'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
seat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html

Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.

If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
contribution to the gene pool removed.

The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.

N5

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
>seat
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
>
>Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
>served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
>affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
>
>If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
>free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
>contribution to the gene pool removed.
>
>The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.

Works in Baghdad

Shaun wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT), November 5
>  wrote:
> 
>> 'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
>> seat
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
>>
>> Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
>> served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
>> affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
>>
>> If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
>> free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
>> contribution to the gene pool removed.
>>
>> The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.
> 
> Works in Baghdad

And Somalia.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Shaun wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT), November 5
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> 'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
> >> seat
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
> >>
> >> Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
> >> served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
> >> affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
> >>
> >> If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
> >> free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
> >> contribution to the gene pool removed.
> >>
> >> The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.
> >
> > Works in Baghdad
>
> And Somalia.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Somalia and Iraq are evolving, although you may not see it. The
violence of natural selection in either place is much more prolific,
simply because there is a higher percentage of degenerates there:
Iraq's average IQ: 87
Somalia's average IQ: 84

Their fewer laws also contributes to their rapid rate of natural
selection. People with a propensity for violence (and dumb enough to
miscalculate) are being weeded out.

The point is that natural selection is blind towards who it acts
against. Like true justice, it is blind and culls or rewards with
neither mercy nor favour.

It may be that if allowed to reign free, natural selection would
result in the extinction of what we would consider to be genetic
defectives today. If the gene pool has been too overly polluted, then
the end result will be a fratricidally induced vacuum, with genetic
superiors inheriting the land they were never meant to have. Surely a
civilisation populated with people of above average IQ would be better
custodians of Iraq or Somalia!

Alternatively, it is also possible that if allowed to reign free, a
superior Somali or Iraqi race will emerge, although it is dubious that
will happen due to to a poor initial sample.

In either case, overall good is served. Low intelligence, propensity
for crime, predisposition to disease and weak constitutions are all
curses that can be alleviated by allowing natural selection to shape
the human race.

Humanity slides deeper into suffering and malady simply because short
sighted do-gooders try to alleviate the sharp edge of natural
selection.

N5

November 5 wrote:

>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
>> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
>> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
> 
> Somalia and Iraq are evolving, although you may not see it. The
> violence of natural selection in either place is much more prolific,
> simply because there is a higher percentage of degenerates there:
> Iraq's average IQ: 87
> Somalia's average IQ: 84

Link for this?

November 5 wrote:
> 
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Shaun wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT), November 5
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
>>>> seat
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
>>>>
>>>> Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
>>>> served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
>>>> affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
>>>>
>>>> If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
>>>> free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
>>>> contribution to the gene pool removed.
>>>>
>>>> The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.
>>> Works in Baghdad
>> And Somalia.
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
>> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
>> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
> 
> Somalia and Iraq are evolving, although you may not see it. The
> violence of natural selection in either place is much more prolific,
> simply because there is a higher percentage of degenerates there:
> Iraq's average IQ: 87
> Somalia's average IQ: 84
> 
> Their fewer laws also contributes to their rapid rate of natural
> selection. People with a propensity for violence (and dumb enough to
> miscalculate) are being weeded out.
> 
> The point is that natural selection is blind towards who it acts
> against. Like true justice, it is blind and culls or rewards with
> neither mercy nor favour.
> 
> It may be that if allowed to reign free, natural selection would
> result in the extinction of what we would consider to be genetic
> defectives today. If the gene pool has been too overly polluted, then
> the end result will be a fratricidally induced vacuum, with genetic
> superiors inheriting the land they were never meant to have. Surely a
> civilisation populated with people of above average IQ would be better
> custodians of Iraq or Somalia!
> 
> Alternatively, it is also possible that if allowed to reign free, a
> superior Somali or Iraqi race will emerge, although it is dubious that
> will happen due to to a poor initial sample.
> 
> In either case, overall good is served. Low intelligence, propensity
> for crime, predisposition to disease and weak constitutions are all
> curses that can be alleviated by allowing natural selection to shape
> the human race.
> 
> Humanity slides deeper into suffering and malady simply because short
> sighted do-gooders try to alleviate the sharp edge of natural
> selection.
> 
> N5

Which rather assumes that guns don't give the retards an edge they would 
not otherwise have.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Big Al wrote:
> November 5 wrote:
>
> >>
> >> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> >> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
> >> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
> >
> > Somalia and Iraq are evolving, although you may not see it. The
> > violence of natural selection in either place is much more prolific,
> > simply because there is a higher percentage of degenerates there:
> > Iraq's average IQ: 87
> > Somalia's average IQ: 84
>
> Link for this?

Google for "IQ and wealth of nations"

It is impossible for people with such low IQ to form stable
governments and civilisation as we know it. They are better of being
left to evolve.

N5

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> Which rather assumes that guns don't give the retards an edge they would
> not otherwise have.

If you can agree that all things being equal, someone who is smarter,
healthier, fitter, faster and stronger (i.e. all traits that can be
inherited genetically to varying degrees) will *more likely* survive
an armed confrontation with a retard, then there is no problem there.

Sample a large enough population and sampling errors such as bad luck
would average out.

N5

November 5 brought next idea :
> 'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
> seat
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
>
> Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
> served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
> affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
>
> If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
> free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
> contribution to the gene pool removed.
>
> The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.
>
> N5

One less dick-head on our streets.  Let the tossers wipe each other 
out.  Much better this way when one considers what the guy would have 
cost the taxpayer in the long run.

-- 
Count Baldoni

In hoc signo vinces

November 5 wrote:
> 
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> 
>> Which rather assumes that guns don't give the retards an edge they would
>> not otherwise have.
> 
> If you can agree that all things being equal, someone who is smarter,
> healthier, fitter, faster and stronger (i.e. all traits that can be
> inherited genetically to varying degrees) will *more likely* survive
> an armed confrontation with a retard, then there is no problem there.
> 
> Sample a large enough population and sampling errors such as bad luck
> would average out.

Not true of the big European conflicts, esp with regard to armies.
The smartest people have the biggest death rate.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On Oct 7, 7:04 pm, November 5 
wrote:

"Iraq's average IQ: 87
Somalia's average IQ: 84"
> ....... Surely a
> civilisation populated with people of above average IQ would be better
> custodians of Iraq or Somalia!

----

Jews have an average IQ of 115.

Are they good custodians of Palestine?

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:55:54 +0100, Baldoni
 wrote:

>November 5 brought next idea :
>> 'My daddy!' Execution at traffic lights as stepson, five, sits in back
>> seat
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217897/Man-shot-dead-gangland-style-execution.html
>>
>> Through firearms illegally obtained, some measure of justice was
>> served. Clearly the laws which prohibit gun ownership in the UK have
>> affected only law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
>>
>> If only everyone can buy guns and natural selection allowed to reign
>> free; justice will be served more frequently and people unsuitable for
>> contribution to the gene pool removed.
>>
>> The most equitable position for all is no laws at all.
>>
>> N5
>
>One less dick-head on our streets.  Let the tossers wipe each other 
>out.  Much better this way when one considers what the guy would have 
>cost the taxpayer in the long run.
>
They don't wipe each other out. Someone always steps in to replace
them by being even more violent. And pretty soon you're living in
Columbia

Special Care wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:04 pm, November 5 
> wrote:
> 
> "Iraq's average IQ: 87
> Somalia's average IQ: 84"
>> ....... Surely a
>> civilisation populated with people of above average IQ would be better
>> custodians of Iraq or Somalia!
> 
> ----
> 
> Jews have an average IQ of 115.
> 
> Are they good custodians of Palestine?

Israelis score 15 points lower

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

So there you have it.

We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.

We can't even carry a penknife, pepper spray let alone a Taser. Forget
about a handgun.

And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
their necks to save us.

It is what I said all along, public disarmament is an exercise in
public control and consolidating power to our Communist leaders.
Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun - disarm the public
and they never have to fear us. It has never been about public safety,
except to morons in la-la land who believe so.

The police should be disbanded. The taxes that would have gone to them
should go to personal firearms, armour, alarms, training, exercise and
savings.

========================================================

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218911/You-expect-police-heroes-Public-want-says-health-safety-report.html

http://tinyurl.com/ylb8ymg

You can't expect the police to be heroes: Public want too much, says
health and safety report

By Matthew Hickley and Neil Sears
Last updated at 10:31 AM on 08th October 2009

The public have ' unrealistic expectations' that police will put
themselves in danger to protect ordinary people, according to new
safety guidelines for officers.

The Health and Safety Executive caused outrage by declaring that
officers confronted with dangerous situations-while fighting crime or
trying to guard the public 'may choose not to put themselves at
unreasonable risk'.

Its guidance published yesterday firmly plays down the need for
officers to show bravery in the course of their duty if they make a
'personal choice' not to.

It states: 'There is often an unrealistic public expectation that
officers and staff will put themselves at risk to protect the public.'

The document concedes that 'very occasionally in extreme cases',
police may be justified in putting themselves in jeopardy - in which
case they may be let off without being prosecuted under health and
safety laws.

The report - which has the backing of senior police chiefs - prompted
anger and astonishment last night.

Paul Beshenivsky, whose police officer wife Sharon was shot dead by
armed robbers in 2005, condemned the HSE as 'meddling do-gooders',
saying: 'At the end of the day a police officer's job does involve
putting your life on the line. Sharon knew that, and she got killed.'

He told the Mail: 'The public are not allowed to take the law into
their own hands, and now the crazy health and safety brigade want to
stop the police dealing with criminals as well.

'Where would you draw the line? Would you say, "That shoplifter that
looks on drugs, he might have a knife, I'll walk away from that one?"
The whole thing is madness.'

Police forces have been subject to health and safety legislation since
1998.

But it is the latest document's advice on risk-taking by individual
officers that has caused anger.
Officers who gave their all

The report says police officers 'may, very occasionally in extreme
cases, decide to put themselves at risk in acts of true heroism'.

In these 'rare circumstances', the HSE adds, 'it would not be in the
public interest to take action against the individual'.

But it adds: 'Equally HSE, like the Police Service, recognises that in
such extreme cases everyone has the right to make personal choices and
that individuals may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable
risk.'

The guidelines have been backed by the Association of Chief Police
Officers and the rank-and-file Police Federation.

But Sid Mackay, a retired Met Police Chief Superintendent whose
daughter, PC Nina Mackay, was stabbed to death on duty in 1997, said:
'They claim it is "unrealistic" for the public to expect the police to
face danger, but that's what the public believe the police are for,
and rightly so.

'The HSE will never understand, because they are completely risk-
averse, but they have got their fingers into operational policing and
they think they're the experts.

'The police are choking on paperwork, carrying out endless risk
assessments for every operation, and then we wonder why they have
become so cautious.'

Anthony Ganderton, the stepfather of ten-year- old Jordon Lyon who
drowned in Wigan in 2007 after he jumped into a pond to save his
stepsister, also attacked the guidelines.

Two police community service officers who arrived at the scene stood
on the bank and radioed for help instead of jumping in to rescue the
children, because they were not appropriately trained so risked
breaking health and safety rules.

He told the Mail: 'The point is they should do whatever they can to
help people in trouble, especially when there are children involved.'

HSE chairman Judith Hackitt said yesterday: 'This statement will
assist senior police officers in balancing the risks involved in their
duties to fight crime with meeting their health and safety obligations
to their own employees and the public.'

The Home Office said: 'Health and safety laws are there to protect the
police as well as the public, but they must never hinder officers in
the execution of their duty.'

On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
wrote:
> So there you have it.
>
> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.
>
> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone a Taser. Forget
> about a handgun.
>
> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> their necks to save us.

Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!

The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
on weapons.

Now if you were like one of these:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> wrote:
> > So there you have it.
> >
> > We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.
> >
> > We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone a Taser. Forget
> > about a handgun.
> >
> > And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> > their necks to save us.
>
> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!

Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society decide
that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)

> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> on weapons.

I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
have the money to do so.

Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
doable.

> Now if you were like one of these:
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece

A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.

In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
situation.

The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw your
handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than yourself.

N5

On Oct 9, 2:44 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
>
> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> on weapons.
>
> Now if you were like one of these:
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece

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

Plausible, but a diversion from the original thrust of this
discussion.

The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.

Do you really believe that such a bizarre state of affairs has come
about without deliberate planning by the ruling group?

November 5 wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
>> wrote:
>>> So there you have it.
>>>
>>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.
>>>
>>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
>>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
>>>
>>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
>>> their necks to save us.
>>
>> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society decide
> that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
>
>> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
>> on weapons.
>
> I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> have the money to do so.
>
> Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> doable.
>
>> Now if you were like one of these:
>>
>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>
> A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
>
> In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
> as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> situation.
>
> The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw your
> handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than yourself.

Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all 
endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many followers 
of that régime I think!

-- 
Harry Merrick.

Harry Merrick wrote:
> November 5 wrote:
> > Mel Rowing wrote:
> >> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> >> wrote:
> >>> So there you have it.
> >>>
> >>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.
> >>>
> >>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
> >>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
> >>>
> >>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> >>> their necks to save us.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
> >
> > Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society decide
> > that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
> >
> >> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> >> on weapons.
> >
> > I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> > location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> > have the money to do so.
> >
> > Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> > doable.
> >
> >> Now if you were like one of these:
> >>
> >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
> >
> > A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
> >
> > In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> > civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
> > as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> > situation.
> >
> > The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> > save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> > arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw your
> > handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than yourself.
>
> Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
> endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many followers
> of that r�gime I think!
>
> --
> Harry Merrick.

Why are you so quick to assume without laws, society will degenerate
into a "Mad Max" world?

On the contrary, I want a world with minimal genetic defects where
people will not be condemned by birth to cancer, MS, obesity,
feeblemindedness and lame bodies.

I want a world where wealth is earned by merit, rather than taken from
others forcibly through taxes to reward the undeserving.

I want a world where the individual is utterly free to build or
destroy themselves as they please.

This world can not be achieved while genetic defectives continue to
pass on their genes due to artificial redistribution of wealth where
they would otherwise die off (such as social welfare) and where we
have so many laws even law professors and judges have lost count.

N5

November 5 wrote:
> Harry Merrick wrote:
>> November 5 wrote:
>>> Mel Rowing wrote:
>>>> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> So there you have it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect
>>>>> us.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
>>>>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
>>>>> their necks to save us.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>>>
>>> Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society
>>> decide that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
>>>
>>>> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their
>>>> hands on weapons.
>>>
>>> I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
>>> location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
>>> have the money to do so.
>>>
>>> Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
>>> doable.
>>>
>>>> Now if you were like one of these:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>>>
>>> A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
>>>
>>> In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
>>> civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
>>> as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
>>> save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
>>> arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw
>>> your handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
>> endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many
>> followers of that r�gime I think!
>>
>> --
>> Harry Merrick.
>
> Why are you so quick to assume without laws, society will degenerate
> into a "Mad Max" world?
>
> On the contrary, I want a world with minimal genetic defects where
> people will not be condemned by birth to cancer, MS, obesity,
> feeblemindedness and lame bodies.
>
> I want a world where wealth is earned by merit, rather than taken from
> others forcibly through taxes to reward the undeserving.
>
> I want a world where the individual is utterly free to build or
> destroy themselves as they please.
>
> This world can not be achieved while genetic defectives continue to
> pass on their genes due to artificial redistribution of wealth where
> they would otherwise die off (such as social welfare) and where we
> have so many laws even law professors and judges have lost count.
>
> N5

Sorry, but if that is really what you want then I fear you are so horribly 
naieve as to border on lunacy!! Homo Sapiens simply doesn't work that way!!

-- 
Harry Merrick.

On Oct 9, 4:17 pm, "Harry Merrick"  wrote:
> November 5 wrote:
> > Mel Rowing wrote:
> >> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> >> wrote:
> >>> So there you have it.
>
> >>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us.
>
> >>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
> >>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
>
> >>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> >>> their necks to save us.
>
> >> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> > Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society decide
> > that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
>
> >> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> >> on weapons.
>
> > I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> > location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> > have the money to do so.
>
> > Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> > doable.
>
> >> Now if you were like one of these:
>
> >>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>
> > A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
>
> > In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> > civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
> > as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> > situation.
>
> > The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> > save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> > arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw your
> > handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than yourself.
>
> Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
> endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many followers
> of that régime I think!

Probably a bit if a fantacist!

Operates probably from the Rouen region of France through a series of
proxy servers in Germany and Austria.

Probably got the idea that somebody somewhere is after him.

On Oct 9, 3:19 pm, Special Care  wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:44 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
>
> > Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> > The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> > on weapons.
>
> > Now if you were like one of these:
>
> >http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>
> --------------------
>
> Plausible, but a diversion from the original thrust of this
> discussion.
>
> The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
> themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
> arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
> same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
> people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
> abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
> charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.
>
> Do you really believe that such a bizarre state of affairs has come
> about without deliberate planning by the ruling group?

There is no government of England and neither has the British
Government ordered any such thing.

The right to self defence is exactly the same as it has been for near
200 years.

You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself provided a real threat
to your person exists and that your response to it is proportionate.
Ultimately whether your actions meet and pass these two tests would be
decided by a court and perhaps a jury.

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Oct 9, 3:19 pm, Special Care  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 2:44 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
>
> > > Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> > > The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> > > on weapons.
>
> > > Now if you were like one of these:
>
> > >http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>
> > --------------------
>
> > Plausible, but a diversion from the original thrust of this
> > discussion.
>
> > The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
> > themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
> > arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
> > same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
> > people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
> > abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
> > charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.
>
> > Do you really believe that such a bizarre state of affairs has come
> > about without deliberate planning by the ruling group?
>
> There is no government of England and neither has the British
> Government ordered any such thing.
>
> The right to self defence is exactly the same as it has been for near
> 200 years.
>
> You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself provided a real threat
> to your person exists and that your response to it is proportionate.
> Ultimately whether your actions meet and pass these two tests would be
> decided by a court and perhaps a jury.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

============
You live in an ivory tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgSzuZ8CBE&feature=PlayList&p=5624F4C22392D185&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=87

In
news:34b549e2-c60c-4727-8415-1759b51d184b@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Special Care  wrote: 

> The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
> themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
> arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
> same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
> people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
> abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
> charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.

Can you provide some pointers to documents or articles describing these
edicts? 

I'd really like to read more about this.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:17 pm, "Harry Merrick"  wrote:
> > November 5 wrote:
> > > Mel Rowing wrote:
> > >> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> So there you have it.
> >
> > >>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect us> > >>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
> > >>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
> >
> > >>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> > >>> their necks to save us.
> >
> > >> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
> >
> > > Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society decide
> > > that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
> >
> > >> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their hands
> > >> on weapons.
> >
> > > I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> > > location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> > > have the money to do so.
> >
> > > Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> > > doable.
> >
> > >> Now if you were like one of these:
> >
> > >>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
> >
> > > A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
> >
> > > In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> > > civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
> > > as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> > > situation.
> >
> > > The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> > > save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> > > arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw your
> > > handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than yourself.
> >
> > Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
> > endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many followers
> > of that régime I think!
>
> Probably a bit if a fantacist!

LOL, the only object of fantasy I have is that you may yet be able to
spell correctly one day.

> Operates probably from the Rouen region of France through a series of
> proxy servers in Germany and Austria.

> Probably got the idea that somebody somewhere is after him.

N5

Harry Merrick wrote:
> November 5 wrote:
> > Harry Merrick wrote:
> >> November 5 wrote:
> >>> Mel Rowing wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> So there you have it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect
> >>>>> us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
> >>>>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> >>>>> their necks to save us.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
> >>>
> >>> Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society
> >>> decide that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
> >>>
> >>>> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their
> >>>> hands on weapons.
> >>>
> >>> I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> >>> location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> >>> have the money to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> >>> doable.
> >>>
> >>>> Now if you were like one of these:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
> >>>
> >>> A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
> >>>
> >>> In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> >>> civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them,
> >>> as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> >>> situation.
> >>>
> >>> The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> >>> save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> >>> arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw
> >>> your handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than
> >>> yourself.
> >>
> >> Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
> >> endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many
> >> followers of that r�gime I think!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Harry Merrick.
> >
> > Why are you so quick to assume without laws, society will degenerate
> > into a "Mad Max" world?
> >
> > On the contrary, I want a world with minimal genetic defects where
> > people will not be condemned by birth to cancer, MS, obesity,
> > feeblemindedness and lame bodies.
> >
> > I want a world where wealth is earned by merit, rather than taken from
> > others forcibly through taxes to reward the undeserving.
> >
> > I want a world where the individual is utterly free to build or
> > destroy themselves as they please.
> >
> > This world can not be achieved while genetic defectives continue to
> > pass on their genes due to artificial redistribution of wealth where
> > they would otherwise die off (such as social welfare) and where we
> > have so many laws even law professors and judges have lost count.
> >
> > N5
>
> Sorry, but if that is really what you want then I fear you are so horribly
> naieve as to border on lunacy!! Homo Sapiens simply doesn't work that way> Harry Merrick.

What arrogance to think humanity is beyond the forces of evolution and
natural selection!

We are seeing more and more genetically inherited diseases today
because resources are being diverted from people who are healthy to
those who have poor genes. These people then go on to produce children
and pass on their curse to later generations.

The solution is to let everyone compete on level ground with no laws
and no mandatory welfare. If someone's genetic curse is mild that they
can compensate for it with other traits (like Prof. Hawking) then they
have earned the right to father children.

The same goes for cultural memes that cause yobbish behaviour. A
culture of yobs and thugs would be quickly and literally gunned down
if everyone else had guns. The dominant cultural meme under these
circumstances would be one where people tend to their own back yard
and let live.

N5

On Oct 9, 5:48 pm, Bert Hyman  wrote:
> Innews:34b549e2-c60c-4727-8415-1759b51d184b@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>
> Special Care  wrote:
> > The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
> > themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
> > arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
> > same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
> > people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
> > abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
> > charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.
>
> Can you provide some pointers to documents or articles describing these
> edicts?
>
> I'd really like to read more about this.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman      St. Paul, MN    b...@iphouse.com

Do you live in England?

On Oct 9, 5:56 pm, November 5 
wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:

> LOL, the only object of fantasy I have is that you may yet be able to
> spell correctly one day.

I manage!

I got it wrong. You post under the name of Chris Parker from Tustin CA
regardless of which proxy you use.

Why then are you holding forth regarding the standards of the British
police? None of your damned business!

I BELIEVE IN AMERICA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vccqNDGtU90&feature=PlayList&p=4A7E51417E963971&index=9

On Oct 9, 6:06 pm, November 5 
wrote:
> Harry Merrick wrote:
> > November 5 wrote:
> > > Harry Merrick wrote:
> > >> November 5 wrote:
> > >>> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > >>>> On Oct 9, 12:45 pm, November 5 
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> So there you have it.
>
> > >>>>> We have been disarmed in good faith that the police will protect
> > >>>>> us.
>
> > >>>>> We can't even carry a penknife, [ not true] pepper spray let alone
> > >>>>> a Taser. Forget about a handgun.
>
> > >>>>> And now we've been told that the police can't be expected to risk
> > >>>>> their necks to save us.
>
> > >>>> Perhaps you aren't worth anybody's neck!
>
> > >>> Well then, you shouldn't have a problem letting a free society
> > >>> decide that then, eh? Instead of your illustrious opinion? :-)
>
> > >>>> The likes of you are the very last people who should get their
> > >>>> hands on weapons.
>
> > >>> I already do, and often train with them regularly in an undisclosed
> > >>> location. It is easy to get hold of them if you know where to go and
> > >>> have the money to do so.
>
> > >>> Finding a place for frequent training is a bit more tricky but also
> > >>> doable.
>
> > >>>> Now if you were like one of these:
>
> > >>>>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1408155.ece
>
> > >>> A few good apples don't make the lot worth it.
>
> > >>> In a state with no police, those people would be law abiding armed
> > >>> civilians doing a real job. You get economic productivity from them> > >>> as well as the occasional moral intervention when necessary. Win-win
> > >>> situation.
>
> > >>> The bottom line is that police like every other human will want to
> > >>> save their neck over that of a stranger, will take a longer time to
> > >>> arrive to assist a scene of crime than it would take you to draw
> > >>> your handgun and will be less motivated to save your skin than
> > >>> yourself.
>
> > >> Obviously, you will only be happy with a Mad Max type world, with all
> > >> endeavour encapsulated in sheer unadulterated violence. Not many
> > >> followers of that r gime I think!
>
> > >> --
> > >> Harry Merrick.
>
> > > Why are you so quick to assume without laws, society will degenerate
> > > into a "Mad Max" world?
>
> > > On the contrary, I want a world with minimal genetic defects where
> > > people will not be condemned by birth to cancer, MS, obesity,
> > > feeblemindedness and lame bodies.
>
> > > I want a world where wealth is earned by merit, rather than taken from
> > > others forcibly through taxes to reward the undeserving.
>
> > > I want a world where the individual is utterly free to build or
> > > destroy themselves as they please.
>
> > > This world can not be achieved while genetic defectives continue to
> > > pass on their genes due to artificial redistribution of wealth where
> > > they would otherwise die off (such as social welfare) and where we
> > > have so many laws even law professors and judges have lost count.
>
> > > N5
>
> > Sorry, but if that is really what you want then I fear you are so horribly
> > naieve as to border on lunacy!! Homo Sapiens simply doesn't work that way!!
>
> > --
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> What arrogance to think humanity is beyond the forces of evolution and
> natural selection!
>
> We are seeing more and more genetically inherited diseases today
> because resources are being diverted from people who are healthy to
> those who have poor genes. These people then go on to produce children
> and pass on their curse to later generations.
>
> The solution is to let everyone compete on level ground with no laws
> and no mandatory welfare. If someone's genetic curse is mild that they
> can compensate for it with other traits (like Prof. Hawking) then they
> have earned the right to father children.
>
> The same goes for cultural memes that cause yobbish behaviour. A
> culture of yobs and thugs would be quickly and literally gunned down
> if everyone else had guns. The dominant cultural meme under these
> circumstances would be one where people tend to their own back yard
> and let live.
>
> N5- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

The Vivisection Swindle is your big BLIND SPOT.

How can there ever be evolutionary progress when the vivisection
laboratories have spent the last half century churning out an ongoing
AVALANCHE of "animal tested" [=UNTESTED] poisons?

And now the process of churning out more and more "animal
tested" [=UNTESTED] poisons is gathering pace in China, India,
Brazil.....

Those fake "animal tests" [=non-tests] are the collective suicide of a
mentally ill species, an
EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END !
---------------------------------------------
Evolutionary Dead End
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_128d7rt98ck

Bert Hyman wrote:
> In
> news:34b549e2-c60c-4727-8415-1759b51d184b@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> Special Care  wrote:
>
>> The government of England has ordered its people not to defend
>> themselves when attacked, while warning them that they will be
>> arrested for defending themselves against an attacker, while at the
>> same time ordering the English police to cease to protect the English
>> people from attackers, and not only that, but to arrest any law
>> abiding citizens of England who fight back when attacked, and then to
>> charge them with assault for defending themselves when attacked.
>
> Can you provide some pointers to documents or articles describing
> these edicts?
>
> I'd really like to read more about this.

In British law as I understand it, you can defend yourself and your property 
using whatever force is reasonable and effective. In a number of cases 
recently were home owners have used a shotgun and either injured or killed 
their assailant they have had to go to court and defend their use of arms. 
In one case, were the robber was only injured, the home owner initially went 
to gaol, but was released later after lengthy appeals. This rather supports 
the American principle of shoot first and make sure the opponant is properly 
dead! However, Ozzy Osmond attacked his assailant whilst stark naked and 
frightened the assailant so much he jumped out of an upper window never to 
be seen again!

-- 
Harry Merrick.

"Harry Merrick"  wrote in
news:7jbl0pF3505q7U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> In British law as I understand it, you can defend yourself and your
> property using whatever force is reasonable and effective.

No, you may use force only if it is necessary to do so and then you may 
only use such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.

-- 

Regards,


Periander

In news:Xns9CA0BCA806C8Eulmbritwarcouk@69.16.176.253 Periander
<ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote: 

> "Harry Merrick"  wrote in
> news:7jbl0pF3505q7U1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> 
>> In British law as I understand it, you can defend yourself and your
>> property using whatever force is reasonable and effective.
> 
> No, you may use force only if it is necessary to do so and then you
> may only use such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.

Of course, the decision as to whether it was "necessary" and
"reasonable" will be made after the fact by someone who wasn't there. 

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

The Homophobic Hate campaign by English Churches Housing Group (ECHG),
Hammersmith & Fulham Council and The Metropolitan Police is still
continuing – at the moment my tormentors think it is acceptable to run
a Hate campaign and they do not think they have done anything wrong.

The authorities know who I am, but they think it is acceptable for a
group of people to run a homophobic hate campaign.

I have to deal with a lot of hate from my tormentors – both, major and
minor incidences – at the moment, my tormentors are enjoying
themselves enormously and they are hoping I will loose my temper –
when I do get an investigation into this hate campaign - most people
will be horrified by the hate I have to suffer.

My Tormentors take an enormous pleasure in making my life a living
hell - my Tormentors see me as a soft target. I am not scared of them
nor am I afraid of them - I will get a full criminal investigation
into this hate campaign - on my terms and I will not shut-up until I
get to the bottom of everything these criminals have done - I mean
everything and in the process I will clear my name which my Tormentors
have elegantly blackened.

When the whole truth comes out of what has happened - you will find
that I am a Law-abiding citizen and a veteran of the Falklands
Campaign.