Don't be shocked, but the people who are freaked out by the idea that a country GP might want to own a target pistol think maniacs with guns are just loveable jack-the-lads.
Personally, I loved the bit where he claimed the family had no experience of the legal process.
Yeah, I'll bet.
Not that it isn't always fun to see a member of the predator class whine about how they've lost their faith in the legal system, but I'm noticing a certain double standard here. The Scumbag In Question talks a lot about the truth, but never gets around to dealing with any actual 'facts'. You have to look elsewhere to see what they're really pushing:
Still, since the Guardian is apparently taking seriously anonymous letters alleging huge conspiracies (which may or may not have copied in Messers Sue, Grabbit & Runne), I guess that means they can't really dispute intelligence reports so specific they even named the firearms supplier?
I mean, that is kind of the issue here: the utterly demented nature of the modern left, which wants us to believe any old nonsense put out there by violent thugs but disregard anything from anyone who might conceivably vote conservative.
Meanwhile, in related news, no one from this family has yet been offered a column in the Guardian.
Personally, I loved the bit where he claimed the family had no experience of the legal process.
Yeah, I'll bet.
Not that it isn't always fun to see a member of the predator class whine about how they've lost their faith in the legal system, but I'm noticing a certain double standard here. The Scumbag In Question talks a lot about the truth, but never gets around to dealing with any actual 'facts'. You have to look elsewhere to see what they're really pushing:
In the months after his death Mr Duggan's family, along with the police and MPs, received an anonymous letter claiming Mr Duggan had been set up. Mr Underwood said: "That letter alleged that a Trident officer had hatched a plan with an informant to arrange for Mark Duggan to pick up the gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. "The allegation was that the informant said he could persuade Mark Duggan to pick up the gun and then the police could catch him. "What the letter goes on to suggest was that that would lead to Mr Duggan being shot dead as anything less than doing that would reveal the identity of the informant."He was set up by being forced to carry a illegal fire arm round with him. Hey, it could happen to anyone. Who hasn't been visiting a friend and had them say 'if you're going down town, can you drop this uzi off for me'?
Still, since the Guardian is apparently taking seriously anonymous letters alleging huge conspiracies (which may or may not have copied in Messers Sue, Grabbit & Runne), I guess that means they can't really dispute intelligence reports so specific they even named the firearms supplier?
I mean, that is kind of the issue here: the utterly demented nature of the modern left, which wants us to believe any old nonsense put out there by violent thugs but disregard anything from anyone who might conceivably vote conservative.
Meanwhile, in related news, no one from this family has yet been offered a column in the Guardian.
2 comments:
Meanwhile, the judge presiding over the inquest demands a moment's silence...
You couldn't make it up!
DJ, you’re being a little indulgent here. Why should anyone trust the police anyway? Since the generations-long campaign has been run with the intention of overcoming respect for and trust in authority in order to save us all from the oppressive consequences of deference, juries have learnt to automatically distrust the police who (like all in traditional positions of power and responsibility) are most likely corrupt preservers of the unjust status quo the country has changed - and for the better.
Despite this, and now that judges and juries alike treat repeat criminals’ little peccadilloes such as gang associations, drug taking and so on and maybe having illegal guns as irrelevant to deciding any court case in which they may be wrongly brought up on charges, London and cities like it have become dangerous places. Going about tooled-up is a rational response to widespread lawlessness.
No, the officers concerned should have take time to decide on the balance of probabilities what socio-economic forces led that sad young man to where he was and prepared a measured response, instead of shooting him so callously. It’s not as if he was mentally unwell and blocked in and threatening (merely by existing) the highest officials of a great nation. In that case, execution-style shooting would have made sense.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/10/07/why-is-this-not-a-national-tra
Sheesh!
Post a Comment