There should bloody well be a law against it !

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cutaway, Nov 17, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    If there were anyone with the slightest possible doubt as to whether The Glorious Leader and his running dogs should be voted out as soonest, I've reproduced an article from today's Telegraph.

    http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/17/do1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/17/ixop.html

    Does this mean that 'New Labour' believes that it can glean more votes from thieves than the law-abiding ?
     
  2. nothing new there cuts 8O

    in their first 4 years until from election til November 2001 labour had changed/made 14,600 legislations that did not need ratified by the House of parliment.

    I shudder to think how many the total is now, Bliar wants to be remembered in history, he will be..as the PM who ruined the UK.

    what is even more strange is how the amount of "OLD" labour MP's who have let him get away with his republican actions. just shows that IMO no politician is in it for any other reason as their own gatutious welfare
     
  3. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Left the shlt hole a year after this bunch of cnuts got into power. Haven't been back since. It looks like it has only got worse.

    We all sit on here and critisise (SP? beer :? ) places like Zimbabwe for becoming a third world dictatorship but hey have a look closer to home. :( 8O

    Democracy pah.
     
  4. Bliar is a control freak. Treats the country en masse as if we are too stupid to realise what he is doing. Pure frightening arrogance. He tries to be all things to all men and not a grain of truth in any of it.
     
  5. Cuts,
    You're pushing against an open door here as I suspect the columnist is with Telegraph readers. Unfortunately, in the wider world, most people think those laws are a good thing, if they think at all that is.

    What is needed is a law against footie, I'm a Celebritiy etc, or soaps. Then they may wake up - probably be too late but you never know.

    Meantime everyone, write or fax your MP

    www.faxyourmp.com/

    Remind them of the Party's three slogans in Orwell's 1984 - (or should it be New Labour?)

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    Sh1t! how prophetic is that - twenty years late but fcuking right-on.

    They've got to GO - NOW - ASAP
     
  6. I agree that the tendency of a labour govenrment is to impse more rules and beaurocracy in order to justify their existence. For this i despise them with a passion.

    Despite this, the article in the telegraph is flawed. A number of its points are either inaccurate or just plain wrong!!

    For one, whilst it may infringe on a number of peoples rights to impose a smoking ban, it will also help a huge number of people (by preventing them suffering from passive smoking which kills 1000 anually). Again this is a tough one to decide, but i think it is worth banning it (as long as individuals are allowed to smoke outside or in their own house with now further inteference)

    Anothe point is that despite what labout and the glorious leader do to ban hunting with dogs, it WILL NOT make it illegal to chase a fox using horses!!

    Also, it is not illegal to own a .22 rifle (although it may be illegal to own a .22 handgun) and it is not illegal to shoot them at a shooting range!

    The telegraph is normally a very high quality paper with a conservative/anti labour slant (which cant be a bad thing!!!) However, when they make silly petulant and ill-informed statements like this it detracts from their normally high quality arguments.

    Raise the bar Mr Telegraph editor (or else you will soon be like the socialists that you despise!!)

    Agent smith
     
  7. I tend to agree with Agent Smith.

    Whilst it shouldn't have taken a law to prevent some idiot driving with his phone glued to his ear it has (I know many still do). It also shouldn't have taken a law to make people wear seat belts or crash helmets to stop them dying, - but it did.

    There is a need to be cognisant of the British approach to stable door legislation. We sink ferries that sail with their doors open, we burn down football stands etc. with the attendant large loos of life. And then we make it illegal!!

    If they're reactive they get it in the neck, - if they try and stop it before it happens they get it in the neck!!

    In no way can I be considered a Labour apologist, - I hate them with a vengence - but there does need to be a balance.
     
  8. But it doesn't say that it's illegal to own a .22 rifle! RTFA! It says it's illegal to own any handgun for sporting purposes, which is almost totally correct. A 100% correct formulation is that it's illegal to own any cartridge handgun for sporting purposed, since muzzle loaders are still permitted.

    As for the smoking ban, I'm in 2 minds about it. My ideal solution would have been to offer pubs & restaurants etc. a tax break to go smoke free, rather than to make it obligatory. But Gordon would never allow that, would he? :roll:

    Also, has anyone else spotted that in the last couple of years, politicians have started to refer to themselves as "lawmakers"? This indicates to me that they consider their job to be simply the making up of new laws. Man-hammer-problem-nail.
     
  9. But these laws do not need to exist! If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you can only hurt yourself. Likewise riding without a seatbelt in the front of a car (but in the back of the car you can kill the person in the seat in front of you so that should definitely be illegal). The government does not have a duty to protect you from yourself. There is a duty to educate people about the dangers and advise them to buckle up / put on a helmet, and then Darwin will do the rest... Likewise drugs - provided your use has no impact on society, I feel you should have the right to put whatever you want into your body. If you go off & steal to fund your habit, then the book should be thrown; it's the difference between stock traders taking a bit of speed to help their concentration, and professional junkies beating up old ladies for their pension books.

    The current crop of bureaucrats do not understand the difference between hazard and risk: many things are a hazard, but they do not necessarily constitute a risk. For instance, petrol is a hazard (can be used for arson), but normal use of it creates very little risk. Therefore, anyone over 16 can buy petrol. If we focus simply on the hazards associated with petrol, then we would ban it.

    Bar stewards, the lot of them :evil:
     
  10. You only quote the bike and seatbelt laws, carefully avoided the mobile 'phone one. As we all know, it's not just the numpty using the 'phone that could be at risk in that case.

    I personally think the anti-smoking legislation will open a flood gate or two for lawyers [rant on] blod sucking scum[/rant off] later on when Mrs. Bliar wants ie when she's fed up with doing HR wastes of time and public money.

    A more correct (110%?) formulation would be delete sporting purpose and insert target shooting sports
     
  11. [quote="scaliebackA more correct (110%?) formulation would be delete sporting purpose and insert target shooting sports[/quote]

    Cue semantics: The only acceptable uses for handguns now are:
    Study (Sec. 7)
    Humane destruction of animals (Sec. 3, IIRC)
    Film & theatre (blanks only, obviously, in suitably converted wpns)
    none of which are sporting... You were never allowed to hunt with them anyway...

    Re: mobile phones - Sorry, wasn't avoiding it, I'm so mentally chinstrapped at the moment it's like I've got tunnel vision, & it didn't cross my mind. It's rather like drink driving, actually:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/199825_celldrive16.html
    and I think it should be treated as such...
     
  12. Ooohh, incorrect oh stoaty, try humane despatch, starting races. 7(3) allows firing, come on.......

    You could hunt with them, if the Police thought you had a good reason to do so 8O
     
  13. Sorry, forgot starting races... Bugger. But, although part of Sec. 7 allows firing, it does not allow firing for sport, only firing for study. After every shoot you have to record vast reams of data on bullet, load, conditions, group dispersion, shot locations etc. No competition, no shooting just for fun.

    And no, hunting is totally verboden with handguns - even the long, 24" barrelled long range pistols in rifle calibres (you can shoot a deer with a .243" 16" bbl iron sighted rifle, but not with a .243" 24" bbl scoped T/C Contender). Handgun hunting, however, is very popular in the States, which is why the ridiculous .500 S&W revolver was produced.
     
  14. and trophies of war

    You were using past tense, as was I. You could probably get the Contender if it had the stock. Then again, what's that classified as? I'd refrain from anything to do with what the cousins call huntin' 8O
     
  15. Yup, and I forgot trophies of war acquired before 1.1.1946... Sorry :roll:

    I remember a discussion on Cybershooters about the possibility of hunting in the UK with a Sec. 1 LBR / LBP, and that it's still banned. But I could be wrong, and would be delighted to read a cite from somewhere that says you can...