Cop from the US quits British police calling it too dangerous

[jay gw]

A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.

Ben Johnson, a 6ft 4in former paratrooper nicknamed Slim, has written to his chief constable asking to carry a Glock 17 handgun on his routine beat in Reading.

He said officers are dying unnecessarily because they are less well equipped and trained to protect themselves and the public than their American counterparts.

“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson.

Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month. He said her death demonstrated the lack of training and equipment given to British police.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1903309,00.html

All the stories I hear are that handguns are easy to find now in Britain. It wasn't like that a few years ago but things are getting worse. The police can't wander around unarmed if the public has them.

[mummymonkey]

Fraidy cat.

[Darat]

Well I suppose it just tells us how soft USA policemen, especially those from Texas are... Oh you mean that isn't a valid conclusion from this article... :) ?

Seriously if it is a ever a requirement for the UK Police to be regularly armed then I would say everyone else should be armed as well, if society is too dangerous to police without firearms then it is too dangerous to live in without firearms. (I accept that there are occasions when the police do require the use of firearms however those are still the exceptions here.)

Back to the bloke in the opening post. We have had one recent killing of a police officer by firearms, yet just looking at this site (http://www.odmp.org/index.php) I can see that it says for 2005 alone that the number of deaths on duty amounted to 139 now that is deaths from all causes however there is a figure for just gunfire deaths, which is 50 (excluding accidental gunfire deaths). Now I couldn't find a figure for the UK for just 2005 however I found (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm) a figure for the number of police murdered over the last 20 years - 36 (11 shot).

Given that then my conclusion is that if this bloke thinks the UK is more dangerous for the police then being a police officer in the USA then he is not the brightest of the bunch and I'm quite glad he is quitting.

[Zep]

FYI, Darat, Australian police are routinely armed. Of course, we live in mortal fear of their incredible power...to hand out jaywalking, vehicle defect, and speeding tickets at gunpoint, presumably.

Oh yeah - Glocks.

http://hyland.homemail.com.au/phweb/pete13.jpg

[brettDbass]

How does Darat always get in there before me and say exactly what I'm thinking, only better researched and in a more eloquent fashion?




Or - what he (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1307618&postcount=3) said.

[Ian Osborne]

It sounds to me like the Texan cop is making a political point rather than voicing a genuine fear. As Darat said, cops are far more likely to be shot in the gun-friendly US of A than in the UK.

[Darat]

FYI, Darat, Australian police are routinely armed. Of course, we live in mortal fear of their incredible power...to hand out jaywalking, vehicle defect, and speeding tickets at gunpoint, presumably.

Oh yeah - Glocks.

...snip...

Yeah but you have drop bears so I can understand it.

[mummymonkey]

From the original linked article:

Johnson accepted that America is more violent than Britain, with a gun culture contributing to a murder rate 17 times higher than here. He recognised, too, that many more police officers are murdered in America — 57 last year compared with just one here — proportionately about 11 times as many.

[Darat]

From the original linked article:

And he says:

...snip...

But he maintained that British police are far more exposed to danger when confronted with armed offenders than their US counterparts.

...snip...


Never mind the figures then.

[Zep]

Yeah but you have drop bears so I can understand it.Drop bears are easily dispersed...buy them a few drinks and they are very happy! ;)

A number of cops I have talked to say they have never drawn their weapon ever, except on regular training ranges. And they all say the highway patrol guys on the bikes try to look devastating "Mad Max" all round... Y'know - leather with a big gun, etc. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Well I suppose it just tells us how soft USA policemen, especially those from Texas are... Oh you mean that isn't a valid conclusion from this article... :) ?

Seriously if it is a ever a requirement for the UK Police to be regularly armed then I would say everyone else should be armed as well, if society is too dangerous to police without firearms then it is too dangerous to live in without firearms. (I accept that there are occasions when the police do require the use of firearms however those are still the exceptions here.)

Back to the bloke in the opening post. We have had one recent killing of a police officer by firearms, yet just looking at this site (http://www.odmp.org/index.php) I can see that it says for 2005 alone that the number of deaths on duty amounted to 139 now that is deaths from all causes however there is a figure for just gunfire deaths, which is 50 (excluding accidental gunfire deaths). Now I couldn't find a figure for the UK for just 2005 however I found (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm) a figure for the number of police murdered over the last 20 years - 36 (11 shot).

Given that then my conclusion is that if this bloke thinks the UK is more dangerous for the police then being a police officer in the USA then he is not the brightest of the bunch and I'm quite glad he is quitting.

I taught you well, my son.

[jay gw]

So there are several truths one of which is gun deaths are far lower in the UK than the US. The other and extremely obvious truth is that when a cop is unarmed and against an armed opponent the cop is going to lose.

[Darat]

So there are several truths one of which is gun deaths are far lower in the UK than the US. The other and extremely obvious truth is that when a cop is unarmed and against an armed opponent the cop is going to lose.


Any figures for the second one?

I know you may consider it obvious but consider an alternative scenario, a criminal confronting a UK police officer knows they are not armed so doesn't attempt to shoot first. Therefore it may actually be that in the UK a police officer is safer even against an armed with a gun criminal.

Now obviously I don't know this but it seems quite reasonable to me that this could be the case. So back to the question -any statistics?

[The Don]

So there are several truths one of which is gun deaths are far lower in the UK than the US. The other and extremely obvious truth is that when a cop is unarmed and against an armed opponent the cop is going to lose.
Which is why we have highly trained* firearms officers who attend if there is the slightest hint of an armed perpetrator.

*- of course one definition of highly trained is to be able to kill people "armed" only with table legs (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article320924.ece) or Brazilians guilt of nothing more then overstaying their visa (or maybe not even that) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm)


edited to fix a few of the most obvious spelling mistakes

[jay gw]

I know you may consider it obvious but consider an alternative scenario, a criminal confronting a UK police officer knows they are not armed so doesn't attempt to shoot first.
Speculation. You would have to show how many people were discovered later to have been armed but didn't shoot.

So back to the question -any statistics?
A gun does more damage than hands or night sticks.

Which is why we have highly trained* firearms officers who attend if there is the slightest hint of an armed perpetrator.


For certain cases that's enough for others there's no time to wait for them to arrive.

The US cop said to the interviewer that the trouble is the training. The lady cop might not have been shot if she had been trained differently. Even if there's a gun ban the police should basically be trained to assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.

[The Don]

For certain cases that's enough for others there's no time to wait for them to arrive.

The US cop said to the interviewer that the trouble is the training. The lady cop might not have been shot if she had been trained differently. Even if there's a gun ban the police should basically be trained to assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.
Assuming everyone is armed is a great way to really p155 people off. If you look at the way in which police officers deal with city centres full of drunken brawling individuals you'd realise that the UK police by consent rather than force.

I think that this is one of the key differences between the UK and the US. In the US, the rule of law is by force. In my opinion it reflects the different characters of the two nations

[TragicMonkey]

Seriously if it is a ever a requirement for the UK Police to be regularly armed then I would say everyone else should be armed as well, if society is too dangerous to police without firearms then it is too dangerous to live in without firearms.

Not exactly. If Armed Criminal is fleeing the scene of his bank robbery, and I'm standing there not in a cop uniform, he probably won't bother shooting at me since I'm probably not going to start shooting at him. A cop, however, is likely armed and is therefore going to be a target. If everyone were armed, everyone would be a threat and everyone would be a target.

[TragicMonkey]

I think that this is one of the key differences between the UK and the US. In the US, the rule of law is by force. In my opinion it reflects the different characters of the two nations

Yes. Americans are realists, and know that in the end you're going to have to back it up with force. Not pretty, but such is nature.

[jay gw]

I think that this is one of the key differences between the UK and the US. In the US, the rule of law is by force. In my opinion it reflects the different characters of the two nations
Here's what you need to know: the United States has a first world economy and a Third World government, and no that's no exaggeration!

The local, state and federal governments in the Unites States are very corrupt. They are far more rotten than the UK or other governments in the modern world.

There are definately cultural differences between attitudes towards the law in the US and in the UK. Please recall that the US set itself together as a nation by conquering lands already occupied and forcing the manual labor part of the workforce to work without wages. That's completely different from European nation building. The government sees the police as a tool for controlling the public, not as servants because every era in it's short history the American police and military were used by one group against another group (Civil War, Blacks vs. Whites, Indians vs. settlers, Mexican Texans vs. White Texans etc).

The American attitude has always been that whoever grabs the power can use the government however they want to. Witness George W. Bush and company with regards to using the CIA, military and on and on. The employees in the government don't particularly see anything unusual about this attitude.

I remember very well my ethics course for a government administration program - one of the discussions was the total difference between the UK and America regarding whistleblowers - those employees in the government that see something wrong or illegal and go tell someone. In the UK it's encouraged and the worker is not punished. However in the United States if a worker goes to the media or watchdog body and tells on a superior like Bush, Cheney etc. you are severely punished. There is a huge scandal right now involving Cheney trying to ruin a CIA agent for criticizing policy (Plame scandal). That's totally typical of what happens to you if you dare cross the leaders.

The whole culture in the US government is one of following the leader's orders regardless of how stupid and hiding facts from the public.

[TragicMonkey]

There are definately cultural differences between attitudes towards the law in the US and in the UK. Please recall that the US set itself together as a nation by conquering lands already occupied and forcing the manual labor part of the workforce to work without wages. That's completely different from European nation building.

Yeah, Americans only did it once, unlike England, with wave after wave of conquerors coming in and taking over.

[Jon_in_london]

The US cop said to the interviewer that the trouble is the training. The lady cop might not have been shot if she had been trained differently. Even if there's a gun ban the police should basically be trained to assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.

Now I'm not an Officer but from what I understand, unarmed Officers are trained not to go charging into robberies where firearms are thought to be present. This may reflect a training need for the force in question and also raises the fact that both Officers were probationers- they hadnt yet made full constable.

It would be utterly impractical, nevermind completely facical, to assume everyone is armed and act accordingly when only a tiny fraction of a percent of offenders actually are.

The statistics show irrefutably, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that our system works better than yours.

So nah-nanny-poo-poos.

[Jon_in_london]

Which is why we have highly trained* firearms officers who attend if there is the slightest hint of an armed perpetrator.

*- of course one definition of highly trained is to be able to kill people "armed" only with table legs (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article320924.ece) or Brazilians guilt of nothing more then overstaying their visa (or maybe not even that) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm)



Thats very cute. Thats very cheap. Of course what you dont hear very much about is the "good" shootings where the use of deadly force has been correctly applied. It doesnt make a good story to praise the police d'ye see?

You hear even less about the thousands of incidents that happen every year in London alone where armed police did not shoot a suspect regardless of whether or not he was armed but where able to bring about a successfull conclusion without the use of deadly force. That really would make a boring headline wouldnt it? :rolleyes:

[jay gw]

Yeah, Americans only did it once, unlike England, with wave after wave of conquerors coming in and taking over.
And not to forget besides historical evolution there's the fact that by and large Americans couldn't care less about morals or ethics because the culture doesn't influence them to. American culture has progressed from Whites only water fountains apartheid and Christian fundamentalism to extreme moral relativism.

[CFLarsen]

Here's what you need to know: the United States has a first world economy and a Third World government, and no that's no exaggeration!

The local, state and federal governments in the Unites States are very corrupt. They are far more rotten than the UK or other governments in the modern world.

There are definately cultural differences between attitudes towards the law in the US and in the UK. Please recall that the US set itself together as a nation by conquering lands already occupied and forcing the manual labor part of the workforce to work without wages. That's completely different from European nation building. The government sees the police as a tool for controlling the public, not as servants because every era in it's short history the American police and military were used by one group against another group (Civil War, Blacks vs. Whites, Indians vs. settlers, Mexican Texans vs. White Texans etc).

The American attitude has always been that whoever grabs the power can use the government however they want to. Witness George W. Bush and company with regards to using the CIA, military and on and on. The employees in the government don't particularly see anything unusual about this attitude.

I remember very well my ethics course for a government administration program - one of the discussions was the total difference between the UK and America regarding whistleblowers - those employees in the government that see something wrong or illegal and go tell someone. In the UK it's encouraged and the worker is not punished. However in the United States if a worker goes to the media or watchdog body and tells on a superior like Bush, Cheney etc. you are severely punished. There is a huge scandal right now involving Cheney trying to ruin a CIA agent for criticizing policy (Plame scandal). That's totally typical of what happens to you if you dare cross the leaders.

The whole culture in the US government is one of following the leader's orders regardless of how stupid and hiding facts from the public.

Wow.

You went from criticizing British police to blaming your own gubmint in less than 12 hours, merely because it turned out that your opening post was...well, wrong.

A bit scary how short a timeframe we are looking at, hm?

[TragicMonkey]

And not to forget besides historical evolution there's the fact that by and large Americans couldn't care less about morals or ethics because the culture doesn't influence them to. American culture has progressed from Whites only water fountains apartheid and Christian fundamentalism to extreme moral relativism.

Yeah, we can't compare to England, which expelled the Jews at one point. And remind me how nicely the English treated the Scots, again?

[The Don]

....... And remind me how nicely the English treated the Scots, again?
I think you can assume that this was reciprocated. During the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scots had a policy of ethnic cleansing in the North of England (the East and West marches). Entire communities were routinely butchered for no other reason than they were ethnic English.

The Scots have a hair up their ass about the whole highland clearance thing but if they hadn't acted the way then did in the past then there wouldn't have been the appetite for it, not least because some of the most influential figures were long standing Northern families (like the Percys) with long memories and mudered ancestors.

Of course the "Braveheart" view of history doesn't present it this way because it wouldn't make for a sympathetic hero

[TragicMonkey]

I also heard of some persecutions of Catholics and Protestants, depending on which was in power. Oh, and some sort of British Empire at one point, that conquered a bunch of places and wasn't too terribly enlightened and friendly to the conquered.

[TragicMonkey]

I think you can assume that this was reciprocated. During the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scots had a policy of ethnic cleansing in the North of England (the East and West marches). Entire communities were routinely butchered for no other reason than they were ethnic English.

The Scots have a hair up their ass about the whole highland clearance thing but if they hadn't acted the way then did in the past then there wouldn't have been the appetite for it, not least because some of the most influential figures were long standing Northern families (like the Percys) with long memories and mudered ancestors.

Of course the "Braveheart" view of history doesn't present it this way because it wouldn't make for a sympathetic hero

And of course since Scotland is part of the UK, we can blame the British for both sides of any unpleasantness. If we were so petty as to try to indict a culture for past misdeeds, I mean. Which nobody here is.

[Darat]

...snip... that conquered a bunch of places and wasn't too terribly enlightened and friendly to the conquered.

Stuff and nonsense! If it wasn't for us those savages wouldn't know about concentration camps, torture techniques, terrorist tactics and how to suppress the local populace. They have a lot to thank us for.

[Zep]

EVERYONE SIT DOWN OR I START SHOOTING!

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Space%20Page/300-070.jpg

[Shaun from Scotland]

Number of British Police Officers killed in mainland GB by gunfire since 1997 Firearms Amendement Act - 2
(one by an American)
See http://www.policememorial.org.uk/NationalRoll/NationalRoll.htm

Number of US Police Officers killed by gunfire in the same period - 494
See www.odmp.org
The above figure for the US excludes accidental gunfire related deaths

“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson."

Big Jessie. And needs to learn how to count.

[CFLarsen]

I love evidence. I just do.

[Shaun from Scotland]

I love evidence. I just do.

Im sure someone can spin these figures to show its much more dangerous being a British cop......

[Bluegill]

And not to forget besides historical evolution there's the fact that by and large Americans couldn't care less about morals or ethics because the culture doesn't influence them to. American culture has progressed from Whites only water fountains apartheid and Christian fundamentalism to extreme moral relativism.

Yet news story after news story deals with public outrage at fairly minor incidents of government corruption. And discussions about public policy because people can't agree on the details about how to make society better and help people. And so few of my family, friends, and coworkers are willing to lie, cheat, or steal. And I frequently hear people discussing whether moral values are being conveyed in popular movies and sitcoms (they frequently are being conveyed this way, and when they are, I often hear them praised). Yeah, it's a real jungle.

[KelvinG]

Im sure someone can spin these figures to show its much more dangerous being a British cop......

Maybe people in the UK have really bad aim compared to Americans and there is just as many cops getting shot at, just not nearly as many getting hit.

[TragicMonkey]

EVERYONE SIT DOWN OR I START SHOOTING!

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Space%20Page/300-070.jpg

Okay, that is a wicked cool water pistol.

[Darat]

Probably banned over here.

[Lothian]

A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.

Ben Johnson, .... on his routine beat in Reading.

Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month.

Southern Jessy. Reading is miles away from the northern war zone of Bradford where police officers are being shot every other century.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Maybe people in the UK have really bad aim compared to Americans and there is just as many cops getting shot at, just not nearly as many getting hit.


That's a good try. Possibly our aim is affected by our bad teeth..........

[Ian Osborne]

I suppose the obvious retort is firearms casualty figures take no account of police deaths through weapons other than guns, which could (but probably aren't) be much higher in the UK. Does anyone have overall figures?

[Shaun from Scotland]

I suppose the obvious retort is firearms casualty figures take no account of police deaths through weapons other than guns, which could (but probably aren't) be much higher in the UK. Does anyone have overall figures?

The two sites mentioned above give all police officers killed in the line of duty. It doesn't give overall totals but most police deaths in GB are due to car crashes etc. Very few are down to actual murders, stabbing etc.

[Ian Osborne]

The two sites mentioned above give all police officers killed in the line of duty. It doesn't give overall totals but most police deaths in GB are due to car crashes etc. Very few are down to actual murders, stabbing etc.

Ah, that explains it. UK police officers are getting killed because they drive on the wrong side of the road. If they were properly trained to drive on the right like they do in the USA, etc...

[Shaun from Scotland]

Ah, that explains it. UK police officers are getting killed because they drive on the wrong side of the road. If they were properly trained to drive on the right like they do in the USA, etc...

Glancing quickly through 2005, 2004 and 2003 I saw maybe 2 or 3 instances where an officer was actually murdered with a weapon or assault etc. I will look through it more closely tonight.

[TragicMonkey]

Well, obviously some UK cops are armed, or at least the ones near the train stations are. What's the distinction between the sort of cop who does and the sort of cop who doesn't carry a gun in the UK? Do you have to be in a particular division, or is it determined by the nature of your current assignment?

[Jon_in_london]

Well, obviously some UK cops are armed, or at least the ones near the train stations are. What's the distinction between the sort of cop who does and the sort of cop who doesn't carry a gun in the UK? Do you have to be in a particular division, or is it determined by the nature of your current assignment?

Some units are armed. Most forces have a "force firearms unit" that will respond when needed. The Met has a thousand or two other armed Officers who look after the Royal Palaces, airports, Parliament, VIPs etc... The ones you see "near the train stations" were put there for obvious reasons after the 7/7 bombs.

They are all volunteers and must have at least 2 years experience and passed the selection and training- you dont get paid any more if you carry but you sure get a lot more overtime!

[The Don]

Well, obviously some UK cops are armed, or at least the ones near the train stations are. What's the distinction between the sort of cop who does and the sort of cop who doesn't carry a gun in the UK? Do you have to be in a particular division, or is it determined by the nature of your current assignment?
You have to be a specifically trained firearms officer. Qualification is hard and the rules are strict. For example an inadvertent discharge would result in you no longer being a firearms officer

[Shaun from Scotland]

Some units are armed. Most forces have a "force firearms unit" that will respond when needed. The Met has a thousand or two other armed Officers who look after the Royal Palaces, airports, Parliament, VIPs etc... The ones you see "near the train stations" were put there for obvious reasons after the 7/7 bombs.

You dont get paid any more if you carry but you sure get a lot more overtime!

And the Police are having real difficulty recruiting firearms officers, mainly due to fears over wrongful shootings. And this was BEFORE the furore caused by the shot Brazilian

[Jon_in_london]

And the Police are having real difficulty recruiting firearms officers, mainly due to fears over wrongful shootings. And this was BEFORE the furore caused by the shot Brazilian

Indeed. Imagine facing a murder charge for doing your job. Not the Commisioner ot Chief Constable, not the people who selected you, not those trained you or designed your training- just YOU and YOU alone will have to answer a potential charge of murder.

You couldnt pay me enough to do that job.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Indeed. Imagine facing a murder charge for doing your job. Not the Commisioner ot Chief Constable, not the people who selected you, not those trained you or designed your training- just YOU and YOU alone will have to answer a potential charge of murder.

You couldnt pay me enough to do that job.

Damned hard job. Difficult enough for highly trained officers. I don't think arming all of them is the right way to go here.

[Jon_in_london]

Damned hard job. Difficult enough for highly trained officers. I don't think arming all of them is the right way to go here.

If it were made compulsory, I think there would be a mass resignation of biblical proportions.

[TragicMonkey]

If it were made compulsory, I think there would be a mass resignation of biblical proportions.


Book of Coppers, Chapter 2. "1.And on the third day, the tribes of Fuzz, Copper, and the children of Flatfoot and the people of the Bluebottle did rise up and leave the offices of their forefathers. 2.Going unto the elders, they declared "Sod that for a lark, I should fancy, gorblimey guv'nor." 3.And the king did import many cops to take their place, from the distant land of Usa. 4.And the newcomers were much perplexed, because they couldn't understand the tongue spoken therein. 5."This IS England, right? Then why don't you speak English?" 6.And due to insufficiency of doughnuts, and really annoying-sounding sirens, they returned unto their homeland. 7.Thus is the LORD magnified."

[CFLarsen]

Every time a Danish cop fires his gun - not just hitting someone, but just firing it - there is a thorough investigation. Not just the odd cursory investigation, but an investigation from the very top.

We take that very seriously. And we should.

[Jon_in_london]

Every time a Danish cop fires his gun - not just hitting someone, but just firing it - there is a thorough investigation. Not just the odd cursory investigation, but an investigation from the very top.

We take that very seriously. And we should.

How long should the investigation take then?

[lylfyl]

Assuming everyone is armed is a great way to really p155 people off. If you look at the way in which police officers deal with city centres full of drunken brawling individuals you'd realise that the UK police by consent rather than force.


Can you perhaps elaborate on how UK police handle drunken brawling individuals by consent? I'm guessing tear gas, pepper spray, water hoses, and other nominally non-lethal but rather unpleasant methods would be by force?

I realize my worldview is heavily shaped by television and movies rather than reality, but I have a hard time imagining anything besides " 'ere 'ere, what's all this, then?" vs. soccer/football riots.

[CFLarsen]

How long should the investigation take then?
I'm not sure I understand you. The investigation in Denmark?

[richardm]

Can you perhaps elaborate on how UK police handle drunken brawling individuals by consent? I'm guessing tear gas, pepper spray, water hoses, and other nominally non-lethal but rather unpleasant methods would be by force?

CS Sprays or pepper sprays are carried by most forces now I think, but to be honest in most cases I've seen the coppers just grab the miscreants en masse and manhandle them into the waiting Black Maria.

Apart from my anecdotal experience (of other people being nicked, hem hem), I don't have any idea of how many times the sprays have actually been used. I'm sure that that they must have been, but I'd hope that there were strict guidelines on when and where. But certainly the impression given by television programmes that have shadowed the police is that in the majority of cases on the street it's very much an "'Ello 'ello 'ello" style of policing wherever possible, but then they would try to give that impression, really.

[Soapy Sam]

I think you can assume that this was reciprocated. During the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scots had a policy of ethnic cleansing in the North of England (the East and West marches). Entire communities were routinely butchered for no other reason than they were ethnic English.

I 'd just like to point out we have no specific grudge against northern Englishmen. It was just too far too walk to London on a weekend.

[Jon_in_london]

I'm not sure I understand you. The investigation in Denmark?

Just that in one case a couple of coppers (who shot the bloke with the table leg) have been 'on trial' now for almost 7 years.

[jay gw]

What do the people here think about the following scenarios:

* a dictator makes a law banning gun ownership
* an elected body makes a law banning gun ownership

?

[CFLarsen]

Just that in one case a couple of coppers (who shot the bloke with the table leg) have been 'on trial' now for almost 7 years.

Oh, ok. No, it won't take that long here.

[Shaun from Scotland]

What do the people here think about the following scenarios:

* a dictator makes a law banning gun ownership
* an elected body makes a law banning gun ownership

?

They are both hypothetical scenarios. But both would be wrong