NationStates Jolt Archive

Or the Archbishiop?

I know you don't have a "2nd Ammendment Right" in English Law, but isn't English Law supposed to be a reflection of the C of E ?

A little bit from the The Thirty-Nine Articles, the foundational statement of the Church of England: In article 37 it states clearly: "It is lawful for Christian men to carry weapons."

The Westminster Catechism, considered the finest expression of Biblical teaching, states under the Sixth Commandment that the prohibition against murder requires as our duty "all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting by just defense against violence protecting and defending the innocent." (Q135).

Under sins forbidden, the Westminster standards includes: "The sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in the case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life and whatever else tends to the destruction of the life of any." (Q136). In other words, God's Law forbids any government restrictions or interference in the right and duty of self-defence. It also forbids us neglecting these means for protecting the innocent.

So, since when is the Crown supposed to violate the tenets of the CoE and "eglect and withdraw the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life"?

Just curious. :p

I know you don't have a "2nd Ammendment Right" in English Law, but isn't English Law supposed to be a reflection of the C of E ?


...no?

Not like it matters. The police have been instructed not to bother w/ arresting criminals anymore anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

'Let burglars off with caution', police told
08:08am 3rd April 2006

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

Wow, where did you dig this up?

I'd love to answer, but I've never heard anything about it. It's probably a reasonable assumption that this is simply one of the many 'dead' laws we have remaining on the statue book. Our Government doesn't clean up old Acts, simply writes new ones that reference to it.

So, for example, if Act 1 says one thing, it will remain on the Statue book forever, even if it is repealed. The only way you'd be able to find out it had been repealed is to read Act 2, which will say 'Act 1 is repealed.' In this case, this will be later gun legislation removing that right.

As well as that, even if it is never officially repealed, a judge may still rule that 'common law' says it is against the law; ie it has so accepted that that is not allowed that it is the law of the land.

I hope that (a) makes sense (b) has anything to do with the original post.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments


Oh come on now, you could at least of got us a credible source.

You see, the power of the C of E has dwindled in Britain today, most people finally realising it's a load of claptrap, set up by a fat man who wanted a divorce, and since the French surrender to someone with a very large stick, most people are not inclined to carry weapons. I think that British people are secure, without needing to be protected by an out dated law. (Amercia has probably failed to realise this, they love their guns!)

Wow, where did you dig this up?

I like to play in other people's religion texts.

I'd love to answer, but I've never heard anything about it. It's probably a reasonable assumption that this is simply one of the many 'dead' laws we have remaining on the statue book. Our Government doesn't clean up old Acts, simply writes new ones that reference to it.It's not a statute. Its C of E Doctrine.
So, for example, if Act 1 says one thing, it will remain on the Statue book forever, even if it is repealed. The only way you'd be able to find out it had been repealed is to read Act 2, which will say 'Act 1 is repealed.' In this case, this will be later gun legislation removing that right.

As well as that, even if it is never officially repealed, a judge may still rule that 'common law' says it is against the law; ie it has so accepted that that is not allowed that it is the law of the land.

I hope that (a) makes sense (b) has anything to do with the original post.

(a) Yes
(b) It does.

I just posted it because I found it interesting as, as I understand British Law anyway, the connection between C of E Doctrine is (or was anyway) much more important in forming Law than any specific interpretation of the Bible in the US.

I like to play in other people's religion texts.

It's not a statute. Its C of E Doctrine.


(a) Yes
(b) It does.

I just posted it because I found it interesting as, as I understand British Law anyway, the connection between C of E Doctrine is (or was anyway) much more important in forming Law than any specific interpretation of the Bible in the US.

um, what? The C of E's laws dont affect the government's in any way shape or form and if they did at one time, it was long enough ago that all the important ones have been changed.

Ya....don't take it seriously. ^^

It's not a statute. Its C of E Doctrine.

I just posted it because I found it interesting as, as I understand British Law anyway, the connection between C of E Doctrine is (or was anyway) much more important in forming Law than any specific interpretation of the Bible in the US.
I think the first line and the bolded bit are the key points. C of E doctrine is not law, and religion plays little part in formulating law now than it used to be. Interpretations of the Bible count for nothing, as you can prove pretty much what the hell you like with it.

I just posted it because I found it interesting as, as I understand British Law anyway, the connection between C of E Doctrine is (or was anyway) much more important in forming Law than any specific interpretation of the Bible in the US.
You obviously don't understand British Law very well then...

You obviously don't understand British Law very well then...
Nope. Don't think I claimed to. Just thought it was interesting that the Politically spawned "Official Religion" of Jolly Old thought that Defense of Self and Others was important enough to be codified in Doctrine.

Too bad it's not that important any more, either politically or religiously.

Oh well. Your country, not mine. ;)

and why would anyone other than the army, want or NEED to carry arms?
It strikes me as a bit infantile to think that in a modern society we all need to go around with weapons of some sort. I personally felt WAY more threatened when I encountered armed police after the July bombings.

and why would anyone other than the army, want or NEED to carry arms?
It strikes me as a bit infantile to think that in a modern society we all need to go around with weapons of some sort.
Self defence, perhaps? I know if it was legal I would always carry a handgun with me. That way if I was attacked by a gang I could just shoot them without getting hurt myself.

I personally felt WAY more threatened when I encountered armed police after the July bombings.
The guns aren't going to jump out of their hands and shoot you.

Self defence, perhaps? I know if it was legal I would always carry a handgun with me. That way if I was attacked by a gang I could just shoot them without getting hurt myself.

Er, right. That's probably why you shouldn't have a gun.

Equal and opposite force, anybody?

and why would anyone other than the army, want or NEED to carry arms?

Hunting, self-defense, for collection or just for the fun of firing.

and why would anyone other than the army, want or NEED to carry arms?
In case the people commanding the army get a bit uppity?
It strikes me as a bit infantile to think that in a modern society we all need to go around with weapons of some sort.
Modernity is why "we all need to go around with weapons of some sort." In the pre-bronze era, you only needed to grab a stick, and you were just as well armed as everyone else. On into the iron age, improvised and bare handed combat could serve just as well, but in an age with governments armed with tanks and thugs with machine guns, your feet and fists are no longer effective in ensuring your survival.

In case the people commanding the army get a bit uppity?

I am highly skeptical of the ability of an armed citizenry to take down an army. Just doesn't seem very likely.

I am highly skeptical of the ability of an armed citizenry to take down an army. Just doesn't seem very likely.
An armed citizenry might not have that ability, but they certainly are better able than an unarmed citizenry.

If I remember correctly, it was also legal to shoot a welshman using a bow and arrow on a sunday as long as they were within the walls of the city of chester...

The guns aren't going to jump out of their hands and shoot you.

No they wont, but the cops wielding them will chase you through the subway station, pin you to the ground and empty their clips in your head point blank range ...

Treekicker']No they wont, but the cops wielding them will chase you through the subway station, pin you to the ground and empty their clips in your head point blank range ...
That was an isolated incident by jumpy police just after a terrorist attack. If people get that scared by armed police then they probably shouldn't cross the road or walk down stairs. Because they're much more likely to die that way.

That was an isolated incident by jumpy police just after a terrorist attack. If people get that scared by armed police then they probably shouldn't cross the road or walk down stairs. Because they're much more likely to die that way.

Others would say it was murder. I don't mind cops having arms, but i do mind them not carrying them in their holsters. Cops openly carrying guns don't serve to protect, they serve to intimidate and scare the population ...

If I remember correctly, it was also legal to shoot a welshman using a bow and arrow on a sunday as long as they were within the walls of the city of chester...

I think the same also applies to York.

It's also mandatory for a father to buy a longbow for his son and every man must practice with it reguarly.

Maybe this could be a compromise in the gun control debate, no guns but everyone is permitted to carry a longbow and a quiver full of arrows. I quite like the idea. ;)

Treekicker']No they wont, but the cops wielding them will chase you through the subway station, pin you to the ground and empty their clips in your head point blank range ...

Zing.

Treekicker']Others would say it was murder. I don't mind cops having arms, but i do mind them not carrying them in their holsters. Cops openly carrying guns don't serve to protect, they serve to intimidate and scare the population ...
You're being paranoid. Carrying the carbines out in the open is usually done in high risk targets such as airports as a visible deterrent to terrorists. Those weapons are more effective than handguns due to their accuracy andmore ideal for the situation than a holstered handgun. I think a lot of this kind of paranoia is because of people who've never seen a real gun in their life and don't really have a clue.

Also, continental countries like France have had police carrying carbines around high risk targets for decades and haven't had that kind of paranoia.

Treekicker']Others would say it was murder. I don't mind cops having arms, but i do mind them not carrying them in their holsters. Cops openly carrying guns don't serve to protect, they serve to intimidate and scare the population ...

what's wrong with that? might makes right. as long as you can, theoretically, control the might. the police are right, so they should have might.

what's wrong with that? might makes right. as long as you can, theoretically, control the might. the police are right, so they should have might.

Except for the fact that it doesn't.

You're being paranoid. Carrying the carbines out in the open is usually done in high risk targets such as airports as a visible deterrent to terrorists. Those weapons are more effective than handguns due to their accuracy andmore ideal for the situation than a holstered handgun. I think a lot of this kind of paranoia is because of people who've never seen a real gun in their life and don't really have a clue.

I have seen guns in my life, both hand guns in holsters - regular cops - and carbines on high risk targets - transports carrying a lot of money for the national bank. Have you ever thought about the added value of showing your carbine to the world instead of wearing it a bit more concealed?

Terrorists know (or they should at least assume) a cop is armed. Showing your weapon isn't going to deter them more. The civilians on the other hand will think that such drastics steps are needed simply in an attempt to protect them from the terrorists. In the end you just scare the population, something that some government officials seem to be able to use ...

Not like it matters. The police have been instructed not to bother w/ arresting criminals anymore anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

'Let burglars off with caution', police told
08:08am 3rd April 2006

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

In light of this new information, is anyone willing to join me in a project to 'remove' the crown jewels from the tower of london?

I think the same also applies to York.

It's also mandatory for a father to buy a longbow for his son and every man must practice with it reguarly.

Maybe this could be a compromise in the gun control debate, no guns but everyone is permitted to carry a longbow and a quiver full of arrows. I quite like the idea. ;)
Really? Can you imagine getting on the tube with a bunch of people making use of that right? (Actually, that's a really funny picture to picture :D)

Except for the fact that it doesn't.
Then what, pray tell, is right? Can you define good?
More than likely, the definitions you will fall on will be the definitions of good espoused by Christianity or the European Humanists; values, might I add, that were held by a group of people whose primary virtues were spreading empires, subjugating natives, and winning wars (AKA might).

Treekicker']No they wont, but the cops wielding them will chase you through the subway station, pin you to the ground and empty their clips in your head point blank range ...

That's why you shouldn't arm traffic wardens.

Then what, pray tell, is right? Can you define good?
More than likely, the definitions you will fall on will be the definitions of good espoused by Christianity or the European Humanists; values, might I add, that were held by a group of people whose primary virtues were spreading empires, subjugating natives, and winning wars (AKA might).

Just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid.

Pretty simply put, the C of E is not the british equivalent of a constitution.

Have the cops who shot Jean Charles de Menezer been tried yet?

Just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid.
But why are their arguments valid? Because they're widespread? Because you were raised in them?
Why is your definition of "right" superior to that of an Aztec Priest who believes that human sacrifice is a moral obligation?

Treekicker']Have the cops who shot Jean Charles de Menezer been tried yet?

They were never even arrested, so no.

They were never even arrested, so no.

*shocked*

But why are their arguments valid? Because they're widespread? Because you were raised in them?
Why is your definition of "right" superior to that of an Aztec Priest who believes that human sacrifice is a moral obligation?

I don't know. You can chalk up a victory on this one.

I don't know. You can chalk up a victory on this one.
W00T!
*lets it go to his head, increasing the current circumfrence by 15%*

Or the Archbishiop?

I know you don't have a "2nd Ammendment Right" in English Law, but isn't English Law supposed to be a reflection of the C of E ?

A little bit from the The Thirty-Nine Articles, the foundational statement of the Church of England: In article 37 it states clearly: "It is lawful for Christian men to carry weapons."
Now for the FULL text (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html):

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."

Kinda changes the meaning huh? Taking bits and pieces out of context doesn't make your argument look good.

The Westminster Catechism, considered the finest expression of Biblical teaching, states under the Sixth Commandment that the prohibition against murder requires as our duty "all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting by just defense against violence protecting and defending the innocent." (Q135).
Again selective reasoning on your part?

Question 135 (http://www.opc.org/lc.html):

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

An entirely different connotation huh?

Under sins forbidden, the Westminster standards includes: "The sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in the case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life and whatever else tends to the destruction of the life of any." (Q136). In other words, God's Law forbids any government restrictions or interference in the right and duty of self-defence. It also forbids us neglecting these means for protecting the innocent.
Once again, selecting only specific terminology you have warped the essence of the question?

Question 136 (http://www.opc.org/lc.html):

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

So, since when is the Crown supposed to violate the tenets of the CoE and "eglect and withdraw the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life"?

Just curious. :p
If you read through the tenets, then you will notice many things that have changed since those days. Many laws have been written to modernize the religion.

BTW, these tenets were written long before the advent of guns as weapons.

BTW, these tenets were written long before the advent of guns as weapons.

Not at all.

There are guns that predate the 16th century. They just aren't very good is all.

Not at all.

There are guns that predate the 16th century. They just aren't very good is all.
However, guns were not used in wars back then, and extremely primitive. It would be a stretch to think that the Bishops of the day considered guns as weapons whilst writing their Catechisms?

Whatever the case may be, the OP is bogus.

However, guns were not used in wars back then, and extremely primitive. It would be a stretch to think that the Bishops of the day considered guns as weapons whilst writing their Catechisms?
It would be an even greater stretch to try and claim that the Bishops of the day considered guns as party favours, paper-weights, shoe horns, household appliances, or any other such things that aren't weapons.

Whatever the case may be, the OP is bogus.

Well considering that the C of E doesn't even require that you beleive in god to be a member - or a vicar for that matter - obviously whatever they have to say on any subject is irrelevant.

It would be an even greater stretch to try and claim that the Bishops of the day considered guns as party favours, paper-weights, shoe horns, household appliances, or any other such things that aren't weapons.
Ahhh, from the ridiculous to the sublime. :rolleyes:

This thread has zero relevance....period.

Ahhh, from the ridiculous to the sublime. :rolleyes:
While guns might not have been viewed as useful weapons, they most definitely were viewed as weapons. Remember, this is the UK, where a screwdriver is an offensive weapon.
This thread has zero relevance....period.
No, but that doesn't mean you should make more random, ignorant statements than are already present. Just because the CoE is irrelevant, doesn't mean that they're lead by idiots.

While guns might not have been viewed as useful weapons, they most definitely were viewed as weapons. Remember, this is the UK, where a screwdriver is an offensive weapon.

No, but that doesn't mean you should make more random, ignorant statements than are already present. Just because the CoE is irrelevant, doesn't mean that they're lead by idiots.
Just as you shouldn't find it necessary to add even more random, even more ignorant statements to this most unnecessary pretense of a thread, which is based on deception at best. :rolleyes:

Just as you shouldn't find it necessary to add even more random, even more ignorant statements to this most unnecessary pretense of a thread, which is based on deception at best. :rolleyes:

Kind of like most "gun control" laws.

Pot meet kettle.

Kind of like most "gun control" laws.

Pot meet kettle.
Ahhh, more irrelevant postulation.

Ahhh, more irrelevant postulation.

And this from the master of it.

Just as you shouldn't find it necessary to add even more random, even more ignorant statements to this most unnecessary pretense of a thread, which is based on deception at best. :rolleyes:
Random? Yes; Ignorant? No. Until you can produce proof that the Bishops didn't view guns as weapons, you're the one making affirmitive statements without logical backing. I'm the one calling bullshit.

Random? Yes; Ignorant? No. Until you can produce proof that the Bishops didn't view guns as weapons, you're the one making affirmitive statements without logical backing. I'm the one calling bullshit.

Or even this statement:



BTW, these tenets were written long before the advent of guns as weapons.

Which is just absolute nonsense.

But of course all this is irrelevant, right?

Why do we care what the queen thinks Syniks? She has even less power than the CofE.

And the CofE has very, very little.

At least in legal terms.

But of course all this is irrelevant, right?
Yeah, but the fact that there is no point makes it all the more important that we argue about it. Why do you think so many atheist groups devote more time to theology than most Christians do?

Yeah, but the fact that there is no point makes it all the more important that we argue about it. Why do you think so many atheist groups devote more time to theology than most Christians do?

This is NS General, true. It's like complaining that there's water in the ocean.

This is NS General, true. It's like complaining that there's water in the ocean.
Well, the water does tend to make the ocean uncomfortably wet, and all that water provides a shark habitat that also lures in children.

Well, the water does tend to make the ocean uncomfortably wet, and all that water provides a shark habitat that also lures in children.

SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!! BAN OCEANS!!!!!

Of course now we'll get all the "water nuts" here trying to "prove" that teaching kids how to swim will protect them better than the Gov't.

SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!! BAN OCEANS!!!!!

Of course now we'll get all the "water nuts" here trying to "prove" that teaching kids how to swim will protect them better than the Gov't.
If you swim out far enough, and stay out there, then Evil George Bush can't walk out to you and collect taxes so he can wage his war in Iraq to profit Haliburton. And shouldn't people know how to swim to increase their enjoyment of life? Swimming is a fun sport, after all, especially when swimming to get out of the reach of totalitarian governments.
Did you know that most Germans didn't swim regularly when the Nazis took over? Its true, most of the country is landlocked.

If you swim out far enough, and stay out there, then Evil George Bush can't walk out to you and collect taxes so he can wage his war in Iraq to profit Haliburton. And shouldn't people know how to swim to increase their enjoyment of life? Swimming is a fun sport, after all, especially when swimming to get out of the reach of totalitarian governments.
Did you know that most Germans didn't swim regularly when the Nazis took over? Its true, most of the country is landlocked.

Too many people still think of "water sports" as fun though. We'll have to rename oceans to "death pools". Then we can ban private "death pool" ownership while at the same time discouraging bathing by pointing out statistics that more children are murdered in homes w/ tubs than those w/o.

a part of the Bill of Rights allowed for Protesant Englishmen to carry weapons to defend their Faith and I dont think its been repealed yet

Now for the FULL text (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html):

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."

Kinda changes the meaning huh? Taking bits and pieces out of context doesn't make your argument look good.Don;treally see howit changes the meaning...

Question 135 (http://www.opc.org/lc.html):

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

An entirely different connotation huh?No. I suggest you go back to grammar school and learn how to parse.

Once again, selecting only specific terminology you have warped the essence of the question?

Question 136 (http://www.opc.org/lc.html):

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.No change there either.

If you read through the tenets, then you will notice many things that have changed since those days. Many laws have been written to modernize the religion.So? That wasn't my point. However, it seems to be your point that "preserving life" of "Self and others" is not modern. I don't see how modernity has anything to do with a basic right of existence.
BTW, these tenets were written long before the advent of guns as weapons.Noticed that, did you? Interesting how you failed to notice that I said nothing about guns in my OP, just that the principles of Self Defense and Defense of Others was Canonical at one time and that denying the necessary means to that end was a Sin.

It is you who are projecting Firearms onto the OP. Could it be that it is YOU who are obsessed with guns?

well, as far as I'm concerned, this argument has further irrelevance as the Bible clearly states that a Christian must obey the law of the land

"Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God"

-Romans Ch. 13 v. 1

Now this may be open to debate in say Zimbabwe, but this is the UK, I wouldn't say it's too unreasonable to obey the countries law.


Too many people still think of "water sports" as fun though. We'll have to rename oceans to "death pools". Then we can ban private "death pool" ownership while at the same time discouraging bathing by pointing out statistics that more children are murdered in homes w/ tubs than those w/o.

An excellent point, oceans can only be step one. No-one is truly safe until all 70% of the Earth that is water is banned outright.

well, as far as I'm concerned, this argument has further irrelevance as the Bible clearly states that a Christian must obey the law of the land

"Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God"

-Romans Ch. 13 v. 1

Now this may be open to debate in say Zimbabwe, but this is the UK, I wouldn't say it's too unreasonable to obey the countries law.
Wasn't suggesting they should. Just pointing out what WAS, not what is. History can be fun. Political/Liturgical history is even more interesting.

An excellent point, oceans can only be step one. No-one is truly safe until all 70% of the Earth that is water is banned outright.

OMG! Dihydromonoxide! Run away! :eek: