them decide to shoot.
The daft sod sealed his own fate by his own sheer stupidity.
I mean, if you can't understand the meaning of " You're surrounded by armed 
bastards" and are stupid enough to pretend to play bang bang with armed 
police, then good luck to you.

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:hrq8p45ua4ra5i6kckqjitamgiimp2icss@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:00 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the robbery
>>but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during which a
>>description of the suspects could have been circulated.
>
> People living in such a neighbourhoods don't always carry mobile
> phones on their person in case they get them nicked.

  >In this case,
> if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him would
> surely have taken it?  THerefore I assumed that he had left his phone
> at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the police.

The poster stated that he had his cash and groceries stolen, and that he
called the police from his PAYG mobile phone.
He didn't make any mention of twhether he was carrying the phone with him at
the time of the robbery or whether it was taken from him.
>
>>If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been
>>downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.
>
> He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
> attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.

But not within sight of his front window.
Even more reason to disbelieve him.

>
>>> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would
>>> say -
>>> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the
>>> arrival of the police at their door.
>
>>He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you
>>would infer that.
>>Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence
>>and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>>Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a
>>better response.
>
> Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
> police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg.  So it's
> not *always* a waste of time.

It wasn't the anonymous call which resulted in the police making a decision
to fire, it was the idiot drunk with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag,
pointing it at armed police officers and pretending it was a weapon while
ignoring the officers who were screaming at him to put the weapon down which
made them decide to shoot.
The daft sod sealed his own fate by his own sheer stupidity.
I mean, if you can't understand the meaning of " You're surrounded by armed
bastards" and are stupid enough to pretend to play bang bang with armed
police, then good luck to you.

In article ,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>> And the answer would be, "Are you the victim? If not, I'm afraid I can't 
>> discuss any of the details with you"
>
>Really? Then there's no harm publishing the crime number is there?
>Here's a number for a crime I reported last year:
>J28957-2008
>
>Go for it...

This could be interesting.

Francis

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:03:13 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>> If the street with the gang is visible from your window, I cannot
>> imagine *not* watching to (a) see whether the gang reappear and (b) to
>> see whether the police arrive and take any action.
>
>Do you think that gangs of lads rob people with knives, then hang around at 
>the scene of the robbery for a long time?

Yes, that's exactly how gangs in many areas behave.  They don't fear
retribution from the police or anyone else, and with good reason.

-- 
Cynic

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article ,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>>> And the answer would be, "Are you the victim? If not, I'm afraid I can't 
>>> discuss any of the details with you"
>> Really? Then there's no harm publishing the crime number is there?
>> Here's a number for a crime I reported last year:
>> J28957-2008
>>
>> Go for it...
> 
> This could be interesting.
> 
> Francis

If it needs narrowing down, it occurred in Bedford

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:06:32 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>> Surely a known crime should take preference in manpower allocation
>> that such fishing expeditions?

>The officers who are drawn to a specific operation are usually earmarked for 
>that operation  and don't assist the local response officers unless there 
>was an extremely  major incident occuring

Exactly the situation I was complaining about.

Having said what I have, I must also say that I have had cause to
report something suspicious to the police 3 times in the past 4 years
or so.  In all cases the police responded quickly and called me back
several times to update me on the situation (which they had no need to
do because I was merely reporting something I had seen).

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:15:44 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>  >In this case,
>> if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him would
>> surely have taken it?  THerefore I assumed that he had left his phone
>> at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the police.
>
>The poster stated that he had his cash and groceries stolen, and that he 
>called the police from his PAYG mobile phone.
>He didn't make any mention of twhether he was carrying the phone with him at 
>the time of the robbery or whether it was taken from him.

He stated he *went home* and then called from his PAYG phone.  My
immediate inference was that the phone was left at his home.  Thugs
that steal groceries and cash would surely have taken a phone had he
had one on him.

>>>If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been
>>>downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.

>> He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
>> attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.

>But not within sight of his front window.

He does not say one way or the other.  It is reasonable to infer that
it was within sight of his window.  A minute's walk is not very far
away.

>> Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
>> police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg.  So it's
>> not *always* a waste of time.

>It wasn't the anonymous call which resulted in the police making a decision 
>to fire, it was the idiot drunk with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag, 
>pointing it at armed police officers and pretending it was a weapon while 
>ignoring the officers who were screaming at him to put the weapon down which 
>made them decide to shoot.

A description that comes almost entirely from your fertile imagination
than from any of the facts I have read about the case.

I could make up equally wild "facts" about the behaviour of the
police.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:28:41 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>> I reckon Ret. is right.
>> Read between the lines.
>> If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have
>> been robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.
>
> Are you someone else who is unable to use eyes and ears at the same
> time?>
>
>>> (The OP stated that he arrived home, called the police and then
>>> watched the street.  A reasonable assumption therefore, given that
>>> he had already told us that the street is between his home and a
>>> shop just two minutes' walk away, is that the street is visible
>>> from his home.)
>
>> So why watch it?
>
> If the street with the gang is visible from your window, I cannot
> imagine *not* watching to (a) see whether the gang reappear and (b) to
> see whether the police arrive and take any action.
>
> If the gang reappear, it is possible that you may get information that
> the police would be interested in - getting a good look at their
> appearance, perhaps overhearing a name being used.
>
> *I* would certainly be interested in watching people who had just
> attacked me, if I could do so from a place of safety, wouldn't yuou?

Strange how so many are coming forward to support the OPs position - when he 
himself has suddenly vanished. Probably embarassed that his subterfuge has 
failed so miserably.

Ret.

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police.
>>>> They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside
>>>> her house to frightened to go in and watching for the police to
>>>> arrive.
>>>
>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
>>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
>>> police came to interview him.
>>
>> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
>> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
>> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>
> So why do they not prioritise?

They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit of 
having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie officers up for 
some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an officer in the middle of 
dealing with a car accident cannot just buzz off and leave damaged cars in 
the road, and offenders/witnesses stood at the side of the road.

We often read of clampdowns on this
> and clampdowns on that, which usually involve stopping and searching
> people at random (sorry, "intelligence" led stop-and-searches), and
> tie up a lot of police manpower on the *offchance* that a crime might
> be detected.

Usually such operations involve officers brought in on overtime on their 
rest days - they do not take officers off the streets for such operations.

>
> Surely a known crime should take preference in manpower allocation
> that such fishing expeditions?

See above.

Ret.

On 12 Feb, 18:39, Cynic  wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:00 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the robbery
> >but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during which a
> >description of the suspects could have been circulated.
>
> People living in such a neighbourhoods don't always carry mobile
> phones on their person in case they get them nicked.   In this case,
> if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him would
> surely have taken it?  THerefore I assumed that he had left his phone
> at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the police.

My wife has passed away and my children have long since left the roost
to greener pastures (read: outside this country). I have no need to
carry my phone with me.

> >If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have been
> >downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.
>
> He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
> attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.
>
> >> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say -
> >> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the
> >> arrival of the police at their door.
> >He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why you
> >would infer that.
> >Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the offence
> >and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
> >Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have got a
> >better response.
>
> Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
> police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg.  So it's
> not *always* a waste of time.

At least the police shot the blighter in the back. Who knows what
would've happened if he pointed a table leg at them; poor sods
might've died of a heart attack.

Tony Martin's just a farmer though, so of course he can't shoot people
in the back unlike the plod.

On 12 Feb, 09:45, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
> >> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> >>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
> >>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
> >>>> whatever they like.
>
> >>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
> >>> who posts in usenet,
>
> >> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
> >> address is in Germany
>
> >> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
> >> troll anyway.
>
> >      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
> > by a gang of thugs whilst
> >   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
> > police when he got
> >  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
> > unusual about that
> > just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
> > in the streets of Britain,
> >  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?
>
> Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in
> his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to
> defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I couldn't be bothered to defend my position any further for 3
reasons:
1. There are people who see the state of Britain as it truly is, and
there are those who don't. No amount of arguing will change that.
2. I have posted more details than I already wish to do. Any further
and I risk being identified or my neighbourhood narrowed down further.
3. I have regretted reporting the incident to the police as it
certainly limits my options to retaliate against the punks.

Believe what you want. Frankly I don't see how changing your opinion
is going to make a difference, because even if you were Gordon Brown,
you'd cock things up by just doing anything.

On 12 Feb, 00:53, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:

>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> himself in his own home
>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> entered his home with the
> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> enough and shot one of them.

I thank you for your concern, Boedicia. However I am an old vet with a
dead wife and children who've long since left the nest. I used to live
for my country but my country is no more. You could say I have nothing
left to lose but my integrity.

> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> "evil eye" to the jury,
> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> received the George Cross
> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> it would seem,
> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.

Quite. Not only are crooks going for honest, law abiding people, so
are the government by either inaction, incompetence or intent.

> But what can one expect
>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> by, The Trots of "Old"
> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> o not appearing
> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> lives and property of their
> constituents count for nothing.- Hide quoted text -

The Labourite Communists are probably the worst of the lot, but we
have also seen a significant amount of erosion of our rights under
even the Tories, such as the reclassification of mouth swabs and hair
samples from intimate to non-intimate evidence in 1994 under John
Major's government (thus paving the way for widescale DNA profiling).

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 12 Feb, 18:39, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:00 -0000, "Steve O" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering why he didn't call the police immediately after the
>>> robbery but chose instead to walk home, losing valuable time during
>>> which a description of the suspects could have been circulated.
>>
>> People living in such a neighbourhoods don't always carry mobile
>> phones on their person in case they get them nicked. In this case,
>> if he *had* taken his phone with him, the thugs who attacked him
>> would surely have taken it? THerefore I assumed that he had left his
>> phone at home, which is why he had to get home before calling the
>> police.
>
> My wife has passed away and my children have long since left the roost
> to greener pastures (read: outside this country). I have no need to
> carry my phone with me.
>
>>> If it took him some time to walk home then the robbery would have
>>> been downgraded as the suspects were no longer at the scene.
>>
>> He stated that the shop he visited was two minute's walk away - the
>> attack would therefore have been even closer to his home.
>>
>>>> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant
>>>> would say - not someone who had just reported a robbery and who
>>>> was awaiting the arrival of the police at their door.
>>> He hasn't really said that he called anonymously, but I can see why
>>> you would infer that.
>>> Looks like the anonynous info plus the intervening gap between the
>>> offence and his reporting the matter copped him a downgrade.
>>> Perhaps he should have been more cooperative, then he might have
>>> got a better response.
>>
>> Well, one anonymous call from a pub resulted in a group of armed
>> police being called out to kill a man carrying a table leg. So it's
>> not *always* a waste of time.
>
> At least the police shot the blighter in the back. Who knows what
> would've happened if he pointed a table leg at them; poor sods
> might've died of a heart attack.
>
> Tony Martin's just a farmer though, so of course he can't shoot people
> in the back unlike the plod.

Your knowledge of the details of both these incidents is as sketchy as your 
post on this so-called mugging.

Ret.

On 12 Feb, 10:05, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Francis Burton wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Steve O  wrote:
> >> I reckon Ret. is right.
> >> Read between the lines.
> >> If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have
> >> been robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the street.
>
> > Is it not possible to watch and listen simultaneously? I imagine
> > many people, when expecting a visit from someone, look out for
> > their approach. That seems entirely within the bounds of normal
> > behaviour.
>
> .
> I don't disagree - but it was the way he worded his post - it just didn't
> ring true. Nothing that he has since posted leads me to believe that I was
> mistaken.

Nothing ever will.

> The fact that he seems to have faded away from this thread without
> any real attempt to defend his position speaks volumes.

It may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of us have jobs and
don't have the time to camp out on Usenet responding to people
accusing me of all and sundry. I have never sponged off the state
despite my injuries and never will.

> If this story was
> true then he should have been down the police station to make a serious
> official complaint - but he hasn't done. Why is that do you think?

People have tried that way before, and we damn well know it doesn't
work. So maybe its time to do things my way?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:cl09p413nm4im350pujur8du1q4m2tsbcr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:03:13 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>> If the street with the gang is visible from your window, I cannot
>>> imagine *not* watching to (a) see whether the gang reappear and (b) to
>>> see whether the police arrive and take any action.
>>
>>Do you think that gangs of lads rob people with knives, then hang around 
>>at
>>the scene of the robbery for a long time?
>
> Yes, that's exactly how gangs in many areas behave.  They don't fear
> retribution from the police or anyone else, and with good reason.
>
That's nonsense.
I have never once heard of an armed robbery where the offenders don't even 
bother to run away.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:0319p41tf242gghkfi996r0oltvvbrf1d9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:15:44 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>It wasn't the anonymous call which resulted in the police making a 
>>decision
>>to fire, it was the idiot drunk with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag,
>>pointing it at armed police officers and pretending it was a weapon while
>>ignoring the officers who were screaming at him to put the weapon down 
>>which
>>made them decide to shoot.
>
> A description that comes almost entirely from your fertile imagination
> than from any of the facts I have read about the case.

You should read a few more facts.
By the way, the call wasn't anonymous, it was made by a man named Clifford 
Willing from the Alexander Pub..

>
> I could make up equally wild "facts" about the behaviour of the
> police.

Or you could make up the idea that police were acting on an anonymous call?


> -- 
> Cynic
>

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:zuudnc1uR9RkNQnUnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
>>>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police.
>>>>> They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside
>>>>> her house to frightened to go in and watching for the police to
>>>>> arrive.
>>>>
>>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
>>>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
>>>> police came to interview him.
>>>
>>> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
>>> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
>>> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>>
>> So why do they not prioritise?
>
> They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit of 
> having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie officers up 
> for some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an officer in the 
> middle of dealing with a car accident cannot just buzz off and leave 
> damaged cars in the road, and offenders/witnesses stood at the side of the 
> road.
>
> We often read of clampdowns on this
>> and clampdowns on that, which usually involve stopping and searching
>> people at random (sorry, "intelligence" led stop-and-searches), and
>> tie up a lot of police manpower on the *offchance* that a crime might
>> be detected.
>
> Usually such operations involve officers brought in on overtime on their 
> rest days - they do not take officers off the streets for such operations.

The latest operations in our area involve huge numbers of officers drawn 
from response duties.
No overtime is paid at all- the area just goes short.

On Feb 12, 1:31 am, fbur...@nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
> In article ,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>
> >> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> >> who posts in usenet,
>
> >Yes
>
> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?

All this nonsense because a poster posted of his experience with a
gang of feral
morons in England.   Why do these idiots wants a "crime number"?  Why
wouldn't
theye believe him, it all sounds like an everyday occurence to me.
As for his posting from
Germany, so what? I posted from Oz one day and the next day I was on a
plane for Fiji.
I posted from England one day and 2 days later I was on a plane for
New York.  What
was so unusual about what the O.P. said?  How would they like it if
everythng they
posted resulted in a "prove it"?


> Francis

On Feb 12, 1:43 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 5:57 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax dirk.bru...@gmail.com
> .
> > I'm only sorry that Tony Martin didn't manage to get all of them
> > instad of only one. They
> > had no right to be on his property did they? Tell us how *you* would
> > have handled it.
> > Let me guess, you would have tackled all of them, tied them up, called
> > trhe police and sat around waiting for them to come to your place and
> > arrest them. Presuming of course, that they
> > hadn't done *you* some bodily harm by the time the plod arrived.
.
> Clearly you have not studied the Tony Martin case in any detail because, if
> you had, you would know exactly why he was jailed for this shooting.

He was jailed because the idiots on the jury were terriified of all
the gypos who showed up at the trial.
>
'"They were giving us the evil eye".  Perhaps there should be an IQ
test before anyone is allowed to serve on a jury.

As to Tony Martin, good on yer Tony. Next time get the rest of the
garbage.

Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your home.
Let me guess.
You would have cried and wet your knickers. No? Well, how about - you
would have helped them carry out your belongings to their stolen car.
No?  How about you would have threatened them with your umbrella and
given them an hour to leave your premises. Naturally, if your wife was
home you would have been hoping they didn't rape her.  Take my advice,
shoot first
and make sure you hit what you aim at.

On Feb 12, 1:45 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
> >> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> >>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
> >>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
> >>>> whatever they like.
>
> >>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
> >>> who posts in usenet,
>
> >> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
> >> address is in Germany
>
> >> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
> >> troll anyway.
>
> >      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
> > by a gang of thugs whilst
> >   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
> > police when he got
> >  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
> > unusual about that
> > just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
> > in the streets of Britain,
> >  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?
>
> Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in
> his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to
> defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.

He doesn't need to "defend" his "tale".  He made a statement and it
stands on its own.
Do you "defend" everything *you* post. *You* wouldn't even defend
yourself in a gang of feral gypos invaded your home, let alone defend
a posting.  You sound like one of those loony lefties to me.  You
don't want anyone to defend themselves and don't believe those who
call the police when attacked.  It's too bad he wasn't armed when he
went to the shops, if he had been
me might not have needed the police, he would have called for an
ambulance.

>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > economic incompetence.
>
> > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> .
> --snipped political rant--
>
> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>
> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
> door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? It's
> a strange comment to make because most people, if they were complaining
> about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and reported the
> robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a statement."
>
> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say > not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the arrival
> of the police at their door.
>
> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to
> what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had
> just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the
> vicinity for the police to arrive?
>
> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> Ret.

Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.

It makes no difference to the police if you are victim of crime. They
are all on hourly rates.

On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > economic incompetence.
>
> > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> > When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> > army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> > returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> > shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> > have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> > roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> > I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> > and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> > that they're going to be sorry.
>
>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> himself in his own home
>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> entered his home with the
> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> enough and shot one of them.
> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> "evil eye" to the jury,
> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> received the George Cross
> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> it would seem,
> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> But what can one expect
>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> by, The Trots of "Old"
> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> o not appearing
> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> lives and property of their
> constituents count for nothing.

The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
unless the police are notified immediately.

There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
themselves or acting as private police forces.

In article ,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
>>>> who posts in usenet,
>>> Yes
>> 
>> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?
>
>Yes. Here there is no accountability at all.

That's true. However, there are posters of whom I am not suspicious -
yourself, for instance - less than some people I pass on the street. 
That's speaking personally of course. 

>In daily life there is face 
>to face contact at least.

What, like kissing? :-)  (I do know what you mean!)

Francis

"Logician"  wrote in message 
news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> Ret.

Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.

You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and 
property and the police declined to attend immediately?
That seems unbelievable.
You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser 
from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you otherwise.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
Was the offender known to you?
Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?

"Logician"  wrote in message 
news:35c5009b-ed88-421e-8414-a88298acf62e@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > economic incompetence.
>
> > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> > When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> > army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> > returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> > shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> > have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> > roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> > I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> > and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> > that they're going to be sorry.
>
> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
> himself in his own home
> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> entered his home with the
> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> enough and shot one of them.
> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> "evil eye" to the jury,
> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> received the George Cross
> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> it would seem,
> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> But what can one expect
> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> by, The Trots of "Old"
> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> o not appearing
> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> lives and property of their
> constituents count for nothing.

The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
unless the police are notified immediately.

There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
themselves or acting as private police forces.

Name one.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:45 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
>>>> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
>>>>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
>>>>>> whatever they like.
>>>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
>>>>> who posts in usenet,
>>>> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
>>>> address is in Germany
>>>> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
>>>> troll anyway.
>>>      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
>>> by a gang of thugs whilst
>>>   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
>>> police when he got
>>>  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
>>> unusual about that
>>> just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
>>> in the streets of Britain,
>>>  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?
>> Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in
>> his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to
>> defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.
> 
> He doesn't need to "defend" his "tale".  He made a statement and it
> stands on its own.

As does any work of fiction or opinion.

> Do you "defend" everything *you* post. *You* wouldn't even defend

Yes, if asked for easily verifiable facts.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Logician wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
>>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
>>> economic incompetence.
>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
>>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
>>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
>>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
>>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
>>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
>>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
>>> for half an hour - no one came.
>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
>>> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
>>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
>>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
>>> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
>>> roving gangs that rule our streets.
>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
>>> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
>>> that they're going to be sorry.
>>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
>> himself in his own home
>>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
>> entered his home with the
>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
>> enough and shot one of them.
>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
>> "evil eye" to the jury,
>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
>> received the George Cross
>> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
>> it would seem,
>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
>> But what can one expect
>>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
>> by, The Trots of "Old"
>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
>> o not appearing
>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
>> lives and property of their
>> constituents count for nothing.
> 
> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> unless the police are notified immediately.
> 
> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> themselves or acting as private police forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm

"A homeowner stabbed a burglar to death in self defence, an inquest jury 
has found.

John Lambert and his wife Carol feared for their lives when Darren 
Taylor and an accomplice sneaked into their Lincolnshire home.

Burglar Mr Taylor was high on drink and drugs when he was stabbed with 
his own knife, the inquest at Spalding Magistrates' Court heard.

On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the 
30-year-old. "

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:49:19 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> *I* would certainly be interested in watching people who had just
>> attacked me, if I could do so from a place of safety, wouldn't yuou?
>
>Strange how so many are coming forward to support the OPs position - when he 
>himself has suddenly vanished. Probably embarassed that his subterfuge has 
>failed so miserably.

It's not so strange, as he has explained in his recent post.  Next
time I don't see any posts from yourself for a few hours, it will no
doubt indicate that you have been lying to us.

-- 
Cynic

On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
> "Logician"  wrote in message
>
> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> > Ret.
>
> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>
> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
> That seems unbelievable.
> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you otherwise.
> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
> Was the offender known to you?
> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?

A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
looking for cash. She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.

The police arrived the following day and asked: "Is she still here?"

On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> >>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> >>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> >>> economic incompetence.
> >>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> >>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> >>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> >>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> >>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> >>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> >>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> >>> for half an hour - no one came.
> >>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> >>> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> >>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> >>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> >>> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> >>> roving gangs that rule our streets.
> >>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> >>> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> >>> that they're going to be sorry.
> >>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> >> himself in his own home
> >>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> >> entered his home with the
> >> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> >> enough and shot one of them.
> >> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> >> "evil eye" to the jury,
> >> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> >> received the George Cross
> >> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> >> it would seem,
> >> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> >> But what can one expect
> >>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> >> by, The Trots of "Old"
> >> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> >> o not appearing
> >> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> >> lives and property of their
> >> constituents count for nothing.
>
> > The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> > weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> > regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> > will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> > person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> > unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> > There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> > themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm
>
> "A homeowner stabbed a burglar to death in self defence, an inquest jury
> has found.
>
> John Lambert and his wife Carol feared for their lives when Darren
> Taylor and an accomplice sneaked into their Lincolnshire home.
>
> Burglar Mr Taylor was high on drink and drugs when he was stabbed with
> his own knife, the inquest at Spalding Magistrates' Court heard.
>
> On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the
> 30-year-old. "
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your article makes no reference to if the homeowner was arrested, or
questioned. I think he was probably arrested and interviewed. This is
standard police practice especially when he has clearly killed
someone. If the police failed to take such action, the killer could
easily simply go into hiding, or change his identity.

In this case, the jury found in favour of the homeowner, but it could
have clearly gone the other way in which case he could have been
looking at a life sentence. Either way, he took a risky action. UK law
simply does not automatically recognise the rights of self-defence
using weapons.

On Feb 13, 11:18 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
> "Logician"  wrote in message
>
> news:35c5009b-ed88-421e-8414-a88298acf62e@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > > economic incompetence.
>
> > > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> > > When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> > > army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> > > returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> > > shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> > > have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> > > roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> > > I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> > > and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> > > that they're going to be sorry.
>
> > I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
> > himself in his own home
> > and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> > entered his home with the
> > intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> > enough and shot one of them.
> > The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> > "evil eye" to the jury,
> > whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> > received the George Cross
> > for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> > it would seem,
> > is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> > But what can one expect
> > when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> > by, The Trots of "Old"
> > Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> > o not appearing
> > to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> > lives and property of their
> > constituents count for nothing.
>
> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> Name one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have named before many, and lack the time to find references now.
But there are hundreds of cases in which homeowners and shopowners
have been jailed for defending their properties against criminals.

Logician wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> wrote:
>> Logician wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
>>>>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
>>>>> economic incompetence.
>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
>>>>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
>>>>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
>>>>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
>>>>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
>>>>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
>>>>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
>>>>> for half an hour - no one came.
>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
>>>>> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
>>>>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
>>>>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
>>>>> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
>>>>> roving gangs that rule our streets.
>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
>>>>> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
>>>>> that they're going to be sorry.
>>>>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
>>>> himself in his own home
>>>>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
>>>> entered his home with the
>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
>>>> enough and shot one of them.
>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
>>>> "evil eye" to the jury,
>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
>>>> received the George Cross
>>>> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
>>>> it would seem,
>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
>>>> But what can one expect
>>>>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
>>>> by, The Trots of "Old"
>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
>>>> o not appearing
>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
>>>> lives and property of their
>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
>>> weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
>>> regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
>>> will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
>>> person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
>>> unless the police are notified immediately.
>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm
>>
>> "A homeowner stabbed a burglar to death in self defence, an inquest jury
>> has found.
>>
>> John Lambert and his wife Carol feared for their lives when Darren
>> Taylor and an accomplice sneaked into their Lincolnshire home.
>>
>> Burglar Mr Taylor was high on drink and drugs when he was stabbed with
>> his own knife, the inquest at Spalding Magistrates' Court heard.
>>
>> On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the
>> 30-year-old. "
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Your article makes no reference to if the homeowner was arrested, or
> questioned. I think he was probably arrested and interviewed. This is
> standard police practice especially when he has clearly killed
> someone. If the police failed to take such action, the killer could
> easily simply go into hiding, or change his identity.
> 
> In this case, the jury found in favour of the homeowner, but it could
> have clearly gone the other way in which case he could have been
> looking at a life sentence. Either way, he took a risky action. UK law
> simply does not automatically recognise the rights of self-defence
> using weapons.

Yes it does.
The question tested in court is whether it was really self defence.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Logician wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>> "Logician"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>> Ret.
>> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
>> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
>> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
>> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>>
>> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
>> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
>> That seems unbelievable.
>> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
>> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you otherwise.
>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
>> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
>> Was the offender known to you?
>> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
>> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
> 
> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
> looking for cash. She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
> 
> The police arrived the following day and asked: "Is she still here?"

Sue the police.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 12 Feb, 10:05, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Francis Burton wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Steve O  wrote:
>>>> I reckon Ret. is right.
>>>> Read between the lines.
>>>> If you are at home and call the police to tell them that you have
>>>> been robbed, you'll be waiting for a knock, not watching the
>>>> street.
>>
>>> Is it not possible to watch and listen simultaneously? I imagine
>>> many people, when expecting a visit from someone, look out for
>>> their approach. That seems entirely within the bounds of normal
>>> behaviour.
>>
>> .
>> I don't disagree - but it was the way he worded his post - it just
>> didn't ring true. Nothing that he has since posted leads me to
>> believe that I was mistaken.
>
> Nothing ever will.
>
>> The fact that he seems to have faded away from this thread without
>> any real attempt to defend his position speaks volumes.
>
> It may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of us have jobs and
> don't have the time to camp out on Usenet responding to people
> accusing me of all and sundry. I have never sponged off the state
> despite my injuries and never will.
>
>> If this story was
>> true then he should have been down the police station to make a
>> serious official complaint - but he hasn't done. Why is that do you
>> think?
>
> People have tried that way before, and we damn well know it doesn't
> work. So maybe its time to do things my way?

If you made a genuine complaint about a serious and violent robbery, and the 
police failed to turn up at all - then you have a very genuine complaint to 
make and, because if its serious nature, it would *have* to be passed to the 
IPCC for investigation. It is your duty to report the appalling negligence 
of your local police and to have them investigated by the IPCC. Now, I ask 
again - why haven't you done it?

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:45 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
>>>> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
>>>>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
>>>>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make
>>>>>> up whatever they like.
>>
>>>>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
>>>>> who posts in usenet,
>>
>>>> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
>>>> address is in Germany
>>
>>>> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
>>>> troll anyway.
>>
>>> No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
>>> by a gang of thugs whilst
>>> he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
>>> police when he got
>>> home and waited for them to arrive which they never did. Nothing
>>> unusual about that
>>> just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting
>>> attacked in the streets of Britain,
>>> in fact it is a common occurence isn't it? Why is he a "troll"?
>>
>> Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive
>> holes in his tale. The fact that he is not even making a
>> half-hearted attempt to defend his position is a further indication
>> that his story is bogus.
>
> He doesn't need to "defend" his "tale".  He made a statement and it
> stands on its own.
> Do you "defend" everything *you* post. *You* wouldn't even defend
> yourself in a gang of feral gypos invaded your home, let alone defend
> a posting.  You sound like one of those loony lefties to me.

LOL!! That's the first time that anyone has ever accused me of being a 
leftie!!!!

You
> don't want anyone to defend themselves and don't believe those who
> call the police when attacked.  It's too bad he wasn't armed when he
> went to the shops, if he had been
> me might not have needed the police, he would have called for an
> ambulance.

I don't believe him because there are holes in his tale and because he has 
not made an official complaint about a very serious matter of neglect of 
duty by his local police - IF it happened - but I don't believe it did.

Ret.

"Logician"  wrote in message 
news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > economic incompetence.
>
> > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> .
> --snipped political rant--
>
> If what you say is true - then I am puzzled. You were reporting a serious
> robbery with knives used and police should have been around to your house,
> PDQ, to take a statement and obtain a description of your assailants.
>
> I'm also puzzled by your comment "I watched the street for half an hour".
> Why were you 'watching the street' rather than awaiting a knock on the
> door - or didn't you provide your details when you reported the attack? 
> It's
> a strange comment to make because most people, if they were complaining
> about such an incident, would say; "I called the police and reported the
> robbery but no-one turned up at my house to take a statement."
>
> "Watching the street' is something that an anonymous informant would say -
> not someone who had just reported a robbery and who was awaiting the 
> arrival
> of the police at their door.
>
> If you simply made an anonymous call to the police then I am puzzled as to
> what you expected them to do. Do you think it likely that youths who had
> just committed a serious knife robbery would remain hanging around in the
> vicinity for the police to arrive?
>
> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> Ret.

Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.

---------------------------------

I somehow doubt that.

You are perfectly entitled to use 'reasonable force' to eject someone from 
your home.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:30:40 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
 wrote:

>> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?
>
>All this nonsense because a poster posted of his experience with a
>gang of feral
>morons in England.   Why do these idiots wants a "crime number"?  Why
>wouldn't
>theye believe him, it all sounds like an everyday occurence to me.
>As for his posting from
>Germany, so what? I posted from Oz one day and the next day I was on a
>plane for Fiji.
>I posted from England one day and 2 days later I was on a plane for
>New York.  What
>was so unusual about what the O.P. said?  How would they like it if
>everythng they
>posted resulted in a "prove it"?

I frequently connect to the Internet via a proxy (to overcome
geographical content-blocking), and whilst I don't recall leaving the
proxy on when using Usenet, I could easily do so and be making posts
seemingly from all over the World!  (Although Giganews does not reveal
the originating IP address anyway, AFAIK).

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:41:34 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>>>It wasn't the anonymous call which resulted in the police making a 
>>>decision
>>>to fire, it was the idiot drunk with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag,
>>>pointing it at armed police officers and pretending it was a weapon while
>>>ignoring the officers who were screaming at him to put the weapon down 
>>>which
>>>made them decide to shoot.
>>
>> A description that comes almost entirely from your fertile imagination
>> than from any of the facts I have read about the case.
>
>You should read a few more facts.

I have read lots of reports, including those from inquiries and
hearings.  The most that could be said in favour of the officers is
that Harry Stanley inadvertently gave the impression of bringing the
"weapon" to bear as he turned to see what was going on.

>By the way, the call wasn't anonymous, it was made by a man named Clifford 
>Willing from the Alexander Pub.

Which, unless the police knew who Clifford Willing was at the time
they took the call, is exactly the same as an anonymous call.  I could
call the police from a pub and tell them my name was Mickey Mouse.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:24:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Your knowledge of the details of both these incidents is as sketchy as your 
>post on this so-called mugging.

Not necessarily.  There is no proof that the police did *not*
deliberately shoot Harry Stanley in the back.  After a lot of
searching, the police finally found an expert witness in another
country, who has *only* ever testified in favour of the police, to say
that it is *possible* that the police shot while Harry Stanley was
partially facing them.

-- 
Cynic

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article ,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>>> And the answer would be, "Are you the victim? If not, I'm afraid I can't 
>>> discuss any of the details with you"
>> Really? Then there's no harm publishing the crime number is there?
>> Here's a number for a crime I reported last year:
>> J28957-2008
>>
>> Go for it...
> 
> This could be interesting.
> 
> Francis

Or not.
People come here to mouth off, not do stuff in the real world.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

"Logician"  wrote in message 
news:6f64b163-b38a-4eca-8cfc-7be55c978264@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
> "Logician"  wrote in message
>
> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> > Ret.
>
> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>
> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
> That seems unbelievable.
> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you otherwise.
> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
> Was the offender known to you?
> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?

A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
looking for cash.
She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.

So how would that be a police emergency?
It was a minor incident and the offender left the scene.
So you had an unwanted customer in your business premises.
Why would you consider that to be a police priority?
Couldn't you have ejected her yourself?
Have you ever considered employing security, or do you think it is the 
police's responsibility to deal with any minor problems at our place of 
business?

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:6vl9jcFkqfokU1@mid.individual.net...
> Logician wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>>> "Logician"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>>> Ret.
>>> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
>>> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
>>> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
>>> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>>>
>>> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
>>> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
>>> That seems unbelievable.
>>> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
>>> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you 
>>> otherwise.
>>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
>>> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
>>> Was the offender known to you?
>>> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
>>> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
>>
>> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
>> looking for cash. She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
>> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
>> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
>> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
>>
>> The police arrived the following day and asked: "Is she still here?"
>
> Sue the police.

For what?

Ret. wrote:

 We often read of clampdowns on this
> > and clampdowns on that, which usually involve
> > stopping and searching people at random
> > (sorry, "intelligence" led
> > stop-and-searches), and tie up a lot of
> > police manpower on the offchance that a crime
> > might be detected.
> 
> Usually such operations involve officers
> brought in on overtime on their rest days -
> they do not take officers off the streets for
> such operations.

I just do not believe you. Why would anyone pay
overtime to fish for crimes that are not yet
committed?
Anyway, even if this was true, overtime could be
allocated to attend all overdue calls, once all
overdues are on time, and dealt with, the
overtime could be stopped if the polioce were run
by competant people of course. Instead, the
police are now run by academic political puppets,
who have no idea what anyone except their masters
actually expect from police.

> 
> > 
> > Surely a known crime should take preference
> > in manpower allocation that such fishing
> > expeditions?
> 
> See above.

There are more police than required. Witness the
amount of police during the miners strike. Not
the amount of hours (overtime) but the amount of
police. They have absolutely no idea of time
management.


--

Cynic wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:24:10 -0000, "Ret."
> <xxx> wrote:
> 
> > Your knowledge of the details of both these
> > incidents is as sketchy as your post on this
> > so-called mugging.
> 
> Not necessarily.  There is no proof that the
> police did not deliberately shoot Harry Stanley
> in the back.  After a lot of searching, the
> police finally found an expert witness in
> another country, who has only ever testified in
> favour of the police, to say that it is
> possible that the police shot while Harry
> Stanley was partially facing them.

How many times must you be told? Did any
policeman go to court for shooting him? There you
are then, proof they did not shoot him
deliberately in the back.

--

On 13 Feb, 16:07, "Steve O"  wrote:
> "Logician"  wrote in message
>
> news:6f64b163-b38a-4eca-8cfc-7be55c978264@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Logician"  wrote in message
>
> >news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>
> > > Ret.
>
> > Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
> > and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
> > told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
> > criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>
> > You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
> > property and the police declined to attend immediately?
> > That seems unbelievable.
> > You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
> > from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you otherwise.
> > Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
> > Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
> > Was the offender known to you?
> > Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
> > ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
>
> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
> looking for cash.
> She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
>
> So how would that be a police emergency?
> It was a minor incident and the offender left the scene.
> So you had an unwanted customer in your business premises.
> Why would you consider that to be a police priority?
> Couldn't you have ejected her yourself?
> Have you ever considered employing security, or do you think it is the
> police's responsibility to deal with any minor problems at our place of
> business

The problem is that the police have effectively neutered the citizenry
by repeated warnings to not "have a go", and by treating victims as
criminals.

If I were the OP, the last thing I would do is tackle the trespasser.
There's the risk of an assualt charge, and given the gender
differential, a possible sexual assualt or rape charge.

I've always wondered how many housebreakers are caught, killed by a
householder and treated to an anonymous fare-the-well into the
ocean ....

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:d928c3ac-638c-46a9-a8ee-4bc1f85cfc53@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> I've always wondered how many housebreakers are caught, killed by a
> householder and treated to an anonymous fare-the-well into the
> ocean ....

There was a local rumour that a well known hard man who works on the doors 
around here had disturbed a burglar breaking into his mother's home.
The poor sod spent the next two weeks tied up and being driven around in the 
boot of the bouncer's BMW occasionally being taken out for a good kicking by 
him and his mates now and then before letting him go, half starved, battered 
and totally dehydrated.
I hope it's true.

"joe"  wrote in message 
news:6vlkldFkdiqsU1@mid.individual.net...
> Cynic wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:24:10 -0000, "Ret."
>> <xxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Your knowledge of the details of both these
>> > incidents is as sketchy as your post on this
>> > so-called mugging.
>>
>> Not necessarily.  There is no proof that the
>> police did not deliberately shoot Harry Stanley
>> in the back.  After a lot of searching, the
>> police finally found an expert witness in
>> another country, who has only ever testified in
>> favour of the police, to say that it is
>> possible that the police shot while Harry
>> Stanley was partially facing them.
>
> How many times must you be told? Did any
> policeman go to court for shooting him? There you
> are then, proof they did not shoot him
> deliberately in the back.

There are some funny stories about that one.

Including one about how the police federation said they'd instruct all 
officers to refuse to volunteer for firearms duties if anyone was charged 
over Harry Stanley's death...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Steve O wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
> news:6vl9jcFkqfokU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Logician wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>>>> "Logician"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>>>> Ret.
>>>> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
>>>> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
>>>> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
>>>> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>>>>
>>>> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
>>>> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
>>>> That seems unbelievable.
>>>> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser
>>>> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you 
>>>> otherwise.
>>>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
>>>> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way in?
>>>> Was the offender known to you?
>>>> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
>>>> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
>>> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
>>> looking for cash. She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
>>> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
>>> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
>>> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
>>>
>>> The police arrived the following day and asked: "Is she still here?"
>> Sue the police.
> 
> For what?

Consequential loss for failing to perform their duty?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax  posted
>Steve O wrote:
>>> Sue the police.
>>  For what?
>
>Consequential loss for failing to perform their duty?

It's been tried. Sadly the courts have decided that the police have no 
duty to perform their duty and therefore are not liable for not 
performing it.

-- 
Les
If people know by taking part in protests there is a danger of being searched,
they should think about not putting themselves in that position.

joe wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>
> We often read of clampdowns on this
>>> and clampdowns on that, which usually involve
>>> stopping and searching people at random
>>> (sorry, "intelligence" led
>>> stop-and-searches), and tie up a lot of
>>> police manpower on the offchance that a crime
>>> might be detected.
>>
>> Usually such operations involve officers
>> brought in on overtime on their rest days -
>> they do not take officers off the streets for
>> such operations.
>
> I just do not believe you. Why would anyone pay
> overtime to fish for crimes that are not yet
> committed?
> Anyway, even if this was true, overtime could be
> allocated to attend all overdue calls, once all
> overdues are on time, and dealt with, the
> overtime could be stopped if the polioce were run
> by competant people of course. Instead, the
> police are now run by academic political puppets,
> who have no idea what anyone except their masters
> actually expect from police.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Surely a known crime should take preference
>>> in manpower allocation that such fishing
>>> expeditions?
>>
>> See above.
>
> There are more police than required. Witness the
> amount of police during the miners strike. Not
> the amount of hours (overtime) but the amount of
> police. They have absolutely no idea of time
> management.

Yet another loony fixated on something that occurred many years ago.

Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The police normally work 8 hour 
shifts on a rotating basis. Although shift patterns have changed 
dramatically in recent years, back at the time of the miners strike it was 
mainly 6x2pm, 2x10 pm and 10x6am.  Now, during the miners strike a number of 
things happened. The vast majority of operational police officers were put 
on 12 hour shifts - so instead of working the above shift patterns they 
worked 6am to 6pm and then 6pm to 6am. This immediately dramatically 
increased the number of officers on duty at any one time because instead of 
being spread across 3 shifts - they were only spread across two shifts. They 
also cancelled rest days, annual leave, training days, etc - which also 
increased the number of officers available at any one time.

The upside for the officers was that the 12 hour shifts and cancelled rest 
days meant tons of overtime and many officers paid off their mortgages, 
bought new cars, and went on exotic holidays thanks to one Arthur Scargill 
esq. The Brillo pad headed buffoon.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

Ret.

William Black wrote:
> "joe"  wrote in message
> news:6vlkldFkdiqsU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:24:10 -0000, "Ret."
>>> <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your knowledge of the details of both these
>>>> incidents is as sketchy as your post on this
>>>> so-called mugging.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.  There is no proof that the
>>> police did not deliberately shoot Harry Stanley
>>> in the back.  After a lot of searching, the
>>> police finally found an expert witness in
>>> another country, who has only ever testified in
>>> favour of the police, to say that it is
>>> possible that the police shot while Harry
>>> Stanley was partially facing them.
>>
>> How many times must you be told? Did any
>> policeman go to court for shooting him? There you
>> are then, proof they did not shoot him
>> deliberately in the back.
>
> There are some funny stories about that one.
>
> Including one about how the police federation said they'd instruct all
> officers to refuse to volunteer for firearms duties if anyone was
> charged over Harry Stanley's death...

Yes - an extremely 'funny' story, bearing in mind that the police federation 
never said any such thing..................

Ret.

Steve O wrote:
> "Logician"  wrote in message
> news:6f64b163-b38a-4eca-8cfc-7be55c978264@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>> "Logician"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>
>>> Ret.
>>
>> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
>> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
>> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
>> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>>
>> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money
>> and property and the police declined to attend immediately?
>> That seems unbelievable.
>> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a
>> trespasser from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police
>> advised you otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
>> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way
>> in? Was the offender known to you?
>> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
>> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
>
> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
> looking for cash.
> She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
>
> So how would that be a police emergency?
> It was a minor incident and the offender left the scene.
> So you had an unwanted customer in your business premises.
> Why would you consider that to be a police priority?
> Couldn't you have ejected her yourself?
> Have you ever considered employing security, or do you think it is the
> police's responsibility to deal with any minor problems at our place
> of business?

Sadly this is a sign of the times. Leave your lap-top on the back seat of 
your car and get it nicked - it's the fault of the police when they don't 
turn up within 5 milliseconds to deal with it.  Let shrubs and bushes grow 
around your home, fail to install good locks, security lighting, and an 
alarm - and it's the fault of the police etc...... People have garages, 
don't use them - and yet expect the police to rush out when they find their 
car has been broken into overnight and the radio nicked. etc. etc. etc.

Ret.

Ret. wrote:

> joe wrote:
> > Ret. wrote:
> > 
> > We often read of clampdowns on this
> > > > and clampdowns on that, which usually
> > > > involve stopping and searching people at
> > > > random (sorry, "intelligence" led
> > > > stop-and-searches), and tie up a lot of
> > > > police manpower on the offchance that a
> > > > crime might be detected.
> > > 
> > > Usually such operations involve officers
> > > brought in on overtime on their rest days -
> > > they do not take officers off the streets
> > > for such operations.
> > 
> > I just do not believe you. Why would anyone
> > pay overtime to fish for crimes that are not
> > yet committed?
> > Anyway, even if this was true, overtime could
> > be allocated to attend all overdue calls,
> > once all overdues are on time, and dealt
> > with, the overtime could be stopped if the
> > polioce were run by competant people of
> > course. Instead, the police are now run by
> > academic political puppets, who have no idea
> > what anyone except their masters actually
> > expect from police.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Surely a known crime should take
> > > > preference in manpower allocation that
> > > > such fishing expeditions?
> > > 
> > > See above.
> > 
> > There are more police than required. Witness
> > the amount of police during the miners
> > strike. Not the amount of hours (overtime)
> > but the amount of police. They have
> > absolutely no idea of time management.
> 
> Yet another loony fixated on something that
> occurred many years ago.
> 
> Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The
> police normally work 8 hour shifts on a
> rotating basis. Although shift patterns have
> changed dramatically in recent years, back at
> the time of the miners strike it was mainly
> 6x2pm, 2x10 pm and 10x6am.  Now, during the
> miners strike a number of things happened. The
> vast majority of operational police officers
> were put on 12 hour shifts - so instead of
> working the above shift patterns they worked
> 6am to 6pm and then 6pm to 6am. This
> immediately dramatically increased the number
> of officers on duty at any one time because
> instead of being spread across 3 shifts - they
> were only spread across two shifts. They also
> cancelled rest days, annual leave, training
> days, etc - which also increased the number of
> officers available at any one time.
> 
> The upside for the officers was that the 12
> hour shifts and cancelled rest days meant tons
> of overtime and many officers paid off their
> mortgages, bought new cars, and went on exotic
> holidays thanks to one Arthur Scargill esq. The
> Brillo pad headed buffoon.
> 
> You really don't have a clue what you are
> talking about do you?

More than you it appears. If you bothered to read
the post, I negated the overtime, and spoke about
the sheer number of "police" that were available.
If any backing up of workload is seen, then these
back street shirkers, should be sent out to
reduce the workload for the few real police.
The fallacy that police are rushing around from
job to job is bases solely in your head.
The number of times I have seen them shopping
while on duty, sat around in cars etc. They are
certainly not rushed. It is a police role to
investigate crime? That they choose which crimes
to investigate is a matter of fact. Spending a
fortune on an apple core instead of investigating
burglaries is not a call I would make.
I will not rise to the bait of the overtime
police got, the size of the bribe was neccessary
to overcome the morality.


--

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:6vloqsFkih2hU1@mid.individual.net...
> Steve O wrote:
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
>> news:6vl9jcFkqfokU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Logician wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "Steve O"  wrote:
>>>>> "Logician"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:d236013c-0369-4f9f-9ef7-55186bb6c2cd@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Feb 11, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry but this smacks of an invention to get your rant across.
>>>>>> Ret.
>>>>> Where are you? I had a drug user in my premises trying to get money
>>>>> and taking property. I called 999. Response time was 16 hours. I was
>>>>> told I would be immediately arrested if I used force against the
>>>>> criminal otherwise police would attend at their leisure.
>>>>>
>>>>> You had an invader in your home who was trying to steal your money and
>>>>> property and the police declined to attend immediately?
>>>>> That seems unbelievable.
>>>>> You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to eject a 
>>>>> trespasser
>>>>> from your home so I'm puzzled as to why the police advised you 
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us the full story.
>>>>> Did you invite the person into your home or did they force their way 
>>>>> in?
>>>>> Was the offender known to you?
>>>>> Were they violent towards you or offering violence?
>>>>> ..Or was it someone who lives with you or used to live with you?
>>>> A commercial premises, not my home, and the person was on drugs
>>>> looking for cash. She was a young woman who refused to leave, she
>>>> stole my keys and said they would only be returned if I paid her 5
>>>> pounds. She made various threats (including threatening to rob the
>>>> premises) and finally left after 30 minutes.
>>>>
>>>> The police arrived the following day and asked: "Is she still here?"
>>> Sue the police.
>>
>> For what?
>
> Consequential loss for failing to perform their duty?

Good luck with that.
Besides, the OP never stated he lost anything.
She took his keys and asked for money for them, but he didn't mention 
whether she kept them.

joe wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>
>> joe wrote:
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>
>>> We often read of clampdowns on this
>>>>> and clampdowns on that, which usually
>>>>> involve stopping and searching people at
>>>>> random (sorry, "intelligence" led
>>>>> stop-and-searches), and tie up a lot of
>>>>> police manpower on the offchance that a
>>>>> crime might be detected.
>>>>
>>>> Usually such operations involve officers
>>>> brought in on overtime on their rest days -
>>>> they do not take officers off the streets
>>>> for such operations.
>>>
>>> I just do not believe you. Why would anyone
>>> pay overtime to fish for crimes that are not
>>> yet committed?
>>> Anyway, even if this was true, overtime could
>>> be allocated to attend all overdue calls,
>>> once all overdues are on time, and dealt
>>> with, the overtime could be stopped if the
>>> polioce were run by competant people of
>>> course. Instead, the police are now run by
>>> academic political puppets, who have no idea
>>> what anyone except their masters actually
>>> expect from police.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely a known crime should take
>>>>> preference in manpower allocation that
>>>>> such fishing expeditions?
>>>>
>>>> See above.
>>>
>>> There are more police than required. Witness
>>> the amount of police during the miners
>>> strike. Not the amount of hours (overtime)
>>> but the amount of police. They have
>>> absolutely no idea of time management.
>>
>> Yet another loony fixated on something that
>> occurred many years ago.
>>
>> Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The
>> police normally work 8 hour shifts on a
>> rotating basis. Although shift patterns have
>> changed dramatically in recent years, back at
>> the time of the miners strike it was mainly
>> 6x2pm, 2x10 pm and 10x6am.  Now, during the
>> miners strike a number of things happened. The
>> vast majority of operational police officers
>> were put on 12 hour shifts - so instead of
>> working the above shift patterns they worked
>> 6am to 6pm and then 6pm to 6am. This
>> immediately dramatically increased the number
>> of officers on duty at any one time because
>> instead of being spread across 3 shifts - they
>> were only spread across two shifts. They also
>> cancelled rest days, annual leave, training
>> days, etc - which also increased the number of
>> officers available at any one time.
>>
>> The upside for the officers was that the 12
>> hour shifts and cancelled rest days meant tons
>> of overtime and many officers paid off their
>> mortgages, bought new cars, and went on exotic
>> holidays thanks to one Arthur Scargill esq. The
>> Brillo pad headed buffoon.
>>
>> You really don't have a clue what you are
>> talking about do you?
>
> More than you it appears. If you bothered to read
> the post, I negated the overtime, and spoke about
> the sheer number of "police" that were available.


Of course they were available - because they were working exhausting 12 hour 
shifts for day after day, without rest days and without annual leave for 
several months.

> If any backing up of workload is seen, then these
> back street shirkers, should be sent out to
> reduce the workload for the few real police.
> The fallacy that police are rushing around from
> job to job is bases solely in your head.
> The number of times I have seen them shopping
> while on duty, sat around in cars etc. They are
> certainly not rushed. It is a police role to
> investigate crime? That they choose which crimes
> to investigate is a matter of fact. Spending a
> fortune on an apple core instead of investigating
> burglaries is not a call I would make.
> I will not rise to the bait of the overtime
> police got, the size of the bribe was neccessary
> to overcome the morality.

Oh dear....................

Ret.

On Feb 12, 1:34 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alang  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
>
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black" 
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for
> >>>> one second that a British police force wouldn't even interview the
> >>>> victim of a violent crime,
>
> >>> Well, I am still waiting.
>
> >>>> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> >>>> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?
>
> >>> Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed public
> >>> has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is proud that
> >>> he still has a condom. One day, even that will be taken from you, my
> >>> little friend.
>
> >>http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158
>
> >> "A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced to
> >> handover his walking stick to police because it was considered to be
> >> an ‘offensive weapon’."
>
> > It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
> > not stop an attack,
> > but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
> > around  the head
> > of some braindead  thug.
>
> .
> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far
> more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............

 Then do tell us how anyone is supposed to defend themselves if they
are not even allowed
 to use their cane against some feral thug?  It wasn't too long ago in
England when little
old ladies used to chase down and even catch up with someone who had
grabbed their handbag.  The thief was lucky if he managed to get away
before she gave him a clip
around the ear.  Now people are being told not to resist and God
forbid, do the thugs an injury.
What happened? Who is responsible?  Surely, it is the duty for
everyone to defend themselves
and their property, if they don't, the criminals wll continue to do
what they are doing now,
and getting away with it.  How do *you* handle the crime problem,
perhaps we can learn something.





>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 12, 1:39 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2:29 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Martin wrote:
> >>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> >>>> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> >>>> country.
>
> >>> Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you
> >>> sure you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.
>
> >>> inetnum: 62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
> >>> netname: DE-KEYWEB-I
> >>> descr: Keyweb AG IP Network
> >>> country: DE
>
> >> It is quite obvious that this whole post is utterly bogus. 'Oppressed
> >> Subject' clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder and he is
> >> inventing incidents in order to support his prejudices.
>
> > So who is he prejudiced against?  The garbage that mug, rape,
> > carjack??  I would
> > hope that everyone is prejudiced against them, aren't you?
>
> .
> Nope - he's prejudiced against the police and that's why he posts this bogus
> tale in an attempt to have us all gasping in horror at the fact that they
> failed to turn up when he reports a vicious armed mugging.

Rubbish.  You are speculating again.  He posted of an incident that
happened to him,
the same kind of incident that happens far too ofen in today's
Britain. It is *you* who
is prejudiced against anyone who dare complain of the long delay in
getting the police to do anything about it.  I have a great solution
for cutting down on crime.

1)  Bring back hanging.
2) Long prison sentences for those who do bodily harm to their
victims.
3) Allow all law abiding citizens access to weapons of self-defence,
including guns and
    allow them to use them against anyone who enters their home with
the intention of    robbing  them.
 4) Put hundreds of P.C.'s on the beat and out of the stations.  If
they were more visible,
    these feral thugs might think twice before they attack people on
the street.

 One more thing.  Deport all foreign criminals.
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 12, 3:21 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> On 12 Feb, 00:53, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
> >    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> > himself in his own home
> >  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> > entered his home with the
> > intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> > enough and shot one of them.
>
> I thank you for your concern,Boedicia. However I am an old vet with a
> dead wife and children who've long since left the nest. I used to live
> for my country but my country is no more. You could say I have nothing
> left to lose but my integrity.

  I'm a vet too.  5 years WRAF.  I served in Germany, England and a
short time n Hong Kong.

I agree that Britain has never been the same sine the Trots of "Old"
Labour decided
that the best way to turn Britain into another Red country was to
destroy it's white, Christian
culture and the best way to do *that* as to allow thousands and later
millions of
3rd world dross to settle.  Now they are too terrified to do anything
about the shocking crime
situation for fear of being called "racists".
>
> > The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> > "evil eye" to the jury,
> > whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> > received the George Cross
> > for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> > it would seem,
> > is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
>
> Quite. Not only are crooks going for honest, law abiding people, so
> are the government by either inaction, incompetence or intent.
>
> > But what can one expect
> >  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> > by, The Trots of "Old"
> > Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> > o not appearing
> > to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> > lives and property of their
> > constituents count for nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The Labourite Communists are probably the worst of the lot, but we
> have also seen a significant amount of erosion of our rights under
> even the Tories, such as the reclassification of mouth swabs and hair
> samples from intimate to non-intimate evidence in 1994 under John
> Major's government (thus paving the way for widescale DNA profiling).

   Gets more like "1984" every day, doesn't it?

Good luck to you.

On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> > > grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> > > is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> > > economic incompetence.
>
> > > Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> > > I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> > > of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> > > mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> > > be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> > > groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> > > the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> > > for half an hour - no one came.
>
> > > When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> > > army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> > > returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> > > shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> > > have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> > > roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> > > I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> > > and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> > > that they're going to be sorry.
>
> >    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> > himself in his own home
> >  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> > entered his home with the
> > intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> > enough and shot one of them.
> > The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> > "evil eye" to the jury,
> > whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> > received the George Cross
> > for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> > it would seem,
> > is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> > But what can one expect
> >  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> > by, The Trots of "Old"
> > Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> > o not appearing
> > to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> > lives and property of their
> > constituents count for nothing.
>
> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> themselves or acting as private police forces.

 I must remember that the next time I come home.  Some limpwrist with
a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone to "get a
big dog".  Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big dog" were to
bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"?  Am I allowed to
use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home invader?  What if it
hurts his eyes,
could he sue me?  It's quite a problem isn't it?  Actually I live in
California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of them
within easy reach.  Any would-be robber, rapist,
carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a position
to sue , he would be
very dead.


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 13, 4:37 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> >>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> >>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> >>> economic incompetence.
> >>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> >>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> >>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> >>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> >>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> >>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> >>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> >>> for half an hour - no one came.
> >>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> >>> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> >>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> >>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> >>> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> >>> roving gangs that rule our streets.
> >>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> >>> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> >>> that they're going to be sorry.
> >>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> >> himself in his own home
> >>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> >> entered his home with the
> >> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> >> enough and shot one of them.
> >> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> >> "evil eye" to the jury,
> >> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> >> received the George Cross
> >> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> >> it would seem,
> >> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> >> But what can one expect
> >>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> >> by, The Trots of "Old"
> >> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> >> o not appearing
> >> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> >> lives and property of their
> >> constituents count for nothing.
>
> > The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> > weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> > regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> > will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> > person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> > unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> > There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> > themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm
>
> "A homeowner stabbed a burglar to death in self defence, an inquest jury
> has found.
>
> John Lambert and his wife Carol feared for their lives when Darren
> Taylor and an accomplice sneaked into their Lincolnshire home.
>
> Burglar Mr Taylor was high on drink and drugs when he was stabbed with
> his own knife, the inquest at Spalding Magistrates' Court heard.
>
> On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the
> 30-year-old. "

A sensible jury.  Now if the burglar had been some filthy gypo and
said gypos family had shown up
in court and gave the jury the "evil eye", who knows what would have
happened.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 13, 6:22 am, Cynic  wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:30:40 -0800 (PST), "Boedi...@isp.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?
>
> >All this nonsense because a poster posted of his experience with a
> >gang of feral
> >morons in England.   Why do these idiots wants a "crime number"?  Why
> >wouldn't
> >they believe him, it all sounds like an everyday occurence to me.
> >As for his posting from
> >Germany, so what? I posted from Oz one day and the next day I was on a
> >plane for Fiji.
> >I posted from England one day and 2 days later I was on a plane for
> >New York.  What
> >was so unusual about what the O.P. said?  How would they like it if
> >everythng they
> >posted resulted in a "prove it"?
>
> I frequently connect to the Internet via a proxy (to overcome
> geographical content-blocking), and whilst I don't recall leaving the
> proxy on when using Usenet, I could easily do so and be making posts
> seemingly from all over the World!  (Although Giganews does not reveal
> the originating IP address anyway, AFAIK).

   It's almost amusing that there are people who are so quick to
condemn someone
  when they post something that certain people don't like or disagree
with.  The O.P.
sounded perfectly normal to me and the incident he related was, IMO
typical of what
is wrong with today's Britain.  Did you ever think you would live to
see the day when
 people are afraid to defend themselves for fear of being accused of
harming some piece
of dross?
>
> --
> Cynic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 13 Feb, 13:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

> If you made a genuine complaint about a serious and violent robbery, and the
> police failed to turn up at all - then you have a very genuine complaint to
> make and, because if its serious nature, it would *have* to be passed to the
> IPCC for investigation. It is your duty to report the appalling negligence
> of your local police and to have them investigated by the IPCC. Now, I ask
> again - why haven't you done it?

Because I know it will change nothing except get me some lip service
and justice will not be served against those responsible, who I have a
good idea who they are and where they hang out. In any case it is a
lot more satisfying to just go sort things out myself.

On 12 Feb, 22:55, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> >>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
> >>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom whilst
> >>>> she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the Police.
> >>>> They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood outside
> >>>> her house to frightened to go in and watching for the police to
> >>>> arrive.
>
> >>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
> >>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
> >>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
> >>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
> >>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report it,
> >>> and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days before
> >>> police came to interview him.
>
> >> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
> >> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
> >> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>
> > So why do they not prioritise?
>
> They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit of
> having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie officers up for
> some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an officer in the middle of
> dealing with a car accident cannot just buzz off and leave damaged cars in
> the road, and offenders/witnesses stood at the side of the road.

Yes well you can have 61 million hens policed by 140,000 foxes in the
henhouse that is Britain, some of whom are lying egomaniacs as we have
seen in the recent Menezes trial who perverted rather than upheld
justice. Or you can have 61 million free people who self police.

What is the better option?

> We often read of clampdowns on this
>
> > and clampdowns on that, which usually involve stopping and searching
> > people at random (sorry, "intelligence" led stop-and-searches), and
> > tie up a lot of police manpower on the *offchance* that a crime might
> > be detected.
>
> Usually such operations involve officers brought in on overtime on their
> rest days - they do not take officers off the streets for such operations.
>
>
>
> > Surely a known crime should take preference in manpower allocation
> > that such fishing expeditions?
>
> See above.
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 13 Feb, 02:30, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:31 am, fbur...@nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax   wrote:
>
> > >> Now tell us *why* he would do that?  Are you suspicious of everyone
> > >> who posts in usenet,
>
> > >Yes
>
> > More than other people you encounter day-to-day?
>
> All this nonsense because a poster posted of his experience with a
> gang of feral
> morons in England.   Why do these idiots wants a "crime number"?  Why
> wouldn't
> theye believe him, it all sounds like an everyday occurence to me.
> As for his posting from
> Germany, so what? I posted from Oz one day and the next day I was on a
> plane for Fiji.
> I posted from England one day and 2 days later I was on a plane for
> New York.  What
> was so unusual about what the O.P. said?  How would they like it if
> everythng they
> posted resulted in a "prove it"?
>
>
>
> > Francis- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not only have the suspicious morons here have had "Innocent until
proven guilty" brainwashed out of them and are now in the subjugated
mindset of "Guilty until proven innocent", they are also in denial.
The best sort of subjects, really.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:34 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alang  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
>>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for
>>>>>> one second that a British police force wouldn't even interview
>>>>>> the victim of a violent crime,
>>
>>>>> Well, I am still waiting.
>>
>>>>>> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
>>>>>> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?
>>
>>>>> Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed
>>>>> public has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is
>>>>> proud that he still has a condom. One day, even that will be
>>>>> taken from you, my little friend.
>>
>>>> http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158
>>
>>>> "A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced
>>>> to handover his walking stick to police because it was considered
>>>> to be an ‘offensive weapon’."
>>
>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed. It might
>>> not stop an attack,
>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>> around the head
>>> of some braindead thug.
>>
>> .
>> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in
>> a far more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>
>  Then do tell us how anyone is supposed to defend themselves if they
> are not even allowed
>  to use their cane against some feral thug?  It wasn't too long ago in
> England when little
> old ladies used to chase down and even catch up with someone who had
> grabbed their handbag.  The thief was lucky if he managed to get away
> before she gave him a clip
> around the ear.  Now people are being told not to resist and God
> forbid, do the thugs an injury.
> What happened? Who is responsible?  Surely, it is the duty for
> everyone to defend themselves
> and their property, if they don't, the criminals wll continue to do
> what they are doing now,
> and getting away with it.  How do *you* handle the crime problem,
> perhaps we can learn something.

I'm not suggesting that you don't defend yourself - all I'm pointing out is 
the very obvious fact that if someone who is less than very fit tries to 
defend himself against a young fit yob by using a weapon, then it is more 
than likely that the young fit yob will take the weapon and use it against 
the victim.

You can talk until the cows come home about 'protection' - but in most 
cases, for the average citizen, it just doesn't work.  Unless you walk 
around with a loaded and cocked firearm actually in your hand, or a CS 
canister actually in your hand, then if you are attacked by a young fit yob 
or group of yobs, the chances of you being able to make use of the gun or 
device is remote. There is also the inevitable fact that once you make such 
weaponry available to the general public - you also make it available to the 
yobs who, inevitably because they are attacking you, get in with first use.

Guns and 'defensive' devices such as CS and pepper sprays are available to 
the citizenry in certain US states. If you can convince me that US citizens 
are safer from attack than UK citizens - then I would be more inclined to 
accept your case....................................

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
>>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
>>>> government's economic incompetence.
>>
>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back
>>>> and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past
>>>> a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a
>>>> football. I got mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with
>>>> knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were minors. They
>>>> relieved me of cash and groceries, scattering most of the shopping
>>>> along the street. I called the plod on my PAYG mobile when I
>>>> arrived home and watched the street for half an hour - no one came.
>>
>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in
>>>> the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
>>>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
>>>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists
>>>> who have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground,
>>>> and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>>
>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't
>>>> there and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try
>>>> something like that they're going to be sorry.
>>
>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
>>> himself in his own home
>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
>>> entered his home with the
>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
>>> enough and shot one of them.
>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
>>> "evil eye" to the jury,
>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
>>> received the George Cross
>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
>>> neither it would seem,
>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
>>> But what can one expect
>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
>>> by, The Trots of "Old"
>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
>>> terrified o not appearing
>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
>>> lives and property of their
>>> constituents count for nothing.
>>
>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using
>> no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a
>> weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any
>> weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment
>> of any person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the
>> prisoner unless the police are notified immediately.
>>
>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
>  I must remember that the next time I come home.  Some limpwrist with
> a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone to "get a
> big dog".  Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big dog" were to
> bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"?  Am I allowed to
> use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home invader?  What if it
> hurts his eyes,
> could he sue me?  It's quite a problem isn't it?  Actually I live in
> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of them
> within easy reach.  Any would-be robber, rapist,
> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a position
> to sue , he would be
> very dead.

The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record of 
shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can successfully claim 
that the average US citizen is safer than the average UK citizen then you 
might have a case. Sadly you cannot.

These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the 
United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That 
is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 
children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and 
teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and 
National Center for Health Statistics)

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any 
other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in 
Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 
5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher 
in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. 
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times 
more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die 
from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries 
combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

---------------------------------------------


Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their citizens don't 
they...........................?

Ret.

On 14 Feb, 05:35, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:22 am, Cynic  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:30:40 -0800 (PST), "Boedi...@isp.com"
>
> >  wrote:
> > >> More than other people you encounter day-to-day?
>
> > >All this nonsense because a poster posted of his experience with a
> > >gang of feral
> > >morons in England.   Why do these idiots wants a "crime number"?  Why
> > >wouldn't
> > >they believe him, it all sounds like an everyday occurence to me.
> > >As for his posting from
> > >Germany, so what? I posted from Oz one day and the next day I was on a
> > >plane for Fiji.
> > >I posted from England one day and 2 days later I was on a plane for
> > >New York.  What
> > >was so unusual about what the O.P. said?  How would they like it if
> > >everythng they
> > >posted resulted in a "prove it"?
>
> > I frequently connect to the Internet via a proxy (to overcome
> > geographical content-blocking), and whilst I don't recall leaving the
> > proxy on when using Usenet, I could easily do so and be making posts
> > seemingly from all over the World!  (Although Giganews does not reveal
> > the originating IP address anyway, AFAIK).
>
>    It's almost amusing that there are people who are so quick to
> condemn someone
>   when they post something that certain people don't like or disagree
> with.  The O.P.
> sounded perfectly normal to me and the incident he related was, IMO
> typical of what
> is wrong with today's Britain.  

The ones criticising my account or twisting pretzels for the police
are either:
1. The plod or ex-plod (as our friend Ret. here)
2. Gestapo-wannabes who want to get their moment in life to feel
special by informing on an honest person trying to get some bloody
justice in this country.
3. In denial or ignorant.

1 & 2 are trying to challenge my account to bait me to spill facts
which can be used to identify me. Checking up my IP address on the
Usenet headers, asking me for crime numbers, where I live and so on. I
will not rise to the bait.

> Did you ever think you would live to
> see the day when
>  people are afraid to defend themselves for fear of being accused of
> harming some piece
> of dross?

I'm sorry to say it, but in retrospect I felt much safer walking with
my mates in a shithole armed, knowing that we could have been shot at
any instant than unarmed in the streets back here in "civilisation".
Just about everyone was armed in those shitholes, yet everyone knew if
they started trouble, things could swing very quickly against them,
unpredictably.

Here, no one is armed except the cops and robbers, and we all know
what the cops do with their guns now, don't we (drastic brain surgery
comes to mind). As for the robbers being armed, it is a safe bet if
they're armed, their victim isn't and passer-bys aren't, then things
are likely to go well for them isn't it?

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 12 Feb, 22:55, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom
>>>>>> whilst she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the
>>>>>> Police. They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood
>>>>>> outside her house to frightened to go in and watching for the
>>>>>> police to arrive.
>>
>>>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>>>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>>>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>>>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>>>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report
>>>>> it, and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days
>>>>> before police came to interview him.
>>
>>>> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
>>>> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
>>>> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>>
>>> So why do they not prioritise?
>>
>> They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit
>> of having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie
>> officers up for some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an
>> officer in the middle of dealing with a car accident cannot just
>> buzz off and leave damaged cars in the road, and offenders/witnesses
>> stood at the side of the road.
>
> Yes well you can have 61 million hens policed by 140,000 foxes in the
> henhouse that is Britain, some of whom are lying egomaniacs as we have
> seen in the recent Menezes trial who perverted rather than upheld
> justice. Or you can have 61 million free people who self police.
>
> What is the better option?

Not a remotely plausible situation to choose from. Let's try: You can have 
the present situation which is far from perfect - or you can move to your 
self-policing situation which would be dramatically worse.

What is the better option?

Ret.

On 13 Feb, 02:41, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:45 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
> > >> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > >>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
> > >>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
> > >>>> whatever they like.
>
> > >>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
> > >>> who posts in usenet,
>
> > >> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
> > >> address is in Germany
>
> > >> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
> > >> troll anyway.
>
> > >      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
> > > by a gang of thugs whilst
> > >   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
> > > police when he got
> > >  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
> > > unusual about that
> > > just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
> > > in the streets of Britain,
> > >  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"> > Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in
> > his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to
> > defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.
>
> He doesn't need to "defend" his "tale".  He made a statement and it
> stands on its own.
> Do you "defend" everything *you* post. *You* wouldn't even defend
> yourself in a gang of feral gypos invaded your home, let alone defend
> a posting.  You sound like one of those loony lefties to me.  You
> don't want anyone to defend themselves and don't believe those who
> call the police when attacked.  It's too bad he wasn't armed when he
> went to the shops, if he had been
> me might not have needed the police, he would have called for an
> ambulance.

They wouldn't need an ambulance. Jobs shouldn't be left half-done.

On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> >>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
> >>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
> >>>> government's economic incompetence.
>
> >>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back
> >>>> and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past
> >>>> a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a
> >>>> football. I got mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with
> >>>> knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were minors. They
> >>>> relieved me of cash and groceries, scattering most of the shopping
> >>>> along the street. I called the plod on my PAYG mobile when I
> >>>> arrived home and watched the street for half an hour - no one came.
>
> >>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in
> >>>> the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> >>>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> >>>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists
> >>>> who have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground,
> >>>> and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> >>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't
> >>>> there and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try
> >>>> something like that they're going to be sorry.
>
> >>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
> >>> himself in his own home
> >>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> >>> entered his home with the
> >>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> >>> enough and shot one of them.
> >>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> >>> "evil eye" to the jury,
> >>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> >>> received the George Cross
> >>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
> >>> neither it would seem,
> >>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> >>> But what can one expect
> >>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> >>> by, The Trots of "Old"
> >>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
> >>> terrified o not appearing
> >>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> >>> lives and property of their
> >>> constituents count for nothing.
>
> >> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using
> >> no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a
> >> weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any
> >> weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment
> >> of any person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the
> >> prisoner unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> >> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> >> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> >  I must remember that the next time I come home.  Some limpwrist with
> > a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone to "get a
> > big dog".  Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big dog" were to
> > bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"?  Am I allowed to
> > use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home invader?  What if it
> > hurts his eyes,
> > could he sue me?  It's quite a problem isn't it?  Actually I live in
> > California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of them
> > within easy reach.  Any would-be robber, rapist,
> > carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a position
> > to sue , he would be
> > very dead.
>
> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record of
> shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can successfully claim
> that the average US citizen is safer than the average UK citizen then you
> might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>
> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>
> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the
> United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That
> is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50
> children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and
> teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and
> National Center for Health Statistics)
>
> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any
> other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in
> Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and
> 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control
>
> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher
> in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
> (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times
> more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die
> from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries
> combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their citizens don't
> they...........................?
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be the
sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will try to
educate you but do try to keep up.

Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
comparisons at an international level with different populations to
start with.

Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.

Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low crime
rates.

I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
>>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
>>>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
>>>>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
>>>>>> government's economic incompetence.
>>
>>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
>>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
>>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
>>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
>>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of
>>>>>> them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
>>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called the
>>>>>> plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the
>>>>>> street for half an hour - no one came.
>>
>>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served
>>>>>> in the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I
>>>>>> have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is
>>>>>> the new shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the
>>>>>> Communists who have disarmed the people and run the country to
>>>>>> the ground, and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>>
>>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't
>>>>>> there and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try
>>>>>> something like that they're going to be sorry.
>>
>>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
>>>>> himself in his own home
>>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
>>>>> entered his home with the
>>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
>>>>> enough and shot one of them.
>>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave
>>>>> the "evil eye" to the jury,
>>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
>>>>> received the George Cross
>>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
>>>>> neither it would seem,
>>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
>>>>> today. But what can one expect
>>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
>>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
>>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
>>>>> terrified o not appearing
>>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
>>>>> lives and property of their
>>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>>
>>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using
>>>> no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a
>>>> weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any
>>>> weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment
>>>> of any person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding
>>>> the prisoner unless the police are notified immediately.
>>
>>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
>>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>>
>>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist with
>>> a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone to
>>> "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big dog"
>>> were to bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"? Am I allowed to
>>> use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home invader? What if it
>>> hurts his eyes,
>>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live in
>>> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of them
>>> within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
>>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
>>> position to sue , he would be
>>> very dead.
>>
>> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record of
>> shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can successfully
>> claim that the average US citizen is safer than the average UK
>> citizen then you might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>>
>> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>>
>> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in
>> the United States, according to the latest national data released in
>> 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day;
>> and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to
>> 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm
>> injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health
>> Statistics)
>>
>> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children
>> of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no
>> children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in
>> France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for
>> Disease Control
>>
>> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
>> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12
>> times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
>> countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
>> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11
>> times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more
>> likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other
>> industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their
>> citizens don't they...........................?
>>
>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be the
> sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will try to
> educate you but do try to keep up.
>
> Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
> comparisons at an international level with different populations to
> start with.
>
> Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
> affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
> people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
> will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.
>
> Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
> Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low crime
> rates.
>
> I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.

Yes, I'm sure you do - I'm sure you do. Can you be sure that you would be 
amongst 'the fittest'?

Ret.

On 14 Feb, 05:05, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:39 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 2:29 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> > >> Martin wrote:
> > >>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> > >>>> I live in one of the most deprived and crime ridden areas in the
> > >>>> country.
>
> > >>> Your IP address has moved from Pipex in the UK to Germany. Are you
> > >>> sure you know where you live? I'm not buying it either.
>
> > >>> inetnum: 62.141.56.0 - 62.141.63.255
> > >>> netname: DE-KEYWEB-I
> > >>> descr: Keyweb AG IP Network
> > >>> country: DE
>
> > >> It is quite obvious that this whole post is utterly bogus. 'Oppressed
> > >> Subject' clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder and he is
> > >> inventing incidents in order to support his prejudices.
>
> > > So who is he prejudiced against?  The garbage that mug, rape,
> > > carjack??  I would
> > > hope that everyone is prejudiced against them, aren't you?
>
> > .
> > Nope - he's prejudiced against the police and that's why he posts this bogus
> > tale in an attempt to have us all gasping in horror at the fact that they
> > failed to turn up when he reports a vicious armed mugging.
>
> Rubbish.  You are speculating again.  He posted of an incident that
> happened to him,
> the same kind of incident that happens far too ofen in today's
> Britain. It is *you* who
> is prejudiced against anyone who dare complain of the long delay in
> getting the police to do anything about it.  I have a great solution
> for cutting down on crime.
>
> 1)  Bring back hanging.

Agreed, although people with a death or life sentence could be used as
cheap, lifelong slave labour instead.

> 2) Long prison sentences for those who do bodily harm to their
> victims.

Or we could do flogging, castration and amputations. Cheaper one offs
rather than an enduring cost.

All punishments should include mandatory slave labour time to
recompense the victims and the justice system that spent money
catching and trialling them.

> 3) Allow all law abiding citizens access to weapons of self-defence,
> including guns and
>     allow them to use them against anyone who enters their home with
> the intention of    robbing  them.

Agreed.

>  4) Put hundreds of P.C.'s on the beat and out of the stations.  If
> they were more visible,
>     these feral thugs might think twice before they attack people on
> the street.

140,000 police (present levels) simply can't police 61 million people,
even if they were all saints. It takes 61 million people to police 61
million people.

>  One more thing.  Deport all foreign criminals.

Don't forget Muslims too, native born or foreign.

On Feb 14, 12:08 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On 12 Feb, 22:55, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Cynic wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
> >>>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom
> >>>>>> whilst she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the
> >>>>>> Police. They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood
> >>>>>> outside her house to frightened to go in and watching for the
> >>>>>> police to arrive.
>
> >>>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
> >>>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
> >>>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
> >>>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
> >>>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report
> >>>>> it, and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days
> >>>>> before police came to interview him.
>
> >>>> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
> >>>> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
> >>>> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>
> >>> So why do they not prioritise?
>
> >> They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit
> >> of having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie
> >> officers up for some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an
> >> officer in the middle of dealing with a car accident cannot just
> >> buzz off and leave damaged cars in the road, and offenders/witnesses
> >> stood at the side of the road.
>
> > Yes well you can have 61 million hens policed by 140,000 foxes in the
> > henhouse that is Britain, some of whom are lying egomaniacs as we have
> > seen in the recent Menezes trial who perverted rather than upheld
> > justice. Or you can have 61 million free people who self police.
>
> > What is the better option?
>
> Not a remotely plausible situation to choose from. Let's try: You can have
> the present situation which is far from perfect - or you can move to your
> self-policing situation which would be dramatically worse.
>
> What is the better option?
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've been in countries which self-police and where guns are readily
available. They had their own problems such as infrastructure,
sanitation and healthcare but they certainly didn't have problems with
certain types of crime! Problems were dealt with quickly and
effectively. Crooks think twice about robbing a store where the owner
has an AK and a couple of grenades...

Incidentally, don't feel so smug about our sanitation and healthcare
either, with our fortnightly bin collections causing a surge in vermin
and our Communist healthcare system where the healthcare of 61 million
people are paid for by a rapidly shrinking working class.

On Feb 14, 12:38 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> >>>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town
> >>>>>> which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current
> >>>>>> government's economic incompetence.
>
> >>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
> >>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
> >>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
> >>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
> >>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of
> >>>>>> them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
> >>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called the
> >>>>>> plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the
> >>>>>> street for half an hour - no one came.
>
> >>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served
> >>>>>> in the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I
> >>>>>> have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is
> >>>>>> the new shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the
> >>>>>> Communists who have disarmed the people and run the country to
> >>>>>> the ground, and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> >>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't
> >>>>>> there and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try
> >>>>>> something like that they're going to be sorry.
>
> >>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did* defend
> >>>>> himself in his own home
> >>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> >>>>> entered his home with the
> >>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> >>>>> enough and shot one of them.
> >>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave
> >>>>> the "evil eye" to the jury,
> >>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> >>>>> received the George Cross
> >>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
> >>>>> neither it would seem,
> >>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
> >>>>> today. But what can one expect
> >>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
> >>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
> >>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
> >>>>> terrified o not appearing
> >>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> >>>>> lives and property of their
> >>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>
> >>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using
> >>>> no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a
> >>>> weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any
> >>>> weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment
> >>>> of any person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding
> >>>> the prisoner unless the police are notified immediately.
>
> >>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> >>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> >>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist with
> >>> a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone to
> >>> "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big dog"
> >>> were to bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"? Am I allowed to
> >>> use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home invader? What if it
> >>> hurts his eyes,
> >>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live in
> >>> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of them
> >>> within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
> >>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
> >>> position to sue , he would be
> >>> very dead.
>
> >> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record of
> >> shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can successfully
> >> claim that the average US citizen is safer than the average UK
> >> citizen then you might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>
> >> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>
> >> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in
> >> the United States, according to the latest national data released in
> >> 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day;
> >> and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to
> >> 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm
> >> injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health
> >> Statistics)
>
> >> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children
> >> of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no
> >> children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in
> >> France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for
> >> Disease Control
>
> >> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
> >> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12
> >> times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
> >> countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
> >> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11
> >> times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more
> >> likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other
> >> industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------
>
> >> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their
> >> citizens don't they...........................?
>
> >> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be the
> > sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will try to
> > educate you but do try to keep up.
>
> > Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
> > comparisons at an international level with different populations to
> > start with.
>
> > Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
> > affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
> > people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
> > will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.
>
> > Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
> > Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low crime
> > rates.
>
> > I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.
>
> Yes, I'm sure you do - I'm sure you do. Can you be sure that you would be
> amongst 'the fittest'?
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your brainwashing has obviously left you too dim to know what
"fittest" is in the context of social collectives. Not for your
education, but those who might not be one sandwich short of a picnic:
the "fittest" in this context are those who don't cause trouble
unnecessarily and don't parasitise on society.

Ret. wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>> On 12 Feb, 22:55, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I do not know why you would be puzzled - when my daughter had her
>>>>>>> house violently broken into and had the thug in her bedroom
>>>>>>> whilst she was in bed I arrived from 150 miles away before the
>>>>>>> Police. They turned up the next day. She spent three hours stood
>>>>>>> outside her house to frightened to go in and watching for the
>>>>>>> police to arrive.
>>>
>>>>>> That's horrible. That makes me mad.
>>>>>> We get this all the time around here - the worst case was where a
>>>>>> Polish boy was beaten unconscious by a gang of thugs - when he
>>>>>> recovered consciousness and sought a police person, he was told by
>>>>>> the police person to go to the nearest police station to report
>>>>>> it, and that station was closed! He was in hospital for 4 days
>>>>>> before police came to interview him.
>>>
>>>>> The problem is Maria that it is increasingly becoming the case that
>>>>> the police, in some areas, and particularly at certain times, are
>>>>> simply overwhelmed by the demand for their services.
>>>
>>>> So why do they not prioritise?
>>>
>>> They do. But unfortunately some inconsiderate people have this habit
>>> of having car accidents, and things like that which tend to tie
>>> officers up for some time. No matter how serious an incident is, an
>>> officer in the middle of dealing with a car accident cannot just
>>> buzz off and leave damaged cars in the road, and offenders/witnesses
>>> stood at the side of the road.
>>
>> Yes well you can have 61 million hens policed by 140,000 foxes in the
>> henhouse that is Britain, some of whom are lying egomaniacs as we have
>> seen in the recent Menezes trial who perverted rather than upheld
>> justice. Or you can have 61 million free people who self police.
>>
>> What is the better option?
> 
> Not a remotely plausible situation to choose from. Let's try: You can 
> have the present situation which is far from perfect - or you can move 
> to your self-policing situation which would be dramatically worse.
> 
> What is the better option?
> 

We are confronted with a situation that is dictated by simple physical 
laws - that police can mostly only know about a crime, an attack, 
whatever, *after* it has happened. This is not going to change.
Our position as members of the public, is that we have limited resources 
with which to defend ourselves, and that all we can do is call the 
police after the event, assuming we have not been killed. The police 
cannot hope to prevent the crime, or intervene in the crime, unless they 
have some good foreknowledge somehow.
Our situation is now that we have to tolerate being attacked and then 
call you and hope that you can trace the perp and get evidence enough 
with which to prosecute. You know yourself that most of the time, this 
just does not happen, not even because of incompetence, but because much 
of the time there is simply no evidence with which to catch or prosecute 
the perp.
So here we are. What do *you* want us to do? Can you see why 
self-policing is not just an ideology, but even an necessity, if we are 
not to be simply sitting ducks?
This week in our area, a disabled man was robbed in his bed, by two men 
who broke into his home and held a gun on him. He had sold his car the 
day before, and so the perps probably had something to do with that, and 
there is even a chance that you may catch the perp and possibly bring 
them to justice. That did not prevent the attack happening in the first 
place, an attack in which the victim may have ended up dead had he dared 
to put up any resistance. Quite simply, the sad fact is that had the man 
been allowed to be lawfully armed, these two may not have risked 
breaking in in the first place.
I used to be anti-weapon, but over the years, the truth has sunk in, and 
however unpleasant people may find it, allowing people to become victims 
of violent criminals in this way is just not tolerable. You cannot put a 
guard on every home - you have to allow people the means to defend 
themselves effectively.

I understand all the arguments as to why you don't want them armed, but 
presented with the simple facts above, what possible moral argument can 
you offer to people as to why they must just take this and call you 
afterwards?

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:38 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my
>>>>>>>> local grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts
>>>>>>>> of town which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this
>>>>>>>> current government's economic incompetence.
>>
>>>>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
>>>>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
>>>>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
>>>>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
>>>>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of
>>>>>>>> them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
>>>>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called the
>>>>>>>> plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the
>>>>>>>> street for half an hour - no one came.
>>
>>>>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served
>>>>>>>> in the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I
>>>>>>>> have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is
>>>>>>>> the new shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the
>>>>>>>> Communists who have disarmed the people and run the country to
>>>>>>>> the ground, and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>>
>>>>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod
>>>>>>>> aren't there and don't give a shit. Next time those little
>>>>>>>> shits try something like that they're going to be sorry.
>>
>>>>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did*
>>>>>>> defend himself in his own home
>>>>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
>>>>>>> entered his home with the
>>>>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
>>>>>>> enough and shot one of them.
>>>>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave
>>>>>>> the "evil eye" to the jury,
>>>>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
>>>>>>> received the George Cross
>>>>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
>>>>>>> neither it would seem,
>>>>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
>>>>>>> today. But what can one expect
>>>>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
>>>>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
>>>>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
>>>>>>> terrified o not appearing
>>>>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
>>>>>>> lives and property of their
>>>>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>>
>>>>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people
>>>>>> using no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person
>>>>>> using a weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the
>>>>>> use of any weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also,
>>>>>> the detainment of any person will likely led to the arrest of
>>>>>> the party holding the prisoner unless the police are notified
>>>>>> immediately.
>>
>>>>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
>>>>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>>
>>>>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist
>>>>> with a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone
>>>>> to "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big
>>>>> dog" were to bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"? Am I
>>>>> allowed to use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home
>>>>> invader? What if it hurts his eyes,
>>>>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live in
>>>>> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of
>>>>> them within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
>>>>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
>>>>> position to sue , he would be
>>>>> very dead.
>>
>>>> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record
>>>> of shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can
>>>> successfully claim that the average US citizen is safer than the
>>>> average UK citizen then you might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>>
>>>> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>>
>>>> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire
>>>> in the United States, according to the latest national data
>>>> released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight
>>>> children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And
>>>> every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer
>>>> from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and
>>>> National Center for Health Statistics)
>>
>>>> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children
>>>> of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no
>>>> children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in
>>>> France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for
>>>> Disease Control
>>
>>>> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
>>>> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12
>>>> times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
>>>> countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
>>>> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun,
>>>> 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times
>>>> more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25
>>>> other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease
>>>> Control)
>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>>>> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their
>>>> citizens don't they...........................?
>>
>>>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be
>>> the sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will
>>> try to educate you but do try to keep up.
>>
>>> Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
>>> comparisons at an international level with different populations to
>>> start with.
>>
>>> Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
>>> affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
>>> people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
>>> will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.
>>
>>> Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
>>> Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low
>>> crime rates.
>>
>>> I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure you do - I'm sure you do. Can you be sure that you
>> would be amongst 'the fittest'?
>>
>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Your brainwashing has obviously left you too dim to know what
> "fittest" is in the context of social collectives. Not for your
> education, but those who might not be one sandwich short of a picnic:
> the "fittest" in this context are those who don't cause trouble
> unnecessarily and don't parasitise on society.

And I'm sorry chum - but you are clearly too dim to understand that such a 
self policing society is only compatible with small, compact, primitive 
societies and simply would not work in a modern 'advanced' society. It would 
become the rule of the jungle.

Ret.

On Feb 13, 1:03 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > wrote:
> >> Logician wrote:
> >>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my local
> >>>>> grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts of town which
> >>>>> is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this current government's
> >>>>> economic incompetence.
> >>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and back and
> >>>>> I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I walked past a bunch
> >>>>> of kids hanging out at a bus stop and playing with a football. I got
> >>>>> mugged by a them - barely into their twenties with knives; I wouldn't
> >>>>> be surprised if some of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and
> >>>>> groceries, scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
> >>>>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the street
> >>>>> for half an hour - no one came.
> >>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served in the
> >>>>> army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I have now
> >>>>> returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is the new
> >>>>> shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the Communists who
> >>>>> have disarmed the people and run the country to the ground, and the
> >>>>> roving gangs that rule our streets.
> >>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod aren't there
> >>>>> and don't give a shit. Next time those little shits try something like
> >>>>> that they're going to be sorry.
> >>>>    I would be careful if I were you.  A brave Englishman *did* defend
> >>>> himself in his own home
> >>>>  and spent several years in prison for doing so.  A gang of gypos
> >>>> entered his home with the
> >>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time.  He had had
> >>>> enough and shot one of them.
> >>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave the
> >>>> "evil eye" to the jury,
> >>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty.  He should have
> >>>> received the George Cross
> >>>> for Bravery.  An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and neither
> >>>> it would seem,
> >>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see today.
> >>>> But what can one expect
> >>>>  when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to live
> >>>> by, The Trots of "Old"
> >>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so terrified
> >>>> o not appearing
> >>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists"  that the
> >>>> lives and property of their
> >>>> constituents count for nothing.
> >>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people using no
> >>> weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person using a weapon
> >>> regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the use of any weapon
> >>> will result in a criminal prosecution. Also, the detainment of any
> >>> person will likely led to the arrest of the party holding the prisoner
> >>> unless the police are notified immediately.
> >>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> >>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm
>
> >> "A homeowner stabbed a burglar to death in self defence, an inquest jury
> >> has found.
>
> >> John Lambert and his wife Carol feared for their lives when Darren
> >> Taylor and an accomplice sneaked into their Lincolnshire home.
>
> >> Burglar Mr Taylor was high on drink and drugs when he was stabbed with
> >> his own knife, the inquest at Spalding Magistrates' Court heard.
>
> >> On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the
> >> 30-year-old. "
>
> >> --
> >> Dirk
>
> >>http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5-Our podcasts on weird stuff- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your article makes no reference to if the homeowner was arrested, or
> > questioned. I think he was probably arrested and interviewed. This is
> > standard police practice especially when he has clearly killed
> > someone. If the police failed to take such action, the killer could
> > easily simply go into hiding, or change his identity.
>
> > In this case, the jury found in favour of the homeowner, but it could
> > have clearly gone the other way in which case he could have been
> > looking at a life sentence. Either way, he took a risky action. UK law
> > simply does not automatically recognise the rights of self-defence
> > using weapons.
>
> Yes it does.
> The question tested in court is whether it was really self defence.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff

I was talking only what police forces would do, which is basically
arrest anyone using weapons to kill or cause injury.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:08:36 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Not a remotely plausible situation to choose from. Let's try: You can have 
>the present situation which is far from perfect - or you can move to your 
>self-policing situation which would be dramatically worse.
>
>What is the better option?

I am reasonably sure that if we tried it, you would be extremely
surprised at the result.  Society would not collapse, crime would not
become rampant, and after a settling down period things would be
pretty much the same.

The wishes of the majority would prevail, which would have its good
and bad points.  There would probably be a greater number of road
accidents, especially amongst young drivers.

Society survived without police forces for many thousands of years,
and although technology has changed many things drastically, sociology
still works on the same principles and so does group psychology.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:12:09 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Sadly this is a sign of the times. Leave your lap-top on the back seat of 
>your car and get it nicked - it's the fault of the police when they don't 
>turn up within 5 milliseconds to deal with it.  Let shrubs and bushes grow 
>around your home, fail to install good locks, security lighting, and an 
>alarm - and it's the fault of the police etc...... People have garages, 
>don't use them - and yet expect the police to rush out when they find their 
>car has been broken into overnight and the radio nicked. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, we *do* expect the police to turn up in those circumstances.  Not
only because we *pay* them to do so and it is their *job*, but because
the law has removed almost all legal ways that we could try to do
something about it ourselves.

You appear to be saying that the police should only deal with a crime
if they believe the victim *deserves* their help.

-- 
Cynic

On 14 Feb, 16:31, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 12:38 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>> On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >>>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my
> >>>>>>>> local grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts
> >>>>>>>> of town which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this
> >>>>>>>> current government's economic incompetence.
>
> >>>>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
> >>>>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
> >>>>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
> >>>>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
> >>>>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of
> >>>>>>>> them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
> >>>>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called the
> >>>>>>>> plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the
> >>>>>>>> street for half an hour - no one came.
>
> >>>>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served
> >>>>>>>> in the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I
> >>>>>>>> have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is
> >>>>>>>> the new shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the
> >>>>>>>> Communists who have disarmed the people and run the country to
> >>>>>>>> the ground, and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> >>>>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod
> >>>>>>>> aren't there and don't give a shit. Next time those little
> >>>>>>>> shits try something like that they're going to be sorry.
>
> >>>>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did*
> >>>>>>> defend himself in his own home
> >>>>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> >>>>>>> entered his home with the
> >>>>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> >>>>>>> enough and shot one of them.
> >>>>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave
> >>>>>>> the "evil eye" to the jury,
> >>>>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> >>>>>>> received the George Cross
> >>>>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
> >>>>>>> neither it would seem,
> >>>>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
> >>>>>>> today. But what can one expect
> >>>>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
> >>>>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
> >>>>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
> >>>>>>> terrified o not appearing
> >>>>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> >>>>>>> lives and property of their
> >>>>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>
> >>>>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people
> >>>>>> using no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person
> >>>>>> using a weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the
> >>>>>> use of any weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also,
> >>>>>> the detainment of any person will likely led to the arrest of
> >>>>>> the party holding the prisoner unless the police are notified
> >>>>>> immediately.
>
> >>>>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> >>>>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> >>>>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist
> >>>>> with a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone
> >>>>> to "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big
> >>>>> dog" were to bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"? Am I
> >>>>> allowed to use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home
> >>>>> invader? What if it hurts his eyes,
> >>>>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live in
> >>>>> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of
> >>>>> them within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
> >>>>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
> >>>>> position to sue , he would be
> >>>>> very dead.
>
> >>>> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record
> >>>> of shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can
> >>>> successfully claim that the average US citizen is safer than the
> >>>> average UK citizen then you might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>
> >>>> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>
> >>>> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire
> >>>> in the United States, according to the latest national data
> >>>> released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight
> >>>> children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And
> >>>> every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer
> >>>> from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and
> >>>> National Center for Health Statistics)
>
> >>>> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children
> >>>> of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no
> >>>> children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in
> >>>> France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for
> >>>> Disease Control
>
> >>>> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
> >>>> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12
> >>>> times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
> >>>> countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
> >>>> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun,
> >>>> 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times
> >>>> more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25
> >>>> other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease
> >>>> Control)
>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------
>
> >>>> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their
> >>>> citizens don't they...........................?
>
> >>>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be
> >>> the sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will
> >>> try to educate you but do try to keep up.
>
> >>> Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
> >>> comparisons at an international level with different populations to
> >>> start with.
>
> >>> Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
> >>> affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
> >>> people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
> >>> will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.
>
> >>> Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
> >>> Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low
> >>> crime rates.
>
> >>> I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.
>
> >> Yes, I'm sure you do - I'm sure you do. Can you be sure that you
> >> would be amongst 'the fittest'?
>
> >> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your brainwashing has obviously left you too dim to know what
> > "fittest" is in the context of social collectives. Not for your
> > education, but those who might not be one sandwich short of a picnic:
> > the "fittest" in this context are those who don't cause trouble
> > unnecessarily and don't parasitise on society.
>
> And I'm sorry chum - but you are clearly too dim to understand that such a
> self policing society is only compatible with small, compact, primitive
> societies and simply would not work in a modern 'advanced' society. It would
> become the rule of the jungle.
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I refer you again to countries like Austria, Canada, Switzerland,
Israel, Thailand, Finland and NZ. All have armed citizens with low
crime rates.

No wholesale massacres like you try to play on our fears to keep us
from contemplating armed freedom, and ironically the only times you do
get gun massacres are when there's only one gun rather than lots of
guns around (such as the Virginia Tech shootings).

On 14 Feb, 20:27, Cynic  wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:08:36 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >Not a remotely plausible situation to choose from. Let's try: You can have
> >the present situation which is far from perfect - or you can move to your
> >self-policing situation which would be dramatically worse.
>
> >What is the better option?
>
> I am reasonably sure that if we tried it, you would be extremely
> surprised at the result.  Society would not collapse, crime would not
> become rampant, and after a settling down period things would be
> pretty much the same.

The poor Nazi is having a fit simply contemplating that anyone else
other than the Gestapo can police the country, let alone have guns.
Give him some time to come to terms with the idea, then we can start
trying more complex concepts on him.

> The wishes of the majority would prevail, which would have its good
> and bad points.  There would probably be a greater number of road
> accidents, especially amongst young drivers.

And don't forget the much reduced cost of not having to put up with a
taxpayer funded police and law enforcement system (CCTVs, speed
cameras, vehicle registration and other databases).

> Society survived without police forces for many thousands of years,
> and although technology has changed many things drastically, sociology
> still works on the same principles and so does group psychology.

And by removing a very core principle in human groups - that of fear
of retaliation, we have basically allowed errant members of the public
to run rampant. The behaviour self-reinforces and they start becoming
more daring in their crimes.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 13:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> If you made a genuine complaint about a serious and violent robbery,
>> and the police failed to turn up at all - then you have a very
>> genuine complaint to make and, because if its serious nature, it
>> would *have* to be passed to the IPCC for investigation. It is your
>> duty to report the appalling negligence of your local police and to
>> have them investigated by the IPCC. Now, I ask again - why haven't
>> you done it?
>
> Because I know it will change nothing except get me some lip service
> and justice will not be served against those responsible, who I have a
> good idea who they are and where they hang out. In any case it is a
> lot more satisfying to just go sort things out myself.

Which in itself throws doubt on your OP & your claim to have called the 
Police.

As does the fact that just one hour before you told us of your "mugging" you 
started a new thread compaining that a locksmith had asked for your name & 
address.

It appears the previous night's "mugging" was not uppermost in your mind at 
the time.

I find that strange. Very strange !

-- 
Joe Lee

On 14 Feb, 21:39, "Joe Lee" <inva...@no.address> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On 13 Feb, 13:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> >> If you made a genuine complaint about a serious and violent robbery,
> >> and the police failed to turn up at all - then you have a very
> >> genuine complaint to make and, because if its serious nature, it
> >> would *have* to be passed to the IPCC for investigation. It is your
> >> duty to report the appalling negligence of your local police and to
> >> have them investigated by the IPCC. Now, I ask again - why haven't
> >> you done it?
>
> > Because I know it will change nothing except get me some lip service
> > and justice will not be served against those responsible, who I have a
> > good idea who they are and where they hang out. In any case it is a
> > lot more satisfying to just go sort things out myself.
>
> Which in itself throws doubt on your OP & your claim to have called the
> Police.
>
> As does the fact that just one hour before you told us of your "mugging" you
> started a new thread compaining that a locksmith had asked for your name &
> address.
>
> It appears the previous night's "mugging" was not uppermost in your mind at
> the time.
>
> I find that strange. Very strange !
>
> --
> Joe Lee

Yet another Gestapo dripping suspicion comes out of the woodwork.

I had not originally intended to post about my incident the night
before. I felt that I had already limited my options for retaliation
against the punks by reporting the crime by creating a paper trail
linking me to them, and I regretted reporting it in light of the
response received from the police. The ideal would've been if I
quietly got mugged and quietly retaliated in response in an apparently
random manner.

After some thought, I did decide to post about it because I decided
that justice against those punks in particular at this time would be
limited anyway, given that they all live in my neighbourhood. A
pattern would very quickly emerge. So I decided to talk about my
experience anyway, but not before I posted about the locksmith query.

I hope I have satisfied your suspicions and we can now move into the
realm of productive conversation.

On Feb 14, 3:44 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 1:34 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> >>> On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alang  wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:12 -0800 (PST), Oppressed Subject
>
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>>> On 11 Feb, 18:27, "William Black" 
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Assuming your story is true, and to be honest I don't believe for
> >>>>>> one second that a British police force wouldn't even interview
> >>>>>> the victim of a violent crime,
>
> >>>>> Well, I am still waiting.
>
> >>>>>> have you considered the possibilities inherent in a stout
> >>>>>> walking-stick or a dog of reasonable size?
>
> >>>>> Hah! These are the pathetic excuses for weapons the disarmed
> >>>>> public has these days? What a joke. You're like a eunuch who is
> >>>>> proud that he still has a condom. One day, even that will be
> >>>>> taken from you, my little friend.
>
> >>>>http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=1158
>
> >>>> "A 78-year old retired teacher, Phillip Clarkson Webb, was forced
> >>>> to handover his walking stick to police because it was considered
> >>>> to be an ‘offensive weapon’."
>
> >>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed. It might
> >>> not stop an attack,
> >>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
> >>> around the head
> >>> of some braindead thug.
>
> >> .
> >> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in
> >> a far more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>
> >  Then do tell us how anyone is supposed to defend themselves if they
> > are not even allowed
> >  to use their cane against some feral thug?  It wasn't too long ago in
> > England when little
> > old ladies used to chase down and even catch up with someone who had
> > grabbed their handbag.  The thief was lucky if he managed to get away
> > before she gave him a clip
> > around the ear.  Now people are being told not to resist and God
> > forbid, do the thugs an injury.
> > What happened? Who is responsible?  Surely, it is the duty for
> > everyone to defend themselves
> > and their property, if they don't, the criminals wll continue to do
> > what they are doing now,
> > and getting away with it.  How do *you* handle the crime problem,
> > perhaps we can learn something.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you don't defend yourself - all I'm pointing out is
> the very obvious fact that if someone who is less than very fit tries to
> defend himself against a young fit yob by using a weapon, then it is more
> than likely that the young fit yob will take the weapon and use it against
> the victim.
>
> You can talk until the cows come home about 'protection' - but in most
> cases, for the average citizen, it just doesn't work.  Unless you walk
> around with a loaded and cocked firearm actually in your hand, or a CS
> canister actually in your hand, then if you are attacked by a young fit yob
> or group of yobs, the chances of you being able to make use of the gun or
> device is remote. There is also the inevitable fact that once you make such
> weaponry available to the general public - you also make it available to the
> yobs who, inevitably because they are attacking you, get in with first use.
>
> Guns and 'defensive' devices such as CS and pepper sprays are available to
> the citizenry in certain US states. If you can convince me that US citizens
> are safer from attack than UK citizens - then I would be more inclined to
> accept your case.....

My family is safer in our home for the very reason I gave you,  we
have guns readily
available if anyone enters our home uninvited and with intention of
robbing us.  No-one in the U.S. is charged with a crime if they defend
themselves, whether in the home or anywhere else
and why the people of Gt. Britain have given up their rights without a
fight or even a whisper
is beyond me.  No wonder women can be raped/gang raped in broad
daylight while
those who could have gone to her aid walk by without making any effort
to assist her.

Tony Martin should have received The George Medal for bravey for
ridding the world
of some feral gypo.  More power to him and those who have the guts to
do something
without depending upon, what is increasingly,  a couldn't care less
police force for their safety.

...............................
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 21:39, "Joe Lee" <inva...@no.address> wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On 13 Feb, 13:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you made a genuine complaint about a serious and violent
>>>> robbery, and the police failed to turn up at all - then you have a
>>>> very genuine complaint to make and, because if its serious nature,
>>>> it would *have* to be passed to the IPCC for investigation. It is
>>>> your duty to report the appalling negligence of your local police
>>>> and to have them investigated by the IPCC. Now, I ask again - why
>>>> haven't you done it?
>>
>>> Because I know it will change nothing except get me some lip service
>>> and justice will not be served against those responsible, who I
>>> have a good idea who they are and where they hang out. In any case
>>> it is a lot more satisfying to just go sort things out myself.
>>
>> Which in itself throws doubt on your OP & your claim to have called
>> the Police.
>>
>> As does the fact that just one hour before you told us of your
>> "mugging" you started a new thread compaining that a locksmith had
>> asked for your name & address.
>>
>> It appears the previous night's "mugging" was not uppermost in your
>> mind at the time.
>>
>> I find that strange. Very strange !
>>
>> --
>> Joe Lee
>
> Yet another Gestapo dripping suspicion comes out of the woodwork.
>
> I had not originally intended to post about my incident the night
> before. I felt that I had already limited my options for retaliation
> against the punks by reporting the crime by creating a paper trail
> linking me to them, and I regretted reporting it in light of the
> response received from the police. The ideal would've been if I
> quietly got mugged and quietly retaliated in response in an apparently
> random manner.
>
> After some thought, I did decide to post about it because I decided
> that justice against those punks in particular at this time would be
> limited anyway, given that they all live in my neighbourhood. A
> pattern would very quickly emerge. So I decided to talk about my
> experience anyway, but not before I posted about the locksmith query.
>
> I hope I have satisfied your suspicions and we can now move into the
> realm of productive conversation.

Sorry - but you certainly have not satisfied *my* suspicions. I still don't 
believe that your mugging ever took place!

Ret.

On Feb 14, 4:09 am, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 02:41, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 1:45 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 7:26 pm, Martin  wrote:
> > > >> Boedi...@isp.comwrote:
> > > >>> On Feb 11, 1:00 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax 
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> I suggest that if someone is going to make such claims here they
> > > >>>> include a crime number. Otherwise any anonymous person can make up
> > > >>>> whatever they like.
>
> > > >>> Now tell us *why* he would do that? Are you suspicious of everyone
> > > >>> who posts in usenet,
>
> > > >> Only those aging soldiers who claim to be in the UK but whose IP
> > > >> address is in Germany
>
> > > >> He's a troll. Maybe out Oz troll - who the hell knows, but he's a
> > > >> troll anyway.
>
> > > >      No he isn't. He posted that he had been attacked in the streets
> > > > by a gang of thugs whilst
> > > >   he left his house to buy something at his local shop. He called the
> > > > police when he got
> > > >  home and waited for them to arrive which they never did.  Nothing
> > > > unusual about that
> > > > just as there is nothing unusual about British people getting attacked
> > > > in the streets of Britain,
> > > >  in fact it is a common occurence isn't it?   Why is he a "troll"?
>
> > > Because, unlike you, anyone with even half a brain can see massive holes in
> > > his tale. The fact that he is not even making a half-hearted attempt to
> > > defend his position is a further indication that his story is bogus.
>
> > He doesn't need to "defend" his "tale".  He made a statement and it
> > stands on its own.
> > Do you "defend" everything *you* post. *You* wouldn't even defend
> > yourself in a gang of feral gypos invaded your home, let alone defend
> > a posting.  You sound like one of those loony lefties to me.  You
> > don't want anyone to defend themselves and don't believe those who
> > call the police when attacked.  It's too bad he wasn't armed when he
> > went to the shops, if he had been
> > me might not have needed the police, he would have called for an
> > ambulance.
>
> They wouldn't need an ambulance. Jobs shouldn't be left half-done.

I agree.  People in Britain are being knifed to death on public
streets.  People are being
murdered on their own doorsteps.  White women are being gang-raped by
3rd world
ferals in broad daylight.  "They called me a white bitch" said the
victim. A child in *cotland
was set alight by a gang of Pakis and died.  P.C.'s and WPC's have
been murdered
by them.  It is obvious that people need the right to defend
themselves since it's too late
to call the police after they have been murdered.   These fools who
can't stand to see the
would be killers/rapists harmed would soon change their tuned if it
happened to them.
God hep Britain if a situation like WW2 were to happen again.  Can you
even imagine one of them landing on the beaches of Normandy?  They
would throw pansies at the Germans.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Feb 14, 8:31 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 12:38 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>> On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >>>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my
> >>>>>>>> local grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts
> >>>>>>>> of town which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this
> >>>>>>>> current government's economic incompetence.
>
> >>>>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
> >>>>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
> >>>>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
> >>>>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
> >>>>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some of
> >>>>>>>> them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
> >>>>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called the
> >>>>>>>> plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched the
> >>>>>>>> street for half an hour - no one came.
>
> >>>>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I served
> >>>>>>>> in the army doing explosive disposal in various shitholes. I
> >>>>>>>> have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see that Britain is
> >>>>>>>> the new shithole. The true enemies of the state are within; the
> >>>>>>>> Communists who have disarmed the people and run the country to
> >>>>>>>> the ground, and the roving gangs that rule our streets.
>
> >>>>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod
> >>>>>>>> aren't there and don't give a shit. Next time those little
> >>>>>>>> shits try something like that they're going to be sorry.
>
> >>>>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did*
> >>>>>>> defend himself in his own home
> >>>>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of gypos
> >>>>>>> entered his home with the
> >>>>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had had
> >>>>>>> enough and shot one of them.
> >>>>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently gave
> >>>>>>> the "evil eye" to the jury,
> >>>>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
> >>>>>>> received the George Cross
> >>>>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
> >>>>>>> neither it would seem,
> >>>>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
> >>>>>>> today. But what can one expect
> >>>>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
> >>>>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
> >>>>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
> >>>>>>> terrified o not appearing
> >>>>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that the
> >>>>>>> lives and property of their
> >>>>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>
> >>>>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people
> >>>>>> using no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person
> >>>>>> using a weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely the
> >>>>>> use of any weapon will result in a criminal prosecution. Also,
> >>>>>> the detainment of any person will likely led to the arrest of
> >>>>>> the party holding the prisoner unless the police are notified
> >>>>>> immediately.
>
> >>>>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for defending
> >>>>>> themselves or acting as private police forces.
>
> >>>>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist
> >>>>> with a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised everyone
> >>>>> to "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged if my "big
> >>>>> dog" were to bite someone if I told him to "get 'em"? Am I
> >>>>> allowed to use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or home
> >>>>> invader? What if it hurts his eyes,
> >>>>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live in
> >>>>> California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each of
> >>>>> them within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
> >>>>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
> >>>>> position to sue , he would be
> >>>>> very dead.
>
> >>>> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record
> >>>> of shooting everyone *but* rapists and robbers. If you can
> >>>> successfully claim that the average US citizen is safer than the
> >>>> average UK citizen then you might have a case. Sadly you cannot.
>
> >>>> These are the real facts on citizen safety in the US:
>
> >>>> In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire
> >>>> in the United States, according to the latest national data
> >>>> released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight
> >>>> children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And
> >>>> every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer
> >>>> from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and
> >>>> National Center for Health Statistics)
>
> >>>> American children are more at risk from firearms than the children
> >>>> of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no
> >>>> children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in
> >>>> France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for
> >>>> Disease Control
>
> >>>> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
> >>>> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12
> >>>> times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
> >>>> countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
> >>>> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun,
> >>>> 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times
> >>>> more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25
> >>>> other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease
> >>>> Control)
>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------
>
> >>>> Yes - Americans certainly have the 'edge' on protecting their
> >>>> citizens don't they...........................?
>
> >>>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Your analysis is utterly flawed, not surprising since you can't be
> >>> the sharpest knife in the block given that you're a copper. I will
> >>> try to educate you but do try to keep up.
>
> >>> Firstly you're quoting absolute numbers, which is pointless for
> >>> comparisons at an international level with different populations to
> >>> start with.
>
> >>> Secondly, arming everyone not only affects gun homicide, it also
> >>> affects rape, robbery, knife and other statistics. The point free
> >>> people are trying to make is that an armed, self-policing population
> >>> will hit crime everywhere, to our benefit.
>
> >>> Thirdly, you forgot to cite countries such as Finland, NZ, Israel,
> >>> Switzerland and Austria, all with quite liberal gun laws but low
> >>> crime rates.
>
> >>> I say arm everyone and let Darwin do the rest.
>
> >> Yes, I'm sure you do - I'm sure you do. Can you be sure that you
> >> would be amongst 'the fittest'?
>
> >> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your brainwashing has obviously left you too dim to know what
> > "fittest" is in the context of social collectives. Not for your
> > education, but those who might not be one sandwich short of a picnic:
> > the "fittest" in this context are those who don't cause trouble
> > unnecessarily and don't parasitise on society.
>
> And I'm sorry chum - but you are clearly too dim to understand that such a
> self policing society is only compatible with small, compact, primitive
> societies and simply would not work in a modern 'advanced' society. It would
> become the rule of the jungle.

And the jungle is exactly what has happened to a once,  low crime,
civilised nation like
Britain.  People are being robbed on trains by so-called "streamers".
Women are being
gang-raped by 3r world ferals. Even M.P.s and judges are being mugged
in the nation's
Capital.  How many have been knifed to death recently?  Carjacking is
almost an  epidemic.
It is human nature to defend oneself, even the smallest animal knows
that and only
cowards run when  attacked.  I'd hate to have *you* in my foxhole if I
were a soldier
in a war.
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:12:09 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Sadly this is a sign of the times. Leave your lap-top on the back
>> seat of your car and get it nicked - it's the fault of the police
>> when they don't turn up within 5 milliseconds to deal with it.  Let
>> shrubs and bushes grow around your home, fail to install good locks,
>> security lighting, and an alarm - and it's the fault of the police
>> etc...... People have garages, don't use them - and yet expect the
>> police to rush out when they find their car has been broken into
>> overnight and the radio nicked. etc. etc. etc.
>
> Yes, we *do* expect the police to turn up in those circumstances.  Not
> only because we *pay* them to do so and it is their *job*, but because
> the law has removed almost all legal ways that we could try to do
> something about it ourselves.

The law does not prevent you from clearing all the junk out of your garage 
and parking your car in there at night (as I do). The law does not prevent 
you from clearing overgrown shrubbery from around your house (which masks 
break-ins). The law does not prevent you from installing security lighting 
and good locks and alarms (as I have done). The law does not stop you from 
taking preventive methods such as never leaving valuable items in your car 
when you park it. The law does not prevent you from carefully selecting the 
location where you park your car at night so as to reduce the likelihood of 
it being broken into.  etc.

My homes have never ever been broken into. My car has never ever been broken 
into. I wonder why?

If I parked my car in an unlit and dodgy area at night with my laptop on 
open view on the back seat, and when I came back I found that the window had 
been smashed and the laptop gone - then I would blame myself for being so 
bloody stupid and would *not* expect the police to put themselves out to try 
and detect the crime because I would have virtually invited it.


> You appear to be saying that the police should only deal with a crime
> if they believe the victim *deserves* their help.

I am saying that there are plenty of simple and inexpensive steps you can 
take to reduce the chances of your becoming a victim of crime. If you fail 
to take any of those steps, despite all the crime avoidance advice that is 
freely available, then you almost *deserve* to become a victim in these 
dreadful times.

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 16:31, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 12:38 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Feb, 12:01, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Boedi...@isp.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:38 pm, Logician  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 12:53 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:25 am, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Last night I realised I was low on milk and went out to my
>>>>>>>>>> local grocer's to buy some. I live in one of the worst parts
>>>>>>>>>> of town which is becoming increasingly unfriendly due to this
>>>>>>>>>> current government's economic incompetence.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Long story short it was a couple of minutes to the grocer and
>>>>>>>>>> back and I was not expecting any trouble. On walking back I
>>>>>>>>>> walked past a bunch of kids hanging out at a bus stop and
>>>>>>>>>> playing with a football. I got mugged by a them - barely into
>>>>>>>>>> their twenties with knives; I wouldn't be surprised if some
>>>>>>>>>> of them were minors. They relieved me of cash and groceries,
>>>>>>>>>> scattering most of the shopping along the street. I called
>>>>>>>>>> the plod on my PAYG mobile when I arrived home and watched
>>>>>>>>>> the street for half an hour - no one came.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I was a bit younger and with a few less injuries, I
>>>>>>>>>> served in the army doing explosive disposal in various
>>>>>>>>>> shitholes. I have now returned "home" and am dismayed to see
>>>>>>>>>> that Britain is the new shithole. The true enemies of the
>>>>>>>>>> state are within; the Communists who have disarmed the
>>>>>>>>>> people and run the country to the ground, and the roving
>>>>>>>>>> gangs that rule our streets.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will no longer be leaving home unarmed because the plod
>>>>>>>>>> aren't there and don't give a shit. Next time those little
>>>>>>>>>> shits try something like that they're going to be sorry.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be careful if I were you. A brave Englishman *did*
>>>>>>>>> defend himself in his own home
>>>>>>>>> and spent several years in prison for doing so. A gang of
>>>>>>>>> gypos entered his home with the
>>>>>>>>> intention of robbing him and not for the fkirst time. He had
>>>>>>>>> had enough and shot one of them.
>>>>>>>>> The rest of the gypo gang came to the trial and apparently
>>>>>>>>> gave the "evil eye" to the jury,
>>>>>>>>> whereupon the gutless idiots found him guilty. He should have
>>>>>>>>> received the George Cross
>>>>>>>>> for Bravery. An Englishman's home is no longer his castle and
>>>>>>>>> neither it would seem,
>>>>>>>>> is he able to defend hmself against the kind of dross we see
>>>>>>>>> today. But what can one expect
>>>>>>>>> when we see who is making the laws that everyone is ordered to
>>>>>>>>> live by, The Trots of "Old"
>>>>>>>>> Labour were replaced by the Trots of "New" Labour who are so
>>>>>>>>> terrified o not appearing
>>>>>>>>> to be politically correct and of being called "racists" that
>>>>>>>>> the lives and property of their
>>>>>>>>> constituents count for nothing.
>>
>>>>>>>> The only self-defence rights in the UK are extended to people
>>>>>>>> using no weapons at all. Police policy is to arrest any person
>>>>>>>> using a weapon regardless of the circumstances. It is likely
>>>>>>>> the use of any weapon will result in a criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>> Also, the detainment of any person will likely led to the
>>>>>>>> arrest of the party holding the prisoner unless the police are
>>>>>>>> notified immediately.
>>
>>>>>>>> There are hundreds of cases of people being jailed for
>>>>>>>> defending themselves or acting as private police forces.
>>
>>>>>>> I must remember that the next time I come home. Some limpwrist
>>>>>>> with a hatred of guns, or as he would say "g*ns" advised
>>>>>>> everyone to "get a big dog". Do you suppose I would be charged
>>>>>>> if my "big dog" were to bite someone if I told him to "get
>>>>>>> 'em"? Am I allowed to use "Mace" against a would-be attacker or
>>>>>>> home invader? What if it hurts his eyes,
>>>>>>> could he sue me? It's quite a problem isn't it? Actually I live
>>>>>>> in California and in our house we have a total of 4 guns, each
>>>>>>> of them within easy reach. Any would-be robber, rapist,
>>>>>>> carjacker wouldn't live long enough to stand trial or be in a
>>>>>>> position to sue , he would be
>>>>>>> very dead.
>>
>>>>>> The only problem is that your countrymen have an appalling record
>>>>>> of shooting