Has England really become this ridiculous?

Did they have twitter in 1920?

The machete-wielding vigilantes patrolling a 'stockbroker belt' village
(The Daily Mail, January 30, 2009)

They said they wanted to make their fellow villagers feel safer. But this gang of self- styled vigilantes looked more Northern Ireland paramilitary than Neighbourhood Watch.

Wearing menacing balaclavas and brandishing a machete, the mob got together because of fears that a sex attacker was on the loose.

The men, aged 18 to 30, said they would interrogate any suspects they caught in the Surrey commuter village of Merstham and hand out their own punishment.

But after they posed for a local newpaper photo, their leader was summoned by Surrey's divisional police commander, Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper, and told in no uncertain terms that vigilantes were not welcome.

He said: 'I cannot emphasise enough how irresponsible it is for people to take the law into their own hands.

'Often "justice" groups target the wrong person and an innocent member of the community is seriously injured.'

Later, the gang's leader, who would not be named, said: 'I guess a few of the guys got a bit carried away.

' We have ditched the balaclavas and handed in the machete.

'But loads of people support what we are doing. They say they feel safer with us out there because they don't see enough police walking the beat.'

Police are investigating two incidents in which young women were chased in Merstham and the nearby town of Redhill on December 30, and the rape of a 19-year-old girl in Redhill last May.

The gang leader said: 'We all know one of the girls who was attacked.

'We didn't want our wives, sisters and daughters falling prey to this beast, so we decided to go out there as a visible presence to scare him off and hopefully even catch him.

'We were also on the lookout for any burglars or anyone else posing a threat.

'We think the police are too concerned about catching kids smoking cannabis and drinking when they should be concentrating on the real criminals.'

That would imply, he's politically engaged somehow.

“A District Crown Advocate in the Crown Prosecution Service in Surrey authorised Surrey Police to charge Paul Clarke. Each case is kept under constant review and following a further review of the case Portia Ragnauth, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Surrey, decided that it was still in the public interest to bring the case to court....”

“Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors the CPS considered it was in the public interest to prosecute Mr Clarke as he was in possession of a sawn off shot gun. He had come into possession of the shot gun and two shotgun cartridges some days earlier and had not immediately contacted the police to make them aware of its existence. He was given the opportunity by the police to explain the full circumstances as to how he was in possession of the lethal weapon but his explanation lacked credibility...."

"This Home Office guidance as indicated is operational guidance addressed to the police and is not guidance to CPS prosecutors on how to deal with cases involving firearms offences. Crown Prosecutors apply the Code for Code Prosecutors when considering whether or not they should prosecute.
When making our decision we took into account that:
It’s a strict liability offence which means there is no defence to any possession.
It is a sawn off shot gun which is an aggravating feature. It carries a minimum of 5years imprisonment-mandatory-unless there are exceptional reasons. Our charging is quite clear because of the serious nature that these weapons can inflict, statute was passed to ensure that the possession reflected the serious nature hence 5 years imprisonment...."

"Paul Clarke claimed that he found the shot gun in his garden and decided to bring it to the police station. Evidence showed that he was in possession of the gun and the cartridges for some days earlier and that at that time he did not try to contact the police, for them to collect the weapon. He could not explain why he waited some days before bringing the gun to the police station and why he had not contacted the police for them to come and collect the gun.
The jury heard both the defence and prosecution case and reached the verdict that Paul Clarke was guilty of possession of a firearm...."

That would imply, he's politically engaged somehow.

Might well be that he was 'playing with the government', too,
when he joined the armed forces ...

I don 't understand Y these Englishmen so blithely give away nice, valuable weapons.
If thay don 't want them, then thay shoud just leave them there
until someone who appreciates their value and wants them finds them;
either that, or just take them home for use in emergencies

I don 't understand Y these Englishmen so blithely give away nice, valuable weapons.
If thay don 't want them, then thay shoud just leave them there
until someone who appreciates their value and wants them finds them;
either that, or just take them home for use in emergencies

Tbe British authorities are not keen that individual members
of the public have access to firearms, because these things are
jolly dangerous in the wrong hands. [Then give firearms safety training in all the public schools,
beginning at the earliest possible ages of students.]

You cannot convince a Taliban to give up his line of thought.

Same with gun nuts...

They are impermeable to sound arguments or even just normal reasoning..

You just never give up, do you, David?

Even in the face of reasonable statements. Amazing.