John in Hull;

That, Sir, is known as "Deterrant"; that there may be a few "unenlightened" Subjects out there who just might become sufficiently indignant at being plundered and terrorized by these predatory vermin that they might momentarily lose sight of said vermin's precious "rights" and do something rather rash. They seem to intuitively know that despite the generous population of lawyers and barristers in Hell, successful appeals therefrom are remarkably few.
Even "liberal" social scientists who have honestly studied criminal behavior and statistics have had to grudgingly admit (although you won't hear it reported in the popular press) time after time that the optimum chances for survival of a criminal attack is to fight back, if at all possible. Of course big-brother government types don't want us to know this, as it compromises our total dependence upon them for our "security".

I would be surprised if a few punks being luggged out of flats with iron bolts sticking out of their tattooed chests or their gourds bashed in with a fire-poker would not drasticly reduce your crime rate for a while. Unfortunately the political climate over there, such as we are aware of it, would probably land a few innocent homeowners and tennants in "the Tower" for excersizing such initiative and Independance (remember what that fracas in the Colonies back in 1776 was about?), but their sacrifice would likely not be totally in vain. Another thing is that as I mentioned, only the law-abiding need be concerned about firearm bans. Do they actually prosecute and punish thugs over there on weapons violations? During our 8 years of the Klinton Kingdom, very few if any "real criminals" were held accountable for possession of guns - including sawed off shotguns, machineguns etc.., which is a pretty good indicator of just where "bigbro" is going with all these Subject pacification schemes. We understand that in Canada, by the way, where the politicos are trying to "pacify" Canadians, that there is a big (really big) problem with "non-compliance", especially in the rural areas. Bully for them! Apparantly they need to figure out how to get Canucks to surrender their courage and love of Freedom before they can get their guns away from them; no doubt they are working on it. Shortly after Klinton took over they tried to pull a "gun control" scheme in the US, and the message was loud and clear, especially from the West and Deep South; "You want our guns? Come and get 'em. Just bring body bags.. lots of body-bags!". They still take "Militia" seriously out there, and some of these rustic irregulars are reputed to have tanks, artillery, and heliocoptors at their disposal.. and have probably more actual combat experience behind them than in all of our standing Army. And Klinton and Komrades knew that if push came to shove, a good chunk if not most of the US Military would likely have gone over to the People for Liberty and it would've gotten messy for him (he didn't care a damn for the rest of us). He didn't push, and those of us who choose to still have our guns, and the punks think twice before they go kicking doors in.

Jeeze, I'd better be carefull; the next thing you know you Brits will be lusting after Freedom like us Yanks used to. Sad to say, most of us seem to have gotten over it. I think the public government factory monopoly forced "school" system had something to do with that. Marx said it would, and b'gosh, it seems he was on to something there.

Hang tough, Mate, & try not to let the buggers get ye down!