UK Cops Discover Hollow-Point Ammo!

[sevlex]

Whoda Thunk?
:losing-it::losing-it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385966/Type-bullet-used-kill-Jean-Charles-Menezes-standard-issue-Met-police.html


More than 3,000 firearms officers will be given jacketed hollow-point ammunition after extensive testing showed it provided a 'more reliable standard of bullet performance'.

Good to see they are on the cutting edge of the 20th century.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Please tell me this from the onion or something?

[gunslinger]

Given the nonchalance with which lately british cops have been shooting innocent citizens, I don't know if that's good news...

[Sidartha]

This made me LOL

The Metropolitan Police is the first force in the UK to fully adopt hollow point ammunition, described by gun experts as ‘unsurvivable’.

Gotta go tell all them folks who survived to get in the ground.:wondering:

[gpwasr10]

Silly islanders...

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

That settles it. The only way to save Britain at this point is to clone Churchill and Thatcher, and use them to breed a race of super limeys.

[Partisan1983]

That settles it. The only way to save Britain at this point is to clone Churchill and Thatcher, and use them to breed a race of super limeys.



:laughingtohard:

[Schuetzenman]

:laugh:

[Faulkner]

I've trained with constables from the UK and while talking with them I discovered they find many of the US law enforcement procedures barbaric. For example, I had one ride with me on duty and we made a DWI arrest. He was totally surprised when I handcuffed the subject as soon as I placed him under arrest.

He asked me, "why did you just handcuff that man?"

I answered, "because he's under arrest. We are going to transport him to the sheriff's office for a BAC test and when he fails he's going to jail for the night."

He replied, "yes, but why did you have to handcuff him?"

Me, "well, because anybody who I do not know or do not trust that rides in the back seat of my car while I'm taking them to jail is going to be in handcuffs. I'm not very good at driving and fighting at the same time."

Him, "that's barbaric!"

Me, "fine, I'll take 'em off and YOU can sit back there and hold his hand."

[Joey]

I've trained with constables from the UK and while talking with them I discovered they find many of the US law enforcement procedures barbaric.

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

[romak10/63UF]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.


I think joey might of been living on that island wayyyy to long...

[AK-J]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

If that is all true, then explain why Sir Robert Peel's original London Police force went without firearms at a time when there were no restrictions on firearm ownership in England. Your feel good, Utopian bullshit is based on a the false premise that "cops don't regularly carry firearms" in the UK because "handguns are restricted". That is a lie based on a failure to understand your own history.

Do you even know why they started restricting firearm ownership in the UK? It started at the beginning of the last century because of the fear of anarchists and Marxists. They feared an armed insurrection by those crack pots.

Also explain to me why Japanese police carry pistols in a country has similar restrictions on firearm ownership and use as the UK. Why is it that countries that have a much lower incidence of violent crime in Europe, yet have an armed police force and much less restrictions on firearm ownership?

[ltorlo64]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

It seems that the violent crime rate is 5 times higher in the civilized, unarmed UK than in the uncivilized and armed US. While the article mentions some factors for this, for example a higher use of alcohol, it misses the point that Americans rely more on themselves to stop crime. This is because we are armed so when someone breaks into our house we have the freedom to decide whether to stop the crime or be a victim.

Criminals, knowing the likelyhood of encountering a firearm, are less likely to commit crimes in some areas than in others. While there is anecdotal evidence of this, it has not been studied much. Here is a link to one relevant article; http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/socprob35&div=10&id=&page=

For anecdotal evidence, here is another; http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-08/justice/oregon.intruder.911_1_homeowner-intruder-gun?_s=PM:CRIME

I prefer to have the option of defending myself. As the old saying goes "God made man, but Colt made them equal." If I am attacked or my house is broken into, I want to have every advantage I can. Since I am not a black belt or a boxing enthusist, I choose to be armed.

[Joey]

If that is all true, then explain why Sir Robert Peel's original London Police force went without firearms at a time when there were no restrictions on firearm ownership in England.

Because what you say is false. From their foundation in 1829 the London police had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances". From the 1880s they were permitted to carry revolvers on night patrols, if they felt unsafe. The pistols were kept in locked boxes at police stations, and could be taken out only with the permission of a senior officer.

So British opposition to an armed police force has a long history. It's a freedom the poor old Yanks have long surrendered. But, as I said, it's a price you pay for your 2nd Amendment. You can't expect cops to go about unarmed with millions of handguns in circulation.


Your feel good, Utopian bullshit is based on a the false premise that "cops don't regularly carry firearms" in the UK because "handguns are restricted". That is a lie based on a failure to understand your own history.

Do explain sir. You're long on insult but short on argument. But I understand your embarrassment at having surrendered such a fundamental freedom and have, as a result, routinely armed cops strutting about on US streets. For the "Land of the Free" it is embarrassing.

[romak10/63UF]

Tist tist ! tis Tea time ! in jolly old england ! Tea an crumpets any one ? :laugh:

[alismith]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

As you say, it is a difference of culture, but what you view as giving up a freedom (to be armed, or have our police armed), we see exactly the opposite. We view our right, via the 2nd Amendment, as a right that only a free society can have. Those societies that do not premit this are viewed as oppressive and deviod of basic human rights and freedoms.

We did not come to this conclusion on our own. Actually, The British are the ones who provided the reasons for our writing the 2nd Amendment.

Ever since the founding of our country, the American people (or those would become the ancestors of Americans generations later) needed personal firearms to protect themselves and provide food for the table. This concept was taken for granted and was never thought of as something that had to be written down until the latter part of the 1770's. When British troops marched on Lexington and Concord, in an attempt to prevent the Colonists from further arming themselves, the concept that a government could take away a "right" became very apparent. After the Revolutionary War, where we threw out the "civilized society," did we see the need to put this right into words so no future government could make the same mistake the British did.

Since then we have proudly been able to keep this freedom that we fought so hard to protect. Personally, I don't feel the slightest bit "less free" by having the police carry guns, nor do I feel "less free" knowing my shotgun is close to my bed when I turn the lights out.

The state I live in does NOT allow for its citizens to carry personal firearms as a matter of protection when out and about. The only ones, legally, allowed to do so are the police. My state is more like England than I like, but I will still take what I have over what Britain offers its citizens. At least, I have the right and the means to protect my property and life on my own property.

If you feel this "freedom" to protect oneself and the "freedom" of having a police officer armed, is "giving up a freedom," then that is your perogative, but I think you are mistaken in that belief. I would much prefer to have him/her armed than have him/her arrive at the scene and have to rely on talking the perpetrator out of his intended actions. Most of the time, a criminal just won't listen to reason and is intent on hurting, or killing, someone else.

I prefer my beer cold; my women warm; and, my police officers armed, thank-you. If that's giving up freedom, then I would like to give up more freedom by arming myself, too.

[Joey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

It seems that the violent crime rate is 5 times higher in the civilized, unarmed UK than in the uncivilized and armed US. While the article mentions some factors for this, for example a higher use of alcohol, it misses the point that Americans rely more on themselves to stop crime. This is because we are armed so when someone breaks into our house we have the freedom to decide whether to stop the crime or be a victim.

Criminals, knowing the likelyhood of encountering a firearm, are less likely to commit crimes in some areas than in others. While there is anecdotal evidence of this, it has not been studied much. Here is a link to one relevant article; http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/socprob35&div=10&id=&page=

For anecdotal evidence, here is another; http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-08/justice/oregon.intruder.911_1_homeowner-intruder-gun?_s=PM:CRIME

I prefer to have the option of defending myself. As the old saying goes "God made man, but Colt made them equal." If I am attacked or my house is broken into, I want to have every advantage I can. Since I am not a black belt or a boxing enthusist, I choose to be armed.

Yep, there's a crime problem, and I live in a high crime area. But, and it's a huge but, there's little fear of getting shot. Result: the murder rate in the UK is five times lower that the US. Funny that your post failed to mention that small matter...

Plus I read people in this forum describe they're so scared of getting shot they sleep with their guns. To an Englishman that's deeply humourous -- big hairy Yanks, shivering in their bedsocks, sleeping next to a pile of guns!

:laugh:

So that's a further freedom you've surrendered due to your 2nd Amendment -- the freedom to go about your daily business, and to climb into bed with the wife, without fear of getting shot.


Tist tist ! tis Tea time ! in jolly old england ! Tea an crumpets any one ? :laugh:

*Eats bowl of "hominy." Throws up on romak10/63UF*

http://thumbs.ifood.tv/files/images/food/corn-hominy-04.jpg

[Joey]

As you say, it is a difference of culture, but what you view as giving up a freedom (to be armed, or have our police armed), we see exactly the opposite. We view our right, via the 2nd Amendment, as a right that only a free society can have. Those societies that do not premit this are viewed as oppressive and deviod of basic human rights and freedoms.

We did not come to this conclusion on our own. Actually, The British are the ones who provided the reasons for our writing the 2nd Amendment.

Ever since the founding of our country, the American people (or those would become the ancestors of Americans generations later) needed personal firearms to protect themselves and provide food for the table. This concept was taken for granted and was never thought of as something that had to be written down until the latter part of the 1770's. When British troops marched on Lexington and Concord, in an attempt to prevent the Colonists from further arming themselves, the concept that a government could take away a "right" became very apparent. After the Revolutionary War, where we threw out the "civilized society," did we see the need to put this right into words so no future government could make the same mistake the British did.

Since then we have proudly been able to keep this freedom that we fought so hard to protect. Personally, I don't feel the slightest bit "less free" by having the police carry guns, nor do I feel "less free" knowing my shotgun is close to my bed when I turn the lights out.

The state I live in does NOT allow for its citizens to carry personal firearms as a matter of protection when out and about. The only ones, legally, allowed to do so are the police. My state is more like England than I like, but I will still take what I have over what Britain offers its citizens. At least, I have the right and the means to protect my property and life on my own property.

If you feel this "freedom" to protect oneself and the "freedom" of having a police officer armed, is "giving up a freedom," then that is your perogative, but I think you are mistaken in that belief. I would much prefer to have him/her armed than have him/her arrive at the scene and have to rely on talking the perpetrator out of his intended actions. Most of the time, a criminal just won't listen to reason and is intent on hurting, or killing, someone else.

I prefer my beer cold; my women warm; and, my police officers armed, thank-you. If that's giving up freedom, then I would like to give up more freedom by arming myself, too.

Good post, thank you. I fully accept the argument and understand the history. If I lived in the States I'd want to be armed - to defend myself from the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Those effects scare you so much you sleep with a gun. But it's part of your history and your culture and I respect that. But, like all freedoms, they come at a cost, e.g. your eccentric sleeping arrangements.

*Throws a "grit" at romak10/63UF*

[AK-J]

Because what you say is false. From their foundation in 1829 the London police had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances". From the 1880s they were permitted to carry revolvers on night patrols, if they felt unsafe. The pistols were kept in locked boxes at police stations, and could be taken out only with the permission of a senior officer.

So British opposition to an armed police force has a long history. It's a freedom the poor old Yanks have long surrendered. But, as I said, it's a price you pay for your 2nd Amendment. You can't expect cops to go about unarmed with millions of handguns in circulation.



Allow me to reply. I recognize that I should have said, "normal foot patrols". And so then with that, how does the current police practice differ much from the original tradition of un-armed foot patrol officers (except in special circumstances) at a time when the only thing that prohibited firearm ownership was the cost of the weapon itself? It kind of throws your premise into the realm of logical fallacy.


Do explain sir. You're long on insult but short on argument. But I understand your embarrassment at having surrendered such a fundamental freedom and have, as a result, routinely armed cops strutting about on US streets. For the "Land of the Free" it is embarrassing.

I do believe that I just addressed the issue you raised. Yet, you sir, completely failed to address any of the other issues I brought up that disprove your logical fallacy. Address the question of Japan, and most of the rest of Europe.

And as to embarrassment, I'm embarrassed that a country that spawned mine has fallen victim to the socialist nanny state mentality that embraces big brother and thinks they're free in their cage. If anyone lives in a fascist state it is my brothers and sisters that live in the UK.

[alismith]

Good post, thank you. I fully accept the argument and understand the history. If I lived in the States I'd want to be armed - to defend myself from the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Those effects scare you so much you sleep with a gun. But it's part of your history and your culture and I respect that. But, like all freedoms, they come at a cost, e.g. your eccentric sleeping arrangements.

*Throws a "grit" at romak10/63UF*

There is a slight flaw in your argument here. It is not the "effects of the 2nd Amendment" that I feel the desire to arm myself. I arm myself (have a firearm available should the need arise) because of those who prefer to live a life of crime over living a productive, law-abiding, life. The 2nd Amendment was written for law-abiding citizens. Those criminal elements do not care one whit about the 2nd Amendment, nor any law that is in place to prohibit their chosen lifestyle. The 2nd Amendment gives me the freedom to arm myself against those who flaunt our laws and think nothing of eliminating those who stand in their way to ill-gained fortune. Criminals do not live by the 2nd Amendment, nor do they live by the laws against stealing, raping, or murdering. If anything, criminals don't like the 2nd Amendment, at all. It allows their chosen targets to be armed against them. A criminal would much rather attack an unarmed person than an armed one.

As for my choosing to sleep with a shotgun near my bed, it is the same as sleeping with a police officer near my bed. Should the unthinkable happen, it is there if I need it. If I never need it, I can gladly live with that, too.

I can't imagine having someone break into my house, putting my wife's life and my life in jeopary and having to rely on calling the police and waiting for them to arrive. Where I live (in the country), the average police response time is about 15-20 minutes. I really doubt my talking abilities will keep the intruder occupied for that amount of time.

However, I sleep much better knowing that if an intruder breaks into my house, I have my own personal "police officer" ready to help me. Actually, I sleep the sleep of total peace and contentment. I would have it no other way.

[ltorlo64]

Yep, there's a crime problem, and I live in a high crime area. But, and it's a huge but, there's little fear of getting shot. Result: the murder rate in the UK is five times lower that the US. Funny that your post failed to mention that small matter...

Plus I read people in this forum describe they're so scared of getting shot they sleep with their guns. To an Englishman that's deeply humourous -- big hairy Yanks, shivering in their bedsocks, sleeping next to a pile of guns!

:laugh:

So that's a further freedom you've surrendered due to your 2nd Amendment -- the freedom to go about your daily business, and to climb into bed with the wife, without fear of getting shot.


http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.html

You are correct that our murder rate is higher. I have to wonder, would you rather have the tar beat out of you and live in fear of shadows and bumps in the night for the rest of your life, or would you like the opportunity to protect yourself? As for the murder rate, it turns out that in jolly old England, in Manchester, the murder rate is higher than in Washington DC, our most violent city. And neither place is friendly towards guns. In the US, where there are more legally owned firearms, there are less violent crimes. Murder is not the worst crime, at least not in my mind. Rape, where you kill the spirit, but leave the body alive is much worse. I would rather have a gun and prevent a rape that not have one and have my wife or daughter live with that the rest of their lives.

As for living in fear of being shot, that is not me and I don't see that in any posts here. What I do see is a realistic understanding that someone who would break into your house is not someone who can be trusted. If they can't be trusted, you cannot be sure if they would leave peacefully or if they would do harm. I prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I like that better than just hoping that the person who broke into my house or threatens me with a weapon out in town is a civilized, well intentioned member of society who will listen to reasoning.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

It's a different culture. Because there's handgun control in the UK, few cops are armed. The Brits don't like seeing armed police strutting about and the cops themselves, via their Federation, vote again and again to stay routinely unarmed. It's a freedom you've given up -- freedom from routinely armed police -- in exchange for your 2nd Amendment.

You can't have it both ways. When millions of handguns are floating about, you can't expect cops to do their duty unarmed. But most freedoms are like that: win one freedom, give one up.

I think the freedoms you've lost due to your 2nd Amendment outweigh those you've gained. Most Brits, including British police, feel the same. But, as I said, it's a cultural difference between the two nations. Your attachment to firearms goes deep and the Brit attachment to largely unarmed cops is equally strong.

Funnily enough, both Churchill and Thatcher felt the same. It's a strong aspect of freedom -- a society free from armed police patrolling the streets. The Brits see armed police as a semi-fascist measure or the sign of a banana republic -- not the sign of a free people.

Without our arms, you'd be speaking German right now. An unarmed man in a subject, as you well know.

[Schuetzenman]

Without our arms, you'd be speaking German right now. An unarmed man in a subject, as you well know.

You have hit the nail on the head about English Society. They have all been trained to be subservient to the Lord and Master of the realm. The peoples of the UK have been conditioned over centuries and genetically weeded out of ruffians like us here in the US. This land was used as a penal colony along with Australia. A perfect example of this is why there's more people of Scottish ancestry in the south east of the USA than exist in Scotland itself today. It is a bit odd to me that people that started out with a document like Magna Carta would devolve to hand away the freedoms that were innumerated there in. Instead opting to be easy prey and taken care of cradle to grave by the State. As was mentioned if not for the USA England would be a province of Greater Germany. During WWII the Government of England begged the US for small arms. Our NRA, National Rifle Association went out and got donations of tens of thousands of small arms to send to England to arm a Home Guard of it's citizens should Jerry make it across the channel. Your people were quaking in their knickers with fear as they had no means to fight if the land was invaded. To say thanks for the lend of the small arms your Governement had you good little subjects hand over the weapons and then in an even more blinding display of stupidity, took them all out in the North Atlantic and dumped them overboard. The right thing to do would of been to at least store them for the future. You are in the same pickle today, there is just no immediate invader that you recognize at the moment. Don't worry there will be eventually if in fact they are not already in your country. Hint they kneel 5 times a day and face Mecca

[Joey]

Jawohl herr Schuetzenman! :laugh:


Don't worry there will be eventually if in fact they are not already in your country. Hint they kneel 5 times a day and face Mecca

Ha! So not only have you surrendered your right to an unarmed police force, and go through life so terrified of getting shot that you sleep with your weapons, but you're scared of a few Muslims.

Poor old Yanks. Frightened of the English, then the Red Indians, then the blacks, then the Commies, now the Muslims. Those that aren't looking over their shoulders in case an alien abducts them.

This constant paranoia, the need for a permanent enemy, makes the rest of the world laugh. Relax! Enjoy life! Not everyone wants to steal your grits!

[Schuetzenman]

Typical response we have come to expect from the Kool Aid drinker you are. There is no right to have unarmed police that is a delusion of your mind in denial to human nature.

The facts are there to be seen about Muslims and the UK. Sharia law is being established and your Bobbies won't go into certain neighborhoods, the little Mecca zones anymore. They will subjugate you all but as you're already genetically predisposed to not think for yourself and follow the heard leader you'll take to it like a duck to water.

May the chains of your masters rest lightly upon your shoulders. One last thought, get a good pair of knee pads, all that bowing 5 times a day to Mecca is going to be hard on those knees!

[TomO]

Did anyone notice this silliness?


"The Metropolitan Police is the first force in the UK to fully adopt hollow point ammunition, described by gun experts as ‘unsurvivable’."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385966/Type-bullet-used-kill-Jean-Charles-Menezes-standard-issue-Met-police.html#ixzz1OUsBmS2y


O-noz! Da murderous babyseeking copkillerz boolits is unsurvivable! :whatever:

[Joey]

There is no right to have unarmed police...

There sure isn't in the US. You've traded that freedom for your 2nd Amendment and the mass of weaponry flushing through US society. Your choice. But other nations prefer to control the weaponry and avoid armed cops strutting about the streets. It's the sign of a free society.


Sharia law is being established

Aspects of Sharia law are excellent, e.g. the 'no usury' provision. Why is paying interest such a good thing?

If British Muslims, or anyone else, want to establish arrangements for a particular community to settle disputes and lend each other money, within the framework of British law, why not? Your Amish do something similar under your constitution and legal codes.

Where's the problem? Apart from your anti-Muslim prejudice, the product of ignorance, fear and paranoia.


your Bobbies won't go into certain neighborhoods, the little Mecca zones anymore.

Did Glenn Beck tell you that on his TV show? Did you believe him? Pathetic.


They will subjugate you all

My newsagent's a Muslim and everyone knows he's subjugated by his wife. Explain how he intends to subjugate me. But it's just more anti-Muslim fantasy from a Muslim-hater isn't it?

Are you one of those ludicrous Yanks who's so scared he sleeps with his gun? Have you any idea how contemptible the average Englishman considers such behaviour?

A big, hairy Yank who can't sleep at night without his popgun by the bed. It's yet a further freedom you've been forced to surrender by your 2nd Amendment.

[sevlex]

Did Glenn Beck tell you that on his TV show? Did you believe him? Pathetic.




Glenn Beck? Nope....Your own media have reported it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece

[Joey]

Glenn Beck? Nope....Your own media have reported it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece

725

[sevlex]

Oops...Try this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece


Muslim Britain is becoming one big no-go area

A bishop caused uproar last week by exposing ghettos of Islamist extremism. But Muslims everywhere are cutting themselves off from society in other, equally dangerous ways
Shiraz Maher

Perhaps it had to be someone like Michael Nazir-Ali, the first Asian bishop in the Church of England, who would break with convention and finally point out the elephant in the room.

His comments last week about the growing stranglehold of Muslim extremists in some communities revived debate about the future of multiculturalism and provoked a flurry of condemnation. Members of all three political parties immediately clamoured to dismiss him. “I don’t recognise the description that he’s talked about – no-go areas and people feeling intimidated,” said Hazel Blears, the communities secretary.

A quick call to her Labour colleague John Reid, the former home secretary, would almost certainly have helped her to identify at least one of those places. Just over a year ago Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen in Leytonstone, east London, during a speech on extremism, appropriately. “How dare you come to a Muslim area,” Izzadeen screamed.

That picture is mirrored outside London. One of our country’s biggest and most deprived Muslim areas is Small Heath, in Birmingham, where Dr Tahir Abbas, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Culture, was raised. With a dominant Asian monoculture, low social achievement and high unemployment, Small Heath is precisely the kind of insular and disengaged urban ghetto Nazir-Ali was talking about.

Reflecting on his experiences there, Abbas is critical of his peers who don’t stray beyond their area. “They haven’t seen rural Devon, a stately home or Windsor Castle,” he says. That refusal to engage with anything beyond the community is suffocating young Muslims by divorcing them almost entirely from Britain’s cultural heritage and mainstream life.

And their feelings of separation have been further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (of which I was once a senior member) have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them. In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.

Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says.

The point was underscored last summer when Kafeel Ahmed, whom I once knew, was arrested after a Jeep laden with explosives crashed into Glasgow airport. I think Ahmed was first radicalised in Cambridge, where I saw his views become increasingly intolerant, even though the city has a negligible Muslim population. After being exposed to the Islamist culture of separation and confrontation there, he didn’t need to be living in an actual ghetto. He was already sectioning himself off, by giving up his nonMuslim friends and eventually socialising only with those who shared his world-view.

It raises a compelling point that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have largely tried to ignore: while the moral ambiguity of multiculturalism means Britain no longer knows what it stands for, our enemies are not just growing ever surer of themselves but are also winning the debate.

For almost three decades now, the witless promotion of cultural relativ-ism under successive governments means that our national identity can simply be reduced to the theme of a courtroom sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – anything goes. Measuring the extent to which this ambiguity has affected perceptions within Britain’s already insular Muslim communities, Abbas told me he surveyed schoolchildren in Small Heath by asking them how many Muslims they thought lived in Britain.

“We had answers around 30m to 50m,” he says, with more than a hint of despondency in his voice (the true figure is 1.6m).

Moghal blames the mosques for this, saying: “They promote a conscious rejection of western values.” He has a point. In many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard.

Muslim groups have already reacted with predictable intemperance to the bishop’s comments. “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, while Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain said the church should “take serious action”.

Their anger vindicates him entirely and in many respects demonstrates that Nazir-Ali’s observations not only are valid, but don’t go far enough. The Glasgow bombings proved that the kinds of no-go area extremists are creating don’t always have to be physical locations.

Muslim attitudes are now so hyper-sensitive that anyone who dares to criticise Islam or Muslims has to think twice – and then some more – before doing so. Publishing a simple cartoon is enough to provoke a serious diplomatic crisis, the ransacking of embassies, mass global protest and at least several deaths.

But it’s not just nonMuslims for whom extremists reserve their hatred. After I wrote about the way British Islamists celebrated Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last month, a number of threats quickly appeared on the internet. “If I meet him I’m going to paste him in his face,” wrote Abu Junayd from Slough on a chat forum. Another commentator said I should “suffer severe punishments in this life and the hereafter”.

Their attitude springs from the Takfiri mind-set, which, in its most extreme forms, underwrites Al-Qaeda’s philosophy by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Islamism (the extreme, politicised form of Islam) is a legitimate target for attack.

As if to emphasise the point, a statement released on a known Al-Qaeda forum last week specifically called for attacks on moderate Muslims in Britain. Citing the opinions of Muham-mad Ibn Alb al-Wahhab, whose followers are known as Wahhabis, it branded moderates as “aides of the crusaders”.

Seven years after the Cantle report first revealed the extent to which Britain’s different communities are living apart together, it’s still impossible to engage politicians seriously about the future of multiculturalism.

After being heckled by Izzadeen in Leytonstone for “daring” to visit a Muslim area, the home secretary told him: “There is no part of this country that any of us is excluded from.” The knee-jerk reaction to the bishop’s comments suggests we’re still a long way from realising that vision.

[Joey]

Oops...Try this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece

Thanks, but there's no mention of police no-go areas in that article. In fact, the then Home Secretary is quoted as stating the precise opposite! I don't understand why you've posted an article which proves the opposite of what poor Herr Schuetzenman claimed.

[sevlex]

Thanks, but there's no mention of police no-go areas in that article. In fact, the then Home Secretary is quoted as stating the precise opposite! I don't understand why you've posted an article which proves the opposite of what poor Herr Schuetzenman claimed.

It ain't just muslims the police fear. Apparently they are also afraid of drunks and gypsies.

The original post was about how the police have discovered a technology that has been around in other police departments for a long time. I know you like to stir a good argument but it often veers far off topic.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/riteman/riteway/16309145/do-uk-police-have-no-go-areas/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/city-centres-becoming-nogo-areas-as-police-numbers-fall-718565.html

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080702075802AAAmMf9

[binky59]

[QUOTE=Joey;138856]There sure isn't in the US. You've traded that freedom for your 2nd Amendment and the mass of weaponry flushing through US society. Your choice. But other nations prefer to control the weaponry and avoid armed cops strutting about the streets. It's the sign of a free society.



Aspects of Sharia law are excellent, e.g. the 'no usury' provision. Why is paying interest such a good thing?

If British Muslims, or anyone else, want to establish arrangements for a particular community to settle disputes and lend each other money, within the framework of British law, why not? Your Amish do something similar under your constitution and legal codes.

Where's the problem? Apart from your anti-Muslim prejudice, the product of ignorance, fear and paranoia.



Did Glenn Beck tell you that on his TV show? Did you believe him? Pathetic.



My newsagent's a Muslim and everyone knows he's subjugated by his wife. Explain how he intends to subjugate me. But it's just more anti-Muslim fantasy from a Muslim-hater isn't it?

Are you one of those ludicrous Yanks who's so scared he sleeps with his gun? Have you any idea how contemptible the average Englishman considers such behaviour?

A big, hairy Yank who can't sleep at night without his popgun by the bed. It's yet a further freedom you've been forced to surrender by your 2nd Amendment.[/QUOTE



A big hairy yank? I'll show you a BIG hairy yank when I unzip my fly! Why don't you go to [url]www.I'm a wanker.com....Let me put it this way, we kicked your big eared tea drinking asses out of here for a reason! Go back home to mums and wack your winky:jerk-n-off:, or go bugger the sheep, or your boyfriend. Now, all kidding aside,
I realize that you just want to start a flame war, but I'm not taking the bait. Don't expect a response, now piss off!:loser:

[Schuetzenman]

Did Glenn Beck tell you that on his TV show? Did you believe him? Pathetic.


Beck, hardly I work for a living and his show is long over before I ever arrive home.

[Schuetzenman]

It ain't just muslims the police fear. Apparently they are also afraid of drunks and gypsies.

The original post was about how the police have discovered a technology that has been around in other police departments for a long time. I know you like to stir a good argument but it often veers far off topic.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/riteman/riteway/16309145/do-uk-police-have-no-go-areas/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/city-centres-becoming-nogo-areas-as-police-numbers-fall-718565.html

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080702075802AAAmMf9

Don't confuse the poor sod with facts. He has his beliefs to cling to like a babe suckling his mothers tit.

[Justin]

lmao binky59, you're my hero :laugh:

[insider]

Clockwork Orange!!!

[gewehr44]

Aspects of Sharia law are excellent, e.g. the 'no usury' provision. Why is paying interest such a good thing?


Why pay interest?

1. Inflation. If I'm loaning out money, I need to have more than the principal returned just to break even after factoring in inflation.

2. Service. I'm providing a service & time & effort is involved in making the loan & tracking it. When you go out to eat, do you insist on only paying for the cost of the raw food?

3. Investors. People who put their money into savings or an investment also need a return to try & keep their money from being eaten away by inflation. The money that is put into savings is loaned out by the banks who need to cover costs, pay interest to investors & make a profit.

I suggest reading 'Basic Economics' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=basic+economics&x=0&y=0) by Thomas Sowell. It's written for pretty much anybody to read, not just economists.

[Joey]

A big hairy yank? I'll show you a BIG hairy yank when I unzip my fly! Why don't you go to [url]www.I'm a wanker.com....Let me put it this way, we kicked your big eared tea drinking asses out of here for a reason! Go back home to mums and wack your winky:jerk-n-off:, or go bugger the sheep, or your boyfriend.

:laugh:

Now, now, Binky, I know young lads your age are obsessed with masturbation, buggery and their mummies, but you've got the Roadhouse to play in for that. Go and do it there, there's a good chap.



Now, all kidding aside,
I realize that you just want to start a flame war, but I'm not taking the bait. Don't expect a response, now piss off!:loser:

Actually, I don't want to start a flame war. I want to debate with my nice Yankee cousins, within the rules of Gunsnet and in a civilized, intelligent and, ideally, witty manner, the issues raised in this thread.

I know, I know. You want to talk about masturbation, anal sex and your mummy. But show some self-control, eh?

When you're out in the woods with your popgun, stalking a defenceless animal, do you suddenly stand up and shout about your mummy? No. So you can control yourself. Show the same control on this thread, okay?

Or consider your Founding Fathers. Did Benjamin Franklin, when queuing to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, suddenly turn and yell "WANKER!" at Thomas Jefferson? Of course he didn't. What's good enough for Benjamin Franklin is good enough for Binky. Yes?

[Joey]

It ain't just muslims the police fear. Apparently they are also afraid of drunks and gypsies.

I've argued here (http://politicsworldwide.com/journal/london-riots-9th-december-2010-the-view-from-america/) that British police are, in some circumstances, a lot braver than US police. Why? Because in a riot situation - a scary experience for any cop - US police must fight one-handed because they're terrified of someone stealing their gun (one of the most humiliating and, in disciplinary terms, dangerous, things that can happen to an armed cop).

Unarmed British police don't have that fear and UK riot control policy has, as a consequence, always been for police to get in close to the rioters. Yank police, because of their inability to fight because of their weapons, must stand back... or open fire.

So that's yet another absurd, lethal and freedom-eroding effect of your 2nd Amendment: US armed cops are rotten riot control officers. Indeed, they're rotten fighters in any situation except when opening fire: because they must keep one hand on their weapon in case someone grabs it.

But, again, that's your choice. If you want to surrender numerous freedoms in order to sustain the 2nd Amendment, that's a matter for you and I respect your choice. But the average Englishman looks at the rights you've abandoned and smiles when you refer to America as the "Land of the Free."