Do it Again, Only HARDER!

Well, FOX News has had the temerity to expose the “Mexican Canard” for what it is – a lie.

This, of course, makes no difference to The Other Side:

Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the “90 percent” issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

“Let’s do what we can with what we know,” he said. “We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open.”

I don’t know how I missed this before, but the UK’s Guardian newspaper printed a piece last August that I wish I’d seen then. No matter, now’s as good a time as any:

Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you
From drug dealing to settling playground squabbles, firearms offences are rising

Duncan Campbell
The Guardian, Saturday 30 August 2008


The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK’s big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.

“You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s,” he said. “Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They’re easy enough to get hold of. You’ll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it’s even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don’t go.

This, of course, after the British government banned almost all handguns in 1996, and 162,353 were turned in by their legally registered owners.

The illegally possessed ones stayed where they were. You can bet those are the places “the police don’t go” – having ceded them to the criminal class.

“People who use shotguns tend to be lower down the pecking order. There is less use of sawn-off or full length shotguns, and if a criminal wants street cred, he wants a self-loading pistol, a MAC-10 or an Uzi submachine gun.”

Sawed-off shotguns & rifles and fully-automatic weapons were banned in the UK back in 1937.

How’s that working out, fellas?

This week a man who ran a “factory” for converting replica weapons into working guns was jailed for life. Police believe the products of Grant Wilkinson’s workshops were used in more than 50 shootings, including eight murders. His speciality was turning legally purchased MAC-10s into weapons that could fire live rounds, an increasingly common practice.

According to David Dyson, a leading firearms consultant, it is possible to learn through the internet how to make a firearm, given a degree of skill, and converted deactivated weapons also feature in shootings.

Why not? Pakistanis do it without the aid of the Internet.

But it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut.

(My emphasis.) As I have noted previously, the argument you hear most often by The Other Side is that “lax gun laws” in adjacent jurisdictions are the reason that “reasonable gun control” laws don’t, you know, actually work. It’s too easy, they say, for people to just drive across the state, county, or city line and buy what they’re prohibited from having where they live.

The UK is a FREAKING ISLAND, one with uniform, draconian gun laws – gun laws that the Million Mommies said they wanted to implement here, and THEY CAN’T KEEP THE GUNS OUT.

“There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said the source. “In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they’ll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there – and they are straight goers.”

Gee, do you think the Mexican cartels are coming across our border to place orders for grenades and antitank rockets? Or do they just go to the docks in Puerta Vallarta or Ensenada, or Guaymas, or . . . Well, you get the picture.

According to Dyson, the latest “weapon of choice” is a Russian 8mm Baikal self-defence pistol, originally used for firing CS gas. “They are legally sold in Germany and won’t fire a bullet but they can be converted by removing the partially blocked barrel, and replacing it with a rifled barrel,” he said. “After other small alterations, it can then fire 9mm bulleted ammunition. The replacement barrel is longer than the original, and is threaded so that it will accept a silencer, which is commonly sold as part of the package.

“There are hundreds of these floating around and hundreds have been seized,” he said. “They look the part as they are based on the Russian military Makarov pistol. If you are a 20-year-old drug dealer and you want a gun, that is what you will get and it will cost about £1,000 to £1,500.”

Which is, what, a day’s income if you’re selling drugs?

“The trends in firearms are driven by the suppliers,” said Dyson. “About two years ago, a supplier brought back hundreds of German-made revolvers, blank-firing pistols which can be bought legally in Germany. They were then converted and new cylinders made. They could then be sold for £700 to £800 when the supplier would have bought them for €60 and spent about £30 on converting them.”

Supply and Demand. Economics 101.

Sad that so many can’t learn it.

Home Office data shows that gun crime is up since last year, despite the recent doubling of sentences for possessing or supplying firearms. There were 9,803 firearms offences in England and Wales in the year to March 2008 with most in London, Manchester and the West Midlands.

Most buyers are involved with drug dealing, the source said. Some are used to rob other dealers in crimes that go unreported, others are used as protection while a deal is under way. “Someone will have a tool and there is always one guy in a posse willing to use it. They will have one guy who doesn’t give a fuck.

“Everyone wants to be a gangster now, mainly the kids. You have five or six in a little crew and one of them will be carrying. They want handguns – shotguns are too big and bulky. The sawn-off doesn’t look so good but use a machine gun and you get known as a heavy guy. They have them just to be a chap on the street, to pose. Some of them walk around all day with a .38. It’s 16-year-olds at it and it’s getting like America, silly as it sounds.”

In terms of nationalities, the influx of eastern European criminals has changed the balance of power. “Who’s using the guns? The [Jamaican] Yardies’ value for life was so minimal that they thought nothing of killing people,” said the source. “We don’t like them, they have no moral code. But it’s the Russians and the Polish and Albanians around now. They are bullies. They want to take over the flesh business. The Russians are cold-hearted fuckers. What they have been doing is following the card boys [who put cards advertising prostitutes in phone booths in central London] and then taking the girls hostage, armed if need be.”

Force a nation into compelled helplessness, and the wolves will come. It’s a certainty. Keep reading.

Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton, who has investigated some of London’s most high profile shooting murders, said he believed the age of offenders was getting younger, and sometimes guns seemed to be used for the slightest reason.

“Playground squabbles are now being settled with guns,” he said. “And drug dealers are taking a policy decision to get youngsters to carry guns.”

He said guns could be purchased for a few hundred pounds in many parts of London. “You can hire a gun for a period and, if the gun has already been used for a murder, the going rate comes down.”

While the conviction of Wilkinson was seen as a breakthrough, it is accepted that with the increased traffic between Britain and eastern Europe, stemming the flow of weapons remains an almost impossible task.

Gee, ya think?

“Guns are always available,” said Dyson. “You can go to the former Soviet Union, or countries with less stringent regulations than ours, and although British Customs have their successes, many guns appear to be smuggled into the UK.”

Amnesties for people to hand over weapons are greeted with scepticism by criminals. “The gun amnesties are meaningless,” the source said. “All you get handed in are guns from boys who wanted to be gangsters and then got a job or someone whose mother found it in their bedroom. If I had a gun, I wouldn’t take part because, if I got pulled, what would I say – ‘Oh, I’m just on my way to the amnesty.’ Also if it gets out that you’ve given in your tool, people will think you’re a wrong ‘un.”

Few professional criminals would keep guns on their premises. “Only silly people keep it in their homes. Normally, you have a ‘keeper’ a couple of miles away and some of them have been at it for 20 years. It’s best to have an old fellow with no previous or a woman. You keep the ammunition separate because you’ll get a much heavier sentence if you have them together.”

When guns are moved from place to place, a young woman is often used as the courier because there is less risk of her being stopped and searched.

What is not in dispute is the devastating effect that the casual use of a gun over a minor argument can have on dozens of people. In December 2006, Sean “Stretch” Jenkins, 36, an amiable, 6ft 8in window-cleaner from south London, was shot dead at a party in Carshalton. His killer was a cocaine dealer called Joseph Greenland, a volatile man with a quick temper, who had apparently taken offence at something Jenkins said. The men had earlier been at a boxing night at Caesar’s in Streatham, where there had been some fighting outside the ring. Greenland had left the party, driven home in his Range Rover, picked up a gun and returned to kill Jenkins in front of at least five witnesses, who were warned not to talk.

None of the immediate witnesses gave evidence against Greenland, who had a reputation for threatening to “annihilate” anyone who crossed him, but there were traces of his DNA on a cigarette end and a wine glass at the party and his bragging about the shooting was to be his downfall. His recourse to a gun, for no other reason than some perceived slight, left Jenkins’s six-year-old son without a father and saddened a wide network of friends and family. Greenland was jailed for life last week and will have to serve 30 years before he can be considered for parole.

“We got what we wanted,” said the victim’s mother, Maureen Jenkins, of the verdict and sentence last month. “I went to the cemetery and said, ‘Well, boy, I can put you to rest’.”

The detectives investigating the killing and the prosecution team that secured Greenland’s conviction were “marvellous”, she said. “I shed tears every day and I probably will till the day I die. Why do these people have to kill for nothing? If they want to kill people, why don’t they join the army?

Sweet bleeding jeebus. If there was ever a more textbook example of someone who cannot distinguish “violent and predatory” from “violent but protective, “ I doubt I’ll ever find it.

You don’t ever think a shooting will happen in your life. It’s all down to guns, just guns.”

The Guardian’s source said that guns were becoming a first rather than a last recourse. “A gun used to be used as a mediator; now everything is revolved with a gun. It’s brought the heat on everyone. Before you would get a two [years jail sentence], now it’s a five. It’s getting like the US now, like The Wire. It’s like a prediction of what will happen here. I think they all think they’re playing Grand Theft Auto. It’s madness out there.”

And The Other Side here wants to force us into compelled helplessness, because (they say) it’ll make us safer.

I don’t fucking think so.

The Petri Dish: Compare and Contrast

The Petri Dish: Compare and Contrast

A few days ago I wrote about the 100th anniversary of the Tottenham Outrage. Yesterday, Rachel Lucas wrote of the Oldham Outrage:

A judge has hailed the heroism of an 83-year-old war veteran who tackled a gunman during a robbery at a bookmakers while nine other men stood by.

Sidney Bannister, who served with the Royal Artillery Corps during World War II, put 30-year-old robber Henry Rockson in a headlock.

But the pensioner’s calls for assistance met a wall of silence and up to nine other men in the shop – most far younger than Mr Bannister – stood by as Rockson smashed him twice in the head with the butt of the gun.

The robber escaped with at least £250 and later carried out a further string of armed raids.

Mr Bannister, a retired HGV driver, needed stitches for a head wound.

The nine other men should need treatment for removal of boots from their asses.

Mr. Bannister comments:

‘I wasn’t being brave that day – I just acted on human instinct which I would have hoped most men have.

‘I had seen this man raise a gun at a woman and grab some money … and when he started to make a run for it I just thought, “Why should he be allowed to get away with it?”

‘People don’t want to get involved these days. In my day we were brought up to have a go and not be a shrinking violet when we saw something happening that was very wrong.’

To (re)quote Robert Peel’s Seventh Principle of Modern Policing (c. 1829):

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

As I stated previously:

Britain today represents a perfect example of the pacifist culture in control, because that culture doesn’t really distinguish between violent and predatory and violent but protectiveit sees only violent. Their worldview is divided between violent and non-violent, or passive. There is an exception, a logical disconnect if you will, that allows for legitimate violence – but only if that violence is committed by sanctioned officials of the State. And even there, there is ambivalence. If violence is committed by an individual there is another dichotomy: If the violence is committed by a predator, it is the fault of society in not meeting that predator’s needs. The predator is the creation of the society, and is not responsible for the violence. He merely needs to be “cured” of his ailment. If violence is committed by a defender, it is a failure of the defender to adhere to the tenets of the pacifist society. It is the defender who is at fault because he has lived by the rules and has chosen to break them, and who must therefore be punished for his transgression.

Obviously I’m taking this example to its extreme. Certainly the pacifist culture in Britain hasn’t taken over completely, but it is, without a doubt, the motivating factor behind the last fifty-plus years of ever more stringent controls on weapons and violent behavior.

“Certainly the pacifist culture hasn’t taken over completely . . .”

Read the comments.

The difference is now, apparently, moot. From the unremarkable to the unimaginable in 100 years.

(Formerly) Great Britain, indeed.

The Tottenham Outrage

The Tottenham Outrage

One hundred years ago today, on John Moses Browning’s (PBUH) 54th birthday, two Latvian Anarchists attempted to rob the payroll of Schnurmann’s Rubber Company in Chestnut Road, Tottenham, England. The payroll was worth about £80, or roughly $8,800 today. Armed with then-still-new semi-automatic pistols, the two robbers, Paul Hefeld and Jacob Lapidus tried to make their escape, starting a shooting-spree that resulted in twenty-four wounded (seven police officers) and two dead – one police officer and one 10 year old boy. The police officer’s reported last words were, in fine British tradition:

“Come on, give in, the game’s over!”

Here’s a photo of the firearms in question:


The top one looks like one of JMB’s early works. If anyone can identify them, I’d be grateful.

One robber killed himself just before the angry crowd could do it. The other was captured after he shot himself, and he later died of his injuries.

The Tottenham Outrage is cited by a lot of us in the gunnie world because it is an example of how things used to be, and how – many of us believe – it still ought to be. The Tottenham Outrage was a living demonstration of Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Modern Policing, first published when he established London’s first “modern” police force in 1829; most especially Principle #7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

During the incident, average people going about their daily lives joined in the pursuit of the robbers. A party out bird shooting at nearby Lockwood reservoir reportedly exchanged fire with them. The Tottenham police, in the tradition of British police to this day, did not go armed. Officers, unable to find the key to the locked firearm cabinet in the station house actually had to smash the doors off to get to their weapons, but brother officers already in pursuit instead borrowed firearms from people on the street – something literally unimaginable there today, and literally unremarkable back then.

A mere 100 years ago today.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I’m beginning to think that one of the ways one can judge the degree to which a society has progressed towards a government-controlled police state is to look at the reaction of the police to encroachment on “their turf.” In a free society where the police are truly viewed as the servants and protectors of the citizens, the cops respect the rights of the citizens and see them as partners in the battle against crime. In a place like New York or San Francisco where the government is pressing towards complete control of the citizens, the cops bitterly resent any interference with their monopoly on the use of force and treat all citizens as simply potential criminals. – Toren Smith of the late, lamented Safety Valve from a July 21, 2003 comment at the Samizdata post, Tony Martin: Political Prisoner

More from the Petri Dish

Apparently shocking, SHOCKING news has been released in the place where Great Britain used to be that the .gov there has been manipulating crime statistics! From the Daily Mail:

Violent crime up 22% as Home Office admits police have been under-recording serious offences for ten years

Public trust in crime statistics has been dealt a devastating blow after ministers admitted the figures have been downplaying serious violence for up to a decade.

The Home Office admitted that as many as one in five of the worst attacks has been wrongly classified in published figures.

As many as 4,000 serious assaults each year were mistakenly recorded as minor incidents – and officials conceded they ‘simply do not know how far back it goes’.

So we should believe them when they say they’ve only been doing it for ten years, right?

Critics claimed the revelations were another serious blow to the credibility of Government crime figures following years of complaints of spin and statistical manipulation.

Claims I’ve made here dating back to at least 2004.

Here’s some of the BBC’s view of the story:

Police miscount serious violence

A number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, the government has admitted.

It means figures for serious violent crimes rose by 22% compared to last year – rather than showing a fall as previous figures appeared to indicate.

I’m curious as to what prompted the admission.

The mistake happened when some crimes classed as “grievous bodily harm with intent” were recorded as less serious.

Figures say overall crime is down, and ministers say these can be trusted.

And we should trust you . . . why?

A former Home Office crime consultant told the BBC the government had been “hiding behind” its changes in the crime counting rules.

Professor Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent’s Crime and Justice Centre, said the long-term trend of increasing violent crime was now “catching up” with the government.

Pesky facts have a way of doing that.

The Conservatives said the new figures “fatally undermined” government claims that violent crime was in decline.

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: “They betray a government that is completely out of touch with what is going on, on our streets and in our communities.”

Not “out of touch,” in denial.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted all the crimes in question had been investigated by the police.

She told the BBC: “What the statisticians are clear about is that the increases in the most serious forms of violence have actually in terms of numbers been more than counteracted by the decreases in less serious violence.”

Which means a good chunk of Britain’s petty criminals have learned that violence pays. But Home Secretary Smith seems to believe this is a good thing.

Crimes of “grievous bodily harm with intent” committed between April and June this year were being mistakenly recorded as lesser crimes.

When the figures were recounted using the correct classification, the official total showed serious violent crime had risen 22%.

Previous measures under the old rules had shown decreases every quarter of up to 15%.

And didn’t that make their political masters look good? Except to the victims of these crimes who apparently voted them out of office.

But Professor Fitzgerald said that the government was aware of the long trend of serious violent crime which had been rising over “several decades”

She told the BBC: “It started to go up really quite steeply from the early 1990s.

The handgun ban was completed in 1996.

“The problem this government has got is that when it came to power it dismissed out of hand the trends in police recorded crime which were a fairly good measure of serious violence

“It preferred instead to rely on the British Crime Survey which is very poor at picking up violence.”

For good measure it has actually interfered with the police figures by keeping changing the ways in which they have been recorded.

(My emphasis)

“What’s catching up with them now is the fact the police figures are reflecting that long term trend increase in serious violence. The government are hiding behind changes in the counting rules to try to explain it away.”

I repeat: And we should trust them . . . why?

Again, this is another example of “Cognitive Dissonance” explained once succinctly by Steven Den Beste thusly:

When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn’t seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as “escalation of failure”.)

Crime could not be going up in the wonderful Utopia that Labor was building in the UK. Therefore the statistics had to be wrong, and the government would manipulate them however it was necessary to prove that said crime was declining.

When that didn’t work, “Do it again, only HARDER!” Escalation of failure.

You’ll note that Labor is no longer in power in Britain.

Meanwhile, Back Where Great Britain Used to Be

…comes this heartwarming story of stupid criminals:

How wrong fuel sunk £1 billion drug deal

The operation to land £1 billion of cocaine was going like clockwork: the catamaran had glided into position in the sea off west Cork and the cargo was being ferried ashore to a remote location, ready for distribution across Britain.

Months of planning suddenly went awry, however, because of the simplest of blunders — somebody put diesel in a petrol engine. The mistake caused an inflatable boat to capsize, tipping dozens of bales of cocaine into the choppy waters and casting one of the drug dealers into the sea.

When the emergency services were alerted, police found 61 suspicious packages floating around the upturned boat in Dunlough Bay, west Cork.

Yesterday four men were convicted for attempting to smuggle what became the largest seizure of cocaine in Britain and Ireland, on board the ironically named Lucky Day.

Pretty humorous, no? Until I got to this part:

Joe Daly, 41, from southeast London, Martin Wanden, 45, of no fixed address, and Perry Wharrie, 48, from Essex, who were carrying out the orders for a criminal syndicate based in Britain and Spain, were jailed for their role in transporting and storing 1 tonne of high-grade cocaine.

Wanden and Wharrie were each sentenced to 30 years and Daly to 25. A fourth man, Gerard Hagan, 24, from Liverpool, who pleaded guilty, will be sentenced later.

Wharrie was jailed for life in 1989 for the murder of an off-duty police officer and released in 2005 on licence.

The sonofabitch murdered a cop, got LIFE IN PRISON for it, and SERVED FIFTEEN YEARS?!?!

WTF? WTFF??

(h/t to Theo Spark)

He’ll Be Out of a Job Shortly

Kim du Toit has been following the news out of Africa ever since he left. Recently he linked to an unusual piece by journalist Kevin Meyers that broke the PC mold and ground it into dust, Africa is giving nothing to anyone — apart from AIDS. In fact, I’m shocked that it made it through those famous layers of editorial oversight and actually saw print pixels. Please do read it.

This afternoon, Kim linked to a follow on – the expected reaction to Mr. Meyers’ bit of heresy.

But instead of more heresy, Mr. Meyers has committed apostasy.

In 2003 in an op-ed about Walter Cronkite coming out of the liberal closet, FOX News host Eric Burns wrote these words:

The majority of young men and women who enter journalism do so not because they want to report the news but because they want to make a difference in society. In other words, they want to report certain kinds of news. They do not want to convey facts or explain processes; they want to shine spotlights on abuse. In some cases they are motivated by idealism; in others, by the hope that some of the light will reflect back on them.

It’s a good piece. Being on FOX he could get away with it. But not, I think, Mr. Meyers. In his piece Writing what I should have written so many years ago, he says:

The people of Ireland remained in ignorance of the reality of Africa because of cowardly journalists like me. When I went to Ethiopia just over 20 years ago, I saw many things I never reported — such as the menacing effect of gangs of young men with Kalashnikovs everywhere, while women did all the work. In the very middle of starvation and death, men spent their time drinking the local hooch in the boonabate shebeens. Alongside the boonabates were shanty-brothels, to which drinkers would casually repair, to briefly relieve themselves in the scarred orifice of some wretched prostitute (whom God preserve and protect). I saw all this and did not report it, nor the anger of the Irish aid workers at the sexual incontinence and fecklessness of Ethiopian men. Why? Because I wanted to write much-acclaimed, tear-jerkingly purple prose about wide-eyed, fly-infested children — not cold, unpopular and even “racist” accusations about African male culpability.

RTWT.

Eric Burns also wrote:

As Cronkite so famously said for so many years, closing his newscasts: “And that’s the way it is.”

But it isn’t. At least, not to the extent that it used to be. For what has happened over the years is that the liberal influence in journalism has become so pervasive that alternatives have developed, and there are more alternatives to liberal bias today, it seems to me, than there have ever been before—more newspapers, more magazines, more talk radio programs, and even an all-news cable network that strenuously avoids a left-leaning emphasis on issues of public concern.

Journalism, in other words, is now attracting, and in greater numbers than ever, those who want to shine a spotlight on a different kind of abuse – the one-sided presentation of news.

In large part those greater numbers are in the alternative media, like bloggers. In a 2004 Jewish World Review piece, Jack Kelly wrote about the decline of newspapers (did you see that the NYT‘s profits are off 82% this quarter?). He said in his piece Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the journos:

Journalists rank near the bottom of the professions in honesty and ethical standards, according to Gallup’s annual survey. Last year, only 21 percent of respondents said newspaper reporters had high or very high ethical standards.

An awful lot of you don’t trust us to get our facts straight, to tell both sides of the story, or to put the news in context. For that, more and more of you are turning to web logs, or “blogs.” There were hardly any blogs five years ago. There are more than four million today. There could be eight million by the next election.

Blogs provided you with information we in the “mainstream” media didn’t want you to have, such as John Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia,” and the fact that the documents on which Dan Rather and CBS were relying for a hit piece on President Bush’s National Guard service were forgeries.

Journalists tend not to like bloggers, because they report on errors we make. Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines are unemployed chiefly because of the vigilance and tenacity of bloggers. (We journalists rarely turn the spotlights we use on business leaders and government officials on ourselves.)

People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that’s not going to happen as long as we “professional” journalists ignore stories we don’t like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as “gatekeepers.” But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.

Mr. Meyer’s admission is, I think, more evidence of this.

Robert Bartley, editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal once wrote:

The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers.

Perhaps finally that may be starting to change. Unfortunately it may be too little, too late.

Perhaps Mr. Meyer will be able to get a job with FOX News. Or maybe he can go the Michael Totten/Michael Yon route and become an independent blogger/journalist existing on what he can earn directly from his readers. That is, if he escapes the clutches of the Irish Thought Police.

I recommend emigration to the U.S. and asylum from political persecution. I wish him a lot of luck.

Firehand Pens an Uberpost

Firehand Pens an Überpost!

Entitled Some more on elite viewpoints and families, it’s worth your time. Excerpt:

(B)oth the Brit and American articles note the collectivist nature of the people who don’t want women to have the choice to stay home. ‘Paying back society’, ‘failing the feminist cause’; you don’t have- or shouldn’t have- an individual life: you have to make your choice(the one allowed) based on what’s best for the collective. Hell, these people might as well put an eyepiece on their Blackberry and walk around saying “You WILL be assimilated.”

Go. Read.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

More from the place where Great Britain used to be:

Steve Kink apprehended a thug after catching him breaking into a mobile phone shop late at night. Although the 47-year-old was punched in the face, he managed to pin the offender to the floor. Passers-by called the police while he stood over him until officers arrested the 25-year-old man.

Mr Kink, who owns a tattoo parlour, was stunned when he found out the next day the suspect had been let off with a caution for criminal damage. But his shock turned to fury when days later police officers turned up at his house to arrest him for assaulting the thug. He was taken to his local police station and held in a cell for six hours before being interviewed.

He was then charged with assault and battery and is due to appear before magistrates next week.

That’s not the Quote of the Day. It’s a lead-in.

Here’s the Quote of the Day:

I’m an alumna of Pepperdine University, a school which proudly owns a house/campus on Exhibition Road, literally across the street from the Imperial University, in the middle of South Kensington, right near Harrods, Hyde Park, the Albert Hall. Within two days of arriving for our first semester in London, our relatively small [American] class (37 students, 10 men, 27 women) was visited by a local police officer to instruct us on living in London. Her first question was to the women, ‘How many of you brought mace?’ Three girls raised their hands. She told us we couldn’t use it, shouldn’t even carry it, it was illegal.

Had any of us brought any other type of weapon, such as a knife? Several of the men in our group indicated that they carried pocket knives. She told us to leave them at home too.

Then she instructed us on how to properly be a victim. If we were attacked, we were to assume a defensive posture, such as raising our hands to block an attack. The reason was (and she spelled it out in no uncertain terms) that if a witness saw the incident and we were to attempt to defend ourselves by fighting back, the witness would be unable to tell who the agressor was. However, if we rolled up in a ball, it would be quite clear who the victim was.

The feeling I got was, in London, it is not permissable(sic) to defend oneself. I also understood that this police officer thought Americans were more likely to be agressive(sic) and/or cause more damage to a potential attacker. She was warning us for our own good. I have to admit, she did not make me feel particularly safe.

(My emphasis.) Mr. Kink’s arrest reminds me of the story of 64 year-old Diane Bond from 2006 where something very similar happened to her. She was precisely correct when she said:

This sends out the message that if you stand up for yourself, if you try to take action to stop anti-social behaviour, you are likely to end up being arrested.

There’s a few more like Ms. Bond listed in this post.

UPDATE 7/8: Rachel has another example.