.
Before I start, I’ve changed the text at the sidebar dealing with telling this blog about examples of bias from “aagh, don’t email me, I can’t cope” which is basically what it’s said for the last few months to the slightly more optimistic:
You can send it to the Letters Editor at nataliesolent AT aol DOT COM, and it is at least possible that I will not lose it or ignore it. A generally better option is to post it as a comment, even to an unrelated post, preceded if appropriate by the words “Off topic”.
While I was away “Captain Bill” pointed out a story about the recent referendum in Brazil on whether it should be legal to buy guns. He wrote:
Saw your post on the defeat of the UN-suggested total gun ban, just after I read:
Personal security dominates Brazil poll
“…And yet the Brazilian people have voted in a referendum to reject a proposal to ban the sale of firearms.
So what happened? To outsiders, this referendum looked like a no-brainer.
In a country where one person is killed with a gun every 15 minutes, surely the public would vote in favour of an outright ban on gun sales?
Wrong. By a resounding 64% to 36%, Brazilians decided to keep the gun shops open. …”
Seems to me as if the writer is more of a (biased) no-brainer than the citizens of Brazil. Was this supposed to be a news item?
In defence of the writer, Steve Kingstone, he did give a reasonable summary of the actual arguments of those who supported the right to own guns in the paragraph headed “Black market.” This is an improvement on previous attempts by the BBC to cover the issue of guns, which tended to diagnose the alleged psychological problems of supporters of gun rights rather than engage with what they actually thought. (See here, for example, although I was pleasantly surprised by this a few weeks later.)
Nonetheless the rather superior tone taken by Mr Kingstone with his talk of “no-brainers” is not justified. He does not know “outsiders” in general share his opinions.
And although it is a little harsh to single out Mr Kingstone, his piece says nearly all the things BBC reports always do say when the Beeb thinks the wrong side has won a vote.
- The winning bad guys’ campaign was “slick” (i.e. the ad-men bamboozled the rustics).
- The losing good guys’ campaign was “lacklustre” (i.e. the people would have been persuaded if only the messenger had been worthy).
- What voters really wanted to do was give the ruling party a scare (they weren’t actually saying what the vote seemed to say).
I’m not saying that these factors were not there in the Brazilian gun referendum. Such factors often are very influential. But you can all amuse yourselves by looking back over… hmm, various recent votes on European issues would do, and spotting how important these themes suddenly become when the vote goes awry from the Beeb point of view.
And most of the time, if the bad guys’ campaign happens to spend more than their opponents you can bet you’ll hear it described as “well-funded”. Conversely, if the side of virtue (as defined by the Beeb) triumphs, then the money spent is not usually an issue. Mr Kingstone is not guilty on this count, as he did say that the Yes campaign was “heavy in celebrity razzamatazz, and light in penetrating argument.”
It’s very easy for this Kingston character to wax lyrical about how great banning guns would be. We live in a society that hasn’t traditionally favoured the criminal element though, with each new restriction on personal gun ownership in this country, gun crime has risen by several multiples, especially in the inner cities. I’m nto saying these are related. I’m not saying they’re unrelated either… however they don’t call Manchester “Gunchester” for no reason.
I have a friend who lives in the south of Brazil, and who was absolutely incensed that the referendum even had to go ahead. His arguments were that it was a waste of time and money. If guns were banned, the only people who would obey the ban would be law-abiding people, and the criminals that menace them every single day would keep their guns and see it as a new era of ease-of-robbery. Simply put, most people in Brazil buy legal weapons to defend themselves. The police don’t bother doing their duty and the criminals have free reign in huge parts of the country.
Of course, that was just his opinion, but it seems that opinions like his are the majority in Brazil.
Exactly, anachonix. That’s the point. We take a random Brazilian – your mate – and we get a better picture of what’s going on from him than we get from a £3 billion news organisation. What’s with that ?
Strange for a British website that purports to hold true British values to get so excited about a gun ownership issue.
Last time I checked, this isn’t America and the majority of British people are horrified by easy access to guns (one only has to recall the public reaction to Dunblane).
I would say Kingstone’s tone merely reflected this Anglocentric (not left wing or right wing – Anglocentric) attitude.
Hank
Thanks for pointing out the beeb’s biased and imperialist imposition of Anglo centric attitudes on alternative South American cultures…………..bastards!
I keep wondering how many decent and law-abiding citizens of the UK (and others elsewhere in Europe) would buy a guy if they had the legal right to own one. I can tell you I’d have one if only to be on the safe side. A new Labour policy might be to hand out free guns to criminals so they know who has one.
I remember Condi Rice saying only a few days ago that she is totally in favour of gun-ownership because when she was a kid in the South black people had to use guns to protect themselves from racists… Very interesting and valid point I thought.
Hank,
“Strange for a British website that purports to hold true British values to get so excited about a gun ownership issue”
No, you are thinking of socialism – this is about debate.
“Last time I checked, this isn’t America and the majority of British people are horrified by easy access to guns (one only has to recall the public reaction to Dunblane).”
Err, no….the MEDIA is horrified by gun ownership. The reaction to Dunblane had more to do with the schoolchildren who were killed in school. It could have been done with a stanley knife. (ownership of which horrifies me!!!)
“I would say Kingstone’s tone merely reflected this Anglocentric (not left wing or right wing – Anglocentric) attitude.”
No, it reflects HIS attitude to gun ownership. I don’t remember any polls.
The xenophobia in the media towards firearms is disgusting. They do not trust ‘the other.’
If only the people of Darfur had guns.
If only the people in Srebrenicia had guns.
If only the Warsaw Jews had guns.
History may have been different.
I hope to buy a shotgun when I move house. I’ll think of you when I do so.
I trust you to have a car, so why shouldn’t you trust me to have a gun?
Joerg
“I remember Condi Rice saying only a few days ago that she is totally in favour of gun-ownership because when she was a kid in the South black people had to use guns to protect themselves from racists… Very interesting and valid point I thought”
I heard that too. Sadly, I can’t find the link.
Hank Scorpio – Dunblane was nearly ten years ago. People are more concerned about gun crime now, after handguns have been banned, because the number of criminals in possession of firearms has gone up. Criminals are more prepared to use firearms because they know their victims don’t have weapons with which to defend themselves. This issue really is a no-brainer.
I’d be pretty sure to buy a gun if they were legal. Aside from the protective function a gun would serve there’s a social aspect to gun ownership. Gun clubs, meetings, camaradarie…
I remember when guns were banned after Dunblane, a few people said that they’d go after knives next. They were laughed at. Now I’ve read about a group of scientists calling for the ban of knives with sharp points, and there are now increasing calls (calls from whome?) for knives to be banned outright.
Arguably knives are worse than guns. When a knife comes out someone is guaranteed to suffer a serious injury. When a gun comes out, people tend to back off a bit… but having said that, it’s really not the actions of a sane government to ban these things. Or perhaps we should be banning candlesticks and pokers and anything that can be fashioned in to a weapon.
Banning gun ownership is the best thing that happened to the criminal classes in the UK.
Game theory wise criminals have managed to disarm their victims whilst keeping their (non-registered) firearms. Nothing has empowered them more.
It’s allmost as if CND got the UK to disarm it nuclear deterent and was then suprised when the USSR just laughed about money well spent.
TomL:
“WASHINGTON • Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.
In an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defend the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.
Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.
Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, “we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important.”
Rice said the Founding Fathers understood “there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren’t going to protect you.”
“I also don’t think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution,” she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. “The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment.”
The First Amendment protects religious, press and speech freedoms as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government. The Second Amendment guarantees “a well-regulated militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Gun-rights supporters and those who favor gun control disagree over whether the amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.”
Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050511-1803-rice-guns.html
A few years ago, on a business trip to the States, my American colleagues asked me about gun ownership in the UK.
I explained:
“Oh, in Britain, the only people who are allowed to have guns are criminals.”
And, after a few puzzled seconds, my US colleagues burst out laughing. They obviously thought that I was joking….
According to a BBC article today, Hamas will end truce with Israel
The Palestinian militant group Hamas has declared that it will not extend an informal ceasefire that expires at the end of this year.
A spokesman said the nine-month-long truce could not be renewed after Israel killed a leader of its military wing in an air strike in Gaza on Tuesday.
Israel says it will continue its strikes until militants are disarmed.
Hamas has always reserved the right to hit back if Israel continues to target its members, but will not retaliate immediately, Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri told reporters.
“In the face of this Zionist aggression, no one should dream about the renewal of this truce,” Mr Masri said.
“The quiet will finish at the end of this year.”
So we are to assume from this article that Hamas have been good little boys and girls for the last 9 months. However, a brief search of BBC archives shows another article in September, just over a month ago, less than even 9 weeks ago Hamas releases video of hostage
Palestinian militant group Hamas has released a video of a bound and blindfolded Israeli businessman it says it kidnapped and later killed.
The body of 51-year-old Sasson Nuriel, who vanished last week, was found near Ramallah in the West Bank on Monday.
Hamas said it had planned to trade him for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, but decided to kill him after Israel began raids in the West Bank.
AND
Meanwhile, shrapnel found in the bodies of people killed in last week’s blast in northern Gaza came from Hamas’ homemade rockets, the Palestinian Authority has said.
Its forensic report said the shrapnel resembled that used by the Palestinian militant group in its Qassam rockets.
Findings discredit Hamas’ claim that Israel caused the Jabaliya blast
Hamas blamed Israel for the Jabaliya blast that killed at least 15 people, a charge Israel denies. The incident has led to a dramatic upsurge in violence.
The forensic report was published by the interior ministry’s explosive unit.
The Palestinian Authority said Hamas militants mishandled the home-made weapons during a big rally in the Jabaliya refugee camp on Friday.
Hamas had earlier said Israeli planes had fired missiles into the crowd.
Following the blast, the group fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel, injuring several people.
So exactly what ‘quiet’ is supposed to be ending following this ‘truce’, and (rhetorical) why is the BBC perpetrating this illusion?
Amazing. I truly can’t understand the intellectual processes of people who do not look at the crime stats in Florida… as BBC and the MSM in the US fails to do.
They all look at the stats of the entire US, which is not fair because we have a patchwork of gun control laws that are different from one state to another, and even one city to another. The fact is that the most gun crime occurs in cities and states that have the strictist gun control laws, places like New Orleans, Washington DC, Detroit, and Chicago, and the high level of crime in those areas is bending the stats in places with looser laws.
Florida is a “test lab” because we once had very strict gun control laws here. And Miami became the Murder Capital of the World. With the drug connections and general crime rate, the city was one of the most dangerous in the world. Guns were permitted, but only for things like hunting and target shooting. Shooting a criminal, even inside your house, could land you a life sentence. It was “wrong” to take the law into your own hands, you see :(. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was busy ruling that the police had no responsibility for preventing crimes. They could only determine if a crime was being committed AFTER the crime was committed. You can’t prosecute people for “unknown suspicious hanky panky”. A crime has to go down before the police are obligated to act.
Then, in 1987, our first Republican Governor, Robert Martinez, signed into law a bill that allowed people to shoot intruders in their homes and for regular citizens (ie: not law enforcement officers or other people with reason to carry) the right to a concealed carry permit. It took only one shooting of a criminal invading someone’s home declared legit for our crime rate to drop straight through the floor.
Criminals are greedy and lazy, not stupid. Once they figured out that virtually any citizen might be armed and that a shooting was something they could not sue over, large numbers of them simply left the state. Within two years the “Murder Capital of the World” distinction moved to Washington, DC, where it still is.
A decade later, Governor Jeb Bush enacted the 10-20-Life law. If a gun is present in the act of a crime… merely present… the perp gets 10 years for having it, and that’s 10 years absolute–no parole, no “good behavior” early outs– above and beyond the sentence for whatever the crime was. It’s 20 years– absolute– if a gun is fired at all, and Life– absolute– if a victim is shot, whether he/she lives or dies.
Putting the onus on the criminal has done even more to bring the crime rate down. As I said above, criminals are not stupid. They want to make an easy living off of the honest, and the 10-20-Life Law either restrains their activities enough for them to either leave or quit crime, or they’re going to prison for a LONG time.
The third event was our recent change in the law that allows those with concealed weapons to protect themselves in public areas. This was drawn out by the opponents to be a “Wild West” legislation that would allow shootouts in the streets of the state (and I’ve heard rumors that those opponents are producing “public service announcements” in UK and Europe saying that Florida is a place where you can get shot for acting in a way someone perceives as “threatening”), but the fact is that it has still further caused more crime drop.
The simple fact is that public shootings are even easier to sort out than shooting a home invader… because there are usually witnesses.
The criminals in this state are getting their butts handed to them, and that information is being deliberately subverted in the news media.
The “Wild West” scenario fell apart. Hell… the Wild West wasn’t the “Wild West”. Criminals like Jesse James and the Dalton Gang were famous precisely because they were RARE.
One thing is certain: a authoritative poll is needed on this subject to gauge the attitudes of the British people.
On one side, there’s the public revulsion to guns felt in the UK after Dunblane. I recall how disgusted people were at how easily Thomas Hamilton had access to firearms.
On the other hand, gun crime has indeed rocketed, so self-defence issues are valid.
Personally, I think allowing guns to become an accepted part of our society would lead to anarchy, and that it would take very few incidents of accidental deaths, incidents of gun-yobbery etc for the public to once again, like after Dunblane, react with horror and demand another ban (because I do remember that although the media, including the right wing press, led this campaign to ban handguns, the public were supportive).
Ah well. This is from the BBC Journalistic School that says the IRA are also good little boys and girls….
One things for sure, the So Solid Crew would be `down` with the opinions on this thread.
Think of all the jail time you lot would spare them for gun possession convictions!
BBC Biased Fans – friend of the gun owning gangsta.
Respect.
Seamus: “On one side, there’s the public revulsion to guns felt in the UK after Dunblane. I recall how disgusted people were at how easily Thomas Hamilton had access to firearms.
“On the other hand, gun crime has indeed rocketed, so self-defence issues are valid. ”
One the third hand (??? whatever!) there was the Columbine Massacre in Colorado. Oddly enough, the 10-20-Life law in Florida was our response to that. Put the onus on the criminal, not the victim. Florida determined that virtually any armed teacher or other adult in Columbine High School could have stopped the massacre cold.
The UK has to do what is right for their society. Guns are right in Florida because of public attitude, which doesn’t mean our solutions would be good for everyone. Also, our gun rights restoration happened in increments over two decades. That makes a difference, I think.
That public poll you mentioned would be a good idea, but ONLY if it is done as a referendum that ALL people in the UK participate in. There are way too many ways for someone with an agenda to cheat on sample polling. We see it happen all the time (ie: “100,000 civilian deaths” in the Iraq War, based upon sample counts done in FALLUJA, for crying out loud!!!).
Hank: “BBC Biased Fans – friend of the gun owning gangsta.”
No… the “gun owning gangsta” gets 10 years just for carrying. 20 years for firing. Life for injuring. Absolute.
We do NOT abuse our right to carry or to protect ourselves. It’s a matter of public attitude. We won’t lie down and let criminals run over us.
The above “anonymous” post was from me.
Joerg,
Thanks for the link!
mamapajamas,
Interesting post – I hadn’t heard of the Florida laws. I lived in Florida for a few months in the early 90’s, during a spate of tourist robberies and shootings.
Someone asked where I was from, I said “UK,” and then with some concern in his voice, he asked, “Are you armed?”
Tom… Yup… that would have been shortly after the concealed carry law was passed. There WAS a spate of tourist robberies, and it wasn’t difficult to track down the reason.
Rented cars had different plates from citizen cars. I was working in the computer room of the Dept of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles when we got an order from the Governor to CHANGE the rental care plates to look like regular ones. After that, the tourist crimes stopped.
What was happening was that the criminals knew the possibility that locals MIGHT be armed, so they concentrated their activities on rentals, knowing that they were probably from out-of-state.
In an odd, left-handed way, this shows how effective the concealed carry law was that the criminals started concentrating on rentals instead of victimizing locals ;). Changing the rental car plates brought that to a screeching stop.
Cheers, Tom!
As mamapajamas rightly states – it’s deterrents we need, wrapping criminals in cotton wool is the approach the BBC likes but it doesn’t do anything for the law abiding majority. The only problem with people having guns in their homes is “can they aim properly?”
If someone breaks into my home they must know that anything might happen to them. Stop the “reasonable force” crap and give people a means to defend themselves properly. If this involves killing an intruder so be it.
mamapajamas,
Yes! That’s right! Everyone was talking about the tourist rental car number plates attracting robberies.
One of the times that I flew in, I joined the queue for a rental car, but, as the queue was too long, I got a taxi. All the way to the hotel I was thinking, “there is no way I would have found this on my own, I would have got lost.”
I arrive in the hotel room, switch on the tv, and guess what? A tourist was shot dead in a rental car on his way from the airport to his hotel. He got lost, and went into the wrong area – robbery.
I think you are absolutely right – the criminals were aware that, potentially, everyone was armed – except the tourists with the rental ‘plates.
Joerg,
Re. the right to defend your home – a Florida friend kept a Ruger .45 automatic in his bedroom, and a snub-nosed (I think) Smith&Wesson .357 at his business, which was in a dodgy area. That’s what I call self-defence. 🙂
Jeorg: “it’s deterrents we need, wrapping criminals in cotton wool is the approach the BBC likes but it doesn’t do anything for the law abiding majority.”
Exactly. More than 20 years ago we gave up on the idea of “rehabilitating” criminals. We just owned up to the fact that most criminals are NOT necessarily poor or otherwise psychologically deprived… too many gang members came from good homes or were not poor or in some other ways didn’t fit the politically correct “profile” of criminals. The only thing they DID have in common was that they were greedy and too lazy and/or irresponsible to work an honest job. So we moved from the failed rehab ideas back to punishment. This is pretty much a Southern strategy, though, that isn’t necessarily shared throughout the US. Too many states are still struggling with the outdated rehab ideas. As far as we’re concerned, the rehab idea is a failure that turned monsters loose on the public, and we won’t go that route again unless or until someone comes up with a foolproof means of treating the disease of “laziness”. I wish them luck!
Putting the onus of responsibility on the criminal instead of the law-abiding public is bringing a lot of crime under control here.
Tom: “A tourist was shot dead in a rental car on his way from the airport to his hotel. He got lost, and went into the wrong area – robbery.”
Yow… talk about a close shave! :0
Yup… the reason I was so clear about the number plate thing was because our computer room had to reprint the millions of motor vehicle registrations for all those rental cars reflecting the new plate numbers! I think it was in ’90 or ’91 when we changed the plates.
They told us why they were doing it… some of the small-time criminals around the Miami area simply TOLD the cops who arrested them that they were targeting rental cars because of the concealed weapon law. So Governor Chiles ordered the plates changed.
That’s the reason we KNEW, without doubt, that the concealed carry law was working. 🙂
Jeorg: “Stop the “reasonable force” crap and give people a means to defend themselves properly. If this involves killing an intruder so be it.”
As far as we’re concerned, killing an intruder IS reasonable force. You don’t know why the intruder is there. You aren’t a mind reader, and you probably don’t have time for an in-depth psychoanalysis… if you’re even qualified to do that sort of thing. The most reasonable assumption is that the intruder is there for “no good”, and that’s good enough here.
Good point about how the BBC reports election/referendum victories they do not approve….note how if a right wing group wins a clear victory the BBC will say that the victors “should reach out” to the defeated minority. I never heard this said after any Clinton or Blair victory….
Seamus
You say that
“allowing guns to become an accepted part of our society would lead to anarchy”
Why? Gun ownership in this country has not always been outlawed. Back in the days where firearms were readily obtainable there was no anarchy here. There is no anarchy in the USA or Switzerland where firearms are either commonly owned or even required by law.
A bit OT, but I’m so enraged I don’t know where to share this with you all.
This is the “official complaint” I sent to the bbc just a few minutes ago. I’d be interested in your reactions……
This morning your biased ‘reporter’ Justin Webb went too far. Just after 6am on the Today Programme he said America was like a ‘Banana Republic’ because the president can pardon criminals. He clearly does not understand the democratic system there, and also has no business injecting his opinion into what is meant to be a ‘news’ story. Attention has been called to this employee before for his self-admitted bias concerning the USA. He does not deserve to work for our BBC and must be sacked. He is making our great British nation into a laughing stock.
Yes, I heard Webb’s piece too, but it merely elicited a weary sigh.
I thought Webb himself is beginning to sound slightly less confident about his reporting. My guess is that even if there’s been no official reaction to his Katrina fiasco, his stock within the BBC must be in freefall. Even within an organisation like the BBC, you don’t make such a mess, so publicly, and have it noticed, without it effecting your standing. Obviously now his MO has been blown so publicly, there’s going to be a widening circle of listeners who, like me, discount his reporting. In the long run, this is terribly damaging for the BBC, and you can be certain they know that, even if no-one has the guts to own up to, and deal with, the problem.
On a completely different note. Can you imagine the frenzy which seven consecutive nights of rioting in Harlem or Washington would have produced in the BBC’s reporting fraternity? Can you imagine Mr Webb’s contribution?
Ahh, the paris riots. It’s the 60s all over again, except students have been replaced with muslims. And the government caves in once again…
That’s the propblem with a country who’s government was brought about by a bloody and ultimately unjust revolution. The new government fears revolution and tries to appease anything they see as a potential revolution, to the point that they’re powerless to stop any kind of mass violence.
Big Mouth,
You have my sympathy. When I flip out over some bias or bad reporting on the BBC, I think of myself as having ‘Gone Frei,’ or ‘Webbed out’ or been ‘Beebed.’
Not sure why I told you that.
Old Ironsides,
“Good point about how the BBC reports election/referendum victories they do not approve”
Yes, and it is now getting so obvious it’s sad.
I mean….If so many Brazilians already owned firearms, then why on earth did the campaign to ban them get to the referendum stage?
Mmmm…..Perhaps it was a media elite with an agenda or something……
This is what the BBC should be saying but do not because they are all blinkered Socialists.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007491
Just spotted this on the homepage “Iraq latest Get e-mail alerts on the conflict with Iraq”
conflict with Iraq? Are the BBC implying that the Baathist remnants and the Foreign Islamofascist terrorists are the legitimate rulers of Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4400376.stm
Frank Gardner:
“I am going to stick my neck out here. I am going to say that certainly for the foreseeable future the threat of terrorism to the West has been raised dramatically by events in Iraq. That is my personal view. That is not necessarily a BBC view,”
I thought the BBC were supposed to be impartial and not have a ‘view’.
Gardner is merely confirming that “BBC views” exist, albeit in a roundabout way. Although probably not what he intended.
OT (with apologies)
Is the BBC *ever* going to shut up about Rosa Parks?
On the matter of access to guns and how it related to Dunblane, the weapons which Thomas Hamilton had in his possession were illegally owned but the police were not inclined to enforce the law and remove them from him. There had been several tip-offs to the police that Hamilton’s behaviour rendered him unsuitable to be in possession of guns but the police di nothing. In short, the existing laws of the land, had they been enforced by those whose job it is to do so, would have been sufficient to have prevented the slaughter in Dunblane. As has been pointed out, the only people now carrying guns are the criminals, and they don’t present as easy a target as motorists for our police. The police are only human, after all. What would you rather do: pull over a driver whose brake light doesn’t work, or attempt to disarm a drug-gangsta?
Living in devolved Scotland gives one quite an insight into the Beeboid mind. A significant proportion of our MSPs are either ex-employees of the BBC, are married to BBC people or are shagging them on and off. This means that we can read the BBC website and get a pretty good idea of what’ll be happening next at the Parliament. So when the Beeb went wall-to-wall on Rosa Parks I knew we’d get a motion in the Parliament:
S2M-3471 Trish Godman: Tribute to Rosa Parks, American Civil Rights Campaigner—That the Parliament pays tribute to Rosa Parks, the black American civil rights campaigner, who died on 24 October 2005, named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most important people in the history of the United States of America; acknowledges that, from that historic day in 1955 when she refused to move from the “white” section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks was, for all of her life, a staunch, courageous and passionate advocate of a peaceful strategy of non-violence in the campaign to secure civil rights for black American citizens, and is of the view that this advocacy, combined with her moral courage, inspired millions of other people peacefully to support the Civil Rights Movement, that she rightly deserved the Congressional Gold Medal, awarded to her by President Clinton, and that she will long remain an inspirational figure for all those committed to a non-violent strategy for democratic advancement.
So far predictable, and one can have hours of innocent fun reciting it to oneself with an Orla Guerin accent/inflection. What was unexpected was the amendment that cropped up later, from one of the Trostkyists (technically Scottish Socialist Party):
*S2M-3471.1 Colin Fox: Tribute to Rosa Parks, American Civil Rights Campaigner—As an amendment to motion (S2M-3471) in the name of Trish Godman, after “acknowledges that” insert “Rosa Parks was a member of the American Communist Party and that”.
Now I really hadn’t known Rosa Parks was a Communist, and I must have read quite few thousand words about her over the year. Did the Beeb mention it? Does anyone else feel a bit queasy about the fact that she seems to have been able to stomach mass murder in Europe, China and elsewhare on an unprecendented scale, imprisonment without trial and famine used as an instrument of policy, but only really got angry when she was told to sit at the back of the bus.
Gotta dash, the Scottish Parliament’s being addressed at 1 o’clock by His Excellency Dr Bingu wa Mutharika, President of the Republic of Malawi,who, it has to be said, looks remarkably well-fed for somebody from a country where half the people are starving.
PS You can see the fat doctor on
http://www.holyrood.tv/index.aspor
Quick comment on gun ownership in the UK. Prior to Huntingdon and Dunblane there was never a “right” for UK subjects to be armed for self-defense. The weapons had to be locked in a secure cabinet and preferably separated from the ammunition, hardly suitable for rapid reaction whilst under threat. The only use for handguns, other than legal enforcement, was recreational. I can see no correlation between increased criminal gun ownership and the banning of handguns in the UK, afterall the number of shotguns legally owned easily outstrips the number of hangguns that used to be owned by several orders of magnitude.
I personally think that the increase in illegal weapons has more to do with the opening of Eastern European borders.
On the topic of guns, how about this story from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4403264.stm
Although not directly linked, the point is, is it me or have any of you noticed that, amazingly the day after the Govt in the UK has been battered, the “dropping of charges against british soldiers” takes place.
My, my, how convenient for the government. If it’s ever found out that they deliberately held these men to try and appease the anti war vote, and then release them because they need i diversion that they know the public will be glad to hear. They can expect similar when they are out of office.
I’m sorry to write this, but its just far too convenient and has to be said.
On the BBC coverage, that to be fair, has been rather good of late.
Sorry about that too.
Peregrine,
For the decades immediately prior to the massacres at Hungerford and Dunblane you are correct to say that there was no right to self defence and that guns had to be kept locked up. However you are incorrect to say that there was “never” such a right. At the beginning of the twentieth century such a right was universally acknowledged as arising from the Bill of Rights. Starting with the Firearms Act of 1903 this right was by small increments whittled away, finally disappearing in the sixties. During that period crime vastly increased. It would be going too far to describe this as simple cause and effect, but in any other field but gun “control” a century’s unbroken record of failure might have prompted a rethink by now.
Ian Barnes ” amazingly the day after the Govt in the UK has been battered, the “dropping of charges against british soldiers” takes place.
My, my, how convenient for the government.
Yes it is well known how compliant are the judiciary to the wishes of the government. The BBC article states
The charges against seven UK soldiers accused of murdering an Iraqi civilian have been dismissed by a judge
Not withdrawn by the prosecution.
The problem of course is, in the words of the judge
“However, it has become clear to everyone involved as the trial has progressed that the main Iraqi witnesses had colluded to exaggerate and lie about the incident.”
Could Ian Barnes be indulging in stupid conspiracy theories?
Peregrine,
How come Sherlock Holmes was allowed to riddle his sitting room wall with the patriotic V.R.I. spelled out in bullets, and how come Dr. Watson always had his trusty British Army service revolver (from the Afghan campaign) ever at the ready to deal with miscreants?
Indeed, as I recall, during an armed robbery in the very early years of the 20th century, the responding (unarmed) police officers were able to borrow weapons off passer-by.
Apologies for not making myself clear, I really meant in the modern era (if one considers modern to be post WW1).
My understanding of the restrictions on gun ownership is that they were particularly driven by the sheer volume of guns being brought back by servicemen after the war.
With regards to explosion of crime since the 1960s I believe this is far more to do with social factors and any relation to gun law is a red herring. A similar explosion in crime happened in the US where guns were considerably laxer.
BTW I fully support the Florida principle of sentencing for gun related crimes, quite a few years ago it was proposed here (I can’t remember who by) but the minimum additional sentence was going to be 5 years.
I’ve never been able to understand why it is illegal to possess a handgun when the Bill of Rights, which guarantees such a right, remains in force.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Natalie, excellent comments, just one small addition:
“At the beginning of the twentieth century such a right was universally acknowledged as arising from the Bill of Rights.”
On the other hand, the Bill of Rights derived the right to self-defense from the British Common Law. That was where it originated.