(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this >time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming >law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an >issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to >legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it >themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the >designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is >sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on >a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. >It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if >the server is hosted elsewhere.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vm87b4$2cva1$5@dont-email.me...
(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,
of which the web
apparently abounds then a similar curb on instructions to make firearms
would be the next logical step
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0
bb
* quote:
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT <vm87b4$2cva1$5@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill post
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT 173694174310139
<vm87b4$2cva1$5@dont-email.me>
Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill enqueue
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT <vm87b4$2cva1$5@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill receive
:unquote
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:48:52 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this >>time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production >>> of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>> firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming >> law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to >> legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it >> themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs >> in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on >> a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. >> It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if >> the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.
Mark Goodge wrote:
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law.
Can we have a law that makes it illegal to introduce new laws that make
stuff illegal which is already illegal, unless the new law is replacing
the old law?
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming law.
On 2025-01-15, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British documentary
on British TV a few years ago about the history of explosives that
showed how to make nitrocellulose.
On 2025-01-15, billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably >> its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,
Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.
On 2025-01-15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote
(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this >>> time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably >> its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,
Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production >>>of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>>firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming >>law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an >>issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to >>legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it >>themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the >>designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs >>in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is >>sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on >>a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. >>It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in >>the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if >>the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production >>>> of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>>> firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming >>> law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an >>> issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to >>> legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it >>> themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs >>> in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. >>> It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in >>> the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if >>> the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.
We’ll all have to be very careful when mentioning 3D printers in association with innocent words such as lock, stock, barrel, magazine,
round, chamber, receiver, bolt, link, sight, butt, port, regulator, piston, and doubtless a thousand others.
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for >>>it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide
the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the >>>designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the >>>web is sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to >>>view them on a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if >>>transient, copy. It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you
view it on a device in the UK (without lawful justification) you've >>>committed the offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the
handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you can
only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0
On 2025-01-15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vm87b4$2cva1$5@dont-email.me...
(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this >>> time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably >> its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,
Does that include chemistry textbooks?
I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.
On 2025-01-15, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it >> themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs >> in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on >> a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. >> It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if >> the server is hosted elsewhere.
Are there safeguards for people clicking on a link that they didn't
expect to contain illegal material?
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:50:19 +0200, J Newman wrote:
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.
As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone, always try to de-escalate and be careful.
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
Also some things which Trump says make sense
On 17 Jan 2025 at 09:34:24 GMT, J Newman wrote:
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
OOI, what's your source of UK 'government waste'? And indeed pro-terrorist students in the UK.
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. Forces of
ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
Also some things which Trump says make sense -
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he
or anyone else could now make any real difference.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:08:05 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he
or anyone else could now make any real difference.
The ever decreasing number of Brexitards too.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vmdsp3$2cva1$31@dont-email.me...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:08:05 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if
he or anyone else could now make any real difference.
The ever decreasing number of Brexitards too.
There is no "decreasing" about it, unfortunately.
As *they've* been insisting all along, *their* decision was *final* and irrevocable.
As indeed it was. And still is. And will be forever more.
A slate which can never be wiped clean, IOW.
The referendum voting slips will have all have been numbered of course; although presumably they have all been destroyed in the meantime,
in the absence of any evidence of fraudulent, as opposed to deranged,
voting activity.
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone, >always try to de-escalate and be careful.
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. >Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting >government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vmd872$3vvin$1@dont-email.me...
Also some things which Trump says make sense -
Indeed. That the US is losing its dominant position in the World.
An undoubted fact; which conventional politicians attempt to ignore
as they know they can't really do anything about it.
When neither, in reality, can Trump.
That's just how history works; with the geopolitical realities changing
all the time
Much the same as here, in the UK.
Here they voted for Brexit, over there they voted for Trump.
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he or anyone else could now make any real difference.
bb
On 17 Jan 2025 at 09:34:24 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:50:19 +0200, J Newman wrote:
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership >>> does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.
As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students from universities for their political views.
On 17/01/2025 10:08 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jan 2025 at 09:34:24 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:50:19 +0200, J Newman wrote:
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership >>>> does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.
As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder >>>> with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something >>> like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone, >>> always try to de-escalate and be careful.
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting >>>> the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. >>> Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side, >>> and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 20:34:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 10:08 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jan 2025 at 09:34:24 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:50:19 +0200, J Newman wrote:
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership >>>>> does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.
As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food, >>>> all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of >>>> these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder >>>>> with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something >>>> like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone, >>>> always try to de-escalate and be careful.
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting >>>>> the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. >>>> Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side, >>>> and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.
No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?
On 18/01/2025 09:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 20:34:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 10:08 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jan 2025 at 09:34:24 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:50:19 +0200, J Newman wrote:
On 15/01/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons
Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I >>>>>> accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.
As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food, >>>>> all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of >>>>> these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say >>>>> that in for a penny, in for a pound.
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder >>>>>> with a firearm last year.
The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something >>>>> like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone, >>>>> always try to de-escalate and be careful.
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting >>>>>> the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. >>>>> Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side, >>>>> and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but >>>>> someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the >>>>> ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting >>>>> government wastage. If only the UK would do both!
I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.
No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically >> killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would >> not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?
Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 00:52:34 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 09:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 20:34:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisagedThe answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.
No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in >>> public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically >>> killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations? >>
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.
What the person who originally expressed a wish to expel "pro-terrorist supporting" students meant by this I cannot say. Possibly he just meant students he doesn't like. I repeat what I said; either students are committing
a crime by expressing public support for proscribed organisations, in which case the police can deal with them; or they are expressing perfectly legal opinions and should not be expelled for them. I don't care what the previous poster meant.
On 19/01/2025 01:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 00:52:34 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 09:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 20:34:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.
No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has
proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for
them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently
systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is >>>> perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel
culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal
organisations?
Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.
What the person who originally expressed a wish to expel "pro-terrorist
supporting" students meant by this I cannot say. Possibly he just meant
students he doesn't like. I repeat what I said; either students are
committing
a crime by expressing public support for proscribed organisations, in
which
case the police can deal with them; or they are expressing perfectly
legal
opinions and should not be expelled for them. I don't care what the
previous
poster meant.
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which >>presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which
law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which
law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>>government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which >>>>presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>>Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>>Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>>law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >>>government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by >>>another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >>response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in >>many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the >>press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public >>figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a >>proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting >>and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism
of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli >citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>> government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>> Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>> Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>> law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >> response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
On 20/01/2025 in message <8341987704.e0f87c71@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the >>>>>Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas >>>>>(which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that >>>>>come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues >>>>>for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under >>>>>which law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >>>>government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by >>>>another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians >>>in response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic
or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread
censorship by the press of any comments supporting Palestinian
civilians. The only public figure willing to openly support
Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on >>>anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a >>>proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >>American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have had
a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of Palestine
and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the lobbying
by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative MPs also
being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK had handled
the situation but he won't answer that either.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>>> government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>>> Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>>> Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>>> law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >>> response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in >>> many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the >>> press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting >>> and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of >> the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
On 20/01/2025 in message <8341987704.e0f87c71@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>>> government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>>> Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>>> Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>>> law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >>> response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in >>> many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the >>> press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting >>> and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism
of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli
citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have had a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of Palestine and wriggles
like mad when challenged about this and also the lobbying by Israel. I
asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative MPs also being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK had handled the situation but
he won't answer that either.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:54:30 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <8341987704.e0f87c71@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the
Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning
Hamas (which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death
tolls that come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British >>>>>> synagogues for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under
which law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >>>>> government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian
civilians in response to Press articles and been accused of being
anti-semitic or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the
widespread censorship by the press of any comments supporting
Palestinian civilians. The only public figure willing to openly
support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little
support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know
that.
I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have
had a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of
Palestine and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the
lobbying by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative
MPs also being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK
had handled the situation but he won't answer that either.
We don't have, and have never had, any general right to free speech in
the UK.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:15:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:54:30 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <8341987704.e0f87c71@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the
Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning
Hamas (which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death
tolls that come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British >>>>>>> synagogues for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under >>>>>>> which law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >>>>>> government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by >>>>>> another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian
civilians in response to Press articles and been accused of being
anti-semitic or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the
widespread censorship by the press of any comments supporting
Palestinian civilians. The only public figure willing to openly
support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little
support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a >>>>> proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know
that.
I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have
had a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of
Palestine and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the
lobbying by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative
MPs also being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK
had handled the situation but he won't answer that either.
We don't have, and have never had, any general right to free speech in
the UK.
But in a liberal democracy, what is not prohibited is allowed, surely ?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>>> government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>>> Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>>> Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>>> law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >>> response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in >>> many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the >>> press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting >>> and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of >> the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many Palestinians?
On 20/01/2025 17:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians >>> appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?
I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?
On 20 Jan 2025 at 18:09:41 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few >>>>Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the >>>case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet >>>many
Palestinians?
I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?
These are protests by Palestinians?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?
Do you meet many Palestinians?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians >>> appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 15:07:08 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:16:00 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vmligl$34rud$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli >>>>>> government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which >>>>>> presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from >>>>>> Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting >>>>>> Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which >>>>>> law.
On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel >>>>> government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.
I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in >>>> response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in >>>> many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the >>>> press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public >>>> figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn >>>> and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting >>>> and discussion.
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many Palestinians?
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians >>>> appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or >> seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.
On 20/01/2025 in message <1492980921.4c860fc1@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 18:09:41 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few
Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you
meet many
Palestinians?
I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?
These are protests by Palestinians?
In the UK they are protests by people who empathise with the Palestinian people who have (a) had their country taken from them and (b) are being slaughtered daily (and have been for nearly 80 years) by Israel in the
name of "defence".
There is a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians but Israel pushes the myth that they are the same. It is interesting to compare how
the UK dealt with the IRA and how Israel deals with Hamas.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >>>>>> American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians >>>>> appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or >>> seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled >>> London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.
Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”
On 15/01/2025 19:57, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/01/2025 11:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this >>> time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production >>> of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a >>> firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0
The gun may be a crude device. It's the cartridge that is the clever
part. Just control the sale of the ammo.
The cartridge need not be as complicated as one made in a factory. Its purpose is to generate a large volume of hot gas quickly on the
application of a mechanical impact from the firing pin or hammer.
There are other methods of generating hot gases if the design
requirements are relaxed, such as electrical ignition of a flammable gas mixture. Your non-electric car does it all the time too.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for >>>>it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide >>>>the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the >>>>designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the >>>>web is sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to >>>>view them on a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if >>>>transient, copy. It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you >>>>view it on a device in the UK (without lawful justification) you've >>>>committed the offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the
handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you can
only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.
On 2025-01-15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13
on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate >>>>>for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which >>>>>provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be >>>>>possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing >>>>>the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because >>>>>in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to >>>>>make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing >>>>>unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful >>>>>justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is >>>>>hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the
handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably
be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count
as a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.
Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >>>>>>> American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few PalestiniansIt mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be >>>>> the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows? >>>>
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or >>>> seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled >>>> London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.
Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”
Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.
On 21/01/2025 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <1492980921.4c860fc1@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 18:09:41 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be >>>>> the case
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few
Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows? >>>>>
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you
meet many
Palestinians?
I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps >>>> you might be kind enough to provide some examples?
These are protests by Palestinians?
In the UK they are protests by people who empathise with the Palestinian
people who have (a) had their country taken from them and (b) are being
slaughtered daily (and have been for nearly 80 years) by Israel in the
name of "defence".
There is a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians but Israel
pushes the myth that they are the same. It is interesting to compare how
the UK dealt with the IRA and how Israel deals with Hamas.
The NI struggle was unusual in that there was a political arm that was connected but didn't publicly condone the actions of the IRA, nor did it criticise the IRA.
That possibly made negotiations easier though I recall it nearly came
unstuck when Clinton asked how much power Gerry Adams had in stopping
the killings.
I've often thought the Gazzans are at a disadvantage by having an entity
in power that at the same time has blood on it's hand from violence
towards Israel.
I would advocate their separation, as per Sin Fein / IRA. Though some
posters might consider that view promotes terrorism.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? OrI think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >>>>>>>> American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any >>>>>>>> criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise >>>>>>>> their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few PalestiniansIt mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be >>>>>> the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? >>>
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows? >>>>>
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled >>>>> London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.
Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”
Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.
Well, if you think that, let’s return to the remark that started this, namely:
“Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?”
Thanks here to JNugent for showing understanding of the intended meaning of ‘…appear to…”.
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[…]
Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? OrI think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an >>>>>>>>> American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any >>>>>>>>> criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise >>>>>>>>> their own state. But I don't know that.
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few PalestiniansIt mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be >>>>>>> the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? >>>>
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows? >>>>>>
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.
Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”
Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.
Well, if you think that, let’s return to the remark that started this,
namely:
“Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians >> appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?”
Thanks here to JNugent for showing understanding of the intended meaning of >> ‘…appear to…”.
I think the intended meaning of "appear to" is to make your statement unfalsifiable, so that you don't have to back it up with any evidence.
But unfortunately it also makes it meaningless.
What "appears to" you may not be the same as what "appears to" anyone else.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:32:58 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 >>>>> on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate >>>>>>for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which >>>>>>provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be >>>>>>possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing >>>>>>the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because >>>>>>in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to >>>>>>make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing >>>>>>unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful >>>>>>justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is >>>>>>hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the
handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably >>>>> be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count >>>>> as a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is >>>> rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.
Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.
A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.
On 2025-01-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:32:58 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 >>>>>> on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>> remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate >>>>>>>for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which >>>>>>>provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be >>>>>>>possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing >>>>>>>the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because >>>>>>>in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to >>>>>>>make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing >>>>>>>unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful >>>>>>>justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is >>>>>>>hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> >>>>>> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, >>>>>> and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the
handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably >>>>>> be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count >>>>>> as a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you >>>>> can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is >>>>> rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to >>>> be.
Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.
A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.
I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.
On 2025-01-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:32:58 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at
12:04:13 on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>>>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>>>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>>>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and >>>>>>>>legislate for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the >>>>>>>>UK which provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence >>>>>>>>would be possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that >>>>>>>>even viewing the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the >>>>>>>>offence, because in order for you to view them on a device in the >>>>>>>>UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. It's >>>>>>>>no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device >>>>>>>>in the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the >>>>>>>>offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> >>>>>>> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, >>>>>>> and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the >>>>>>> handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could
conceivably be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't
count as a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that
you can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel,
which is rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable
steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it >>>>> to be.
Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.
A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a
one-shot gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.
I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.
Oh! I was imagining the elasticity of the band directly propelling some
sort of pellet out of the pen, and I was thinking it didn't sound very dangerous. You're presumably imagining the band instead making the clip strike the primer cap of an actual ammunition cartridge, which sounds
much more dangerous - mostly, as you say, to the wielder.
On 2025-01-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:32:58 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:36 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nh8foj9e884kslki08d202oimaui31d2ii@4ax.com>, at 12:04:13 >>>>>>> on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>> remarked:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the >>>>>>>>>production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of >>>>>>>>>possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for >>>>>>>>>connected purposes.
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of >>>>>>>>becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise >>>>>>>>awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than >>>>>>>>making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate >>>>>>>>for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which >>>>>>>>provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be >>>>>>>>possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing >>>>>>>>the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because >>>>>>>>in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to >>>>>>>>make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing >>>>>>>>unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful >>>>>>>>justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is >>>>>>>>hosted elsewhere.
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry> >>>>>>> bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, >>>>>>> and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the >>>>>>> handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably >>>>>>> be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count >>>>>>> as a firearm.
I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you >>>>>> can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is >>>>>> rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.
Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to >>>>> be.
Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.
A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot >>> gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.
I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.
Oh! I was imagining the elasticity of the band directly propelling some
sort of pellet out of the pen, and I was thinking it didn't sound very dangerous. You're presumably imagining the band instead making the clip strike the primer cap of an actual ammunition cartridge, which sounds
much more dangerous - mostly, as you say, to the wielder.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:24 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |