that “people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution” have provoked one of the BBC’s regular [Don’t] Have Your Say topics.
Curiously, this topic, about which there is such strong public sentiment in favour of removing burglars so-called ‘rights’, has prompted only ten comments printed online. Even more curiously, the first three of these comments that supposedly ‘reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far’ are all against Sir John, for instance – “could spiral out of control”, “potentially very dangerous”, “daft and irresponsible” and so on. The last seven comments support Sir John’s views, and are, I believe, much more representative of typical British opinion.
Even if 30% of the comments received were agin Sir John’s views, are we really to believe that they were the first 30% of commenters? If not, how come the BBC’s list of comments have been ordered that way?
Update: This article refers to the BBC page timestamped 13:29 GMT. A new version, timestamped 16:02 GMT, has just been published. It now leads with eight new comments (two against, six for), somewhat redressing the balance. Perhaps there’s been a staff changeover.
I now note a distinct perponderance of ‘agree’ responses. I’d heard Great Britain had pretty much rescinded the right to self defense when they banned private firearms, and even took to prosecuting people for carrying wrenches, penknives or anything else they could use to defend themselves.
Remember the Today programme’s listeners’ law earlier this year? The Beebsters all reacted with horror when the vote went overwhelmingly for a law to allow householders the right to use force in defending their property when all the BBC spin was aimed at organ donation. The disgust was palpable and not much was heard about it after that – Move move on, nothing to see here.
Hmmph, something smells…Why is the BBC publishing the opinions of those who advocate victim rights over those of the criminals? I actually read a few comments from facists that had the temerity to suggest they should be allowed to defend their homes upon criminal invasion! I’m going to write to(Don’t)Have Your immediately. This has all the hallmarks of a Karl Rove infiltration and I want answers.
Doubtless BBC coverage will shortly be quoting Columbine etc and using John Stevens comments as another stick to beat those stumped tooth hillbillies who had the temerity to re elect Dubya. They will be overlooking the fact that in the United States the chance of being violated in your home are significantly less than here in UK. The difference is that when a scallywag turns over your house here he knows that the state will give him the benefit of every doubt. In the USA a housebreaker has it coming. The BBC line is that gun ownership makes the US a less civilised society – Civilised for whom? The law abiding who endure crime or the criminals who get away with it?
OT
The truly awful Barbara Plett has dried her tears and canonised her next saint:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4066591.stm
Roxanna
Britons as a whole haven’t rescinded the right to self-defence. The Guardian-reading classes took away the ‘right’. Its something any sensible Briton ignores anyway. Simply by being a free-born Englishman I have the freedom to defend myself and mine with what I believe to be sufficient force. As Kim du Toit (another blogger) states “I’d rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six.”
OT I heard a surprisingly satisfactory ‘Any Questions’ today. Unlike the usual selection of Lab/Libs and wet Tories with the occasional licensed extremist, the Beeb put on Robert Kilroy-Silk, Saleish Vara (a ‘dry’ Tory), Vincent Gable (Lib) and Ruth Ellis (Lab) – the views of the last two need no elucidation.
The issues on which the faultlines between left and right were evident included cultural equivalance (RKS considers the West to be superior to Islam, said so and didn’t back down in the face of prior assault); immigration, with RKS to the fore and well supported by SV, and the EU with RKS on the attack and well appreciated by the audience. The point is that when the Beeb puts on a balanced panel, the Left is trounced.
BBC bosses today defended using licence-payers’ money to hire taxis to ferry employees 500 yards from a staff car park to a new multi-million pound regional broadcasting centre.
Staff leaving their cars at the Horsefair car park in Birmingham city centre can use the service to take them to the state-of-the-art studios at the upmarket Mailbox development.
The Mailbox studios, which opened in October after a lengthy delay and at an official cost of £45 million, are four minutes away from the car park on foot.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3841898
We are all to blame for the current dreadful state of affairs. The education “experiments” of the sixties, have become parents, and grandparents of the don’t care generations – the constant dripping and paring away of the authority of teachers, the lack of respect for the law, police and even firefighters and paramedics – No one has said STOP -ENOUGH, We are all being carefully PC, being drowned in illegal immegrants, dreadfully biased religious leaders from the Pope’s views on condoms to the Imam’s views on forcing Islam on to a basically Christian culture via the DUP’s version of “No surrender” Someone, somewhere please say ENOUGH
OFF TOPIC
Investigate why BBC 5Live web-site allows all sorts of speculations and news about most topics, including speculation that Arafat was poisoned BUT will remove any postings that even mention that Fox News, Sky News, NYT, Sunday Times (twice) mentioned David Frum’s suggestion that Arafat died from Aids and had homosexual relationships when young.
Their reason as e-mailed to posters is that BBC News itself has not reported on this.
Why Not? When several newspapers and media have reported on the speculation NOT reported the speculation as fact.
And why allow other sorts of speculation like poisoning.
fivelive are the proud flagship station of bbc bias. i’d expect nothing less from them.
“Britons as a whole haven’t rescinded the right to self-defence. The Guardian-reading classes took away the ‘right’.”
So I’ve gathered. Thank God for the Second Amendment.
“And why allow other sorts of speculation like poisoning.”
Because that – unlike Arafat’s sex life – can be blamed on the Israelis.
Roxana Cooper, I’d thank god for the NRA if I was you. If it hadn’t been for them keeping the issue alive, your home-grown socialists might well have managed to get anti-gun amendments onto the constitution, then where would you be?
Alan: “(…)then where would you be?”
Statistically less likely to die from gunshot wound, one would imagine.
Re the Second Ammendment and the NRA, I too, am grateful they exist and both require our constant support. Any legislation that guarantees the only citizens allowed to bear arms would be members of the government, be it national, regional or local, is dangerous. Laugh if you will, but one never knows when any of ’em may run amok. This particular issue should be embraced by all political persuasions, I have no idea why the left seems to want to distance themselves from the constitutional right of responsible gun ownership. The founding fathers knew what they were doing and why. They were brilliant!
redken – hi there! Would you also ban cars and alcohol? That combo causes far more accidental injuries and deaths, and there is little we can do about it. I think the key word here is “responsible” gun ownership, and it IS possible. People have been armed far longer than they’ve been drinking and driving and we’ve survived.
Pam,
Doesn’t the US government have weapons which citizens are not allowed to possess? So not everyone is equal in terms of ownership of weapons.
I expect the 2nd amendment was quite useful 200 years ago but if you were to start out again I think it wouldn’t be necessary. Of course once you’ve allowed everyone to own guns though its pretty much impossible to turn the back the clock. So I can understand why it is kept.
I for one am glad we don’t have the equivalent here in the UK. I feel safer for it.
PD – Of course, and knowing our military, I don’t mean to suggest an armed citizenry would be able to take on the government and win but… I don’t believe we should surrender the right in principle ( principles do matter to me)and I further believe we could make “things” more difficult ( witness Falluja) The government must never forget it works for and serves ME, not the other way ’round. I pay their salaries. Finally, individual gun ownership allows me the option of doing harm to anyone wishing to do me and my loved ones harm, FIRST. I’m referring to crime against property or person here, of course. I want that right. I have zero( or zed?) sympathy for any son of gun who would enter my home and threaten my family. I’m very fond of them (not quite sure why, at times ) I’m not as attached to my lawn ornaments, so I would opt for a call to my local police station in that instance.
Pam is right – the incidence of contact crime in England and Wales is nearly twice that of the U.S.
In the U.S. ALL homicides are classified as murder – ergo the numbers are out there for the lefties to play games with.
The fact remains that since I live in Virginia, a state that permits registered firearms, I dont NEED one. A criminal doesn’t know IF I have one or not, or which of my neighbors has one or not. It works brilliantly.
Downtown in DC, where they have an absolute firearms ban, they are competing for the highest murder rate in the counrty with the other three cities that have firearms bans.
Those 4 cities account for a third of all homocides in the U.S., and they all experienced extreme RISES in those rates when the put the bans in place.
When you’re an adult, guns are absolutely nothing to be afraid of.
Cars and alcohol serve a worthwhile purpose in society (perhaps less so the former but it helps ugly people have sex which can be no bad thing) while I’m not sure the same can be said for guns which only really come in use in war time and if you’re a soldier. Though I’m not really a nanny state fan, with guns the old premise ‘it only takes one nutter’ seems to ring true as it did in the UK with Thomas Hamilton and Dunblane.
redken – oh, I don’t know..I think I would find a gun useful to me if I had to defend myself or my family against someone intent on doing us harm. Can’t see what my car sitting in my driveway or the bottles of wine in my modest little collection would do for me. And I’m a not a big woman, I wouldn’t have a prayer taking on a criminal using a knife or my fists…yup, a gun would be my best option. And I can use it from a comfortable distance. Now it’s true I can’t transport myself about town with a gun, nor drink bullets…I supppose “usefulness” is defined by the situation you find yourself in. One final thought – “nutters” and criminals ALWAYS seem to have guns ( reference any number of our mass-murdering spree for alls)I just want a level playing field. Imagine, if you will, a “good guy” with a weapon that infamous day at the McDonalds out in CA. some years back. We can’t always rely on them to blow their own brains out, can we?
I’m not saying the cops shouldn’t have guns btw. Maybe if it was harder for nutters to gets guns in the first place that might solve the problem and if that means responsible gun owners can’t own them, well tough, it’s small price to pay I think. You’re not actually very likely at all, statistically speaking, to be the victim of violent crime (certainly not in the UK, and apparently not in the US if one of the above posts is to be believed) so why would you put yourself at risk (I forget the stat about gun-owners being more likely to die in a gun-related incident) for the sake of what might not ever happen?
redken – NO, NO, NO…1) cops have been known to be nutters, too. 2)nutters and criminals WILL ALWAYS get their hands on guns, gives them an advantage, see? 3) Whaddaya mean tough? I want the right to own a gun, most of us do, so we outnumber the other guys and that’s tough on them 4) I’m even less likely ( oh yes, you can believe it, look it up yourself) if the potential armed creep fears I might be armed 5)when purchasing a firearm, one generally learns how to use it and how to secure it so that accidents don’t happen 6)again, shall we ban cars, so that accidents involving them don’t occur??? I am a grown up and I demand to be allowed to be one!!! ( stamps feet, scares Yorkie)
Pam: Well okay, I’m not sure I want enrage an armed American. Can I ask you why do you think Canada has a much lower gun-related crime rate than the US? The laws on ownership are pretty similar aren’t they?
redken – I’m quite peaceful, honest. And no, sadly, the Canadians have pretty much personally disarmed. As for their military, sheesh, embarassing… My friends there assure me not everyone is happy about this state of affairs, pity, they used to be sooo similar to us…JUST KIDDING!!!!(They absolutely HATE being compared to us, if you want to annoy a Canadian, go at them from that angle) Having said this, no more comments re Canada from me, we’re trying to smooth things over with our Northern neighbors right now. They really ARE the nicest people, much nicer than us, even their leftists are generally polite.
If one filters the data relating to homicide in the US, it is found that a grossly disproportionate number are drug-related black-on-black shootings from that narrow sector of ‘business’. The vast majority of Americans remain unaffected by such activity but it is a sector which is much smaller in Canada.
Using Dunblane as an example (it only takes one nutter etc.) is erroneous – the laws existed up here to have disarmed Thomas Campbell but the police were lax in applying them. Now, all are disarmed except the criminals.
Oops – it was Thomas Hamilton above.
Allan,
Very correct. Most homicides in the US have to do with drug gangs fighting over turf. Not just blacks but hispanics and Asians also have drug gangs. Canada doesn’t have as many people as we do, nor is it as “diverse” as we are. (though that is changing.) Canada has a lower population than California, occupying a land mass that is larger than that of the US.
US violent crime rates aside from homicides are lower than the UK’s and those of many other “more civilized” countries. They have been dropping for quite some time. Many libertarian types are convinced that gun ownership has something to do with it, but I’m not so sure. Householders had guns in the 70s but the crime rates were twice as high as they are today.
I suspect that a return to social conservatism, rapidly declining teen pregnancy rates, and better policing a la Giuliani in New York have all played a significant role.
“Maybe if it was harder for nutters to gets guns in the first place that might solve the problem…”
Except the nutters are already armed with something; if not with guns then with knives or clubs, and your “typical” nutter is going to be bigger, stronger and crazier than the average victim. An armed populace might even have been able to stop Hungerford or Dunblane before it went so far. Tony Martin should have had the support of the Police when he wanted a firearm to defend his property, and should not have had to get one illegally.
“You’re not actually very likely at all, statistically speaking, to be the victim of violent crime”
Might be true if you take the UK as a whole, but this ignores the fact that violent crime is concentrated into small geographical areas. The Queens’ law abiding subjects who are unfortunate enough to live in, or near, one of these black spots should not be denied the ability to defend themselves.
I think this is one where right wing opinion is out of step with the majority, although I wouldn’t mind seeing some poll figures to back up or disprove that opinion. I personally haven’t seen much enthusiasm for an increase in gun ownership.
Amongst the many many reasons why this is a bad idea is differences between the US and the UK. In the US people are used to having the right to bear arms and by and large seem to be responsible with it. Their alcohol laws, though ridiculous, also lead them to being a bunch of pussies on the drinking front which has the fortunate side effect of making usually lawful citizens less prone to violent lunacy.
I don’t even want to think of the carnage if 20 somethings scrapping outside Yates’ on a Friday night could legally keep firearms.
“I think this is one where right wing opinion is out of step with the majority”
True, though I don’t think it can be called a British right wing opinion as I’ve never heard British conservatives express anything on the subject. My own opinion was only formed in the last few years, after observing debates between Brits and Yanks on the ‘net. What stood out to me was that the public debate (managed by the BBC of course) after Dunblane failed to bring up most of the issues, and as a result the vast majority of Brits have never heard any real pro-gun arguments. I suspect that if they heard them, there would be a lot more support.
“I don’t even want to think of the carnage if 20 somethings scrapping outside Yates’ on a Friday night could legally keep firearms.”
There would be nothing stopping pubs banning firearms on their premises. Also there would be no difficulty banning those who have criminal records from owning firearms. If the bouncers and publicans were armed, it might even help them calm some situations down before things got ugly.
The reason that conservatives are silent on this one is that the whole argument is arse about face. We should be looking to remove the illegally held guns from the streets by stripping away the political correctness that hinders the police from focussing on the main perpetrators of gun crime. This is a problem almost exclusively focussed on a few demographic groups and localities which could work to our advantage if we weren’t so shy of offending people. Giving guns to all and sundry is just as much a cop out as ‘community policing’ – we’ve f*cked this up so we’re going to pass the buck.
Alan,
I think allowing the bouncers of such places to be in possession of firearms would be just as bad as the customers!
Rich: “Giving guns to all and sundry is just as much a cop out as ‘community policing’…”
Which isn’t the point. What I advocate is allowing adults with no serious criminal record the right to own and (if necessary) use a gun to defend themselves. No one is suggesting giving out guns to “all and sundry”, and no one is suggesting this as some sort of solution to crime (though it is a solution to the problem of self defence).
PD, I’ve never had any problems with bouncers, but maybe I’ve just been lucky 🙂
Allowing guns to be widely available to the general populece in this country is just not suited to our culture and geography unlike the US where dispersed populations render fast-response policing impossible and where people are obliged to take care of themselves. However, in the UK there is/was a tacit agreement that the people would respect the police provided that the police actually did protect us. The police have broken this agreement and are now more interested in pursuing us (the middle classes) through contrived offences (speed cameras, anyone?) because we pay up, are unarmed, do not resist arrest, and are generally good for their clean-up figures for crimes (crimes?).
“In the US people are used to having the right to bear arms and by and large seem to be responsible with it.”
Our homegrown anti-gun advocates would not agree but thanks for the compliment! 🙂
“Their alcohol laws, though ridiculous, also lead them to being a bunch of pussies on the drinking front which has the fortunate side effect of making usually lawful citizens less prone to violent lunacy.”
And here I though we Americans were the wild eyed, violent, ‘cowboy’ types!