Comments on: Because even if we tried, we couldn’t come up with more interesting posts

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:52:49 +0000

Well I did read the whole exchange.

Kevin said that there is an effective change; that even if the actual law still allows some version of self-defence, the evidence is that people believe they are likely to be made to suffer by the legal system, and so do not exercise their rights.

In addition, aggressors and criminals are well aware of this and capitalise with high hot burglary (home invasion) rates. Bullying and thuggery short of actual violence are very common in the UK, as is actual violent assault, and this is one reason for it.

By: Sadly, No!

Sadly, No! — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:24:53 +0000

Let me guess.

So what’s your guess?

By: Kevin Baker

Kevin Baker — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:58:40 +0000

Did you read the whole multi-post several month exchange, or just Tim’s Part IV?

Let me guess.

By: Sadly, No!

Sadly, No! — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:27:04 +0000

Gee, Sadly, did you try reading my side of the argument before leaping to your conclusion?

Let’s see: you argued that self defense is illegal in the UK, a claim that is demonstrably false. Tim wrote that “there may be” a chilling effect, which you “quote” here as meaning that he acceded to the fact there is a chilling effect.

We think we picked the right side on this one.

By: Kevin Baker

Kevin Baker — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:18:55 +0000

Gee, Sadly, did you try reading my side of the argument before leaping to your conclusion? At least Tim (finally) acceded to the fact that a "chilling effect" exists. Now he just has to make the jump as to where it originates. Read the report of the case. Tell me that Osborne's actions were not justified, given what he believed at the time of the attack.

By: renato

renato — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:50:43 +0000

Oh, I’m sure the fright-wingers have no compunction about pissing on Lila Lipscomb. Their hatred knows no limits.