The Brit Thread

POSTED BY: peacekeeper
UPDATED: Monday, December 15, 2025 22:01
VIEWED: 6928
PAGE 5 of 5

Farmers can own guns, but the types they can own are restricted - no semi-automatics for e.g.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Private citizens cannot own guns unless they are members of a licensed shooting club or their business requires the use of firearms.So farmers can own a gun for dispatch of their livestock. They cannot carry the weapon in a public place, unless it is being transported for repair or replacement, or for purpose of competiton. The license for any firearm is extremely difficult to obtain, and is bound by stringent references and checks. Even when being transported, the weapon must be made unfirable and boxed and secured.It cannot be carried in one piece or without packaging.


Of course, we have weapons that are illegally obtained and we have some gun crime, but generally speaking it's pretty minimal.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Okay, that helps, lord so-and-so has a farm so I guess he's allowed. In Ireland too you can have certain kinds of guns in certain situations, I think they are a little less restrictive over there than in GB (note that I'm speaking of the Republic, not NI, I'd imagine NI has the same rules as the rest of GB. Am I right that they are a little less particular in ROI?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
It seems that the Jimmy saville accusations are increasingly becoming justified, according to an expose programme this evening. Cover ups going back 40 years. I'm embarrassed I defended him in the first place.
But the question still remains, "What is the point of investigating after the death???" If you can't come forward when alive and prosecutable,you will get no closure????"

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

---

It's really interesting, isn't it? But I think it says a lot about the power that this man held while he was alive that meant he was untouchable and could abuse with impunity, which he apparently did his whole life.

0\

Quote:

---

HE WAS the biggest television star in Britain, courted by prime ministers, princes and the Pope. And now the millions of people who had watched, laughed at and grew up with the late Jimmy Savile, OBE, KCSG, are trying to come to terms with the fact that he had been sexually abusing under-age girls for 50 years. It was shocking, people agreed, and yet somehow not surprising: when you watch old TV clips of him fondling star-struck children, it all seems so obvious - and shameful: why hadn't they realised?

More to the point, why did the BBC fail to investigate the rumours that we now know were rife in the '60s and '70s: that their golden goose, kingpin of top-rating shows Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix it, was entertaining young girls from studio audiences in his dressing room and at post-show parties, delivered to him by program assistants. Or that when he was out on the road running for charity he took young fans to bed in his campervan.

And after Savile's death last year, why was an investigation into his predatory activities by the BBC's flagship current affairs show, Newsnight, suddenly dropped - to be followed a month later by two fulsome tribute programs?

And why did the BBC file away incendiary evidence gathered by Newsnight producer Meirion Jones and reporter Liz MacKearn, only to see the same material used by its arch competitor, ITV, in a report screened a year later, which delivered compelling testimonies from more of Savile's alleged victims.
Advertisement

These questions preoccupied Britain last week in the wake of a BBC Panorama report - ''What the BBC Knew'' - watched on Monday night by 5 million people. Amid a cascade of theories about conspiracy and cover-up, the BBC's director general, George Entwhistle, and BBC Trust chairman Lord Chris Patten were summoned for questioning by the British government's culture, media and sport committee.

Why did Entwhistle, director of vision for BBC One at the time of the Newsnight investigation, not ask what was in it? He did not want to show ''undue interest''.

Why was a blog by Newsnight editor Peter Rippon, explaining his reasons for abandoning the investigation, endorsed by the BBC and then three weeks later criticised for ''inaccuracies''. Entwhistle was ''disappointed'' by the inaccuracies, he told the committee, and had asked Rippon to ''step aside'' pending an inquiry.

It is a process all too reminiscent of the same committee's hearings earlier this year into phone hacking at News International. And as with the News scandal, the stain is spreading through the ranks of executives who ''weren't aware'', reaching across the Atlantic to former director general Mark Thompson in New York, about to take up a post as CEO of The New York Times - an appointment that now looks in jeopardy.

David Attenborough and acclaimed foreign correspondent John Simpson, both leviathans of broadcasting, have pronounced it the worst crisis to hit the BBC for 50 years.

But Steve Hewlett, a former Newsnight editor, now a columnist and presenter of The Media Show on BBC Radio, disagrees: ''If it could be proved that BBC management quashed the Newsnight program for corpor

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME