Current Affairs

[Onelife]

some of this has already lead to similar suspect police shootings

I think that the difference between the UK and US is that in the UK the police are not routinely armed so that when there is a police shooting it is more targeted at suspected criminal activity whereas in the US, largely due to the gun culture, everyone is considered by the police to be armed and a potential threat.

Indeed David.

[Frank Manning]

Too many guns by far in the USA. All this right to bear arms rubbish. Grow up! If they had our culture where guns are unusual and carefully licensed they would have far fewer random killings. I dont want a gun, and our system of specialist firearms officers is safer for everyone.

[CaroleF]

Various presidents of the USA have tried to sort out gun control. I can't see the States ever having the sort of laws we have about guns. It seems to be ingrained in them that they must have a gun and guns being made illegal is an infringement of their rights as an American Citizen. Guns have been a part of American society to too long. Just so pleased we don't have the same attitude over here. Just wondered, do Canadians carry guns? Does anyone know.

Carole

[david63]

The problem with trying to sort out gun controls, apart from the "right to bear arms", is the NRA who seem to be politically too powerful.

do Canadians carry guns?

I believe that many do

[oldbluefox]

Do American police shoot to kill, shoot to hit or are they just not very good aimers? Surely it would be better to wound and disable rather than have the negative press whenever they kill someone, especially if they are non white American. And why the need to shoot if the subject is clearly unarmed?

[Manoverboard]

The problem with trying to sort out gun controls, apart from the "right to bear arms", is the NRA who seem to be politically too powerful.

do Canadians carry guns?

I believe that many do

Albeit they tend to use them for recreational purposes rather than shooting each other.

[Kendhni]

Do American police shoot to kill, shoot to hit or are they just not very good aimers? Surely it would be better to wound and disable rather than have the negative press whenever they kill someone, especially if they are non white American. And why the need to shoot if the subject is clearly unarmed?

There is no such thing as 'shoot to wound', you shoot to for one reason and one reason only - to protect yourself and others - a wounded person is still a risk, possibly even more so. In high stress situations were decisions have to be taken in milliseconds, a flash of light, something moving in the corner of ones eyes, incorrect intelligence, mistaking one item for another, a reflection, a flinch ... anything can sadly lead to someone being killed (Jean Charles de Menezes was a victim of this).

[Kendhni]

Reminds me of an escaped criminal who was hiding in woods after killing a police officer and his dog. He was surrounded by police and was shot at 110 times with 68 bullets finding their target. A human rights organization questioned as to why he was shot 68 times, the Sheriffs response was 'That was all the bullets we had'.

[Stephen]

Reminds me of an escaped criminal who was hiding in woods after killing a police officer and his dog. He was surrounded by police and was shot at 110 times with 68 bullets finding their target. A human rights organization questioned as to why he was shot 68 times, the Sheriffs response was 'That was all the bullets we had'.

Amateurs

[Mervyn and Trish]

Do American police shoot to kill, shoot to hit or are they just not very good aimers? Surely it would be better to wound and disable rather than have the negative press whenever they kill someone, especially if they are non white American. And why the need to shoot if the subject is clearly unarmed?

There is no such thing as 'shoot to wound', you shoot to for one reason and one reason only - to protect yourself and others - a wounded person is still a risk, possibly even more so. In high stress situations were decisions have to be taken in milliseconds, a flash of light, something moving in the corner of ones eyes, incorrect intelligence, mistaking one item for another, a reflection, a flinch ... anything can sadly lead to someone being killed (Jean Charles de Menezes was a victim of this).

To be fair that wasn't just a flinch. Yes the intelligence was wrong. But he legged it and vaulted over a ticket barrier to try to escape.

If an armed cop told me to stop I'd stand very still and raise my empty hands, with palms spread and towards them very slowly, and argue about the intelligence later.

[Kendhni]

If an armed cop told me to stop I'd stand very still and raise my empty hands, with palms spread and towards them very slowly, and argue about the intelligence later.

I would say very similar except I would suggest getting down on the ground spreading legs and arms as much as possible ... but human nature is strange, some people surprise themselves how they react in hi stress situations.

A police friend of mine once told me of a car he pulled over, basically to tell the driver something minor they had noticed about the car. The driver was an elderly lady (he described her as being in her 80s) who hopped out of the car and went running up the street. They easily caught her, and thought they had better check her car. Apart from the ladies zimmer frame and walking sticks they found nothing suspicious. They asked her why she ran and she had no idea.

[Ray B]

Do American police shoot to kill, shoot to hit or are they just not very good aimers? Surely it would be better to wound and disable

There is no such thing as 'shoot to wound', you shoot to for one reason and one reason only - to protect yourself and others - a wounded person is still a risk, possibly even more so. In high stress situations were decisions have to be taken in milliseconds, a flash of light, something moving in the corner of ones eyes, incorrect intelligence, mistaking one item for another, a reflection, a flinch ..

John Wayne could shoot the gun out of a baddies hand and wound him in the shoulder.
Thought I would just add that.

[Manoverboard]

Do American police shoot to kill, shoot to hit or are they just not very good aimers? Surely it would be better to wound and disable

There is no such thing as 'shoot to wound', you shoot to for one reason and one reason only - to protect yourself and others - a wounded person is still a risk, possibly even more so. In high stress situations were decisions have to be taken in milliseconds, a flash of light, something moving in the corner of ones eyes, incorrect intelligence, mistaking one item for another, a reflection, a flinch ..

John Wayne could shoot the gun out of a baddies hand and wound him in the shoulder.
Thought I would just add that.

He also had a gun with 72 bullets in it ... just saying

[oldbluefox]

He also had a gun with 72 bullets in it ... just saying

But he needed them for the hundreds of indians who, out of nowhere, appeared over the top of the hill.

[Stephen]

He also had a gun with 72 bullets in it ... just saying

But he needed them for the hundreds of indians who, out of nowhere, appeared over the top of the hill.

He should have followed the arrows.

[Kendhni]

What's six inches long and covered in arrows>

Custers last stand

[Mervyn and Trish]

Not living in Scotland I don't fully understand the way devolved government works there. So I am genuinely hoping someone might be able to explain.

Having had party political broadcasts by the Scottish parties in the run up to their election inflicted on me (I'm not entirely sure why they are broadcast by BBC Midlands, since at the last count I don't have a vote in that poll, but that's another matter) I've noted that pretty much every party is trying to buy votes by promising to splash the cash.

My question is where do they think the money is coming from? When they spend it do the rest of the UK have to stump up via the Barnett formula? Do they have their own powers to raise taxes (in which case the PPB's don't mention which taxes they'll raise to cover it)? Do they have borrowing powers? And if or when they vote for independence who do they think will cover the deficit they are amassing? Or will they expect to walk out without paying?

[Manoverboard]

Not living in Scotland I don't fully understand the way devolved government works there. So I am genuinely hoping someone might be able to explain.

Having had party political broadcasts by the Scottish parties in the run up to their election inflicted on me (I'm not entirely sure why they are broadcast by BBC Midlands, since at the last count I don't have a vote in that poll, but that's another matter) I've noted that pretty much every party is trying to buy votes by promising to splash the cash.

My question is where do they think the money is coming from? When they spend it do the rest of the UK have to stump up via the Barnett formula? Do they have their own powers to raise taxes (in which case the PPB's don't mention which taxes they'll raise to cover it)? Do they have borrowing powers? And if or when they vote for independence who do they think will cover the deficit they are amassing? Or will they expect to walk out without paying?

Zillions of Scots in Corby and environs ... just saying

[screwy]

Who obviously aren’t bothered about Scotland,hence why they’re living in England.

[Manoverboard]

The majority are proud of their Scottish heritage but not the poverty of that moment in time, they moved to the area because they were offered work and decent housing.

[Ranchi]

Scotland income tax bands are different to the rest of U.K. Higher rate kicks in at a lower lever than south of the border. I’m not sure how much of the income tax is directed to Scottish coffers.

[towny44]

Scotland income tax bands are different to the rest of U.K. Higher rate kicks in at a lower lever than south of the border. I’m not sure how much of the income tax is directed to Scottish coffers.

I wonder if there are statistics to show how many jobs have moved south of the border since this was introduced?

[Jan Rosser]

Apologies if this has already been covered but how do you think P&O will man their ships now that India is on the red list? I notice the Philippines is also on the list so they can’t take up the slack so to speak.

[david63]

Apologies if this has already been covered but how do you think P&O will man their ships now that India is on the red list? I notice the Philippines is also on the list so they can’t take up the slack so to speak.

There are several categories of exemptions that could apply - most notable seamen or travelling through the UK

[Jan Rosser]

Apologies if this has already been covered but how do you think P&O will man their ships now that India is on the red list? I notice the Philippines is also on the list so they can’t take up the slack so to speak.

There are several categories of exemptions that could apply - most notable seamen or travelling through the UK

Thank you David - I just read it as them not being British citizens and ineligible to come here. I’m sure if there is a way in then P&O and the other cruise lines will find it.