There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I just said that arguing with someone that KNOWS that there is a God and that it is in fact the God of the Christians without any sort of proof is a bit pointless because they clearly do not need any facts to support their worldview.[/quote]

The facts go against your worldview. You yourself admit time and time again that gun control doesn’t have much effect upon crime.

And yet you are happy with gun control.

So you clearly don’t need any facts to support your worldview.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.

It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.

Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.

; )

Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

I’ll leave Fox News alone for now, but I suppose you can “prove” to us that there is no God, right? Based upon your “facts.”

It’s statements like these that are the reason that even the people on these threads that start out siding with you end up either dropping out or turning against you, fool. Your assertion that there is no God (implied) is as probable, testable and provable as anyone’s assertion that there is. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the argument being presented.

But, then again, when you’ve so little else to work with…

Finally couldn’t resist, eh? :slight_smile:

Well-put![/quote]

Only took 800+ posts :wink:

Just going to hurry back to the steroid forum now and hope I’ve not opened Pandora’s box here. I absolutely do not have the free time for this place!

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I just said that arguing with someone that KNOWS that there is a God and that it is in fact the God of the Christians without any sort of proof is a bit pointless because they clearly do not need any facts to support their worldview.

The facts go against your worldview. You yourself admit time and time again that gun control doesn’t have much effect upon crime.

And yet you are happy with gun control.

So you clearly don’t need any facts to support your worldview.[/quote]

Not at all. I have stated that banning all guns in the US would be next to impossible and that losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.

It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.

Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.

; )

Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

I’ll leave Fox News alone for now, but I suppose you can “prove” to us that there is no God, right? Based upon your “facts.”

It’s statements like these that are the reason that even the people on these threads that start out siding with you end up either dropping out or turning against you, fool. Your assertion that there is no God (implied) is as probable, testable and provable as anyone’s assertion that there is. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the argument being presented.

But, then again, when you’ve so little else to work with…

Finally couldn’t resist, eh? :slight_smile:

Well-put!

Only took 800+ posts :wink:

Just going to hurry back to the steroid forum now and hope I’ve not opened Pandora’s box here. I absolutely do not have the free time for this place!
[/quote]

Well at the very bottom of Pandora’s box lay hope. Not something that comes across in your post.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

No they didn’t set them up. That was a grass roots movement that cut across party lines. America is not Britain, over here we don’t think that politicians are some kind of superior class of people who are perfect and therefore not open to criticism by us lower class riff raff who don’t know what’s best for us.

Obama and the democrats are doing serious damage to this country. Socialism has been a disaster for every country where it has been tried. Your dismissing peoples genuine dissent as “manipulation” shows where your loyalties are.

When Fox news programs wnet to the tea parties and spent hours upon hours broadcasting from them that hardly counts as sound bites.

I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you post your news source who gave you your ideas about the tea parties so we can see where you get your bullshit from?

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=4142

http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025

Fox News has less credibility as a news organisation than John Stewart. A comedian on the Comedy Channel. [/quote]

John Stewart is a partisan political hack who isn’t as funny as he imagines himself to be. His show isn’t news.

Media matters is another partisan source that specifically concentrates on going after FOX. Their latest lie is trying to convince people that White House Communications Director Anita Dunne didn’t say that Mao Tse Tung is one of her top two favorite political philosophers.

This link also has the video of her speaking of her appreciation of Mao.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/10/wh-communications-dir-anita-dunn-praises-communist-mao/

Today Glenn Beck showed video of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn praising the Chinese communist thug Mao Tse Tung, credited with ending freedom in China and killing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 million of his own people.

She describes Mao as one of â??the two people that I turn to most, to basically deliver a simple point, which is youâ??re going to make choices, youâ??re going to challenge, youâ??re going to say why not.â??

Like, why not kill millions of innocent people to advance Marxism?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.

Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?

If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?

Two sentences and you managed to miss one of them.

The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970.

You have provided nothing more than two sentences of some psychologists opinion and you are trying to play it off like you have provided something substantial. I am not going to debate two sentences of unsubstantiated opinion with you.

Well you were prepared to debate the second one, why not the first?[/quote]

Because it is a two sentence opinion piece with nothing to back up the opinion. There is nothing there to discuss.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.

It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.

Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.

; )

Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

You are projecting. I don’t believe in things like you do. I certainly don’t “believe” in FOX news. I have however been watching Glenn Beck since before he moved to FOX.

Glenn Beck was able to bring down Van Jones by reporting news on him that none of the other news organisations were reporting, and FOX reports on Acorn managed to get that corrupt organisation’s federal funding suspended for almost two months.

None of the other TV news organisations is doing that kind of investigative reporting. The results that they have been getting speak for themselves.

Doing god’s work is merely a figure of speech. I didn’t realize it would hurt your feelings so bad to write something that differed from your beliefs and challenges your sense of infallability and superiority.

It is just that I have seen you on other threads holding forth about God (and getting owned for your lack of knowledge on the subject)[/quote]

You must have me confused with someone else or you are just making shit up because I have had very little participation in the various “god” threads that have pooped up.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.

It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.

Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.

; )

Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

I’ll leave Fox News alone for now, but I suppose you can “prove” to us that there is no God, right? Based upon your “facts.”

It’s statements like these that are the reason that even the people on these threads that start out siding with you end up either dropping out or turning against you, fool. Your assertion that there is no God (implied) is as probable, testable and provable as anyone’s assertion that there is. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the argument being presented.

But, then again, when you’ve so little else to work with…

Finally couldn’t resist, eh? :slight_smile:

Well-put!

Only took 800+ posts :wink:

Just going to hurry back to the steroid forum now and hope I’ve not opened Pandora’s box here. I absolutely do not have the free time for this place!
[/quote]

This thread is making me want to load up the pellet gun with some Finiplex and go hit the gym after my ears stop ringing.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I just said that arguing with someone that KNOWS that there is a God and that it is in fact the God of the Christians without any sort of proof is a bit pointless because they clearly do not need any facts to support their worldview.

The facts go against your worldview. You yourself admit time and time again that gun control doesn’t have much effect upon crime.

And yet you are happy with gun control.

So you clearly don’t need any facts to support your worldview.

Not at all. I have stated that banning all guns in the US would be next to impossible and that losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.[/quote]

By what twisted logic do you come to the cnclusion that allowing people to defend themselves would not have an affect on crime? I have seen interviews with American criminals where they say that their number one concern when committing crime is getting shot.

An armed populace is the first line of defense against crime. Britain has no first line of defense, all it has is the fall back position of call the police who will arrive after the fact to mop up the pieces and try to see if they can maybe, possibly, hopefully, figure out what happened.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
An armed populace is the first line of defense against crime. Britain has no first line of defense, all it has is the fall back position of call the police who will arrive after the fact to mop up the pieces and try to see if they can maybe, possibly, hopefully, figure out what happened. [/quote]

And just as importantly if he admits that there will be no real rise in crime from liberalizing gun laws then why on earth is he against liberalizing gun laws?

That my friends is called being a dick. “I don’t want you to be able to have guns and defend yourself because…because I don’t like guns”.

Eerily similar to “I don’t think gays should have rights because…because I don’t like gays”.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.

Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?

If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?

Two sentences and you managed to miss one of them.

The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970.

You have provided nothing more than two sentences of some psychologists opinion and you are trying to play it off like you have provided something substantial. I am not going to debate two sentences of unsubstantiated opinion with you.

Well you were prepared to debate the second one, why not the first?

Because it is a two sentence opinion piece with nothing to back up the opinion. There is nothing there to discuss. [/quote]

So why were you prepared to debate the second one?

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
An armed populace is the first line of defense against crime. Britain has no first line of defense, all it has is the fall back position of call the police who will arrive after the fact to mop up the pieces and try to see if they can maybe, possibly, hopefully, figure out what happened.

And just as importantly if he admits that there will be no real rise in crime from liberalizing gun laws then why on earth is he against liberalizing gun laws?

That my friends is called being a dick. “I don’t want you to be able to have guns and defend yourself because…because I don’t like guns”.

Eerily similar to “I don’t think gays should have rights because…because I don’t like gays”.[/quote]

Yes you are right, it is exactly the same.

Here is another example of the ridiculous nature ot Britains human rights act. One of the more idiotic of the human rights act laws is the right to a family life.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bolivian-invader-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-because-he-has-a-pet-cat/

An invader from far off Bolivia has won an appeal against deportation from Britain because he has a â??settled family lifeâ?? here. Part of the â??proofâ?? he provided was the fact that he co-owned a cat in this country.

This outrage was revealed in one of the latest rulings by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to come to public attention.

The tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a â??private and family life.â??

Here is an example of the wonderful response time of police answering 999 calls in the UK. They are called to deal with a man who has a prior conviction for murder and they don’t respond. This is why alowing people in Brtain to own guns for self defense would make a difference. In many parts of America a woman in those circumstances would be able to buy a gun and be able to defend herself. The only thing she would need to call the cops for is to come pick up the perps body.

A grieving family have accused the police of a catalogue of errors over the murder of a mother-of-two by a convicted killer.

Maria Stubbings, 50, was strangled with a dog lead by her ex-boyfriend days after she had called 999 fearing he had broken into her house.

When officers visited her home eight days after the emergency call they were greeted by Marc Chivers, who told them she had gone away.

At that moment her body was just feet away from the front door - hidden in a downstairs toilet by Chivers.
He is believed to have killed her three days earlier.

It was only the day after their call that police finally conducted a search of the house and found Mrs Stubbings’s body under a pile of coats.

Chivers, 42, had previously served 15 years for strangling another former girlfriend.

Mrs Stubbings’s family are furious that, despite the previous murder and his history of violence, police did not fully follow up her complaint against Chivers in the days before her death in Chelmsford, Essex, last December. They are planning to sue Essex police.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating Essex Police’s handling of the case.
Chivers was sentenced to life in prison in September 1993 for strangling his ex-girlfriend in Germany and dumping her body in woodland when in his 20s.

He was deported from Stuttgart to the UK in January 2008 after serving 15 years.

A few months later he met Mrs Stubbings in a park, and the pair embarked on a whirlwind romance.

But their relationship turned sour within a few months, and last July jobless Chivers, from Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, was arrested for assaulting her after a night out.

An argument broke out at her home and Mrs Stubbings fled to a neighbour’s home.

Chivers dragged her back by her hair. In October 2008 he pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to battery. He was sentenced to serve four months in prison minus time spent on remand.

After he was arrested for attacking Mrs Stubbings, she discovered his murderous past and, fearing for her safety, was given a panic alarm by police.

But her family claim this panic alarm was broken - leaving her with no protection from her aggressive ex-boyfriend.

Once out of jail Chivers is understood to have tried to rekindle their romance.

She called police when she returned home late on December 11 last year to find someone had broken in. She feared it was Chivers.

Essex Police claim they visited her the next day, but despite his previous two convictions did not follow-up with another visit in the days after this.

Her 16-year-old son Richard visited the house to look for her, but Chivers followed him around to make sure he didn’t discover his mother.

s Stubbings made further calls to the police and friends also called the police repeatedly to raise concerns, but no one went to see her until eight days after the original call, when they were sent away by Chivers with the body lying within feet of the front door.

The following day her body was discovered during a police search of the house.

At Chelmsford Crown Court on October 9 Chivers pleaded guilty to murdering Mrs Stubbings between December 15 and 20 2008. Mrs Stubbings, who had been married three times, also has a daughter Celia, 29.

The victim’s younger brother Manuel Fernandez, 41, said: 'They failed miserably. It is a catalogue of serious errors; total neglect. They didn’t even get there a bit too late, they got there four days too late.

'Maria was someone who was known by the police to be at high risk having been attacked previously by a convicted murderer and had gone missing, she had called the police and told them her concerns.

‘They turn up and the murderer is there, her mobile phone is in the house, her car is in the drive, but they don’t realise something is up. It is just ridiculous.’

He added: 'I can’t blame them for her death, but they could have stopped it.

'The fact she could have been helped and that she wasn’t is just awful. I feel like I will never call the police again for anything.

‘There was just too much negligence on their part. In this incident they were just absolutely useless.’

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes you are right, it is exactly the same.[/quote]

It is the same mentality.

The problem is you think nothing of taking away a persons ability to defend themselves.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is another example of the ridiculous nature ot Britains human rights act. One of the more idiotic of the human rights act laws is the right to a family life.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bolivian-invader-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-because-he-has-a-pet-cat/

An invader from far off Bolivia has won an appeal against deportation from Britain because he has a â??settled family lifeâ?? here. Part of the â??proofâ?? he provided was the fact that he co-owned a cat in this country.

This outrage was revealed in one of the latest rulings by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to come to public attention.

The tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a â??private and family life.â??
[/quote]

Doesn’t take long to find some more info about this case:

[i]But the solicitor insisted that his client had “never” argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.

The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O’Leary said: "We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple’s relationship.

[/i]

So when you have finished being mock outraged possibly you could give your learned legal argument as to why this man should be deported. Given that you don’t know anything about him other than that he is Bolivian, has a British Girlfriend and a Cat.

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes you are right, it is exactly the same.

It is the same mentality.

The problem is you think nothing of taking away a persons ability to defend themselves.[/quote]

Nothing is being taken away though there is no desire in the UK for people to have guns. You guys are just projecting your feelings onto the British.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is an example of the wonderful response time of police answering 999 calls in the UK. They are called to deal with a man who has a prior conviction for murder and they don’t respond. This is why alowing people in Brtain to own guns for self defense would make a difference. In many parts of America a woman in those circumstances would be able to buy a gun and be able to defend herself. The only thing she would need to call the cops for is to come pick up the perps body.

A grieving family have accused the police of a catalogue of errors over the murder of a mother-of-two by a convicted killer.

Maria Stubbings, 50, was strangled with a dog lead by her ex-boyfriend days after she had called 999 fearing he had broken into her house.

When officers visited her home eight days after the emergency call they were greeted by Marc Chivers, who told them she had gone away.

At that moment her body was just feet away from the front door - hidden in a downstairs toilet by Chivers.
He is believed to have killed her three days earlier.

It was only the day after their call that police finally conducted a search of the house and found Mrs Stubbings’s body under a pile of coats.

Chivers, 42, had previously served 15 years for strangling another former girlfriend.

Mrs Stubbings’s family are furious that, despite the previous murder and his history of violence, police did not fully follow up her complaint against Chivers in the days before her death in Chelmsford, Essex, last December. They are planning to sue Essex police.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating Essex Police’s handling of the case.
Chivers was sentenced to life in prison in September 1993 for strangling his ex-girlfriend in Germany and dumping her body in woodland when in his 20s.

He was deported from Stuttgart to the UK in January 2008 after serving 15 years.

A few months later he met Mrs Stubbings in a park, and the pair embarked on a whirlwind romance.

But their relationship turned sour within a few months, and last July jobless Chivers, from Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, was arrested for assaulting her after a night out.

An argument broke out at her home and Mrs Stubbings fled to a neighbour’s home.

Chivers dragged her back by her hair. In October 2008 he pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to battery. He was sentenced to serve four months in prison minus time spent on remand.

After he was arrested for attacking Mrs Stubbings, she discovered his murderous past and, fearing for her safety, was given a panic alarm by police.

But her family claim this panic alarm was broken - leaving her with no protection from her aggressive ex-boyfriend.

Once out of jail Chivers is understood to have tried to rekindle their romance.

She called police when she returned home late on December 11 last year to find someone had broken in. She feared it was Chivers.

Essex Police claim they visited her the next day, but despite his previous two convictions did not follow-up with another visit in the days after this.

Her 16-year-old son Richard visited the house to look for her, but Chivers followed him around to make sure he didn’t discover his mother.

s Stubbings made further calls to the police and friends also called the police repeatedly to raise concerns, but no one went to see her until eight days after the original call, when they were sent away by Chivers with the body lying within feet of the front door.

The following day her body was discovered during a police search of the house.

At Chelmsford Crown Court on October 9 Chivers pleaded guilty to murdering Mrs Stubbings between December 15 and 20 2008. Mrs Stubbings, who had been married three times, also has a daughter Celia, 29.

The victim’s younger brother Manuel Fernandez, 41, said: 'They failed miserably. It is a catalogue of serious errors; total neglect. They didn’t even get there a bit too late, they got there four days too late.

'Maria was someone who was known by the police to be at high risk having been attacked previously by a convicted murderer and had gone missing, she had called the police and told them her concerns.

‘They turn up and the murderer is there, her mobile phone is in the house, her car is in the drive, but they don’t realise something is up. It is just ridiculous.’

He added: 'I can’t blame them for her death, but they could have stopped it.

'The fact she could have been helped and that she wasn’t is just awful. I feel like I will never call the police again for anything.

‘There was just too much negligence on their part. In this incident they were just absolutely useless.’

[/quote]

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=59614543&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

2-year-old Calif. girl dies in accidental shooting

Police say 2-year-old California girl killed after 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her

Staff
AP News

Sep 23, 2009 23:30 EST

Police say a 2-year-old Northern California girl is dead after her 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her.

Police say the boy was playing with the gun Wednesday afternoon at the family home in Vacaville when it discharged, shooting the toddler in the head.

The girl was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Vacaville police Lt. Craig Courtemanche says the children’s parents were home at the time of the shooting. Both the parents and the boy were being questioned, with investigators hoping to determine how the boy got his hands on the weapon.

The girl’s name has not been released.

and

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2009/10/10/news/news358.txt

Accidental Shooting: Incident claims life of 17-year-old
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Friday, October 9, 2009 12:42 PM CDT

A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.

Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.

Teague was reportedly dead at the scene when officers arrived.

According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an â??accidental shootingâ?? and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage. The scene was reportedly a residence in the 6200 block of Sawgrass in northeastern Bartlesville.

The BPD Investigation Division later took charge of the scene, although BPD Chief Tom Holland said today the shooting is believed to be accidental.

â??When we left last night, detectives were convinced that it was a tragic accident,â?? Holland told the E-E today. â??Barring any new information, this will be treated as such.â??

Holland said no one else was injured and was not sure exactly how many people were present in the home at the time of the incident.

â??There were several young guys in the garage â?? I get the impression like three or four â?? and there were several people in the house,â?? he said.

â??We had to work with the young man who reported it, he was so frantic,â?? Holland said.

According to Bartlesville Public School District officials, there were to be a couple of adjustments to todayâ??s schedule following the accident.

â??The pep assembly at the high school that was supposed to be at 2:20 p.m. was canceled in lieu of the incident. We are still going ahead with the other homecoming activities,â?? said BPSD community relations coordinator David Austin.

â??We had counselors come in to the high school for students who need to talk to them. Thatâ??s what we typically do for tragic incidents such as this.â??

Witnesses are being interviewed at the Bartlesville Police Department, officials said.

â??It was a long hard night for everyone,â?? Holland said.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.[/quote]

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (