Friday, December 15, 2006

Too much Christmas cheer

Went out last night for the work Christmas meal. As there are only 5 of us who work in the office, two of whom are married to each other, there were only 7 at the meal. Still it was a fun occasion, sort of.

Started off with G & T, then moved onto the red wine. Carefully made sure I didn't have any beer, to try not to have an hangover.

All was fine till after the meal, when we went back to the boss's house. More red wine, a bit of tequila, and I got into an arguement with the boss's wife. This isn't an unusual occurance - in fact, we both sort of treat it as competative arguing, as we weren't really arguing about anything important, political correctness and racism, if I recall correctly, but when we get started, neither of us will back down.

As such the evening ended with my heavily pregnant and sober wife bursting into tears at about 1.30 am, so we left, after giving everyone a hug (including the boss's wife, as she knew it was all for fun), and me being sick when we got home.

So thats me in the doghouse at home, and sat here in work still feeling sick and watching the screen wobble (or is that my head)

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Banging away at it

Just read this post over at Social Dispatch. Its pretty obvious what he's on about, but if you want to guess, go and have a read now, then come back here to finish this one.

OK, now you know what it is, I have to say I agree. Many moons ago, before Dunblane, I used to go to a little outdoor range, borrow a pistol, and spend a couple of hours plinking targets. I didn't feel like a big macho guy, I certainly didn't do it to impress my peers (cos they were all waaay better than me) or the ladies who were there (yes there were a few, about 15% of the membership, and yes, they were much better than me too) but I did it for the satisfaction of being able to hit that little target 20 metres away.

Was there any benefit in this sport? Other than self-satisfaction, skill and self-disipline, no, not really. But having said that, is there any real benefit in, say, horse riding? No. So we should put down all the horses then? I mean, more than a few people have been killed or horrifically injured by horses, so put them all down, ban horse racing and horse riding? Given enough time I could probably think up reasons just as compelling as Dunblane to ban at least 50% of sports and pasttimes in the UK. But these reasons are one-offs. So why were handguns picked out, after a one-off tragedy that could have, and indeed should have, been easily avoided using the laws that were in force at the time, if they had been followed properly (I'm not going to launch into a discussion of the police failings leading up to that tragedy - you can find them yourselves quite easily).

After the banning of legally held handguns, the number of such weapons in the country has risen exponentially. So that law worked well then.

To (probably mis-)quote, "When swords are outlawed, only outlaws will have swords" can be applied to guns, and indeed to knives, and swords today. As a result of a vocal, screaming minority, and a bunch of gutless imbeciles in Parliment who have little idea of the real world outside their comfortable metropolis, the majority of the law-abiding population are at the mercy of those who can and do flout the law without any fear of legal reprisals.

It is time to realise that banning guns has not made the streets safer, and banning knives will not do so either. Only police (properly attested, fully empowered constables, not PSCOs) out of the station arresting those doing wrong, and courts gaoling them will make the streets safer.

Otherwise, the population lives in fear of both the scroates, and the law.

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Menezes case goes to High Court

The case of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and the decision not to prosecute the police officers involved has gone to the High Court. Apparantly, according to his family's barrister, it was a violation of their human rights.

Yet again, it appears that the rights of the criminal far outweigh the rights of the law abiding in this country.

I'm not talking of the police officers, who did a stirling job, under difficult circumstances, and should be praised and lauded.

I'm talking of the criminal, Jean Charles de Menezes. Something few are mentioning. He was a criminal. He was involved in criminal activity. He was acting suspiciously, at a time of high alert, and ran from armed police officers who repeatedly shouted at him to stop. Of course he was going to be shot. If a bunch of men in body armour are pointing guns at you, and shouting at you, you stop whatever you are doing, freeze, put your hands up and try very hard not to wet yourself. Its a fairly basic principle.

What you don't do is run away from them. Thats an open invitation to receive a high velocity lead injection, which is exactly what he got. If those officers hadn't shot him, they shouldn't be in that job.