Re: Another Boy Shot By "Lampers"

From: Ray (ray_at_syntex.com)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:09:36 +0000 (UTC)

"Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.oik.pet> wrote in message
news:3hmcl09ttrrcvtdod75ffekou3onl44juj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:38:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray@syntex.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael Saunby" <msaunby@despammed.com> wrote in message
> >news:cj4i1l$45h$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Rubystars" <windstorm@swbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:qBj5d.1047$zc1.727@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.dc> wrote in message
> >> > news:ifgbl0le0c9kuu7jpfe1549ukvrbmuqoer@4ax.com...
> >> > > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:05:59 GMT, "Rubystars"
<windstorm@swbell.net>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"Paul Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:rq3al0hlni29guu1l834ig8oul1n7miclk@4ax.com...
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I've added demon.local to the crossposts to draw this to the
> >> attention
> >> > > >> of the remaining pro-gun lobby there.
> >> > > >> Doesn't this indicate that we should be considering banning
*all*
> >> > > >> private ownership of guns?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >That's a ridiculous leap.
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyone who wants to shoot animals for fun obviously has lots of
> >> > > skeletons in the cupboard and a few marbles missing from the loft.
The
> >> > > last people we want wandering with guns.
> >> >
> >> > I don't like recreational hunters either, but I think people should
be
> >> able
> >> > to have guns for self defense. Other people hunt not for recreation
> >> purposes
> >> > but to actually have stuff to eat, so they have a more justifiable
> >excuse
> >> > IMO.
> >>
> >> Well in the UK you're not generally permitted to have firearms for self
> >> defense. You are permitted to have some types for sport. That might
seem
> >> odd to a USian, but for the most part the British don't settle
arguments
> >> about cars being dinged, etc. by shooting each other. Weird I know,
but
> >> that's how we are. That way hardly anyone injured in a motor vehicle
> >> accident won't also have a gun wound - bizzare though that may seem to
> >> folks on the crazy side of the Atlantic.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > If these wackos must shoot why not volunteer for a tour of duty in
> >> > > Iraq?
> >> >
> >> > Good idea. :)
> >> >
> >> > -Rubystars
> >
> >You have a firearms license Michael,
>
> He doesn't. He has an air rifle. No one is silly enough to license him
> for anything let alone a gun.

I'm willing to bet Micheal has at least a couple of 12 bores (licence
optional) plus that 'sawn off ' he carries in his ex-army Land Rover, which
he runs on duty free red diesel.
How the hell can you shoot your Sunday lunch with a couple of gallons of
cloudy scrumpy in your gut armed with only an air gun. May as well give it
to David Blunkett.
>
> > what type of sport do you consider
> >justifies a license? Also I note you are having a dig at the US
legislation
> >on firearms.
>
> Jealousy.
>
> >You tell me if you think British police should be armed? Personally I
think
> >it's rather weird that a copper is expected to tackle an armed villain
when
> >all he has to uphold the law is a stick and a can of mace. Well, that
sounds
> >pretty stupid to me.
>
> They should be armed and possess large truncheons, just like the met.
Yes it was nice to see the coppers armed with the traditional 'Peg'.

>From the footage I saw, that was clearly something they had not expected.
>
> >We all know that in such circumstances he is supposed to radio for an
ARU,
> >but does he do this before or after he is shot.
>
> There should be a secret shoot to kill policy.

It would certainly be more effective than the present policy which is - er -
nothing.
>
> >Personally I would feel a hell of a lot safer if all police were armed.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >Long gone are the days of "Dixon of Dock Green", it's a far different and
> >nasty world these days. Come to think of it, he got shot.
>
> He should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. This
> would weed out the sick, old, mental and injured of society as they
> claim fox hunting does.

Agreed.

But let's see what Michael has to say, I find he's usually rather blunt on a
Sunday Afternoon. But he must say something - even 't pig a'l grunt if you
rattle 't bucket. (translation available).
> --
> *******************
> *You can't win 'em all.*
> Lord Haw Haw.
>
>
> Newsgroup ettiquette
> 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
> 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
> 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
> 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
> they're having no effect.
> 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
> how to avoid them.
> 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
> manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
> 7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
> 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
> 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
> secretly reading it.
> 10) Pretend you're a hard *** when in fact you're
> as bent as a roundabout.
> 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
> 12) Die of old age
> 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
> will have a penis the girls can see.
>
> We have received an allegation that you have posted an article/s to
> newsgroups
demon.local,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,
>
uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,scot.birds,uk.rec.gardening,
> uk.business.agriculture,uk.rec.fishing.coarse,sci.agriculture.poultry
> [<kmfdljArhNO5EwYq@4AX.com and others>] which our external solicitors
> believe to bear a defamatory meaning and as such we have had to remove
> the article from our servers.
>
> The part in question is the comment "Pete is a fraud, a liar and
> a cheat." as well as some other comments in your article.
>
> We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is
> defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if
> we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through
> our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it
> does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those
> damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal
> expenses.
>
> In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc
> liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further
> material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory.
>
> While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we
> must accept it, and have therefore removed the posting in question.
>
> Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the problem
> and that you will not, in future, publish further material which
> could be considered defamatory of Pete through Demon's systems.
>
> We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your
> convenience.
>
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your
> explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is
> considered defamatory.
>
> I confirm that I will not publish such material in future using my Demon
> service, and will not publish further material which could be considered
> defamatory of Pete.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Demon Legal Team.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.