Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Edwardian]

According to the Beeb this morning, gun shots are the single largest cause of children's deaths in the US, which has 120 guns for every 100 Americans (I think we have 5 per 100). These bald statistics, striking enough, do not reference the types of firearms available in the US and their enhanced ability for rapid multiple killings.

 

Now I'm not exactly averse to firearms. I've used them recreationally, and I've trained with them and am pretty sure I would unhesitatingly use one to kill an enemy combatant in time of war. Thus, I would not say that no type of firearm has any place in a society. But, come on Americans, WTF, some sensible limits and regulations perhaps? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Edwardian]

The other question of the day is surely this, what does 'taking full responsibility' for wrong-doing actually mean beyond just saying that one takes full responsibility for it?

 

It seems to mean affecting ignorance of much of that wrong-doing and implying that others are to blame for it.

 

It remains to be seen whether it involves any consequences for the one claiming to take full responsibility.

 

In the Before Times, acceptance of responsibility for a bad thing that had happened was understood to bear the consequence of resignation, rather than provide an alternative to it. 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Edwardian

[Nearholmer]

If in your most recent post you are talking about what I assume you are talking about, I still genuinely can’t get my head around the mentality that seems to have prevailed at the time; I genuinely cannot understand it.

 

To preside over what seems to have happened, when it happened, and not to have recognised that it was wrong (whether or not some of it could be squeezed within the letter of the law) implies an arrogance, or exceptionalism, or absence of basic morality, or absence of basic common sense  that is completely off the scale for a person in any position of leadership, let alone leadership of an entire country.

 

It just seem bizarre to me, such incredibly poor judgement.

 

What was the man thinking of? Was he thinking at all?

 

(Apologies for ranting on, but as I said, I just can’t get my head around it)

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If in your most recent post you are talking about what I assume you are talking about,

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I still genuinely can’t get my head around the mentality that seems to have prevailed at the time; I genuinely cannot understand it.

 

That is because you are a moral human being with a sense of responsibility

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

To preside over what seems to have happened, when it happened, and not to have recognised that it was wrong (whether or not some of it could be squeezed within the letter of the law) implies an arrogance, or exceptionalism, or absence of basic morality, or absence of basic common sense  that is completely off the scale for a person in any position of leadership, let alone leadership of an entire country.

 

The character of the man was well known from the beginning, not least by those who put him in a position of leadership.  Like their craven cousins across the herring pond who chose the  Orange Man-Baby, they knew they were sitting down to sup with the Devil but deluded themselves that they had long enough spoons. 

 

It was just a question of when and it what ways this chump would trip over his clown shoes.

 

My reactions to this story do not include, and at no stage have included, surprise.

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It just seem bizarre to me, such incredibly poor judgement.

 

That is because you are a competent, sensible and mature individual possessing self-insight and humility.

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

What was the man thinking of? Was he thinking at all?

 

You may have immediately answered your own question.

 

Plus, he just doesn't give a sh1t 

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

(Apologies for ranting on, but as I said, I just can’t get my head around it)

 

He has a fig-leaf of an excuse to stay in office. Very few on his benches will find it credible, but even fewer will publically claim they don't. 

 

Thus, he has got away with it.

 

It's like having Just William running the country, except not funny. 

[32475]

On 20/05/2022 at 13:15, Johnson044 said:

Then I thought I should try to cheer myself up a bit.

 

Semaphore signals and Marmite on crumpets
Clerestory coaches and bold brazen strumpets
Indian motorbikes mended with string
These are a few of my favourite things
Old Manning Wardles, my wife’s rhubarb crumble
Badgers and otters and new tins of Humbrol
Sharp Stewart tenders with prominent springs
These are a few of my favourite things
Lost wax brass castings and other excesses
Birmingham Dribblers and Tri-ang Princesses
Kitmaster Stirlings, 3 rail Silver Kings
These are a few of my favourite things
When the dog s**s
When the kids fight
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favourite things
And then I don't feel so bad.

 

Inspired by Johnson044's little ditty, I've been inspired to pen my own version. If Miss Julie Andrews wishes to make another film musical to cheer us all up, I have no doubt that Mr Johnson and I would be more than willing to write some lyrics for her. Anyway, here goes......

 

Cats in the sunshine and old platform trolleys

Green Maunsell coaches and commuters with brollies

The sounds of a signal box levers and rings

These are a few of my favourite things

Sharing a smoke with an elderly porter

Copping a feel with the signalman's daughter

Awaiting the postman to see what he brings

These are a few of my favourite things

Rusting old rails which stretch to infinity

The plate layers hut where I lost my virginity

On a horse hair filled mattress which hadn't got springs

These are a few of my favourite things

When the dog's sick

Like an oil slick

On the kitchen floor

I simply remember my favourite things

Then I don't feel bad no more

 

[rocor]

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If in your most recent post you are talking about what I assume you are talking about, I still genuinely can’t get my head around the mentality that seems to have prevailed at the time; I genuinely cannot understand it.

 

To preside over what seems to have happened, when it happened, and not to have recognised that it was wrong (whether or not some of it could be squeezed within the letter of the law) implies an arrogance, or exceptionalism, or absence of basic morality, or absence of basic common sense  that is completely off the scale for a person in any position of leadership, let alone leadership of an entire country.

 

It just seem bizarre to me, such incredibly poor judgement.

 

What was the man thinking of? Was he thinking at all?

 

(Apologies for ranting on, but as I said, I just can’t get my head around it)

 

There is no doubt about it Vladimir Putin must go.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

......... implies an arrogance, or exceptionalism, or absence of basic morality, or absence of basic common sense  that is completely off the scale for a person in any position of leadership, let alone leadership of an entire country.

For 'or' read 'and' in the above.

 

Jim

[rocor]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

According to the Beeb this morning, gun shots are the single largest cause of children's deaths in the US, which has 120 guns for every 100 Americans (I think we have 5 per 100). These bald statistics, striking enough, do not reference the types of firearms available in the US and their enhanced ability for rapid multiple killings.

 

Now I'm not exactly averse to firearms. I've used them recreationally, and I've trained with them and am pretty sure I would unhesitatingly use one to kill an enemy combatant in time of war. Thus, I would not say that no type of firearm has any place in a society. But, come on Americans, WTF, some sensible limits and regulations perhaps? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not just that it is a fundamental constitutional issue (the right to bear arms), but that so many Americans own guns, and would feel bare without them, that any congressman seeking reelection would be bearing this firmly in mind before supporting a constitutional amendment to restrict their possession.

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

It is not just that it is a fundamental constitutional issue (the right to bear arms), but that so many Americans own guns, and would feel bare without them, that any congressman seeking reelection would be bearing this firmly in mind before supporting a constitutional amendment to restrict their possession.

 

Yes, though the Constitution is a rather thin pretext.  We had a civil war that deposed a king, we overthrew a tyrant in 1688 and defeated usurpers in 1715 and 1745. We raised and armed civilian volunteers at times of threatened foreign invasion, notably in the 1790s-1800s and the 1860s. At no stage did we feel the need to enshrine a right to bear arms in a constitution. 

 

If a Constitutional right was ever justified, the world has since evolved and with it the Constitution has proved capable of surviving multiple amendments to reflect changes in society. 

 

As to feeling naked, the cost of them feeling clothed is unconscionable, so they just need to get over that.  

[Regularity]

23 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Yes, though the Constitution is a rather thin pretext.

This is the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

It means it was an addition/change, and can - as with the repeal of prohibition - be removed.

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

It was just a question of when and it what ways this chump would trip over his clown shoes.

As I have said in jest before, the difference between the Ukraine and the UK, is that they elected a clown who turned out to be a politician, whereas we…

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, rocor said:

There is no doubt about it Vladimir Putin must go.

And, he’s not the only one.

[Hroth]

Its all based on the standard misinterpretation of the "amendment".

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The gun lobby concentrates on the second half of the amendment, rather than understanding the first.   The concept of a militia reminds me of the Swiss model where reservists were (and maybe still are) required to keep their military kit, including firearms, which fits in with the concept of "keep and bear Arms", as they belong to "a well regulated Militia". The wording of the amendment makes sense in a late 18th/early 19th century USA where the fear was that one of the Georges would decide to take the ex-colonies back by force and the US population was fairly widely spread out, making it sensible for folk to have a Brown Bess hanging over the fireplace, ready to turn out and repel the English, rather than having to first go to a barracks somewhere and be issued a musket, shot and powder..

 

All these modern armed Americans don't belong to "a well regulated Militia", they're just private citizens with no self control whatsoever.

[rocor]

29 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, though the Constitution is a rather thin pretext.  We had a civil war that deposed a king, we overthrew a tyrant in 1688 and defeated usurpers in 1715 and 1745. We raised and armed civilian volunteers at times of threatened foreign invasion, notably in the 1790s-1800s and the 1860s. At no stage did we feel the need to enshrine a right to bear arms in a constitution. 

 

If a Constitutional right was ever justified, the world has since evolved and with it the Constitution has proved capable of surviving multiple amendments to reflect changes in society. 

 

As to feeling naked, the cost of them feeling clothed is unconscionable, so they just need to get over that.  

 

The History of firearms legislation in the United Kingdom is rather interesting, and convoluted, even as an entry on Wikipedia (other sources of information undoubtably available).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

 

 

[Regularity]

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you remove the first comma, then the meaning becomes less ambiguous.

And that’s the issue: poor punctuation leads inevitably to misunderstandings, something “txt spk” proponents don’t get.

 

Incidentally, the NRA originally came into being to train people to use and store firearms safely.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Regularity
Quote of Amendment.

[Nearholmer]

I’d never heard of this chap before today, but I seriously admire his use of the “airtime” that he clearly gets regularly.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61576574

 

All the jabber-jabber about laws, constitutions, amendments, reviews of the meaning of stuff written hundreds of years ago is irrelevant: what is relevant is that they’ve had I think 27 mass shootings this year so far, and need to act to prevent more. If the constitution is what facilitates mass shootings, change the bl@@dy constitution.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

17 minutes ago, Regularity said:

This is the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

It means it was an addition/change, and can - as with the repeal of prohibition - be removed.

As I have said in jest before, the difference between the Ukraine and the UK, is that they elected a clown who turned out to be a politician, whereas we…

 

Good point, which rather supports the complete unnecessary to begin with point.

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’d never heard of this chap before today, but I seriously admire his use of the “airtime” that he clearly gets regularly.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61576574

 

Heard a bit of this played in the radio before, but didn't know who it was. Worth listening to the whole thing, and great that he did that. 

[rocor]

20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

And, he’s not the only one.

 

Politicians can be broadly divided into two categories.

 

Those that are in politics for their own self-interest (sociopaths and narcissist).

 

Those that are there for the greater good of mankind, etc. (Unfortunately, amongst this latter group there will be found to be some fanatical ideologues).

[Ian Simpson]

49 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

At no stage did we feel the need to enshrine a right to bear arms in a constitution. 

 

This probably doesn't  add  anything to the debate, but as a pedantic tangent our own Bill of Rights did contain a right for Protestants to bear arms.  (I think it got in because Charles II and James II had previously disarmed some individual Prods who were unfriendly towards them, plus it was seen as a way of avoiding a standing army at a time when some folk could still remember the English Civil War). 

The difference being that it wasn't an unconditional right, and Parliament could set the limits on it as it chose:

" 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, it’s not any easy distinction to draw, in that the sociopaths and narcissists are unable to distinguish between themselves and the world in which they exist, so are firmly convinced that they are acting for the good of all, or at least the good of those they rule over, and a sprinkling of those who are genuinely motivated by a want tp

improve the lot of all are of the “ends justify the means” stamp, which suggests a degree of sociopathy.

[Edwardian]

10 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

This probably doesn't  add  anything to the debate, but as a pedantic tangent our own Bill of Rights did contain a right for Protestants to bear arms.  (I think it got in because Charles II and James II had previously disarmed some individual Prods who were unfriendly towards them, plus it was seen as a way of avoiding a standing army at a time when some folk could still remember the English Civil War). 

The difference being that it wasn't an unconditional right, and Parliament could set the limits on it as it chose:

" 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

 

 

 

 

That's an important point, but it is subject to the will of Parliament, rather than an absolute right and that difference is probably critical here.

 

It allows Parliament to decide if and when the citizenry should bear arms. 

[Edwardian]

18 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

Politicians can be broadly divided into two categories.

 

Those that are in politics for their own self-interest (sociopaths and narcissist).

 

Those that are there for the greater good of mankind, etc. (Unfortunately, amongst this latter group there will be found to be some fanatical ideologues).

 

Ah, yes, the Greater Good ......

 

 

 

[Ian Simpson]

Just now, Edwardian said:

 

That's an important point, but it is subject to the will of Parliament, rather than an absolute right and that difference is probably critical here.

 

It allows Parliament to decide if and when the citizenry should bear arms. 

Yes, absolutely (apart from it being an important point, of course!)  If the Glorious Revolution was about anything, it was about Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

Whereas a hundred years later the American rebels had become suspicious of both the Crown and Parliament.

Hence the Constitution and the separation of powers to take away the pre-eminence of parliaments.

 

[Edwardian]

P.S. I live in a village now. I know how this goes ......

 

And I quote "This is just a reminder that we will be having a get together on the green in celebration of the Queen's Jubilee at 3pm on Sunday 5th June."

 

Only the recklessly naive would consider attendance as optional. 

 

 

[Regularity]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

And I quote "This is just a reminder that we will be having a get together on the green in celebration of the Queen's Jubilee at 3pm on Sunday 5th June."

I can never watch that film without thinking of Railwells!