And she is in need of your assistance. Psychotic ex-boyfriend. Restraining order about to expire. Needs to move. Pronto. Go here to help out.
Blogatrix in need of assistance… its a Blog-eat-Blog world out there.
|
|||||
|
In what I am sure will be a crashing disappointment to lots of people who go around calling themselves ‘human rights campaigners’, the British legal system has opted not to further persecute a victim:
I cannot really bring myself to call this justice because if there was even a smidgeon of justice then Tony Martin would not have been incarcerated in the first place.
It is not just the law that needs changing. April 15th, 2003 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
 People in Baghdad have been protesting to US troops regarding the breakdown of law and order in that city and elsewhere in Iraq. The solution is simple… when the protesters turn up, lead them to one of the large piles of abandoned small arms dotting Iraq, issue each one of them with a Kalashnikov, 30 rounds of ammunition and a fluorescent yellow armband with the letters INW (Iraqi Neighbourhood Watch) in Latin and Arabic letters, and then tell them “Scram… this is your city so take care of the problem yourself and only call us if things get really out of hand”. At a stroke the Iraqis are given the means to stop the looters, they are empowered to take their post-Ba’athist future into their own hands and they are shown that the coalition is serious about Iraqis running Iraq. Will this mean some weapons get into the hands of the wacko bad guys? Sure, but those guys are already armed. However the upside is that for every one of them, there will be many dozens of normal armed Iraqi people who just want to live a normal life and who then will be able to say “never will be suffer this nightmare again”… and say it with a Kalashnikov in their hands. Ba’athist or Islamist thugs swaggering around your neighbourhood? Now that the Iraqis have had a taste of freedom, let them cap those bastards. All political power does indeed grow out of the barrel of a gun… so lets make sure everyone has one. April 14th, 2003 | 32 comments - (Comments are closed)
A Civitas report on crime, ominously called The Failure of Britain’s Police, argues that forces of law and order have lost control. Police in Britain are so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of crime that even recent extra recruits are making no difference according to the report published today. The comparison with New York figures is startling. In 1991 there were 22,000 robberies in London. In 2002 there were 44,600, an increase of 105 per cent. In 1991 there were 99,000 robberies in New York City. In 2002 there were 27,000, a decrease of 73 per cent. To draw equal with New York’s achievement, London would thus have to gain no fewer than 178 percentage points in its fight against street crime. The report concludes that to halt the rising levels of street crime, substantial increases in numbers of policemen, as seen in New York, are necessary. Zero tolence policing is called for to set clear boundaries and re-take the public places from anti-social elements. However, that has not been the Home office’s priority. Their approach is predictable:
Oh, and here is the government’s story about crime figures. Crime is 9 per cent down and believe this, if you can:
I know whether I feel safe in London or not. How about this radical solution – allow people defend themselves! April 7th, 2003 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
At my last-Friday-of-the-month meetings chez moi, my computer – and especially its round-the-clock Internet connection – tends to degenerate into a tragedy of the commons illustration. 
And thus spake Antoine at Brian’s Friday…
…and his adoring audience rejoiced But sometimes I come across vaguely good stuff this way. This, which found itself on my screen as things began to wind down last night, is quite good. It is a Richard Littlejohn Sunpage, and sports as its main headline the following: “You’re Salford Shi’ite and you know you are.” That’s about the British Muslim captured in Iraq, fighting against Britain. That headline is the world crisis in one phrase. Daft Muslims do daft things, and by the time the abuse has settled, all the other Muslims have been insulted. Next to that story was another, in a grey box on the right hand side. That looks like a Samizdata story I said. Yes it does, said someone else closer even than I to the heart of things Samizdatarian. So here it all is. It doesn’t deserve to be swallowed up in the pay-per-view maw of the Murdoch archives.
It could be a long war. I’ve just been watching the weekly highlights of the Johnny Vaughan TV show which is on BBC Nobody-watches-that 3. One of his guests was complaining about how depressing the Oscars show was. Said Vaughan:
March 29th, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
I may just have stumbled upon the reason for Mr.Blair’s enthusiasm to occupy Iraq. Having successfully disarmed the British, he is now on his way to do the same to the Iraqis:
Well, well, well. The ironies are so rich that you could float them on the stock market. Oppressed, tyrannized Iraqis can apparently walk into a shop and buy a shooter with the same alacrity with which they would purchase a packet of pitta breads and ‘free, democratic’ Britons can be prosecuted for possessing a toothpick! Much to ponder in this, fellow seekers, but a couple of conclusions do spring readily to mind: first, democidal despot he may be but Saddam Hussein clearly trusts his own people far more than Her Majesty’s Government trusts theirs. Secondly, whilst not wishing to disparage the value of RKBA, it seems that it is not a defence against tyranny. [My thanks to Sean Gabb for the link] March 18th, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
First they ban any effective tool of defending yourself against rape, then they prosecute you if you actually defend yourself, now they are prosecuting people for using the most effective method of escaping rape: “Melissa O’Donnell claimed the unidentified man attacked her as she slept in the spare room of his home in Inverness and she fled by car despite drinking that night.” “She added: “About 30 minutes later he burst into the room and made a lunge for me. He started shouting and calling me names such as slut. He said I was trying it on with his friends. When he eventually left the room she grabbed her clothes and ran out, only to be grabbed again. Once more, she struggled free and managed to get out of the flat and run to her car, driving off with the door still open and David running after her. After driving about 400 metres she felt she had escaped her attacker and stopped. However, he [the judge] conceded there were “extreme special reasons” why she drove while over the limit, and that was why he decided to restrict the sentence to a £350 ($560) fine and eight penalty points.” That is £1408.11 and 32 penalty points per mile. Although I do as a general rule disapprove of people driving after drinking, the fact is this women did not do any harm to anyone. In this case it is utterly ridiculous to prosecute the woman for driving after drinking given the circumstances. Exactly how else would she have been able to escape a 6’3″ man? Either the court must reject her story, convict her and punish her fully… or they must accept her account of events that night and set aside the matter of her drinking and driving as not just trivial but fully justified in the circumstances. And yet, by not banning her from driving upon conviction (for she never denied being over the legal limit), the Scottish state is saying it does indeed accept her version of events… and so the court has in effect prosecuted and convicted her for escaping from being raped. Della March 2nd, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Cor, Gnasher, that’s a relief! Alert status down to Bikini Off or whatever they call it. The good guys are so far ahead in the War on Terror that they have time to spare to ban the Dandy. March 1st, 2003 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
New York is a place I have got to love in my all-too brief visits there, but one of its less endearing characteristics is the puritan bossiness of some of the folk who unfortunately get to run that city. Mayor Bloomberg has already succeeded in a total ban on smoking in private places like bars, regardless of the wishes of the owners of such private property. Well, now they are trying to regulate the teaching of martial arts, as pointed out by a justifiably enraged Russell Whitaker over at his excellent blog. What the hell is it with these people? Do they really, actually want us to have no means by which we can defend ourselves? Do they really want us to be like so many docile sheep? The only logical answer, I fear, is “Yes.” Addendum: definitely bookmark Russell’s site. Strongly recommended for those like me who are interested in everything from self-defence issues to space. February 26th, 2003 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
Yesterday evening I was present at a very interesting gathering that took place in the City of London. It was, or at least appeared to be, a joint venture between the American NRA and the NRA of Great Britain (yes, we do have one). I have not attended anything like this before. The format was that of a TV chat show which was hosted by a representative of the American NRA who fielded questions to, and took replies from, an almost entirely British audience. The event was filmed by an American production company and will, in due course, be edited into an info-mercial for distribution in the USA designed to press home to an American audience the folly and dangers of apparently ‘reasonable’ gun control measures. It was a remarkably well-informed audience. Many of them were former shooters and gun-owners and, without exception, they were able to recount, by reference to both historical data and relevent legislation, the way victim-disarmament had started in the 1920’s as merely sensible measures to remove the ‘most dangerous’ weapons from society and, over the years, chip by chip, step by step, measure by measure, the disarmament programme advanced up to 1997 when all handguns were prohibited along with every other potentially life-saving tool (e.g. pepper sprays). Emphasised too, was the political and legal slippery slope which has resulted in a situation in Britain today where acting in genuine self-defence is classified as serious crime. On the face of it, this is an exercise which will benefit Americans not Britons but, on a deeper level, it will benefit Brits as well because events like this bring together those too-few Britons who still believe in a right of self-defence and spurs them on to greater levels of mutual education and political activism. That is how things change. I detected not the merest hint of a defeatist atmosphere last night. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the self-defence movement in Britain, albeit still small, has been galvanised to an unprecedented degree. February 17th, 2003 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
In the two weeks since I last wrote about the Ronald Dixon self-defence case pending in Brooklyn, New York, my blog seems to have become something of a clearinghouse for advocacy in Mr. Dixon’s support. Recall that I mentioned:
Well, one of my blog commenters has reminded me of a brilliant solution which takes advantage of the free, no-registration TPC email-to-fax gateway service. To quote the annoying second-rate comic Carrot Top, presently featured in the DialATT adverts running on TV this side of the Atlantic, “it’s free for you, cheap for them”. Politicians in all countries still pay much more attention to letters and faxes than they do email, if for nothing else than to weight the importance of the number of paper communications over that of electronic. I urge RKBA advocates to take advantage of this fact and deluge the Brooklyn DA’s office with polite but uncompromisingly non-grovelling support for Mr. Dixon. February 8th, 2003 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
Ronald Dixon moved to Brooklyn, New York, from Florida not too long ago. The 27 year-old softspoken network engineer, a US Navy veteran naturalized from Jamaica, did not expect to have to defend the lives of his infant children from a vicious scumbag home invader. But defend them he did. Now, he finds himself in jeopardy, not for the defense itself (yet), but for the use of an unlicenced handgun in that defense! I’ve written a longer piece on this issue on my own site. This is about as clear-cut a case of righteous home and family defense as I’ve seen recently in the U.S. This is also an unusual opportunity to overwhelm the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney’s office with correspondance, demonstrating the reach of Anglosphere libertarian outrage. January 24th, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
