Showing posts with label British Humor?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Humor?. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Why We Fought The Britsh

1984 has reached No-longer-so-Great Britain.

U.K. Police Urge Citizens To Report Neighbors For 'Offensive' Speech:
English police are now calling on citizens to report hate incidents. Reporting friends and neighbors to the police has terrible historical connotation, and for good reason. It is legitimate fascism. Timid citizenries are easy to control — fear that even a coworker could file a report to the police can keep people in check.

Thanks to Joe's Gulch for the heads-up and the link; he's a nice man, but he just doesn't HATE enough to give this report the attention it deserves.

The only way the world could possibly be negatively affected by this sort of societal incursions on the First Amendment is if the good folks at GOOGLE agreed with them!

Oh ... wait .....

Hello?  IS there anyone there? 

>TAP TAP TAP<   Is This Thing On?

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Attempted Murder Criteria in England

"I'm going to take your farm!"

British farmer fires paintball gun into ground to warn off aggressive trespasser.
“Close enough. I felt he would lunge at me and strike me with the stick as he was carrying it in a raised position,” the owner said. “He ignored my demand, slowly moving forward. Consciously, I moved the paintball gun to the front, still maintaining its position pointing to the ground. Approximately one metre in front of me, I released two paintballs. They made a popping sound. Then the man stopped.” The owner then called the police.
Arrested for attempted murder!

... and people wonder why eighteenth century Americans revolted against British Rule!

(It's a good thing we did, else we too would be a bunch of wimps with no rights!)

No, I am not making this up.  From the original article:

Charges could include possession of a dangerous weapon, contravening the Dangerous Weapons Act and even a charge as serious as pointing of a firearm – if the victim believes that the weapon is a real firearm. However, the Act states in section 3(1) that “any person who is in possession of a dangerous weapon under circumstances which may raise a reasonable suspicion that the person intends to use the dangerous weapon for an unlawful purpose, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years”.

IS IT SIGNIFICANT that the article does not mention whether charges were brought against the tresspasser?

I think so.  What do you think?

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Global Warning decreases school violence? You have GOT to be kidding me! (How about those coal burning furnaces, eh? Answer me that!)

Some people will go to extravagant ends to justify their theories, even at the risk of allowing themselves to be identified as fools.   You have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with "Gun Control"?


On the anniversary of the Columbine shooting, examining the science behind why better gun control really will stop school violence — Quartz

In 1963, Britain experienced 5,714 suicides. Over the next several years, that number declined steadily and quickly; by 1975, the country had 3,693 suicides. This decline took place against a rise in suicides throughout the rest of Europe. Social scientists started looking for something to explain the drop. What they realized was that the decrease in suicide had coincided with the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958.

First, the title of the article suggests that the topic is "School Violence" .. but the dominant text seems to address British Suicides!


The rest of the article seems to be on track with the "British Suicide" theme, but it doesn't lead into the title topic: "Gun control ... will really stop school violence".


Here's the lame explanation proffered later in the screed:

Opponents of gun control often argue that if we take guns away, those intent on killing or committing crimes with them will simply “find another way.” 

(I don't  argue against that; it's Suicide 101.)

Another Clarke and Mayhew study, for example, found that thefts of motorcycles dropped as much as 60% in Germany after a law was implemented requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. Because these thefts tended to be crimes of opportunity rather than planned heists, potential thieves were dissuaded from stealing motorcycles due to the increased likelihood of getting caught if they were pulled over for not wearing a helmet.
What the heck?  We bounced from Suicide, to Gun Control, with a short stop-0ver at Columbine!   And now we're talking about motorcycle Theft?  And safety helmet laws?

Am I the only one who can't keep track of the theme of this screed?

Finally, the author decided that the cause-and-effect relationship was determined by ... what was it again?

.... the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958

Oh, yeah, right: carbon monoxide poisoning from Coal Gas.

British humor: we "Amies" can't always  tell whether they're "having us on" or ... what?