Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.

I think in this case that historical research shows that it is correct.

(Trying to mind my own p's & q's but when p's & 's are discussed I feel obligated chime in).

Yes, you're probably right. In fact the other versions are something about typesetters mixing up p's and q's when setting type because they are already backwards (negatives), something about young (semi-dyslexic) kids not being able to differentiate p's and q's when learning to write and a few other even less believable ones. I'm sticking with the pints and quarts because, well... it involves beer. ...and who doesn't love beer, huh?

Even beter, the local council (local government) can go to court and say "this person owes us money and won't pay" court passes a judgement. With the judgement, the council can then hire thugs to do their dirty work. the police don't get involved. Unless of course the bailiff/debt collector calls them to defend them/assist in getting entry, to take your goods to make good the money owed.

Wow. So you guys get around the constitutional protections (oh, wait...) by having a de-facto police force which isn't bound to play by the rules. Wow. Just...wow.

Sounds like a great way to get ventilated, over here. And I'm certain that a civilian subcontractor to the police would either be bound by the same rules as the police, or they wouldn't have the protections of the police, and would be just another bad guy breaking into the house. Which, as I say, is an unhealthy career choice.

Do you have any links where I could read more about this whole bailiff thing and how it works over there?

Yeah, that's what I meant by the parenthetical "oh, wait..."

Lucky you.

I'm gonna have to side with my ancestors on this one and say "time to leave".

I'm trying very, very had not to point out what, to me, is blisteringly obvious.

(cops being asshats) Yeah, that happens here too, just different "infractions". I personally know a lot of cops (in a rural area) and nearly all of them are great people, but of course that one guy (that the good cops can't stand either) always sets the tone for the community. That said, if it's systemic rather than "that one guy", then that's different.

OK, so why specifically is taking a dog with you to hunt a problem? Is this some overreaction to the fox hunting thing? What about bird-dogs? What are you supposed to do, find a texas lawyer to go fetch the partridges that you shoot or something? (I've heard that can be hazardous depending on who you're hunting with).

Funny thing about dogs and tagging along - a friend of mine came out this fall to borrow a rifle for deer hunting. I've got 30 acres out in the country (let's see, that's, 12+ hectares, if that means more to you?

300 meters by 400 meters, roughly). So anyway, we're out sighting in the rifle, and this golden lab wanders over and lays down next to us while we're shooting. Time to go change targets; he's wearing his hunting stuff, carrying the gun, and the dog got into proper "I'm going hunting" position. The thing is, I have no idea, to this day, whose dog this was. No tags (grumble), well taken care of though. We stopped shooting eventually, the dog lost interest and went back into the woods behind my land, off to wherever it was from. (shrug?)

But, that'd be a perfect example of a dog just tagging along with a hunting party. "Really, your honor, I have no idea who this dog is".

Thanks. I occasionally get in heated discussions (no, really, me!) with folks who like to pretend that everything is perfect over there. Never hurts to have a bit of reality check read for them.

in article snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote on 24/03/2006 21:26:

Good Lord!

Your right to bear arms is born out of the need to prevent the King of England charging across your lawn and taking over your 12+ hectares of land in the name of the crown ... Or so The Simpsons taught us :)

I'm very much in two minds about this one. It is certainly not in our culture to shoot people and/or to defend ourselves with weapons. I can see it coming, but that is as a result of outside influences. I think there was some mention about our Police not being armed earlier in this discussion. Well, our Police are quite often armed, especially in metropolitan areas. Maybe not the Police on the "beat" (walking the street), but the cars that buzz up and down the inner cities are certainly armed.

We had a Policewoman shot in Bradford in the not too distant past (I was having a late curry lunch just over the road, 50 yards away, just a quarter of an hour beforehand) and that started the debate again about whether our Police should carry guns. I'm not in favour. If our Police routinely arm themselves, our criminals will and we have little experience of that so it's bound to end in tragedy every time. I think armed backup is the way to go. Our armed Police cars are always patrolling inner cities and I think we have a very good balance in that respect.

Indeed ... See above. The US is a much newer nation than the UK and our nation was born out of conquering and submission of the clans by various invading forces; Angles, Saxons and Jutes, for starters. While modern day Welsh is the closest to our original Brythonic tongue, I think perhaps the Cornish are the last outpost of that civilisation.

Democracy does work; it's just the choices are always the same :(

BTW, I'm old enough to remember that bitch, young enough to remember "Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher!".

Well, the Tories are born out of the old Whigs and the Liberals are the old Conservatives!? The Labour Party was founded in Bradford (yes, Bradford, my home town) and, as Tony Benn said on Question Time last night, they're a Socialist Party in that they have some Socialists like the church has some Christians :) We get confused, too, since they change their spots so frequently! I find myself quite admiring Boris Johnson and lamenting about why Michael Portillo did not go for the Tory leadership :O

We go there quite frequently, actually. I really like York ... and Knaresbrough and Harrogate. York is like Leeds, without the pretention :) When we were in Sweden, we were chatting to the girls on reception at the hotel in Trollhättan about where we were from and one of the said about York and the Ivanhoe mythos ... Well, we had no idea what she was talking about, but she was right. We think of York as Wars of the Roses era, rather than Medieval.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

Generally, it's unwise to take historical and/or legal advice from the Simpsons.

Well, the thing is, if someone is threatening me or my family, it does society more good if the non-criminal survives that attack.

I think that this just validates the theory that an armed good person, improves society as a whole, while an armed bad person, detracts from it. It's not the hardware that's good or bad, after all, it's how it's used.

I won't pretend to understand your criminal:police dynamics so I'll defer on this one.

Mmmmm, pasties...

I meant the "I would not have bothered being born!" part of your statement ;)

You're going to make me go consult wikipedia, aren't you. Bastard; there goes the next two hours. I blame you.

It's like words, but, you know how on the Charlie Brown movies, when any adult is talking, you just get that "wah-wa-wa-wa-wa-waaaa" type noise? That's now that reads. Just no context I guess.

I enjoyed it so much I went there twice in the 3 months I was staying in St. Albans (Herts). Only place I went to more was London, but that's only to be expected.

So I think it's the T-fitting on the vacuum line going to the turbo gage. Or something.

Dave

The problem is psychological limitations that everyone have. Nobody is 100% rational 100% of the time. Nobody can concentrate 100% or they would never lose a Tennis match. Our emotional state vary and people can sometimes snap. If there is a loaded gun lying around, people may make the wrong choice that they might later regret. That is why there are different gun laws in the UK, very sensibly.

Or the U.S.Supreme Court? The Court recently ruled that it's OK for a government to take your property by eminent domain even if it's just for the purpose of enhancing the property tax base.

While that seems to make sense, look at it this way - 100% of the time, the criminal with a gun is a danger. 0.00something percent of the time, a good person with a gun becomes a danger. That other 99.99something percent of the time, I'd rather be able to defend against that 100% dangerous criminal in an effective way.

It's a cultural difference, to be sure. Which I suppose is why I should have stayed with my original thought to avoid the topic. Put it this way - I trust me, more than I trust an armed criminal.

No, they didn't. They ruled that the question of if that's allowed, is a state issue rather than a federal one; that the federal government can't make that call as it would be a violation of states' rights.

On reading some of the political rantings from the UK side of the pond it seems a pity we can't stick to Saab matters.

That's not exactly how that ruling went. They did *not* say that it was OK for the local government to take the property by eminent domain in that circumstance. All they said was that it was not within their jurisdiction to decide the case. Just a bit different, don't you think?

It's a huge difference, to the point where the press reporting it as Everett understands is well over the line of "subtly wrong" into "lying".

WHenever I'm familiar with the substance of a story, I find that the newspaper (and worse TV/Radio News) never always reports the story incorrectly. Usually seriously incorrectly. Not only do they get facts wrong, they then select quotes and facts that just present the story incorrectly. This seems to be more due to ignorance, not intent. They just don't have reporters with a clue about the subject area.

When they do have someone with knowledge reporting the story, the reporter invariably intentionally selects facts and quotes to distort the story for better news appeal and/or their own political agenda.

But, since few people pay any attention to the news media and even fewer actually read background material or do any research, it probably doesn't matter. Most get their information and make voting decisions based on the Urban fairly tale network.

Exactly. We need to get the guns out of the hands of the Vice Presidents. It's that simple.

We're splitting hairs here. While it's true that the Supreme Court didn't say it was OK for governments to take property solely for economic/tax gain, they kicked the issue back to the State(s) which had already decided that it was OK. Or, to use a double-negative, the Supremes decided to not rule that it's not OK.

Actually, I think you are right but for the wrong reasons.

As I recall it (been a while), the Supreme Court made the original ruling based on interpreting the Constitutions regulations of taking land for "public use" as applying to a project that includes commercial development for the "public good". In this case "public good" means that one taxpayer will pay more in taxes than the existing taxpayer - although I may recall the city arguing that it was a larger issue of urban renewal. Previously the definition had been confined to a true ED project such as a highway or a park. I recall a specific 5-4 decision and opinions written by the majority and minority. That's not "return it to the lower court without ruling".

In 2005, they refused to revisit the ruling. That is also not "return it to the lower court without ruling" - that's refusal to revisit.

Please remove the word never. I reversed polarity in that sentence.