On Europe

[kespernorth]

Now, I must admit I'm a big fan of Europe.

But this whole self-defense thing...

If a burglar breaks into my home, and I am not permitted to thrash him within an inch of his life for daring to tread upon my sacrosanct territory, I shall be very cross.

I am not psychologically capable of standing by and letting someone try to kill me or my loved ones, or perpetrate other such violent crimes, if I know it's going on. It's just not going to happen.

It is not right to send someone to jail for trying to defend themselves, their home, or their loved ones. I don't see how one is supposed to stand blithely by and just let it happen.

I do not understand what made the Europeans -- the British especially -- have such an ass-backwards ideas about self-defense. "Oh, sure, Mister Serial Killer, you're welcome to castrate me and choke me with my own testicles while I wait for the police to arrive; after all, it simply wouldn't be sporting if I defended myself! Why, I should go to jail for even thinking about it! Oh, dear, terribly sorry, did you break a nail? Here, let me get a file for that for you; can I lick your boots while I'm at it? I'm sure we'll have plenty of time, the police are unionized and probably having a nice cup of coffee..."

What the fuck do they expect? That offering your would-be killer a nice cup of tea will solve everything? For fuck's sake, people.

Comments

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

uh... wtf? Cite some sources, please.

[kespernorth.livejournal.com]

The British Parliament repealed the common law rules on justifiable use of deadly force in 1967. Since then, no British subject has been permitted to use deadly force to defend themselves if they are attacked or their homes are entered illegally. Unfortunately, there has been an awful lot of disagreement on exactly what "deadly force" is. Once you act in self-defense, you become the criminal.

One notable case where this rule came into effect is that of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who is serving a life sentence for killing one of three career criminals who broke into his home in 1999.

I know for a fact that the rules in Denmark, Sweden and Norway are similar; I believe other European nations have similar attitudes towards self-defense.

This is all a matter of public record.

Re:

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

You don't have to kill people, not only that but it's HARD to kill people. In the US just about everyone runs around with a fucking Magnum. But not in the UK. In the UK, if you want to kill someone, you need to do it manually with hand to hand weapons. A lot harder.

As usual, Bjorn, you are being overly dramatic and gothy here. There are no laws that say you can't defend yourself. Nor are there any laws that say you can't fight someone off.

They are saying that killing someone because they broke into your house is wrong.

Frankly, I agree. Disable them and let the authorities deal with it.

[kespernorth.livejournal.com]

That's at least moderately sensible.

But in Denmark, for instance, you aren't allowed to lift a finger at all. The relevant documents are, of course, in Danish, so I can't cite you sources for this, but both my mother and our Danish houseguest swear that this is true...

Uh-- no.

[treebyleaf.livejournal.com]

I agree that killing someone may require more pounds-to-the-inch type force than disabling them... but I cannot agree that this makes it harder.

In my opinion, people are mostly appallingly easy to kill. Once in a while you hear about a Rasputin-- but it seems like every week around here I'm reading about someone dying on the sidewalk after a run-in with kids who were just trying to scare them, kids who did not understand that a single blow to the head can kill.

I would consider killing someone to be easier than disabling them, in that killing only requires sloppy raw force whereas disabling someone is an act of intelligence under pressure and considerable physical finesse.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

In the US just about everyone runs around with a fucking Magnum.
You asked Bjorn for numbers and evidence, I ask you for the same. Meanwhile, I supply these.

Of 400 million Americans, only 65 million own firearms, 35 million of those owning handguns. A total of just over 200 million firearms manufactured in or imported into the United States are estimated to exist in the hands of private individuals. So sayeth the Census Bureau.

Regarding self-defense and firearms (italics my emphasis):

Less than one-fourth of violent crimes are committed with firearms. (FBI)

Most protective firearm uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 1% of protective uses are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.(FBI)

A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "[T]he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

Thirty-three states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for protection against criminals. Twenty-three states have adopted RTC laws in the last 15 years. Half of Americans, including 60% of handgun owners, live in RTC states.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws' effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. . . . Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 38% lower robbery, and 17% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public. In Florida, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry licenses have been revoked because of gun-related crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State)

Firearm accidents account for less than 0.9% of accidental deaths and less than 0.04% of all deaths in the U.S.

Washington, D.C., banned handguns in 1976 and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled, while the U.S. rate had risen only 12%. Chicago, the only other city to ban handguns, has had more murders than any city for the last two years. Despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws, Maryland's robbery rate remains highest among the states, and Baltimore's murder rate has nearly overtaken D.C.'s.

[devilwind.livejournal.com]

Define "disable"

If you want to get technical, disabling an attacker means rendering him unable to cause you harm. There are a variety of ways to do this - too many to list - and they have verying degrees of effectiveness.

The most effective method of disabling an attacker is to kill him. If I'm not permitted to use lethal force - a gun, for instance - then I'm in a bad situation. That guy who broke into my house may have a knife on him. if I engage him in hand to hand combat, there's a good chance that I'm going to be injured if not killed.

The reason behind the common law rules allowing someone to use force to defend their property are grounded on this idea - I don't know what an intruder's capacity to harm me is. The intruder, in making the choice to wrongfully enter my home has given up his right not to be harmed.

Frankly, if someone entered my home I would absolutely use lethal force to render him incapable of harming me. Sure, it may be that he was entirely unarmed. But it might also be that he was armed with a knife, or a gun, or something equally unpleasant. I'd rather not wait for bullets to be flying by my head to find out.

JD

[wendolen.livejournal.com]

Switzerland.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

Requires all males from near-puberty to near-senility to enlist and constantly train for militia duty. Like Israel, which boasts one of the lowest homicide rates of any nation, the government issues all citizens firearms and expects them to be carried and cared for.

The Swiss also trust themselves with their tools: recreation-shooting is a popular pastime, viewed as honorable and the duty of a citizen. It's common for shooting ranges to be on rises of land with targets on other rises, highways and towns in the valley between.

An alpine area full of armed and competent citizen soldiers is why Switzerland hasn't been invaded in more than 200 years.

[wendolen.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

Actually, Bjorn, it isn't just Europe. My own state of Kentucky currently has legislation on the books (but I'm fighting it!) forbidding violence against an intruder unless he deals violence to you, first. This gave rise to the widespread phrase, "Drag him inside," used when talking about unwelcome visitors. The idea is that, if you drag the wounded or dead criminal inside it looks more like he had commited violence already.

[narnee.livejournal.com]

Since then, no British subject has been permitted to use deadly force to defend themselves if they are attacked or their homes are entered illegally. Unfortunately, there has been an awful lot of disagreement on exactly what "deadly force" is. Once you act in self-defense, you become the criminal.

That's not true. There is still the ability to say it was self-defence, and if the evidence shows that being true, then the person attacked will not be charged. But it has to be investigated, in case the claim of self-defence is fraudulent; this is true in the US as well.

One notable case where this rule came into effect is that of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who is serving a life sentence for killing one of three career criminals who broke into his home in 1999.

Yes, which I'm quite pleased about, and of which you seem to not know the facts. Tony Martin had previously owned guns before; in rural areas, one can have certain guns on a special licence. However, there had been reports which had been found to be true of him not adhering to proper use (such as shooting at people for no reason the instant they stepped on his property), so his guns were taken away. He hid and kept one unregistered.

On the night that the three people broke in to his house (which is not quite so simple as "career criminals", btw) he was upstairs. I don't remember if he turned out the lights or not, but he got his gun and started shooting while on the stairs; bullet fragments were found in the walls. At this point, the would-be theives tried to escape through the window. Tony Martin got to the room where the criminals were trying to flee, and as the youngest one was crawling through the window, Tony shot him in the back.

Had the evidence pointed to self-defence, there would probably have not been a court case against him. However, shooting someone in the back while they are trying to flee is not self-defence. Hence why he was convicted for the death of the young man and owning an unregistered firearm.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

• Frank Barras Sr, the father of the burglar shot dead by farmer Tony Martin, was jailed for 14 years for armed robbery commited six weeks after watching Martin get life for the murder of his son.
• At the trial Barras said he was “devastated” by the death of his son, also call Fred, but obviously not so devastated to prevent him forcing a terrified female security officer to the floor, tying her hands and feet behind her back and pointing a gun at her temple. (She was roughly trussed, suffered ligament damage, and was so traumatized she had to give up her job and seek psychiatric counselling.
• Barras Sr’s criminal record dates back to 1969, when, as a juvenile, he was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. He has since accumulated an impressive number of convictions, including handling stolen property, theft, battery, assaulting the police, threatening behaviour and a string of traffic offences.
• In court, his barrister claimed that his client’s return to crime after an interval of a year may have been connected with the death of his son, though one would think that losing a child in a shooting incident during a burglary would have had the exact opposite effect.
• Another member of the Barras clan, Grandmother Elizabeth Barras, was also charged with possessing a firearm and assisting an offender in connection with the conviction of Frank Sr, but was too ill to stand trial.
• Fred Barras Jr was 16 when he died. When he broke into Martin’s farmhouse he had already appeared in court 18 times and had 29 criminal convictions to his name, including theft, fraud and assaulting the police. He had served two months in a young offenders’ institution. He was on bail at the time of the burglary and there is evidence he had been working as a fence.
• Darren Bark 33, who drove the car, had 52 previous convictions stretched back 20 years, including a large number for theft, burglary and assault.
• Brendan Fearon 30, a family friend occasionally described as an “uncle”, is a vicious career criminal, with 33 convictions ranging from burglary to wounding.

Including Fred Jr's record, the three men involved in the burglary at Tony Martin’s farmhouse had 114 convictions between them, but it is Tony Martin who is in jail for life. Bark and Fearon will very soon be free to resume their criminal careers.

Bonus: In a laughable piece of evidence, Brendan Fearon actually claimed they had only taken Fred Jr along that night to “keep him out of trouble”.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

Correction: Tony Martin's sentence was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He will be free this year.

[narnee.livejournal.com]

o Frank Barras Sr, the father of the burglar shot dead by farmer Tony Martin, was jailed for 14 years for armed robbery commited six weeks after watching Martin get life for the murder of his son.

The sins of the father are not sins of the son.

In court, his barrister claimed that his client’s return to crime after an interval of a year may have been connected with the death of his son, though one would think that losing a child in a shooting incident during a burglary would have had the exact opposite effect.

That's awfully subjective. I'm certainly not condoning his crimes, but everyone deals with pain differently. If he was a career criminal and had gotten on the wagon (as it were), then that may have been enough to knock him off.

Fred Barras Jr was 16 when he died. When he broke into Martin’s farmhouse he had already appeared in court 18 times and had 29 criminal convictions to his name, including theft, fraud and assaulting the police. He had served two months in a young offenders’ institution. He was on bail at the time of the burglary and there is evidence he had been working as a fence.

So he was a career criminal. He should have been dealt with properly in the criminal justice system to be sure, although it could be said that his crime was a direct result of the destitution of entire towns in that region by Thatcher and her cabinet. Nonetheless, whatever the reason it was that he committed so much crime, and whatever should have been done to him by the justice system, it is not reason to shoot a man in the back while he is trying to flee, and therefore is not reason enough for Tony Martin to have been able to plead self-defence successfully.

Including Fred Jr's record, the three men involved in the burglary at Tony Martin’s farmhouse had 114 convictions between them, but it is Tony Martin who is in jail for life. Bark and Fearon will very soon be free to resume their criminal careers.

Tony Martin also had a criminal record. But that's not the point. Bark and Fearson should still be in prison, and should stay there for a very long time, but so should Tony Martin.

Information courtesy The Sun Newspaper (June 15th 2001)

Ah, The Sun, the bastion of Tory Middle England. It's a tabloid, only a few steps above the National Enquirer. Newspapers like the Guardian or the Independent are better UK references.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

While the sins of the father are most definitely not the sins of the son, they do provide evidence, in combination with the sins of the son and grandmother, of a family with a questionable lifestyle.

As for the question of whether Martin shot the two while they were escaping, The Independent seems clear (http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=102391) that they were shot on their way in the window, that Martin was not new to being burglarized, and that, rather than for "shooting at people for no reason the instant they stepped on his property," Martin lost his shotgun license because he fired at thieves stealing apples from his yard.

They also reported (http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=7379) at the time that not all judges looked at similar cases with similar minds.

[narnee.livejournal.com]

While the sins of the father are most definitely not the sins of the son, they do provide evidence, in combination with the sins of the son and grandmother, of a family with a questionable lifestyle.

Perhaps. It may be that their lives of crime were due to external reasons, such as lack of jobs, prejudice against gypsies, etc., or it may not. But the point is, whatever their "questionable lifestyle" may have been or may still be, it still isn't right to summarily execute any one of them. Vigilante justice is not justice.

The Independent seems clear that they were shot on their way in the window

Uh, read http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=102391 again. I quote: "Fearon turned and shone his torch, spotting Martin, 55, seconds before he heard a loud bang and Barras shout: "He has got me. I am sorry. Please don't. Mum." Barras had been hit in the back." I also quote "The prosecution insisted he had been lying in wait" which the forensic evidence does suggest is true (there's been a *lot* of coverage about this). After shooting Barras, he continued to search for the burglars. Re-read the article again.

that Martin was not new to being burglarized

It is debatable on whether he was burglarised before. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html. I would recommend reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html as well.

and that, rather than for "shooting at people for no reason the instant they stepped on his property," Martin lost his shotgun license because he fired at thieves stealing apples from his yard.

As you can see from the first Guardian article cited above, there were plenty of other times Martin had discharged his gun(s) inappropriately. Besides, it is it really okay to shoot at people for *taking apples*?

They also reported at the time that not all judges looked at similar cases with similar minds.

Nor would I. I don't know enough about the case you just cited to make a judgement, or about any other similar case; I don't think they can all be tarred with the same brush. I expect that I would have no qualms defending someone who defended themselves in many other cases, and in general I'm for the ability for one to defend thrmselves. I am not, however, on the side of Tony Martin because I don't believe he was acting out of self-defence.

Something tells me that this debate is not solely about Tony Martin. So, what *is* it about? From other posts in this discussion I wonder if it's about guns in general, or possibly the limits of gun ownership and the amount of control over them in the UK, or the fights between the pro and anti gun lobbies in the US; is that it? If any of that is true, then that's an entirely different discussion, one which it sounds like you'd be very surprised of my opinions on it.

[transcendence1.livejournal.com]

Sadly, it happens in America too. There's been many cases of burglaries where the owner of the house shot the burglar or whatnot and the burglar or the burglar's family sued the owner and won.

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

i say we make handheld projectile weapons (ie-guns) universally illegal and go back to the timehonoured method of dueling with swords. but wait! you say. i don't know how to use a sword!

that's exactly my point. 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, or become partial to some other weapon that requires some bit of skill or training. it's much harder to "accidently" kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, and there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns. i once scared off a would-be burgler by merely unsheathing my sword and dropping into stance. had i a gun, he'd be dead and i'd be doing time. you don't get into trouble (legal, karmic, or otherwise) by tapping a fear ingrained from earliest recorded history.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

It's attitudes like this (legislate everything! Doesn't matter if it's enforceable let alone in violation of constitutional rights!) and their accompanying flawed arguments that make me weep for the future of America.

You say handheld projectile weapons, this includes bows, crossbows, and spears, you understand? Those things are basically ways of getting a blade into your opponent, the goal of the dueling you propose, and so functionally identical to your sword. If we say only blunt handheld projectiles, then do we outlaw marbles for slingshots and good, old-fashioned fist-sized rocks? Where do we stop?

You also say that 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, and I have to respond with a hearty WTF? The 99.9% statistic was so much crap, but, disregarding it, how much skill does it take to swing a stick? Hominids have done that for millions of years. They even stepped it up by using the shoulder bone of an antelope (that ball joint makes a frigging great skullcracker!). As to the "dueling" that you mention, it was, much like boxing, an instituted thing. The essence of it was to avoid the "heat of the moment" and make death-dealing a serious thing, which it should be. But it was also entertainment! Real life doesn't follow rules, as any victim of a violent crime will tell you.

Jesus Christ, what makes you think that a burglar or a rapist will challenge you to trial of arms?

Why not delegislate instead, hmm? Make everything legal and what you're strong enough to hold, you get to keep? It's as legitimate as what you propose, and has the precedent of nearly a billion years of success here on earth!

As to it being much harder to "accidently"(sic) kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, you do understand that a puncture wound is a puncture regardless of delivery methods? That an untended gut wound will get septic whether you got it from a bacteria-infested kitchen knife or a solvent-cleaned slug? That trauma surgeons would rather see small-caliber arms wounds than lacerations because they, in fact, are less likely to kill because bleeding is more easily stopped?

As to your contention as to whether there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns, well, of course there is! People see blades every single day--they're not afraid of them! People hardly ever see firearms except on television, even more rarely do they handle them. In this case, unfamiliarity breeds contempt because you only hear the bad stories about firearms, not the fact that more than 2.5 million times a year, firearms are used by private individuals to prevent crime. Too, most people have been cut once or twice, and, like the lesson of playing with fire, have learned safe procedures to handle blades. Knives are tools--sometimes of self defense--and people handle them that way. Guns are the self-defense equivalent of powertools and too many people don't wear their safety glasses or stand in puddles when they plug them in.

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

1)spears, bows, and crossbows are for hunting and war, not for daily self-defence. such things are bulky and awkward for daily use, and not practical.
2)guns require no skill or practice whatsoever to kill large numbers of people, as we see everyday. it takes more skill, effort, and intent to kill someone with a blade or blunt object. granted, it's easier to simply injure, but that supports the "hot stove" theory of learning, and also brings violence to an extremely personal level.
quote:"i once worked with a guy who bragged that he always wore a gun. i said,'so? i always carry two knives.' his face went white, and he said 'oh man, i could never stick a guy, i'm not that brave.'

the point here? people don't like having to see the consequences of their actions. guns make it easier to psychologically distance oneself from the blood and gore and trauma of dead human.
skill with blade or blunt weapons is what can keep an armed opponent from killing you or others, whereas a person with a gun can just fire away. learn the skills, and learn the attitude of defense. learn that consequences are unavoidable, and learn some subtlety. if you truly want to mess someone up, there are much more rewarding ways than taking their lives and throwing away your own humanity.
i suggested swords because of the history, the connotations imprinted on the collective psyche of humanity, and because it WOULD require the learning of a skill, especially if one really wants to kill. need i reiterate once more the difference between swing a sword and a stick? a weapon in the hands of an untrained and frightened person is always dangerous, but i'd worry abou the guy with the gun first. all he has to do is twitch, and people can die.
so, one more time, how many people do YOU know that are confident and competently skilled in the use of blades for self-defence?

3)burglers and rapists...may i illustrate with my own experiences as a woman? thank you, you're too kind.
burgler: i see a gun in the back of his pants, tucked in. i unsheath sword. he hears the noise, sees the blade, and runs away. he even dropped the stuff he was pawing through! had he not run, i was fully prepared to use my skills to drive away or apprehend the man without killing ANY ONE.
rapists:would-be rapists run from girls who hold knives to their throats, did you know that? big guy runs from girl in miniskirt walking alone in seattle at 3 am. hmmm......
4)duels
would you prefer that people shoot up each others' friends and family when they're pissed, or effectively jump in the ring and beat each other up for awhile? they'd have and audience betting on sides anyway, and this way they can have an "honorable" outlet for their aggressions, etc, etc. duh! of course dueling is instituted and entertainment. so were public executions. a harsh way to live, but much more respect for the law and living. not that the law is always right or ethical, but that's a whole nother arguement.
dueling is not attatched to self-defence, except that sanctioned and regulated, it could cut down on the need for self-defence. do you understand the formal process of challenge and acceptance? if not, do some research.
5)wounds- like you said,a gut wound will go septic regardless. such is the nature of gut wounds. however, bullet holes are, by nature, harder to clean out and keep clean than your basic lacerations. bullet-holes may lose less blood, but they have this amazing tendency towards minute shrapnel and subsequent infection.
and what the hell does wounding have to do with skill levels of usage? stay on topic, please. of course i realize that punctures are such regardless. do you realize that it's rather more difficult to "accidentally" puncture someone with a blade than with a gun? less often deadly, too.

i don't expect anyone to change their attitude about their godgiven right to be narrowminded. we all are from someone else's perspective. but i do ask that you all think about how the right to bear arms does not specify which arms. i personally feel that guns are the tool of cowardice and irresponsibility, and that is my right to feel. at least i have skills and experiences to back my beliefs.

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

ps- come on, say it with me...f-a-s-c-e-t-i-o-u-s

not every comment is meant at full face value, and it's those of you with no sense of interpretation who get all pissy and pick fights. grow up, get some social skills, and chill out. humans, oy vey!

Truce

[tepes.livejournal.com]

My original participation was contingent upon the declaration that most Americans carry large-caliber handguns. Among statistics showing that to be false, I implied that the right to self-defense is sacrosanct and any legislation denying the individual the right to protect hearth and home with any and all force is unjust and unreasonable. Or at least I meant to imply that. As with all unjust and unreasonable laws, they should be fought tooth and nail and obeyed only to the extent of being very, very sneaky about breaking them.

That is all that I had the intent of saying and I am afraid that I took it all too far in climbing atop my soapbox. Pray forgive, should you choose, and judge me not too harshly.

Apologies to all for my grump, most especially narnee and hirtzenocker. I shan't argue anymore--if I can be accused of having a narrow mind then I have obviously misrepresented myself and poisoned my point.

Re: Truce

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

apology accepted, and forgivness granted. the fact that you noticed your misrepresentation of your intentions and had the grace to withdraw instead of stubbornly attacking any further disagreements shows that there's hope for humanity yet. i (obviously) agree fully in the right to defend home and self, but due to certain events in my hometown over the past couple years, i've learned that self-defense is a lousy excuse for (pardon the expression) overkill. touting the virtues of guns in the hands of private citizens (whether intentional or not, that seemed a strong part of the argument) is a great way to push buttons when our own cops have unnecessarily twitchy trigger fingers. what i stand for is a major change in the attitudes and thought processes of humanity as a whole, not layers of legislation or band-aid fixes. i think we agree on at least the basic points, if not the details, and that's enough to give one a case of the warm fuzzies.

[kamiilyaan.livejournal.com]

"Now, I must admit I'm a big fan of Europe."

Why? (no confrontation intended, I'm just curious)

Oh, and many Europeans (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland) consider the UK to be American *g*

[kespernorth.livejournal.com]

Castles. Antiques. Pretty languages. Pretty accents. History. Artifacts. Good music. Neat architecture. Vestigial nobility. (I'm very royalist, so long as I get to be king.) Lovely countryside in parts. Street markets. Meat pies in the UK; sausages in Scandanavia and Germany. Pretty currency.

...I could go on?