The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
ROFLMAO!!!.
Thank you, LawDog! That was the best belly-laugh I’ve had in weeks!
Some Brits still have stainless-steel testicles!
And whatever sins George Lucas may have committed in his life, that one piece of music he commissioned will live on forever!
That Wonderful “Free” Canadian Health Care. (Again.)
(Via Zendo Deb.)
Stronach travels to U.S. for cancer treatment
Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora and former cabinet minister, travelled outside Canada’s health-care system to California for some of her breast cancer treatment earlier this year.
Really! You don’t say!
Stronach, diagnosed in the spring with a type of breast cancer that required a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, went to California in June at her Toronto doctor’s suggestion, a spokesperson confirmed.
THAT referral I find fascinating.
“Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there,” said Greg MacEachern, Stronach’s assistant and spokesperson.
Speed was not the issue, MacEachern said – it was more to do with the type of surgery she and her doctor agreed was best for her, and where it was best performed. The type of cancer Stronach had is called DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ, one of the more treatable forms.
Why would the story even suggest that speed might be “the issue”? Could it be that there are waiting time issues for cancer surgery in Canada? And you mean she couldn’t get superior treatment in CUBA??
Stronach, who has announced she is leaving politics to return to executive duties at her father’s Magna empire, paid for the procedure.
An option not open, I would imagine, to a lot of Canadians.
So what happens to them?
“As we said back in June when we confirmed the surgery, this is a personal and private matter between Belinda, her family and her physicians. I think you’ll understand that because of respect for Belinda’s privacy, we refrained from offering specific details around her medical treatment,” MacEachern said.
It is unusual for a federal politician to travel outside Canada for private medical treatment, especially given the hallowed status of the Canadian, publicly financed health-care system in the realm of political debate.
Is it actually rare to do it, or is it just rare to admit it?
MacEachern stressed that Stronach’s decision had nothing to do with her confidence – or lack of it – in Canada’s cancer-treatment facilities or public health care.
Which makes me wonder why she didn’t utilize them.
He pointed out that there is a cancer-care facility in Newmarket named after the Stronach family, after Frank Stronach donated $8 million toward its construction in 2004.
Which makes me really wonder why she didn’t utilize them.
“In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians. As well, her family has clearly demonstrated that support,” MacEachern said.
Well of course! It’s there and it’s “free.” Who wouldn’t use it for sniffles, scrapes and minor emergencies?
“This was about a specific health-care procedure, unrelated to any views about the quality of Canadian health care, a decision based on medical advice and a referral from her Toronto physicians, and just one part of several areas of treatment. Belinda has nothing but praise for the community of health-care professionals in Toronto who supported and treated her throughout the last six months.”
Here I call “bullshit!” It was absolutely related to “views about the quality of Canadian health-care.” It was about the ability to get superior quality care in America since she could afford it, because the American medical system allows for innovation, experimentation, and advancements that government-run heathcare systems do not.
MacEachern did not want to answer questions in detail about the type of surgery, what she paid for it or where exactly it was performed in California.
He did say, however, that Stronach underwent the operation in June, roughly around the time she would have had the procedure had she remained in Canada.
How “roughly”? I really want to know. And would it have been the same procedure, or something different?
The Canadian Cancer Society also says it is impossible to determine how many citizens of this country travel each year to the United States for private cancer treatment, since records are only kept if they apply in some way for compensation.
There’s a fascinating tidbit of information I was not aware of.
Similarly, the U.S. Cancer Society says it is impossible to calculate, even roughly, how much Stronach paid for her treatment in California, since costs vary so much from state to state and even within cities.
The costs vary here because of the law of supply and demand. Those with far better procedures and reputations have far higher demands, and can (and do) charge more. Those who can afford it, pay it. Those who cannot must choose other options. This is “unfair.” But it beats, IMHO being told you will go to this doctor, you will have this procedure, your appointment is six months in the future, and you have no other option available to you – which is what most socialized medicine systems eventually devolve into once they discover that attempting to centrally control health care (or pretty much anything) is a failing game.
Health care is not a “right.” If you doubt that, then explain why Britain’s Tory party wants to deny health care to people who live “unhealthy lifestyles”? It would appear that their recommendations are already being implemented.
The Latest News from the Petri Dish.
This is actually old news, but I just ran across it recently. In the August 26 Sunday Times of London, reporter David Leppard (I wonder if his nickname is “Def”?) informs us:
THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.
Remember, the UK banned all licensed, registered centerfire handguns in 1997, and extended the ban to .22 rimfire handguns in February, 1998. The Home Office reported in February of 1999,
162,353 handguns and 700 tonnes of ammunition have been safely surrendered at an expected cost of £95 million.
The National Audit Office’s main conclusions are:
On ensuring prohibited handguns were surrendered or otherwise accounted for* 25,000 fewer handguns were surrendered than the police forces estimated would be handed in. Forces have since concluded that this was because their estimates were inaccurate and included, for example, firearms which could be retained lawfully under various exemptions.
* We visited more than half the police forces in Britain (26 of 51) and found that most had satisfied themselves that all legally held handguns had been surrendered or otherwise accounted for. In four cases police investigations found that handguns that should have been surrendered had been retained illegally.
Only four cases! Boy, licensing and registration sure are effective measures.
If you want to confiscate things.
Home Office Minister Alan Michael announced after passage of the Act: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.”
Riiiiight.
To continue with the Times report:
The Home Office figures – which exclude crimes involving air weapons – show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.
Granted, this pales in comparison with, say, the fifteen people killed in Chicago over the long weekend, but remember: England is an ISLAND. They have “needs-based” licensing, “safe storage” laws, ammunition quantity and type restrictions, bans on machine guns, semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, and all handguns. Their gun crime has always been a fraction of ours, and while our rates were decreasing each and every year (despite 3+ million new firearms being purchased here annually), their rates were slowly but steadily increasing.
They thought gun bans would make them safer.
But firearm-related crime is up fourfold since the handgun ban. And most of it is committed with handguns.
So, what to do? Cook the books!
This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”.
And, of course, repeating the same behavior while expecting a different result:
Smith last night proposed the setting up of neutral “drop-off zones” where illegal weapons could be handed in. “This means we can actually take that gun out of circulation and stop it from doing harm,” she said.
That’s what the handgun ban was supposed to do. The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again, only HARDER!
The Home Office has repeatedly denied gun crime is rising. Last week it pointed to the latest annual crime statistics, which appeared to show that overall gun crime was 13% down on the previous year.
Denial. River. Egypt. You know the cliché.
But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published earlier this year.” [Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-related violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote.
The Home Office said: “We remain fully committed to tackling gang culture and gun and knife crime through responsive policing, tough powers and funding prevention projects.”
Otherwise known as “escalation of failure.”
Hey! I know! Let’s try it here!
It raises its head once again. To quote Steven Den Beste:
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”.)
Or, as I put it:
The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again only harder!
We have some new stories coming out of the petri dishes of the UK Commonwealth.
Let’s start with this one:
Victims and offenders get younger
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 7:01am BST 24/08/2007
Periodically, there is a national outcry about guns on our streets. It reached a climax 20 years ago this week when Michael Ryan shot and killed 16 people, including his mother, wounded 15 others, then killed himself.The massacre in Hungerford led to a ban on the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles.
In 1996, the murder of 15 children and their teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland, led to a complete ban on handguns.
Yet since then, the number of crimes involving guns has risen.
In 1996, there were 14,000 recorded offences in which firearms were reported to have been used. In 2005/6, the last period for which figures are available, there were 21,500.
Although the numbers dying through shooting is roughly similar, 50 victims in 1996 and last year, attempted murders and woundings are up 50 per cent.
Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world – yet they did not prevent the appalling events in Croxteth.
Ergo: the strategy failed.
But the ideology cannot be wrong!
Yesterday, Gordon Brown said the Government was “working urgently” to tackle gun crime. But if previous laws have made little difference why should new ones?
The past year has seen another avalanche of legislation. The Government introduced a minimum five-year sentence for possessing an illegal firearm. They made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse.
The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 made it illegal to manufacture or sell imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms. It also strengthened sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and created tougher manufacturing standards so imitations cannot be converted to fire real ammunition.
The Home Office boasted: “We’re cutting off the supply of firearms into the country.”
“Do it again, only HARDER!
But the guns are already here; and they are increasingly easy to get. Home Office research indicated that an imitation firearm could be bought for £20 and a shotgun for £50. A military-quality handgun will go for around £1,000. An automatic weapon sells for between £800 and £4,000.
Think about that. Gun control supporters here object to our pointing out the failure of DC’s draconian gun ban (there were seven homicides in DC last week, at least five of which were by firearm), or Chicago’s handgun ban to have any positive effect on the level of gun crime in those cities. They blame “lax gun control laws” in the surrounding areas for the influx of guns into those cities. However, England has all the laws that the Brady Campaign et. al think are “common sense”: “may-issue” ownership licensing with full background check and character references, “safe storage” requirements with surprise inspection powers by the State, restrictions on the amount and type of ammunition permit holders can possess, a complete ban on “military style” semi-automatic rifles, a complete ban on handguns, the whole nine yards. More importantly, the UK is an island – there are no neighbors just across the state or county line with “lax gun laws” that allow an easy flow of illicit guns. You’ve got to smuggle them in through the ports of entry, or by boat. Yet gun prices are barely above American retail, and fully-automatic weapons can cost less than a handgun.
But does anybody learn from this? Hardly. Washington D.C. is going to the Supreme Court to prevent its bans from being overturned. The city of Philadelphia is currently experiencing a tremendous increase in homicides, so two city council members are suing the state legislature so that Philadelphia can pass its own gun control laws, and activist lawyer Michael Coard wants to sue the NRA for influencing the Pennsylvania state legislature into passing preemption laws.
There’s more to that piece, and I recommend you read it, but let’s move on to the next story that covers the slaying of an 11 year-old boy in Liverpool:
Former detective: It is a gangland culture
Albert Kirby, Former Detective Superintendent, Merseyside Police, on the problem of gun crime in Liverpool:
“Like other areas of Liverpool, Croxteth has become increasingly more difficult to police over the years due to the gang type culture and the reluctance of people living in the area either to come forward and give either evidence or information about those involved in the gang culture, drugs and crime groups.
“It is the same throughout the city. Once upon a time it used to be fists on the street corner. Then they started to use any sort of weapons – hammers or axes. Now the readily availability of fire arms has opened up a whole new ball game.
But licensing, registration, “safe storage” and outright bans are supposed to prevent “ready availability,” aren’t they? That’s what the ideology says!
“Fire arms can be obtained very cheaply and after they have been used criminals can dispose of them because they are so cheap – a handgun can be bought for about £25 a time.
Yet the earlier piece said a “military quality” handgun would go for about £1,000. What are these, cheap “Saturday Night Specials”? Just so you know, at current exchange rates, £25 is $50 US.
“Fire arms are so readily available that you can go out on the street, make the necessary enquiries and come up with them. It is that easy.
Ergo: the strategy failed.
“The legislation that came in after the Dunblane shooting in 1996 has been utterly and totally ineffective. It was a waste of space. With the borders disappearing in Europe there are no checks on firearms coming in from abroad. They come from Eastern Bloc countries, recommissioned firearms, and a steady flow coming out of the world’s conflict zones.
See! See! It’s the fault of neighboring states with lax gun laws!
Oh, wait…
“Merseyside Police have done a tremendous amount of work to recover firearms. But bearing in mind the amount of firearms that are available it is very difficult.
“For a lot of these kids, it is a status symbol to them. In the sixties they would have the drainpipe trousers and the slicked hair, and then the mods and rockers in the 1970s with their crash hats.
“Now guns are like a status symbol: ‘If you diss me I will shoot you because I have got a gun’. It is part of the culture, it is a gangland culture.
“Croxteth is a poor area. I would think there are a lot of unemployed people there. In that area drugs are just prolific.
So are guns. Cheap guns.
“This poor lad was in the wrong place at the wrong time. These people have been feuding and the poor guy has got in the way. What justification can these people have to shoot an 11-year-old boy who has not done any harm to anyone. He comes from a decent family.
“Where do we go from here? Firstly, we have to change the street culture which accepts guns. That will be a long-term issue – like tackling anti-social behaviour.
With what? Judicious application of ASBOs?
“Secondly, these incidents will continue to happen unless people are willing to come forward as witnesses.
Even though you cannot/will not protect them from retaliation, and they cannot protect themselves.
“The system in the judicial process is so good now at protecting identities. People have to learn to have faith in the system.
You’re going to protect the identities of the witnesses? How? Relocate them to Australia? The people have an abiding faith in the system. They believe faithfully that it’s not going to do squat to help them. They have reason to believe that.
“Thirdly, the courts are so woeful. These people hate going to prison. Scousers have an expression that they can do it standing on their head. But standing on their head gets harder as they get older.
“The courts should say that if someone is sentenced for an offence, and a firearm is used, even if it is a replica, that person are going to prison for a long time.”
They may say it, but as you said, the courts are woeful, and your prisons are overcrowded already.
No wonder there’s no trust.
Finally we travel far across the pond to Australia, to the little town of Roseville, a Northern suburb of Sydney in New South Wales where a new gun shop has opened:
Residents irate over gunshop permit: what do we tell our children?
What a fascinating question!
UP IN arms would accurately describe the incensed reaction of Roseville residents to news that a gunshop is to open in their midst.
Last night hundreds were expected to pack a community hall to protest against the approval granted by Ku-ring-gai Council, apparently without notification to those who may have an opinion about such an enterprise.
Andrew Peter, a gun enthusiast and coffee shop owner from Bondi Junction, made an application last month to turn an old printing shop into a sporting goods and firearms store. One of the main reasons for his decision was the estimated 1300 firearm owners who live in the area.
I’m curious as to how much territory “in the area” covers.
The shop is opposite a community hall that runs a preschool centre. It is also near a bus interchange used by schoolchildren, and some neighbouring businesses say the approval, although legal, is inappropriate.
Lisa Warrand is one of dozens of parents who fear the worst: the potential for an armed hold-up and shootout, or merely having to explain to children who walk past every day why a shop sells guns. (My emphasis.)
“Roseville has five churches and no pubs. People buy in this area because they want a more family-focused area,” she said yesterday. “We teach children about how bad guns are and yet we are being put into a position where we have to explain why there is a man in the car park carrying a gun bought across the road.” (My emphasis.)
Sally Cochrane runs the Zest hairdressing salon a few doors away. She concedes that the chances of a hold-up are slim but says it is a risk that should rule out the shop from the neighbourhood. “Children and guns don’t mix. It’s as simple as that, and if there is a robbery then it could be disastrous. I accept that this man has a right to open his shop and to sell guns, but not here.”
Rob Hudspith disagrees. He owns the bicycle shop nearby and says the biggest mistake was that no one was given details of the application by the council.
“If they didn’t have a legal obligation, then they had a moral one,” Mr Hudspith said. “Personally, I don’t have any problems, but there is an inherent fear of firearms, and who can blame people for being worried?” (My emphasis.)
A council spokesman said the approval was assessed under State Government planning laws. The business would have to comply with strict laws covering handling, storage and safety.
The Liberal MP for Davidson, Jonathan O’Dea, backs the residents, denying it is nimbyism.
The Shooters Party accuses Mr O’Dea of stirring up trouble by instigating a survey of residents. Mr Peter says he is willing to compromise with extra security to ensure residents feel safe. “Sure, I understand their feelings and I’m happy to talk to them about their concerns, but they don’t have anything to worry about.” (My emphasis.)
There’s the ideology, ladies and gentlemen: “GUNS ARE BAD, mmmkay?” Its root is the belief that all violence is bad; the inability to differentiate between “violent and predatory” and “violent but protective” that leads to the totemic belief that the tools of violence are the cause of violence. The outcome of that flawed ideology is licensing, registration, restriction, bans, confiscation… and rising violent crime.
But cognitive dissonance prevents people from questioning the ideology. The result is escalation of failure, and a complete inability to implement any kind of successful strategy. As Say Uncle put it, “Gun control is what you do instead of something.”
A Sign of Hope?.
Via Kim I just spent the last thirty minutes reading The Day Reality Hit Home, a three-part piece on the UK’s Guardian website. This is a first-person story of how a writer for the über-liberal newspaper had his entire worldview changed after September 11, 2001. It is very much worth your time. I’m quite amazed that The Guardian published it.
For me, the key passage is this one:
A society that places great emphasis on respecting others has next to nothing to say about protecting others.
…my stepdaughter was set upon in a busy high street by a gang of teenagers in an unprovoked attack. Scores of adults looked on and not one of them did or said anything to help. When she described how grown-up faces turned away from her as kicks and punches flew, I could only conclude that everyone was waiting. They were waiting for society to change, for it to become less unfair, with more equitable wealth distribution, so that street violence would miraculously disappear. They were waiting for schools to improve, and more youth centres to be built, and better housing. Or they were waiting for the police, the police who ought to be everywhere at all times but who should also maintain a low profile. Or perhaps they were just waiting for somebody else, anybody but themselves.
Read the whole thing:
…you mean it’s not the fault of “too many guns”? Another op-ed from the Sunday Times over where Great Britain used to be:
Gangs, alas, are offering what boys need
Harriet Sergeant
What are the reasons behind the spate of murders by feral gangs of youths? And can we as a society do anything about it?
For my report on the care system, I spent last year interviewing young men who, as Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said, “put a knife in their pockets as routinely as they pull on their trainers in the morning”. Drugs and alcohol (and weapons – Ed.) are merely the symptoms of a deeper problem. Too many young men suffer from an absence of authority at home, in school and on the street. We have created a moral vacuum around our young people. We should not be surprised at how they fill it.
Young boys join gangs, they told me, because they are afraid. There is nobody else to protect them, certainly no responsible adult. “You don’t start off as a killer,” said a 19-year-old gang leader, “but you get bullied on the street. So you go to the gym and you end up a fighter, a violent person. All you want is for them to leave you alone but they push you and push you.” Another boy aged 13 explained that in his area boys “would do anything” to join a gang. If they join a gang with “a big name” people will “look at them differently, be scared of them”.
This echoes Grim’s observation that I quoted in It’s most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can:
Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.
The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men.
The author of this piece seems to grasp this, dimly.
The police and the Home Office have not taken crimes against young people seriously because they do not know they are happening.
Oh bullshit. They know, but recording those crimes would make the already horrible numbers from Britain even worse.
The British Crime Survey, described by the Home Office on its website as “the most reliable measure of crime” does not include crimes against anyone under 16.
The Home Office admits that young men aged 16-24 are most at risk of being a victim of violent crime. But only at the beginning of this year did a Freedom of Information request to each of the 43 police forces reveal that four out of 10 muggings are committed by children under 16 — and that is only the ones reported.
How can protecting young people on the streets take priority when the Home Office does not acknowledge the number of crimes against them? It is no wonder one young gang member said, “There’s no one to look after me but me.” He is quite right.
Note here, however, that Ms. Sergeant has completely omitted any reference to family – for her, if the State isn’t there to protect you, then you are, by definition, all alone. Where is this kid’s father? Where are the older men who used to guide boys away from the “violent and predatory” culture to the “violent but protective” one? They don’t exist. And the government won’t lead him there either. The society, seeing only “violence,” wants him to at least act as though he’s on Ritalin.
It is the same story in the majority of inner-city schools. As a mother of a 14-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl I know that young men are a different species to the rest of us. In times of war we value their aggression, their sense of immortality, their loyalty to one another. But in peacetime they are at best a nuisance, at worst a threat.
See? For her, the “violent but protective” behavior of soldiers at war is indistinguishable from the “violent and predatory” behavior of youth gangs. She literally cannot see a difference. Violence is violence to Ms. Sergeant, and all violence is bad – unless it’s carried out by sanctioned members of the State.
Teenage boys need different treatment to girls to become responsible members of society. They need a role model.
As said Grim, above.
When my son was about nine he became resentful of his young female teachers. He had no respect for them. He then moved to his middle school where most of his teachers were male. The change was dramatic. Suddenly it was all, “Sir says this and sir says that.” In state primary schools 80% of teachers are female.
I am lucky. I can afford to send my son to a private school. The discipline, pastoral care and academic rigour do a good job at counterbalancing parental failings. Compare his experience with that of boys in the inner cities.
Those with a chaotic family life need school to be a refuge and a contrast. Even more than middle-class boys with a stable background, they need school to provide authority, moral leadership and an outlet for their aggression. It should be giving boys what they need to thrive: discipline, sport and a group with which to identify. Instead what do they get?
My son does one to two hours of sport a day with a match on Saturday. He is so exhausted by the evening he can barely pick up a knife to eat, let alone stab anyone.
State schools, by contrast, offer only one hour of sport a week. Then teachers wonder why adolescent boys play up and have difficulty concentrating on lessons. When boys look around for a group to join, too often it is not a school sports team but the local gang.
I think what she’s advocating here is pretty much the same idea as “midnight basketball.” The results of which would be just as predictable.
With their hierarchy and strict discipline, street gangs are nothing more than a distorted mirror image of the house system common in private schools where loyalty and team effort are all important. As one young gang leader chillingly told me, “You have to know the people, you have to trust the people, because you do everything together. When you stab, you stab together.”
Then instead of authority and leadership, boys in state schools too often find themselves taught by teachers ashamed of their values. One young man teaching in a school in a deprived area in the northeast said his “main focus” was not to offend his pupils. “I don’t want to push my middle-class values on them,” he explained earnestly. When a pupil described his hopes for the future, stacking shelves in the local supermarket, “I pointed out the many positive aspects of the job — meeting people and so forth.” There was little attempt by the school, he admitted, to provide pastoral care or raise pupils’ expectations. He saw no link between this and his No 1 problem — pupil apathy.
Now here she’s on to something. This is a classic example of what “liberal” education has done to the education system itself – it’s produced teachers who hate the society that produced them, because that’s what they’ve been taught their whole lives. Western Civilization – “middle-class values” – are responsible for all the evils in the world: slavery, Colonialism, war, pollution, and now, Global Warming. I’m sure I missed a few items on that list. How can you respect a teacher who cannot respect his own society, and thus himself?
It is not surprising that teenage boys are, as a recent report from the Bow Group think tank points out, “the main cause of the discipline crisis in our schools”. A “cotton-wool culture” and lack of competitive sport means one in five aged 13 or 14 were suspended from school last year. They are four times more likely than girls to be expelled from school and 2 times more likely to be suspended.
Here’s a hint: Boys have always been the primary discipline problem in schools. It’s that biology thing that Grim pointed out. The difference now is that there’s no discipline at home and no discipline at school – one result of that “cotton-wool culture” thing that views corporal punishment as child abuse, that tries to stivle the natural behavior of boys instead of direct it, and tries to make girls – “a different species” – out of them. It’s the rebellion against that “cotton-wool culture” that has made The Dangerous Book for Boys an international best-seller. A book, I imagine, that would make Ms. Sergeant shudder.
The result is catastrophic for them and for society. At 14, one in five boys has a reading ability of a pupil half his age and at 16, a quarter of boys — almost 90,000 — do not gain a single GCSE at grade C or above. For members of the general public such as Garry Newlove the implications are more serious. Three out of 10 murders are done with a sharp instrument. The most likely person to be equipped with a knife is a boy aged 14-19. And the most likely of all is an excluded school boy.
We have failed to provide a safe, disciplined and principled environment in which young people can relax, find themselves and channel their best efforts. Instead we have relegated many of them to a ghetto of violence and despair. The results stare us in the face.
Well, she sees at least half of the problem. At least she didn’t blame either knives or guns. But like most people mired in a socialist or socialist-lite society, she looks to government for the solution – the very same government that produced the problem in the first place.
The society needs to change, that’s for sure, but it won’t be through passage of new legislation. And it won’t happen any time soon. It’s difficult to imagine how the former Great Britain could pull back from the mess they’ve created for themselves now.
Newsflash!. Still Not Enough “Gun Control” In England!
No, I’m not kidding:
Chris Osuh
7/ 8/2007
DEADLY ‘dum-dum’ bullets are being made by criminals using spent shells from shooting ranges, a leading gun crime campaigner has claimed.
A “leading gun crime campaigner” who wouldn’t recognize a “dum-dum” bullet if one hit her in the ass, I imagine.
Lucy Cope of Mothers Against Guns said thugs in cities like Manchester are loading guns with home-made bullets designed to explode on impact and cause greater damage.
Right! Now they’re explosive bullets!
Ms Cope, whose son was shot dead outside a London nightspot in 2002, wants the government to introduce a law that requires shooting ranges and licensed gun holders to return spent shells before they can buy more ammunition.
Er, wait…
The cartridge cases or the “bullet tips,” as Ebay calls them? And does this have anything to do with barrel shrouds? Regardless, her answer is the same-old same-old: Pass a new law making it even more difficult to be a law-abiding gun owner.
She said the M.E.N. gun murder statistics were `horrific’, and said a DNA database of licensed firearms and the banning of replicas would help tackle a `serious epidemic’ of gun crime.
Um, I’ve already pretty thoroughly debunked the concept of “gun DNA,” but that never stops these people. The last sixty attempts didn’t improve the situation? It’s worse now? The philosophy cannot be wrong! It had to be the implementation that was at fault! Do it again, only harder! Magical thinking is their MO. Or, if you wish to be less charitable: insanity.
The campaigner described gun criminals as urban terrorists, and said mandatory 10-year sentences for possessing a firearm would curb their activities.
Because mandatory 5-year sentences don’t?
Manchester campaigner Raymond Bell said unsolved murders helped fuel a cycle of revenge.
No, it’s just that criminals can’t turn to the “justice” system when they’re ripped off or shot, so they have to handle it themselves.
“Some young people see relatives shot dead and the crime go unsolved,” he said. “Then, because they can get access to guns, they are taking their own justice.”
Uh, wait. THEY CAN GET ACCESS TO GUNS?!?!? That’s UNPOSSIBLE®! Guns are outlawed or very strictly controlled!
Aren’t they?
Mr Bell, of the group Carisma, said better relations between the police and the community in inner city neighbourhoods was key to tackling an `epidemic’ of killing.
Actually arresting and jailing known perps qualifies as “better relations” doesn’t it?
Mistrust
Mr Bell said: “Some officers on the ground are antagonising the youths. We need a force that reflects the community, but that won’t happen while there is a climate of mistrust.”
No, I guess not. Arresting and jailing known perps qualifies as “antagonizing the youths,” it seems.
Meanwhile, Moss Side councillor Roy Walters urged people with information about unsolved crimes to talk to the police. He said: “The community is hurt more with every young death. But there are people in the community who know who has committed these crimes.
And if they go to the police, the “antagonized youth” will then threaten the witnessess – or worse – and the cops will do nothing. And the witnesses know it.
So not much gets solved.
“If they come forward, the police will do everything in their power to protect them.”
“Everything in their power” being pretty much limited to handing out ASBOs, if that much.
Khan Moghal, of Manchester Council for Community Relations, said it could take years to end the tit for tat gun culture.
Here’s a hint: It won’t end. At best, only the technology will change. And the volume of violence.
He said: “Big communities have these problems.
“There was a time when these gangs were allowed to flourish and they have maintained a link – it’s become a generational thing and it’s not easy to just root it out.”
He added: “If you can get rid of the perpetrators, you can end the spiral, because it will give people a breathing space.”
Damned straight. But you’re not “getting rid of the perpetrators.” You’re still doing silly shit like blaming the few remaining legal gun owners for the violence that you do dick-all about because anything positive in that direction is considered “antagonizing the youth.”
(“Unpossible” – a registered trademark of Say Uncle. Used with permission. Or at least forgiveness.)
Another Story from the Place Where Great Britain Used to Be
(Via Oscar Poppa)
Burglar dies after falling from top-floor window following confrontation with homeowner
by JAYA NARAIN Last updated at 17:49pm on 9th August 2007
A homeowner was arrested after a burglar plunged from the balcony of his top-floor flat and later died in hospital.
The intruder suffered head injuries and died in hospital after falling around 30ft on to a concrete path.
Now, for most of us the knee-jerk reaction would be “Them’s the risks you take, chum.” After all, in at least some jurisdictions here in the states a homeowner is legally justified in shooting a burglar upon discovery, and that often causes severe injury and even death.
But not in formerly Great Britain:
Patrick Walsh, 56, awoke to find an intruder in his flat on Corkland Road in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, south Manchester.
Police say “following an exchange of words” the 43-year-old suspect fell from the fourth floor window on to the pavement below.
He suffered massive injuries from the fall, at around 6.10am on Monday.
The man was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary with serious head injuries before being transferred to Hope Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at about 11am today.
Police conducted a detailed forensic examination of the flat after the incident.
Walsh was arrested on suspicion of causing serious bodily harm and bailed until November pending further police inquirers.
Mr. Walsh, awakened from a sound sleep and having done nothing other than defend his property has been arrested for that crime. It’s bizzaro world.
His solicitor, Victor Wozny, said today: “My client is not at liberty to say anything because he is under police bail.
“However we appreciate that the public view might be that this is a man arrested in his own home defending his own property.”
Might be, might not. Doesn’t matter. The Crown Prosecution Service doesn’t listen to the public. Pretty much, neither does the rest of the civil government.
A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police said, “Inquiries are ongoing to establish the circumstances surrounding this incident.
“A 56-year-old man from Chorlton has been arrested on suspicion of section 18 assault and bailed, pending further inquiries.”
I wonder if this Inquiry will last six weeks like the one 63 year-old Thomas O’Connor suffered through before the Crown Persecution, er Prosecution service concluded that “it is not believed we would be able to disprove a case of self defence” against Mr. O’Connor, who was blind and suffered from arthritis and heart problems. Or instead will they go ahead and charge Mr. Walsh and convince him to plead to manslaughter instead of risking a murder conviction, as was done to Brett Osborn? After all, as Mr. Osborn’s lawyer explained, in England:
The law…does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow you struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.
Moreover…while self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, the Court of Appeal has ruled that if the force you use is not judged to have been reasonable – if a jury, that is, decides it was disproportionate – then you are guilty of murder. A conviction for murder automatically triggers the mandatory life sentence. There are no exceptions.
Mr. Osborn decided not to risk it, rather than trust his fate to his fellow subjects.
I’m curious as to what Mr. Walsh’s fate holds for him.
The pair argued and the confrontation moved towards the rear window of the flat.
It is believed the intruder then smashed the window and clambered out on to a narrow ledge and fell to the ground.
Mr Walsh phoned police and at around 6.30am officers found the man on the ground outside the smart Victorian apartment block in Chorlton-cum-Hardy,
He was taken to hospital with serious head injuries.
Officers arrested Mr Walsh on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and are trying to establish whether the intruder was forced out of the window.
Arrest first, investigate later. Nice SOP.
The arrest is expected to fuel arguments about the rights of householders to defend themselves against burglars.
Gee, ya THINK??
Patrick Walsh
Under suspicion: Patrick Walsh yesterday
The issue has been high on the law and order agenda since farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999.
Following the Martin affair the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers said any householder can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.
A neighbour said: “Police arrived in what seemed to be minutes and were there for the whole day.
“It’s shocking to find out what has happened but people shouldn’t break into other people’s houses.”
Another resident said: “I presume we will have to respect the burglar’s rights while his victim has the nightmare of court hanging over his head. It all seems so unfair.”
That’s because it is unfair. That’s what happens in a pacifist society.
A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said they had been called following reports that an intruder had fallen from a top-floor flat.
“Following an exchange of words, the alleged burglar was found unconscious on the pavement outside the flat.
“It is believed that he had fallen from the fourth-floor window.”
Mr Walsh has been released on bail until November. If charged and convicted he could face a life sentence.
Because he had the temerity to defend himself in a culture that has had pacifism forced upon it.
Australian blogger Tim Lambert and I have had several long, involved exchanges over whether British subjects can legally defend themselves. I don’t know what conclusion he’s reached, but mine is that – while it’s possible – it doesn’t pay to bet that way. And, moreover, the British media, in cooperation with the Crown Prosecution Service, runs stories like this that ensure the general public knows just how risky defending yourself can be. Tim even admitted as much in the last sentence of one of his posts, but blamed it not on the Crown Prosecution Service, but upon us “Gullible Gunners.” After all, who wants to spend even five years in jail – much less life – for defending yourself?
Instead, British subjects should heed the advice of the British police on how to be a good 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.
That way you only risk injury or death to yourself or your loved ones. The criminal will, of course, be unharmed.
No wonder 4,000 people a week are trying to flee Britain.
No action to be taken against householder over intruder fall
A householder arrested after a suspected burglar died falling from the top floor window of his flat will have no further action taken against him, police confirmed today.
Patrick Walsh, 56, awoke in the early hours of last Monday to find an intruder in his flat on Corkland Road in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, south Manchester.
Police said “following an exchange of words”, the 43-year-old suspect fell from the fourth floor window on to the pavement below.
He suffered massive injuries from the fall and died in hospital on Thursday.
Mr Walsh was arrested and questioned by detectives while forensic officers conducted a detailed examination of his flat.
He was bailed until November, but police have now concluded no further action against him is necessary.
A post-mortem examination revealed the dead man died from injuries conducive with a fall and they are not treating the death as suspicious. The case has been passed to the coroner.
A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police said: “The 56-year-old man from Chorlton, who was arrested on suspicion of section 18 assault, has had his bail cancelled and no further action will be taken against him.”
Hey! It didn’t take six weeks! Looks like Mr. Walsh rolled a seven this time.
But I wonder if he’ll hesitate before defending himself if anything like this ever happens to him again. And in the place that used to be Great Britain, the odds of that happening are pretty high.
Too Bad They Didn’t Have a Wheelchair.
Unix-Jedi sent me an email with a link to this short, succinct story:
Couple admit using pepper spray
Jul 18 2007
Ellesmere Port PioneerA COUPLE have found that using pepper spray in self-defence is as illegal as firing a sub-machine gun.
Under the Firearms Act, it is ranked alongside rocket launchers in that using it carries a 10-year prison sentence.
Remember, everyone: England is held up as the golden standard of “reasonable restrictions” and “common-sense” laws. “England can do it! Australia can do it! We can too!”
Not here. Not on my watch.
Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston magistrates heard Sally Arcari, 21, didn’t know pepper spray was illegal. Her boyfriend, Neil Marchant, 29, used it in self-defence outside The Platinum Lounge in Ellesmere Port before handing it to her.
The couple, of Newton, Chester, admitted possession of and discharging a noxious liquid or gas on April 29. They now face a three-week wait for sentencing.
Too bad they were unaware of the law. Had they known, they might have bought a wheelchair to go along with. That apparently saved Mr. Nicholas Ashworth in 2004 from prosecution for using teargas in self-defense, but not possessing it in the first place. I mentioned that case here, but the story is no longer available at the original site. It’s been reprinted here, and I’ll copy it for posterity as well:
I acted in self-defence says disabled robbery victim
A DISABLED man who used CS spray to fight off a robber is now facing the threat of legal action.
Wheelchair-bound Nicholas Ashworth, aged 22, sprayed his alleged attacker in the face with the CS spray.
He then climbed out of his wheelchair and limped across the road as the man screamed in pain. A passing police patrol spotted him in distress and stopped at the scene. Officers then arrested both men.
Today after being released on police bail pending further inquiries — which could result in police prosecution — Mr Ashworth defended his use of the CS spray. He said he bought it to protect himself after being attacked in Bridgeman Street three weeks ago. On that occasion his attacker hit him in the face before pinning him back in his chair. The man then rifled through his pockets and stole £100.
Mr Ashworth, of Fletcher Street, Bolton — who can walk just a short distance without his wheelchair — said the incident left him feeling vulnerable.
Can’t imagine why…
Only days later he used it when a would-be robber confronted him as Mr Ashworth made his way to a nearby supermarket.
Mr Ashworth said the attacker held a knife at his throat and threatened to stab him.
Boy, those anti-weapon laws really work, don’t they?
When he refused to hand over his money the man pushed him across the road and into bushes on the other side of the carriageway.
He said when he was threatened again he grabbed the CS canister and sprayed the man in the face.
He said: “I knew it was wrong and against the law but in my view I was acting in self defence. I thought the man was going to kill me.
“It is a sad state of affairs that disabled people like me have to carry such things like CS sprays for protection.”
Well, it’s a sad state of affairs that you’re victimized for defending yourself. It’s a really sad state of affairs that the government has pretty effectively disarmed you while leaving your attackers pretty much unaffected.
A police spokesman said that they were investigating the illegal use and possession of CS spray. He also revealed that a man was on police bail pending further inquiries into the attempted robbery of Mr Ashworth.
The stupidity coming out of Albion never ceases to amaze me.
First, there’s this:
Gun and Knife Murders Out of Control
Gun and knife killings are getting out of control as six Londoners were murdered over the past week and one child is stabbed to death each week, anti-crime campaigners warned.
Local communities were being blighted by run-away violence as gang members who believe they are “untouchable” carry guns and weapons as a matter of routine to carry out crimes and to settle scores.
Now as a matter of “urgency,” police should carry out random and targeted stop and search to catch weapon wielding thugs backed up with the introduction of a mandatory five year prison sentence for those carrying illegal knives – the same penalty as carrying guns.
Last Sunday Lee Ryner, 30, was stabbed in Romford. Then father of three Ken Hong, 38, died of his injuries after being thrown from his car as he tried to stop a car thief in Streatham on Wednesday.
Two days later Brazilian Carlos Moreno, 23, was gunned down as he arrived outside a friend’s home in Acton on Friday evening.
Hours later Mikey Brown, 24, was stabbed to death during a row in a nightclub in Kinsgston at 2am on Saturday morning, and four hours later 17-year-old Annaka Pinto was shot dead during another row in an Tottenham club.
Then just before midnight on Saturday a 16-year-old was stabbed to death in a gang clash in Beckenham.
Victims of Crime Trust director Norman Brennan said Britain was quickly gaining a reputation as being one of the most violent countries in the Western world, scarring communities and leaving millions in fear of crime.
Now he urged tougher action to stamp out the spiralling violence, claiming the Government has failed to uphold its pledge to make Britain’s street safer.
He said: “In the past six days there have been three people stabbed to death, two people shot dead and one father fatally injured when he was run over by his own car whilst trying to prevent it from being stolen.
“A child is stabbed to death on the streets of Britain every week and knife homicides out number gun homicides by three to one. If these measures were introduced it would greatly reduce knife crime and consequently save lives.
“I believe that the government who came into power with the slogan ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ have failed to deliver on their promises to make the streets of Britain safe.
“We have many individuals and gang members that carry guns and knives as a matter of routine to commit crime and protect themselves and their turf, believing that they are untouchable.
“Unless we can change this attitude and trend, senseless murders will continue unabated and the widespread fear of crime will continue to be controlled by such individuals.”
“Each murder affects on average three hundred people. Murders committed in various parts of the country or particularly within a close radius of each other have a ricochet affect and dramatically increase fear within communities.”
He added although government figures show a small reduction in gun related crime, it is under reported and has to be viewed against “unprecedented” high levels of knife and gun crime over the last five years.
Although the Trust welcomed the fact the majority of murders leads to an arrest and conviction, prevention is a better cure it said.
Mr Brennan said: “There are currently 270 recorded firearm related offences committed on the streets of Britain every week.”
Wow. 270 firearm related offenses recorded every week in a country with full firearm registration, and bans on semi-automatic long guns over .22 caliber, pump-action rifles and shotguns, full-auto weapons, and all handguns.
I wonder how many aren’t recorded. Because next we have this:
Government figures ‘missing’ two million violent crimes
By David Barrett, PA Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 26 June 2007
An extra two million violent crimes a year are committed in Britain than previously thought because of a bizarre distortion in the Government’s flagship crime figures, it was claimed yesterday.A former Home Office research expert said that across all types of crime, three million offences a year are excluded from the British Crime Survey (BCS).
The poll caps the number of times a victim can be targeted by an offender at five incidents a year.
If anyone interviewed for the survey says they have been targeted more than five times a year, the sixth incident and beyond are not included in the BCS.
The authors of a report by think-tank Civitas said the five-crimes limit is ” truly bizarre” and “misleading”.
Professor Graham Farrell of Loughborough University and the former acting head of the Home Office’s Police Research Group, Professor Ken Pease, calculated that if the cap is ignored, the overall number of BCS crimes is more than 14 million rather than the current 11 million a year estimate.
Violent crime is 82 per cent higher at 4.4 million offences compared with 2.4 million in the BCS, the survey claims, including a 156 per cent rise in ” acquaintance violence” from 817,000 incidents to 2.1 million.
Domestic violence is 140 per cent higher, up from 357,000 incidents a year to 857,000, the authors said, while there are nearly three million common assaults a year rather than the 1.5 million estimated by the BCS, a rise of 98 per cent.
Burglary is 20 per cent higher than currently estimated, at 877,000 a year, and vandalism is 24 per cent higher, the report calculated.
Robbery is 7 per cent up on the official estimates, or an extra 22,000 crimes bringing the yearly total to 333,000.
“If the people who say they suffered 10 incidents really did, it is capping the series at five that distorts the rate,” the authors said.
“It is truly bizarre that the victimisation survey, based as it is on the assumption that people will by and large tell the truth about what happened to them, … suddenly withdraws its trust in their honesty when what they are told does not chime with their own experience.
“Yet the reality is that some people are very frequently victimised, and that frequent victimisation is what they suffer rather than being an invention or exaggeration.”
The cap of five crimes for repeat victims has operated ever since the inception of the BCS in 1981.
Ministers claim the survey – which now polls 40,000 people a year about their experiences of crime, is the most reliable indicator of crime levels,
The authors said: “The unwillingness to believe the facts of chronic victimisation means that crime control, police training and criminal justice action are now substantially misdirected.”
In particular, the system means that the most vulnerable people in society may not be getting the police protection they require from repeat offenders, the report said.
Meanwhile, the Church of England can’t seem to tell fiction from fact, since it wants a cash settlement from Sony for… Well, you read it:
Church wants cash for ‘sick’ game
LONDON, England (CNN) — Entertainment giant Sony has been branded irresponsible for using a cathedral from a city plagued by gun crime in a violent video game.
The Church of England says the company did not seek permission to use the Manchester Cathedral in the game, and is demanding an apology and a large donation to be used in its work with young people.
Church leaders have accused Sony of the “desecration” of the cathedral after the firm set the top-selling the new PlayStation 3 game, “Resistance: Fall of Man,” in the place of worship.
The game, which has sold more than one million copies, sees a virtual shoot-out between humans and gun-toting aliens with hundreds killed during a battle inside the cathedral.
Sony has been criticized for choosing Manchester — a city where gun violence is rife, and has left tens of youngsters dead. Every year a candlelit memorial services is held in the Manchester Cathedral in honor of people who have been killed by guns.
The Dean of Manchester Cathedral, The Very Revd. Rogers Govender, said Monday the use of the cathedral in the game was “beyond belief.”
He said Sony’s product undermined the important work the church did and created an image the church did not want to be connected with.
Church officials, who have described Sony’s move as sick and sacrilegious, met Monday to discuss the next steps in the dispute and draw up a letter of demands to be issued to Sony.
Church leaders want the game removed from shop shelves or modification of the section of the game to remove the Cathedral interior. They also want an apology from the company for using “realistic photo quality” images of its building without permission. Govender said the church would also seek a donation to be used in its work with young people. He did not specify how much the company would be asked to pay.
Govender urged Sony to get in touch with the church within the next few days to discussed the points raised by church leaders, and hoped the two parties would be able to find a “mutually satisfactory conclusion.”
Spokesman for Manchester Cathedral David Marshall told PA the church had received emails in support of its stance against the multinational.
The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt. Rev. Nigel McCulloch, said: “It is well known that Manchester has a gun-crime problem.
“For a global manufacturer to recreate one of our great cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have gun battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.
“Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy; we know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on the lives — it is not a trivial matter.”
Patsy McKie, from the Manchester-based group Mothers Against Violence, told CNN she was pleased the church was taking action over the game.
In 1999, her 20-year-old son died after he was shot in Manchester.
“We are concerned about the amount of violence in these games,” McKie said Monday. “It’s real for us. We are living the reality here. It’s not just a game.”
It is understood photographers may have visited the Cathedral to take pictures for use in the game, PA said.
During the game players are asked to assume the role of an army sergeant and win a battle.
A spokesman for Sony Japan confirmed to CNN Monday that the interiors depicted in the game were based on the Manchester Cathedral. He said Sony was taking the complaint very seriously and is looking into the matter.
Asked what Sony’s next move would be, a spokesman said on Monday: “We are now in contact with the Cathedral authorities and will be dealing with them directly,” according to a Reuters report.
David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times: “It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all.
“Throughout the whole process we have sought permission where necessary.”
This is a profoundly fvc!ed up culture. And gun control activists want us to follow their lead! We don’t need to get any more fvc!ed up than we already are. I prefer our culture where elderly restaraunt patrons can defend themselves, and fathers can defend their daughters rather than one where a shopkeeper gets fined (and could have gotten a prison sentence) for doing what used to be his civic duty.
Yes, we’re both violent, but they’re fvc!ing insane.