Slashdot Mirror

Firearm Offences in England & Wales :
Data involves ALL crimes involving a firearm.
Page 23 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf
Page 5 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap1.pdf
Page 55 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

Homicide :
It is accurate to state that in England and Wales "A separate offence is recorded for each victim of homicide, so that in an incident in which several people are killed, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed". However it would appear that the FBI also records Homicides based on the number of Victims, not the number of people involved in committing the Homicide, so I am not sure how we are substantially under reporting the issue when compared to the USA.

England & Wales :
Footnote 1, page 32 : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
USA :
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Firearm Offences in England & Wales :
Data involves ALL crimes involving a firearm.
Page 23 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf
Page 5 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap1.pdf
Page 55 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

Homicide :
It is accurate to state that in England and Wales "A separate offence is recorded for each victim of homicide, so that in an incident in which several people are killed, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed". However it would appear that the FBI also records Homicides based on the number of Victims, not the number of people involved in committing the Homicide, so I am not sure how we are substantially under reporting the issue when compared to the USA.

England & Wales :
Footnote 1, page 32 : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
USA :
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities

I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off..

According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Arizona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229
According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 56,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.

So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales.

1. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
2. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16

Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.

Because nothing was wrong.

According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Airzona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229
According to the FBI there were 774 Murders in the state of New York in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of New York to be approx 19465197, so a per capita murder rate of 3.976
According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 53,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.

So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales. Arizona also appears to have a higher Murder rate than that of New York State.

1. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
2. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16

Yes, but did you read the report that UK has been fudging the numbers for several years?

Also, they report differently than we do. We report every homicide (not even sure if we include suicides), but we include justified homicides, accidental, etc. It is my understanding that they UK does not, and will find excuses for reducing the murder tally from homicide tally.

Which report? Please link to a reputable source...
The UK & USA also report / record violent crime differently, that does not stop Americans from directly comparing them...

UK :
Definition :
The term homicide covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and manslaughter are common law offences that have never been defined by statute, although they have been modified by statute. The offence of infanticide was created by the Infanticide Act 1922 and refined by the Infanticide Act 1938 (s1).
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16

USA :
Definition @
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

I object to the requirement for visitors to give their fingerprints. I refuse to go to any country which has that policy, and I hope you too will refuse to go to any country that would demand your fingerprints.

Such as the United States?

Yes, they took mine last time I visited the US. I think if you were to visit here (UK) your fingerprints would be validated against those in the biometric passport (or visa), unless you live here.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/customs-travel/Enteringtheuk/fingerprint-checks-at-border/
"Passengers will need to provide their fingerprints each time they travel to the UK with a visa, entry clearance or biometric residence permit. Fingerprints will be held for a maximum of two working days, and will then be destroyed."

Does the US destroy the data?

Let's see, just off the top of my head we have the norway shootings which were performed by illegal weapons, and many many many that go on every day in mexico despite everything being banned. "But Mexico got those guns in the US!" I hear you say? They did do that with the direct involvement of the ATF and Justice departments under operation "Fast and Furious." The gun dealers repeatedly called the ATF to cancel the sales, but were strong armed into cooperation with the threat of a lost license. I suspect that you are basing your Utopian dream of gun control on the UK and Australia. Neither country has shown a statistically significant decrease in the crime rates. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Any new legislation will not increase the safety of the average US person. It will cost more tax money to enforce these laws, in a society where law enforcement spending already eclipses most other budget items. Why don't we instead use our efforts and tax dollars to do something much more meaningful. Lets increase access to mental healthcare by rolling back the Reagan cuts. Adam might have been fine if he had been able to get help for his condition.

And just to follow up with a solid source: Homicides, Firearm Offences
and Intimate Violence
2010/11. In 2010/11, 58 people were killed by a gun in England and Wales.

What about robberies.. stabbings.. rapes.. home invasions? My understanding from people I know from there is all other sorts of violent crime has gone up.. which makes this cherry picking. And that people are told to not fight back.. just go along with whatever some criminal wants to do to you. Great advice... for a nation of victims. Good thing Churchill didn't take that attitude with Germany eh?

And just to follow up with a solid source: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2010/11. In 2010/11, 58 people were killed by a gun in England and Wales.

Until he gets on a plane to Britain where he is also a citizen.

You can run but you can't hide.

Territories designated under part 2 are non-EU members of the European Convention on Extradition; or the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealt; or else they are parties to bilateral extradition treaties with the UK. The countries involved are:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize....

Extradition from the UK: Extradition Act 2003 - part 2

In 2000 the previous government tried something similar with the Communications white paper that would require every ISP and data carrier to keep every byte of data carried for eight years.

At the time I worked for a small subsidiary of a local telco, our Chairman of our Board was well connected member of the House of Lords. I prepared a position paper for him pointing out that our division alone would need as much storage as was sold annually in the UK to fulfil our obligation.

IT Professional the country over lobbied against RIPA like this behind the scenes and the worst was quietly dropped.

Time to do the same again. Checkout out your companies boards and non-execs for Lords and member of the establishment and point out the stupidity and competitively crippling the current proposals are to UK Business.

The crime rate also dropped during the second world war in the UK.

It's often said that that's the case, but as with many beliefs about crime rates, it's not true. Crime in every category soared during the war years, ending with almost double the crime rate at the end of war compared with before the war.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-1898-2002

This, despite the fact that most of the young men had been drafted into the army. So with the most usual offending category either out of the country, or at least under disciplined regimes in an army camp, one would have expected a drop in crime. But it didn't happen.

And it wasn't just looting and black-marketeering either. Every kind of crime was up.

Again - it's good that YOU see that this way. Many non-nerds will not see that difference. So, whenever the media covers these kinds of events, note how the say "denial of service ATTACKS", not "denial of service DEMONSTRATION".

Can you see how this might make an important (and negative) difference in the minds of your parent's/grandparent's generation?

And importantly, noone calls these things 'demonstrations' - look at the linked zdnet article headline "hacks UK government sites". It's the same kind of language you also get with articles that then continue something along the lines of 'millions of credit card/social security records stolen'. And the 'demonstrators' own language?

" #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | ETA: 7 MINS! Charge your laz0rs and aim! #Anonymous #UK
        #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Fire! Fire!! Fire!!! Fire!!!! Soundtrack- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTpWi5itOM #Anonymous #UK Pew Pew Pew
        #OpTrialAtHome : Tango Down: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Keep Firing!!!! Keep it down! Make them hear you! #Anonymous #UK
"

Really - is "Charge your laz0rs and aim!", "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" the kind of language that will make non-technical folk see that this is 'just the same as a demonstration'?

It's all well and good for you that YOU "know" this to be a demonstration, not an attack. But to a large majority of people outside of the net, words like "attack" and "fire" sound more like the kind of things politicians SHOULD protect us all from.

And there go even more of your civil liberties.

Again - it's good that YOU see that this way. Many non-nerds will not see that difference. So, whenever the media covers these kinds of events, note how the say "denial of service ATTACKS", not "denial of service DEMONSTRATION".

Can you see how this might make an important (and negative) difference in the minds of your parent's/grandparent's generation?

And importantly, noone calls these things 'demonstrations' - look at the linked zdnet article headline "hacks UK government sites". It's the same kind of language you also get with articles that then continue something along the lines of 'millions of credit card/social security records stolen'. And the 'demonstrators' own language?

" #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | ETA: 7 MINS! Charge your laz0rs and aim! #Anonymous #UK
        #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Fire! Fire!! Fire!!! Fire!!!! Soundtrack- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTpWi5itOM #Anonymous #UK Pew Pew Pew
        #OpTrialAtHome : Tango Down: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Keep Firing!!!! Keep it down! Make them hear you! #Anonymous #UK
"

Really - is "Charge your laz0rs and aim!", "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" the kind of language that will make non-technical folk see that this is 'just the same as a demonstration'?

It's all well and good for you that YOU "know" this to be a demonstration, not an attack. But to a large majority of people outside of the net, words like "attack" and "fire" sound more like the kind of things politicians SHOULD protect us all from.

And there go even more of your civil liberties.

Again - it's good that YOU see that this way. Many non-nerds will not see that difference. So, whenever the media covers these kinds of events, note how the say "denial of service ATTACKS", not "denial of service DEMONSTRATION".

Can you see how this might make an important (and negative) difference in the minds of your parent's/grandparent's generation?

And importantly, noone calls these things 'demonstrations' - look at the linked zdnet article headline "hacks UK government sites". It's the same kind of language you also get with articles that then continue something along the lines of 'millions of credit card/social security records stolen'. And the 'demonstrators' own language?

" #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | ETA: 7 MINS! Charge your laz0rs and aim! #Anonymous #UK
        #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Fire! Fire!! Fire!!! Fire!!!! Soundtrack- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTpWi5itOM #Anonymous #UK Pew Pew Pew
        #OpTrialAtHome : Tango Down: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Keep Firing!!!! Keep it down! Make them hear you! #Anonymous #UK
"

Really - is "Charge your laz0rs and aim!", "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" the kind of language that will make non-technical folk see that this is 'just the same as a demonstration'?

It's all well and good for you that YOU "know" this to be a demonstration, not an attack. But to a large majority of people outside of the net, words like "attack" and "fire" sound more like the kind of things politicians SHOULD protect us all from.

And there go even more of your civil liberties.

It works both ways.

Fact Sheet on the U.S.-UK Extradition Treaty

The numbers do not demonstrate imbalance:

The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate.

The standards are the same in practice:

All extradition requests between the U.S. and UK must meet the same evidentiary standard: probable cause. All requests from the U.S. must meet the standard of “reasonable suspicion” required under UK law. However, all requests from the U.S. must also be based on a charging document that meets the “probable cause” standard required under U.S. law. This is the same standard that the U.S. requires of extradition requests from the UK The panel reviewed the evidence and concluded: “There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States.”

Independent review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements

The first citation will probably be somewhere in here - the full text of the Review of the UK's Extradition Arrangements. Unfortunately it's 488 pages long and even I have up after a few dozen pages, and I'm far too obsessed with this sort of thing as it is.

and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement,

citation needed.

Or are you referring to their including info regarding the protests in their regular circular which is used primarily to inform local businesses of relevant threats? The circular is an obvious place to include it and in it they are referred to as "peaceful" and "activists". The alternative would have been to print a specific leaflet, even though it would be going to the same people and is on the same broad topic of security, contingency planning and so on.

A bit of common sense from the police leads to headlines like "Police include Occupy movement on ‘terror’ list". Note the 'terror list' is an actual thing, and Occupy is not on it.

Desk-based "protesters" love to repeat and hype up this drivel ad nauseam but anyone with the slightest bit of sense can't miss the stench of bullshit. This then taints the entire movement by putting doubt on the credibility of any claims.

(And, no, I can't renounce UK citizenship. That's not actually allowed. UK citizens are citizens for life. Violation of those rules is classed as High Treason.)

The UK Border Agency disagrees. From what you've posted, you have a simple justification.

you may give up your citizenship or status if you already have another citizenship or nationality

The two other conditions are you must be over 18 (or have been married if you're under 18) and of sound mind. Even that is not absolute:

but if you are not of sound mind, you may still be allowed to give up your British citizenship or other British nationality if it would be in your best interests

I didn't know any of this, by the way. I went to Yahoo, entered the words "renounce UK citizenship", and the third result gives me the UKBA site. In the middle of the page is the link to how to do it. Next comes the form you need to fill out. Next is the supporting documents required, followed by cost information, where to send your form, and finally what to expect once you've submitted your form.

But I think you'd rather just whine and blame the faceless "government officials" and their rules, instead of taking some action to make things better for yourself.

My suggestion - drop that enormous chip. Where ever you are in life, you can make things better. Don't blame the rules, don't get hung up on technicalities. If it's that dreadful in the U.S., move back to the U.K. Or, if you are serious in your comment that the terrible U.S. is still marginally better than the terrible U.K., move somewhere else. France. Germany. Australia. As a U.K. citizen you have so many more options than the vast majority of people in the world. If you choose to squander them and just devote your energies to being bitter, then you're fulfilling your own downward spiral. How about at least being thankful you weren't born into starvation in Somalia or in the midst of civil war in Angola or Rwanda?

So renounce your UK citizenship. Despite what you've posted elsewhere, the UK Border Agency says you can.

Can I give up my citizenship?

If you are a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British overseas citizen, a British subject or a British national (overseas), you may give up your citizenship or status if you:

* already have another citizenship or nationality; or
* are going to get another citizenship or nationality after you have given up your British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship, British subject status or British national (overseas) status.

Heathrow has Iris scanners for the UKs IRIS program that allows you faster access through security.

You'll need a link if you want me to believe you about chicago.. since just a year ago the DHS said about a test of iris scanning at the mexican border:

"This is a preliminary test of how the technology performs -- we have no specific plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this point," she said. Currently, the backend databases the DHS would need to successfully deploy the technology don't exist, and no DHS customers are requesting the use of such technology.

... in hopes of being good subjects...

Subjects? Can't imagine there are many rioter-identifying subjects; it's a corner-case of British nationality law.

I expect they mean citizens, which is something else entirely.

If you're eligible for a British passport you're a British citizen. British passports say: "Nationality: British Citizen".

... in hopes of being good subjects...

Subjects? Can't imagine there are many rioter-identifying subjects; it's a corner-case of British nationality law.

I expect they mean citizens, which is something else entirely.

If you're eligible for a British passport you're a British citizen. British passports say: "Nationality: British Citizen".

The "violence against the person" crime statistics you cited for the UK were not "violent" at all. They include stuff like harrassment and possession of knives.

Check out what gets counted here -

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-violence

- thoroughly de-bunked, again..

Where is the black list that stops people from employing you? This must be one hell of a list

Oh, it is. It even has its own website:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/crb/

Don't be thinking anything foolish like "only criminals will be on there" either. The police are perfectly willing to tell people what you were once arrested for, no matter how wrong that arrest might have been, or comically what you were once accused of, without even mentioning that the person accusing you has a history of lying about such things and there was insufficient evidence to even inform you of the accusation, let alone make an arrest.

Yeah, it's one hell of a list.

No, physical abuse is just as common, if not more common by women. It's just that there's a social stigmata attached to men being abused by women, so it's vastly underreported. And when it is reported, it's likely to be counted as abuse against women, because guess what happens when a man reports violence? That's right -- the abusive woman will say "he hit me first", and the police will believe her, because they have the same bias as you do.

Do you want to prove that because the statistics I refer to come from Home Office studies in the UK which are not primarily from self-reported victims to the police. One of the Home Office reports is here (the 1999 report, I don't have a later report to hand). You'll note that incidents of domestic abuse between adults are slightly higher for males abusing women, but not greatly so, and the degree of violence used from males to females is also slightly more extreme than the other way around.

I don't know why you would accuse me of having "a bias". A victim of abuse is a victim of abuse whether they are male or female and both are common enough that no assumptions should be made in either case and a male shouldn't be derided for being a victim any more than a female should be. Did you even click the image link in my original post?

I don't think that warrants actual punishment. I think that's more annoying than anything.

What if the person does it regularly, at different libraries? A public nuisance might be an appropriate charge: "In English criminal law, public nuisance is a class of common law offence in which the injury, loss or damage is suffered by the local community as a whole rather than by individual victims".

IANAL though. Here in the UK an anti-social behaviour order could be an option -- with the court banning the individual from using the library. However, if the police were called I'd expect the 'vandal' to be told not to do it again the first time, then given a caution the second time, and only for a third (or later) offence arrested for something.

(no one talks about "car crime," despite the huge number of vehicular homicides, etc.), because these describe a crime according to its impact / immediate level of fear or risk, rather than on the instrumentalities used to perpetrate it. And I've never seen "gun crime" to mean "theft of lawfully owned guns," only "crimes committed with guns as instrumentality."

Umm...actually, since you mention it....in the UK the phrase "car crime" is used often. And more often than not, it's used in reference to theft of cars or theft from cars rather than speeding, death by dangerous driving or "joyriding" (though it is also used for those...sometimes).

Anyway, "cyber crime" should be reserved for such time as cyborgs start committing crime, or we will find ourselves with a crime-description gap. (Robo-crime sounds too jokey, will never take off). And what if the cyborg commits a genitals crime with a gun...in a car! How will we classify *that* for the Annual Crime Survey?

Actually, crime statistics from the Home Office, incorporating figures from the police and the British Crime Survey, show crime falling fairly steadily from its high point in 1995.

There are plenty of arguments to make against CCTV, but "crime hasn't fallen" is simply not supported by the facts. It has.

OP said

While ISPs have to hand over log details for free in criminal cases, they are free to charge in civil cases

Actually, ISPs routinely charge the cost of obtaining, processing and handing over log details when asked for it by law enforcement authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, including when the data is needed for criminal investigations.

ISPs aren't allowed to make a profit from providing this data, whether for civil litigation or criminal investigations, just recover their costs. However ISPs' costs can be substantial: ISPs don't just spend time fishing out the records and handing them over, there are also significant overheads in training and systems to ensure this data is only handed over when it should be, to make sure the requesting authority is genuine and the ISP isn't being subjected to an imposter trying a social engineering attack, and so forth. Larger ISPs/telcos run dedicated units to cope with the high volumes of request from public authorities (in total, hundreds of thousands of RIPA requests are made each year, although most of these are for telephony data rather than Internet accounts).

For confirmation see Chapter Four of the relevant Code of Practice.

Except that the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the U.S.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
According to these links, the violent crime rate in 2003 was 475.8 per 100,000 in the U.S. and 6,650 per 100,000 in England and Wales The source I got the links from said that the overall violence rate for the UK was 4,100 per 100,000, but I was unable to find where in the Home Office report they got that).

Neither the UK nor the USA require that you renounce your UK citizenship when you take US citizenship. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html and http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality.

In fact, until 2002 there was no way to give up British citizenship - now you can get a form from the British embassy, fill it in and send it to the UK government. It doesn't even have to be permanent as you can reacquire your UK citizenship by filling in another form and sending that one in.

There is one good reason to become a US citizen - to protect your social security pension. If you have spent (or expect to spend) a significant number of years in the USA, enough to be eligible for a US pension (40 credits = 10 years, as I recall) then you might want to protect your investment in the social security system i.e. the 6.2% of your income you have paid and continue to pay. However, in my view, that's certainly not the only good reason to be a citizen of the USA if you have permanently moved here.

I've been a US citizen for some years now and have never been called for jury duty.

Damn, you are offensive. Lumping the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan? Are you just trolling or are you really this deluded?

Carrying guns is far more offensive than lumping two disgusting organisations in with each other.

England was a largely non-violent place. Then England banned guns. Then England was a largely non-violent place. So, did the gun ban cause England to be a largely non-violent place?

This is the trouble with the NRA, they tell lies like those. In the UK, private ownership of handguns was banned in 1997. Since then, far from changing from a non-violent place to a violent place, violence has actually halved.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap3.pdf

Murder has also decreased. 615 murders last year vs 739 for 1997.

For me, the most important statistical issue is that imposing gun control has never brought a decrease in violence.

Except in the very country you chose to make your claim, that's exactly what happened. An incredible decrease in violence.

It's this kind of blatent lying about life or death matters that makes it OK to lump the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan.

This isn't about preventing the Big Brother state, it's just trying to stop looking silly for having a duplicate website.

Also, here is an interactive graph (needs Flash 8 or higher) of the UK showing crime levels for the past few years. The graphs show that crime has stayed pretty much at a stable level from 2002 to 2009.

You should probably stop watching Noels HQ and reading the daily mail.

British Crime Survey 2008-2009 states -

The BCS and police recorded crime differ in their coverage of crime. Overall, crime as measured by the BCS shows no change compared with the 2007/08 BCS with no change in most crime types. Crimes recorded by the police show a five per cent decrease compared with 2007/08, with decreases in most crime types.

HOW HAVE LEVELS OF CRIME CHANGED OVER THE LONGER TERM?

Long-term trends show that BCS crime rose steadily from 1981 through to the early 1990s, peaking in 1995. Crime then fell, making 1995 a significant turning point. The fall was substantial until 2004/05. Since then, BCS crime has shown little overall change with the exception of a statistically significant reduction of 10 per cent in 2007/08 (the lowest ever level since the first results in 1981). The apparent increase of five per cent in BCS crime this year is not statistically significant. Trends in BCS violence, vehicle-related theft and burglary broadly reflect the trend in all BCS crime.

the full report is here

"Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick. They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary."

Really? Here in the UK, we have the biggest DNA database in the world. Almost everyone taken into police custody (guilty or otherwise) is DNA profiled.

In the US, police are allowed to lie. They can take you in to the station for a polite chat, turn the tape recorder on, and lie on tape that they have a witness who swears that he saw you do it. The only thing they can't do is threaten you with extrinsic, coercive consequences if you don't talk.

This is one of the reasons why you should never talk to the police without a lawyer.

In the UK, the situation is slightly worse: Not only can the police lie to you, they can also tell you that you may face consequences at trial if you remain silent. However, as in the US, they cannot threaten you by saying they'll do something unless you answer. For full details, see PACE Code C, particularly section 11.

"Germany, UK, Finland, or even Thailand."

Are they hiring? (And actually allowing immigration?)

I don't know why that's marked funny. As Cyberax says, it's straightforward to move to the UK if you have a masters degree and speak good English. Overview and "points calculator" (choose "Highly Skilled Workers", "General").

"Germany, UK, Finland, or even Thailand."

Are they hiring? (And actually allowing immigration?)

I don't know why that's marked funny. As Cyberax says, it's straightforward to move to the UK if you have a masters degree and speak good English. Overview and "points calculator" (choose "Highly Skilled Workers", "General").

For the UK, a recent graduate from a UK university would be allowed to stay for a while (I don't know how long) to look for a job. Graduates from non-EU universities who are "highly skilled" can also stay here before they find a job.

For highly skilled workers, investors, entrepreneurs and recent graduates from UK universities
You do not need a job offer when you apply to enter or stay in the UK in these categories, but you will need to pass a points-based assessment.

Details

Interesting. I'd love to see the list. Though I imagine it depends on which country you are running from, right?

Yup, each country has its own treaties about extradition.
After some Googling, here's an article about extradition specific to UK.
Any country *not* in the two lists (part 1 and 2 of the act) is safe.

Well, not all countries are safe per se. I doubt Afghanistan and Pakistan could count as safe, but they are at least safe from extradition. The 2 Congos won't be a nice place either. Indonesia could be a better bet. China and North Korea are not on the list for obvious political reasons. Strangely, nor is Japan or South Korea.

The most complicated part isn't finding a country with no extradition treaty with the country one is running from (due to the absence of a global international treaty that's trivial).
The problem is finding :
- a way to *reach* said country safely without getting caught along the way. (The closest seems to be Morocco and that's not exactly next door)
- a way to get a new life in said country despite language barrier, lack of funding and possible political instability of said country.
- and both, without having any money nor any other possession beside the clothes the convict had on himself when running out of jail.

That is much more difficult to achieve than keeping low profile.

The oyster card is a means of prepaying for public transport, use it to purchase tickets after 9:30 as these are much cheaper as being considered off peak travel and are valid on bus, train and subway travel http://www.tfl.gov.uk/. Also remember to pack all your encryption keys as you never know when border guards way wish to view what is on your laptop and to not surrender such keys when requested by the authorities may well ruin your vacation http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/encryption/

Is it hard to immigrate from the US to the UK? =)

I don't know (I was born here), but I meet all the criteria to be a "highly skilled migrant". It looks like I'd be able to apply for permission to go to the UK to seek work. "Skilled migrants" need a job offer first.

http://ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/faqs/living-working/work
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/pointscalculator
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/

Is it hard to immigrate from the US to the UK? =)

I don't know (I was born here), but I meet all the criteria to be a "highly skilled migrant". It looks like I'd be able to apply for permission to go to the UK to seek work. "Skilled migrants" need a job offer first.

http://ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/faqs/living-working/work
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/pointscalculator
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/

1) We are not running out of land to build houses on.
2) You appear to read too much of the Daily Mail. The official figures for asylum seekers as as follows :

Total applications for asylum Q2 2009 = 6,045.
Total people refused asylum in Q2 2009 = 4154.
So assuming that the figures are average for the whole year, you are only looking at a total of 7564 successful asylum seekers PER YEAR ! Hardly flooding the country.

Also, the population of the UK in mid 2008 was around 61,383,000. That's 8.5 million less than you quoted. It would take over 1100 years for the "influx" of successful asylum seekers to make up the error in your figures. More people pass through Heathrow in a year (68 million) than actually live in the country. 7564 staying on is hardly significant.

Maybe the problem is the same as always - divide and rule, and you're falling for it.

Figures gained from the ICAR site referencing the official Home Office quarterly report.
Population figures from the National Statistics site.
Heathrow figures from the BBC.

Mobile phones reported stolen in England can be blocked within 48 hours.

No, like a dog.

Dear Queen,

Yes I am:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/aboutcitizenship/

According to the British government, there has been a 48% decrease in recorded crime since the peak in 1995

[citation needed]

Your uncited "48%" is out by an order of magnitude if you compare it to the report I found showing only a 4% drop overall. Particularly interesting is that the drop primarily happens in car parks, while some other areas see an increase in crime since CCTV's installation.