| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:09:36 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,723 |
Posted with the benefit of hindsight in a calm environment.
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
If the terrorist did not have a visible (turned out to be fake) bomb
belt, are armed police still under orders to shoot dead terrorists?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian. Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right to keep and
bear arms?
I am very keen that police use of force is examined whenever it is
needed.
However by the same token I accept that the polices job is to keep us
safe and I am happy to allow them the benefit of the doubt in that
spirit.
The quid pro quo is they are open and honest in return.
Sadly tragic and terrible mistakes can happen. The absolute bottom line
here is that had someone not been committing terrible acts if violence in public upon innocent civilians, then the police would never have been
called. So any blame lies squarely with the deceased perpetrator.
Posted with the benefit of hindsight in a calm environment.
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
If the terrorist did not have a visible (turned out to be fake) bomb
belt, are armed police still under orders to shoot dead terrorists?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian. Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right to keep and
bear arms?
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
If the terrorist did not have a visible (turned out to be fake) bomb
belt, are armed police still under orders to shoot dead terrorists?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian. Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right to keep and
bear arms?
On 2025-10-05, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
And as you say, the police must be open and honest. There *should*
be criminal repercussions on individual officers if they try to
obstruct or lie to any inquiry
On 2025-10-05, J Newman <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
The police are, apparently, supposed to be using hollow-point rounds,
partly because they pose less danger to bystanders.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13364365
But if so it seems a bit surprising that it went through the door and
killed someone behind it. I walked past a synagogue the other day and
it had a huge great security fence around it, you'd think the external
door would be pretty solid.
On 2025-10-05, J Newman <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
The police are, apparently, supposed to be using hollow-point rounds,
partly because they pose less danger to bystanders.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13364365
But if so it seems a bit surprising that it went through the door and
killed someone behind it. I walked past a synagogue the other day and
it had a huge great security fence around it, you'd think the external
door would be pretty solid.
If the terrorist did not have a visible (turned out to be fake) bomb
belt, are armed police still under orders to shoot dead terrorists?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a
heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian. Do you think
citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right to keep and
bear arms?
So what happened here is that an innocent bystander was killed by
a stray bullet, when the *only people involved* who had guns were hightly-trained police firearms officers. Your proposed solution
is to hand out guns to random idiots (which would inevitably mean
that all terrorists would also have guns) on the basis that a great
increase in the number of bullets flying around and a great
decrease in the training of those firing them is somehow going to
*reduce* the number of innocent deaths rather than the more obvious
outcome which would be to massively increase them?
Posted with the benefit of hindsight in a calm environment.
Adrian Daulby was apparently shot by police inadvertently as they
intended to kill the terrorist.
Anyone who has been instructed on the use of firearms knows that one
must always be mindful of their backstop. Did the police officers who
opened fire consider that Daulby might have been in the line of fire?
Were the police using FMJ or non-FMJ rounds?
If the terrorist did not have a visible (turned out to be fake) bomb
belt, are armed police still under orders to shoot dead terrorists?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian.
citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right to keep and
bear arms?
On 05/10/2025 04:24, J Newman wrote:
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the
right to keep and bear arms?
I thought they already did have that right, which is why we had the
Dunblane and Hungerford massacres.
It isn't difficult to look as if you are of good standing. The more
people have guns, the more likely there will be massacres or young
children killing themselves or each other when they find Dad's gun
under the bed.
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right
to keep and bear arms?
Am 05.10.25 um 04:24 schrieb J Newman:
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right
to keep and bear arms?
I do, as long as they are screened and vetted regularly for criminal
record and mental health, not like in the USA where all you need is a
valid credit card.
I suffer from mental health. I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a weapon.
I note the
Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath recently charged with rape
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a
heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian.
A comforting fantasy but wholly untrue.
quote
The Tel Aviv Market Attack, which occurred on June 8, 2016, involved two armed Palestinian cousins who opened fire at the Max Brenner Caf|- in
Sarona Market, resulting in the deaths of four individuals and injuries
to at least seven others. The attackers, identified as Muhammad and
Khalid al-Muhamra from the West Bank, were arrested shortly after
Am 05.10.25 um 04:24 schrieb J Newman:
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right
to keep and bear arms?
I do, as long as they are screened and vetted regularly for criminal
record and mental health, not like in the USA where all you need is a
valid credit card.
I suffer from mental health. I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a weapon.
I suffer from mental health.
I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a weapon.
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
On 05/10/2025 14:58, The Todal wrote:
If this happened in Israel, the attacker would've been shot dead in a
heartbeat by an off duty guard/soldier or armed civilian.
A comforting fantasy but wholly untrue.
quote
The Tel Aviv Market Attack, which occurred on June 8, 2016, involved
two armed Palestinian cousins who opened fire at the Max Brenner Caf|-
in Sarona Market, resulting in the deaths of four individuals and
injuries to at least seven others. The attackers, identified as
Muhammad and Khalid al-Muhamra from the West Bank, were arrested
shortly after
I'm not in favour of having lots of armed people around, but I will
quibble with your 'wholly untrue'.
The attackers were armed with "Carlo" machine guns, and they would have
been able to fire off a couple of magazines of rounds between them
before anyone could react.
There's a dearth of information, and I don't know what stopped them reloading and continuing the mayhem. One possibility is that they wanted
to scarper before one of the off-duty soldiers in the market returned fire.
So, the presence of armed soldiers may not prevent bloodshed, but it may limit it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_(submachine_gun)
Am 05.10.25 um 04:24 schrieb J Newman:
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right
to keep and bear arms?
I do, as long as they are screened and vetted regularly for criminal
record and mental health, not like in the USA where all you need is a
valid credit card.
I suffer from mental health. I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a
weapon.
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
:
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
On 06/10/2025 11:11 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 05.10.25 um 04:24 schrieb J Newman:
That simply isn't true.Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right
to keep and bear arms?
I do, as long as they are screened and vetted regularly for criminal
record and mental health, not like in the USA where all you need is a
valid credit card.
I suffer from mental health. I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a
weapon.
USA federal legislation, and I quote:
QUOTE:
Under 18 U.S.C. -o 922(g)
...prohibits the possession of firearms or ammunition by anyone who:
- Has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than
one year (i.e., a felony)
- Is a fugitive from justice
- Is addicted to controlled substances
- Has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental
institution
- Has a domestic violence conviction or is subject to a restraining
order
- Is unlawfully in the U.S. or on a non-immigrant visa
- Has been dishonorably discharged from the military
I suffer from mental health.
If you meant ill-health, in the USA, you would not be so allowed (see
above). That's for two reasons: the first is the mental health issue (if that's what you meant - your wording was ambiguous) and the second is
that you would at best, be lawfully in the USA on a non-immigrant visa
(or visa-waiver). That second one would definitely apply.
I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a weapon.
Happily, you will be pleased to learn that you would not be so allowed.
Though, of course,the law is occasionally broken (or so I have heard).
On 6 Oct 2025 at 12:13:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
:
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment.
On 6 Oct 2025 at 12:13:20 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
:
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
GB wrote
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment.
On 06/10/2025 16:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment.
One of the demonstrators has displayed (on Facebook) a document issued
by the police granting him bail on condition that he does not take part
in any further Palestine Action demonstrations. So, if he does take part
in more protests he could face having to live in a police cell until his eventual trial.
However, the Manchester attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, presumably was on
bail pending his trial for rape and if everyone facing a rape allegation
had to be remanded in custody the police cells would soon overflow
and
there might not be enough room for all the elderly people accused of supporting Palestine Action, or their zimmer frames or wheelchairs.
On 6 Oct 2025 at 12:09:28 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:11 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 05.10.25 um 04:24 schrieb J Newman:That simply isn't true.
Do you think citizens of good standing in the UK should have the right >>>> to keep and bear arms?
I do, as long as they are screened and vetted regularly for criminal
record and mental health, not like in the USA where all you need is a
valid credit card.
I suffer from mental health. I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a
weapon.
USA federal legislation, and I quote:
QUOTE:
Under 18 U.S.C. -o 922(g)
...prohibits the possession of firearms or ammunition by anyone who:
- Has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than
one year (i.e., a felony)
- Is a fugitive from justice
- Is addicted to controlled substances
- Has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental
institution
- Has a domestic violence conviction or is subject to a restraining
order
- Is unlawfully in the U.S. or on a non-immigrant visa
- Has been dishonorably discharged from the military
I suffer from mental health.
If you meant ill-health, in the USA, you would not be so allowed (see
above). That's for two reasons: the first is the mental health issue (if
that's what you meant - your wording was ambiguous) and the second is
that you would at best, be lawfully in the USA on a non-immigrant visa
(or visa-waiver). That second one would definitely apply.
I wouldn't want to be allowed to carry a weapon.
Happily, you will be pleased to learn that you would not be so allowed.
Though, of course,the law is occasionally broken (or so I have heard).
Most people with mental illness, even in the US, have never been committed to an institution nor adjudged mentally defective (which is a completely different thing). Thus mental illness is no bar to carrying a gun in most cases.
On 06/10/2025 05:12 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 06/10/2025 16:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:One of the demonstrators has displayed (on Facebook) a document issued
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in
custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment. >>
by the police granting him bail on condition that he does not take part
in any further Palestine Action demonstrations. So, if he does take part
in more protests he could face having to live in a police cell until his
eventual trial.
However, the Manchester attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, presumably was on
bail pending his trial for rape and if everyone facing a rape allegation
had to be remanded in custody the police cells would soon overflow
Why? There are prisons and remand centres.
and
there might not be enough room for all the elderly people accused of
supporting Palestine Action, or their zimmer frames or wheelchairs.
But they aren't necessarily accused of violent offences.>
On 6 Oct 2025 at 17:56:50 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:12 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 06/10/2025 16:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:One of the demonstrators has displayed (on Facebook) a document issued
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in >>>>> custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-punishment. >>>
by the police granting him bail on condition that he does not take part
in any further Palestine Action demonstrations. So, if he does take part >>> in more protests he could face having to live in a police cell until his >>> eventual trial.
However, the Manchester attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, presumably was on
bail pending his trial for rape and if everyone facing a rape allegation >>> had to be remanded in custody the police cells would soon overflow
Why? There are prisons and remand centres.
and
there might not be enough room for all the elderly people accused of
supporting Palestine Action, or their zimmer frames or wheelchairs.
But they aren't necessarily accused of violent offences.>
People can be remanded because they are flight risk, because they might interfere with witnesses, or because there is a provable risk of them committing further crimes. *Not* because they are violent.
On 06/10/2025 08:34 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Oct 2025 at 17:56:50 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:12 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 06/10/2025 16:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in >>>>>> custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-
punishment.
One of the demonstrators has displayed (on Facebook) a document issued >>>> by the police granting him bail on condition that he does not take part >>>> in any further Palestine Action demonstrations. So, if he does take
part
in more protests he could face having to live in a police cell until
his
eventual trial.
However, the Manchester attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, presumably was on
bail pending his trial for rape and if everyone facing a rape
allegation
had to be remanded in custody the police cells would soon overflow
Why? There are prisons and remand centres.
and
there might not be enough room for all the elderly people accused of
supporting Palestine Action, or their zimmer frames or wheelchairs.
But they aren't necessarily accused of violent offences.>
People can be remanded because they are flight risk, because they might
interfere with witnesses, or because there is a provable risk of them
committing further crimes. *Not* because they are violent.
What is a "provable risk"? ;-)
I think I saw a movie about that once: "Minority Report".
I'm not sure what you mean about being "violent". The ground for
refusing bail is that there is a credible (not "provable", quite
obviously) risk of the prisoner committing further offences while on bail.
The law only says that one has to have been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
And, of course, that pro Palestinian demonstrators should cancel or
postpone their demonstrations to help the victims in Manchester and/or
the "Jewish community" grieve.-a That part is surely arrant nonsense. Opinions may differ.
On 06/10/2025 18:00, JNugent wrote:
The law only says that one has to have been adjudicated as mentally
defective or committed to a mental institution.
'The term rCLadjudicated as a mental defectiverCY includes a finding of (1) not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal case or (2) incompetence
to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental responsibility in a
military court martial (id.).'
So, it's not just that your GP thinks you are looking a bit low...
'Committed to a mental institution' is missing the word involuntarily.
So, someone who is somewhat mentally ill could well be eligible to have
a gun in the USA.
On 10/6/25 21:56, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2025 08:34 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:You can prove risk in the same way you prove anything else.
On 6 Oct 2025 at 17:56:50 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 05:12 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 06/10/2025 16:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:28 am, GB wrote
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath >>>>>>>>> recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
So perhaps Parliament is about to make rape legal.
That's the obvious answer, isn't it?
Or perhaps a better readiness on the part of the courts to remand in >>>>>>> custody on such charges.
The courts have no power to remand people in custody as a pre-
punishment.
One of the demonstrators has displayed (on Facebook) a document issued >>>>> by the police granting him bail on condition that he does not take
part
in any further Palestine Action demonstrations. So, if he does take
part
in more protests he could face having to live in a police cell
until his
eventual trial.
However, the Manchester attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, presumably was on >>>>> bail pending his trial for rape and if everyone facing a rape
allegation
had to be remanded in custody the police cells would soon overflow
Why? There are prisons and remand centres.
and
there might not be enough room for all the elderly people accused of >>>>> supporting Palestine Action, or their zimmer frames or wheelchairs.
But they aren't necessarily accused of violent offences.>
People can be remanded because they are flight risk, because they might
interfere with witnesses, or because there is a provable risk of them
committing further crimes. *Not* because they are violent.
What is a "provable risk"? ;-)
I think I saw a movie about that once: "Minority Report".
I'm not sure what you mean about being "violent". The ground for
refusing bail is that there is a credible (not "provable", quite
obviously) risk of the prisoner committing further offences while on
bail.
If I flip a fair coin there is provable risk it will land heads. You are confusing the risk of an outcome, existing before the event occurs, with
the actual outcome after the event has occurred.
There are many imaginary risks, or more accurately insignificant risks,
so the provable part isn't redundant.
So, someone who is somewhat mentally ill could well be eligible to have a gun in the
USA.
On 2025-10-06, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
It does seem possible that perhaps he felt he no longer had anything
to lose. If he was wearing a fake bomb belt/vest then he presumably
didn't expect or intend to survive the incident.
On 05/10/2025 13:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But if so it seems a bit surprising that it went through the door and
killed someone behind it. I walked past a synagogue the other day and
it had a huge great security fence around it, you'd think the external
door would be pretty solid.
There is a case for requiring the outer doors of places of worship that
may come under attack to be made bullet proof against the sort of rounds >that the police use. This unfortunate incident looks like a stray round
that missed the intended target and passed straight through the door or >somehow caused lethal fragments to splinter off on the other side.
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 13:50:38 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 13:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But if so it seems a bit surprising that it went through the door and
killed someone behind it. I walked past a synagogue the other day and
it had a huge great security fence around it, you'd think the external
door would be pretty solid.
There is a case for requiring the outer doors of places of worship that >>may come under attack to be made bullet proof against the sort of rounds >>that the police use. This unfortunate incident looks like a stray round >>that missed the intended target and passed straight through the door or >>somehow caused lethal fragments to splinter off on the other side.
I suspect that synagogues (and mosques, for that matter) will already be considering such matters.
But it's difficult to completely target-harden a place of worship, since in order to qualify for the various charitable and financial advantages conferred on registered places of worship the primary use must be for meetings of worship which are open to the general public.
On 2025-10-08, Mark Goodge wrote:
But it's difficult to completely target-harden a place of worship, since in >> order to qualify for the various charitable and financial advantages
conferred on registered places of worship the primary use must be for
meetings of worship which are open to the general public.
I guess that excludes Mormon temples?
Since anyone convicted of a violent attack on another person will always
be treated as a threat thereafter, treating someone accused of rape and
ID'd by the victim (or by modern forensic methods) is surely too much of
a sufficiently-proven risk to get bail?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:22:57 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Mark Goodge wrote:
But it's difficult to completely target-harden a place of worship, since in >>> order to qualify for the various charitable and financial advantages
conferred on registered places of worship the primary use must be for
meetings of worship which are open to the general public.
I guess that excludes Mormon temples?
Mormon temples aren't used for regular weekly meetings of worship. Those
take place in what Mormons typically call chapels, which are the equivalent of a Christian church or chapel, a Jewish synagogue or an Islamic mosque. Mormon chapel meetings are open to everyone - part of the role of a Mormon missionary is to encourage people to attend them out of curiousity.
Mormon temples don't really have an equivalent in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. In some respects they perform a role similar to cathedrals, but functionally it's very different. They're also different to Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist temples. They don't host weddings, funerals or any public meetings, at least as part of the main temple (some have ancillary facilities that are open to the public and used for public worship).
And they aren't registered
(in the UK at least) as places of worship.
On 07/10/2025 14:35, JNugent wrote:
Since anyone convicted of a violent attack on another person will
always be treated as a threat thereafter, treating someone accused of
rape and ID'd by the victim (or by modern forensic methods) is surely
too much of a sufficiently-proven risk to get bail?
Rape doesn't necessarily involve violence. It could just involve a lack
of consent, and there might be two stories about whether consent was withdrawn.
On 07/10/2025 14:35, JNugent wrote:
Since anyone convicted of a violent attack on another person will
always be treated as a threat thereafter, treating someone accused of
rape and ID'd by the victim (or by modern forensic methods) is surely
too much of a sufficiently-proven risk to get bail?
Rape doesn't necessarily involve violence. It could just involve a lack
of consent, and there might be two stories about whether consent was withdrawn.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 10:47:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-10-06, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 10:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
I note the Manchester attacker seems to have been a sociopath
recently charged with rape
Maybe, he didn't want to spend a lengthy time in prison?
It does seem possible that perhaps he felt he no longer had anything
to lose. If he was wearing a fake bomb belt/vest then he presumably
didn't expect or intend to survive the incident.
Yes, this does come across somewhat as suicide by cop.
Mark
On 2025-10-08, Mark Goodge wrote:
And they aren't registered
(in the UK at least) as places of worship.
Because they can't be, for that reason?