Bush Baby?

You don’t first arrest the subject, remove him/her to the nick and then look for evidence, unless of course, there are other rather compelling circumstances.

Can anyone see a rather obvious flaw in this view?

Quite apart from anything this case involves weapons and a convicted killer, manslaughter or not. The knowledge that Martin had at least one weapon and the claims he had made, together with his previous history and events that have occurred elsewhere, in the past, would mean that the suspect would be detained and removed from the scene so that a search could be safely undertaken without the suspect hiding or destroying evidence, running away or turning violent.

That’s the correct sequence.

In your dream world, maybe.

Yes, that would be scary – if it ever happened.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243989[/ATTACH]

I can’t remember how many Churchill tanks were embarked for the Dieppe Raid but the landings went so disastrously badly that not all the tanks were actually landed.

Just had a look (as part of avoiding something else) and here is what I found.

The units and tanks selected for landing were as follows:
B Squadron, with part of C Squadron and the Regt. HQ would be landed by 10 RN LCT Mk 2, carrying 3 tanks each, and 7 light vehicles i.e. 30 tanks. A Squadron and the rest of C Squadron would remain in reserve, aboard LCT Mk 2’s and 3’s, 28 tanks.

By type; 18 Mk III, 5 Mk II, 7 Mk I Churchills. Of these, 3 of the Mk I’s were flame throwers, 3 Mk III’s and 2 Mk. I’s carried carpet rollers, and 7 tanks were equipped to tow Daimler scout cars. By load, the 3 flamethrowers were in 1 LCT, the rest were loaded with a carpet roller type at the ramp, the towing tank and vehicle last…

…Twenty-eight Churchills remaining aboard their LCTs as a floating reserve, were: A Squadron 18; C Squadron 9; HQ Squadron 1.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136527

(Interesting site – gives the full run down on the LCT loads and the fate of each tank at Dieppe)
One Churchill did survive – it never left the landing craft when the one in front of it sank into eight feet of water on exit and was lost.

Mildenhall closes for the weekends now, maybe?

And is it those teachings that have led to the current climate of economic progress and certainty then?

Was that typed tongue in cheek, then?

My point was that an opposite to Marx died 97 years previous.

Plus it all seems so archaic; is ‘socialism’ simply following the teachings of Karl Marx (I don’t know)…

…but Karl Marx died in 1883, died in 1883! Are his ‘teachings’ still relevant or has the world moved on?

Would we still take as gospel the ‘teachings’ in the field of engineering from 1883? Aeronautics? Medicine?

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, died in 1790. Have we discarded his teachings yet, because they are old and outdated?