Easy As Falling Off A Bike pt 2967

Printer-friendly version
The Daily Dormouse.
(aka Bike, est. 2007)
Part 2967
by Angharad

Copyright© 2016 Angharad

  
007b_0_0.jpg

This is a work of fiction any mention of real people, places or institutions is purely coincidental and does not imply that they are as suggested in the story.
*****

I complained to Tom that the police weren’t taking me seriously. He asked what I’d meant, so I explained my interview with the men from Bristol and my subsequent chat with Andy Bond. He shrugged and told me as I’d done all I could to bring about a solving of the crime and the subsequent conviction of the culprits, I should just let it go. I tried to explain that I didn’t think the young woman they’d so brutally murdered would rest until they were prosecuted.

He gave me a very old fashioned look which I supposed I deserved because I was supposed to be the arch sceptic about religion and afterlife. Mind you I didn’t necessarily see the two were linked, nor that a temporary sort of survival meant proof of life after death as even Newtonian physics suggested that energy nor matter could be created or destroyed. Both can be altered however and this was how I saw life. For most of us it was an energy that filled our bodies which disappeared on death, presumably dissipated in some way’; but for some it took longer and they hung around for a while, possibly consciously. My problem was that now she knew I understood what had happened, she would pester me to punish her killers.

There wasn’t much else I could do for the moment, so I busied myself with work and family. Why is there always so much work left over at the end of the day? I reckon if I worked twenty six hours a day, I wouldn’t get it all done. An item on the radio news made me smile, apparently up to eighty schools have opted for a gender neutral uniform, which means boys can wear skirts if they like and girls can wear trousers. Does that mean the boys can wear ribbons in their hair and frilly panties under the skirts, or tights or wear makeup and nail varnish?

In some ways I felt good for future transgender children in others I wasn’t sure. Okay, I’d have loved to be like Trish and Danni are now, except I wore skirts occasionally to school but at the instruction of the sadistic headmaster we had, who was trying to humiliate me. I can still remember the day he made me stand in front of the whole school and threatened anyone who picked on me, except the instruction to most of the thugs was heard as the opposite and just to make sure they got the correct target, I was the only one wearing a skirt. I didn’t realise until after his death, how Mr Whitehead had tried to protect me and how his wife had correctly identified me as female not gay.

I’m not sure how wearing a skirt will improve things for transgender children because most wannabe girls don’t just want to wear the clothing, they want the whole shebang, including a female body. Cross-dressers will do okay, but even there few will want to be identified to the hoi polloi who will tease or bully them. I didn’t just want to wear a skirt or the whole girl’s uniform, I wanted to be seen, treated as and become a girl—it’s a total immersion package and I’m not sure the new ruling will make any difference, except possibly on a very warm day, but even then, skirts can be quite warm too. The sad thing is, if my experience is anything to go by, wearing tights and a skirt in cold weather keeps your bum and abdomen warm, but your legs and feet get cold, unless you’re wearing boots.

The i, the smaller version of the Independent which is now independent of the Independent, having been sold off, had an interesting article about guns and Americans. Stefano Hatfield went to visit family in the States and mentioned he’d never handled a gun. Some of his cousins were horrified and began producing all sorts of weapons which he found equally horrifying. He couldn’t understand why they wanted them, especially given the number of shootings each year, and they couldn’t understand his revulsion of guns, even after this latest outrage in Orlando. It seems it’s not just language which separates the UK and the US.

Two more of our potential sponsors pulled out until after the referendum. They as good as told me a leave vote would mean they’d be looking to quit the UK and would therefore not need a British university to do their research. The future was beginning to get a bit worrying but the Brexit supporters just refuse to see it. At the moment, that’s five items of research we’ve lost in the past couple of months, some of my post grad students may well lose their funding if it continues, unless I find alternative sponsors—not always easy for environmental subjects and likely to be harder if we do leave the EU.

At lunch, Diane and I met up with Pippa who was still effectively running the dean’s office because Tom who was acting dean was now acting Vice Chancellor, so they had to find a temporary acting dean who can only do the job three days a week, so we have the joy of a part time, acting, temporary dean. Perhaps I don’t feel so bad as acting professor any more, assuming I have a department to chair after the referendum.

I collected the girls in the VW people carrier and they grumbled it wasn’t the Jaguar. If they’d been a bit older I’d have told them to walk home and driven off. Instead I was stuck with them whining in the back of the car. I bit my tongue because if I’d started I wasn’t sure I could stop from telling them a few facts of life and how spoilt they all were.

While waiting for dinner, I was doing yet more paperwork when I decided to call Andy Bond and ask if there was any news on the DES inspector. He told me it had gone quiet on the grapevine which could mean the police were digging deep and had lots of evidence to sort through or that it was a non starter. It began to look as if it may be the latter and he’d be allowed to take early retirement. If that happened I might go after him myself with a private prosecution. It’s expensive and can cost hundreds of thousands, in which case I might need to get Simon’s backing. Legal cases can easily drag on for a year or two so I’ll wait and see what happens.

Oh poo, an academic council meeting tomorrow—what a wonderful waste of time that is, especially as I have several meetings I’m trying to set up as well as all the paperwork that accompanies them. Meetings I run, tend to be very focused because I just don’t have time for frittering away a morning or an afternoon, so I tend to avoid some of them and the people who call them. Such is life in academia and unfortunately, I can’t avoid the meeting tomorrow—bugger.

05Dolce_Red_l_0.jpg

up
273 users have voted.
If you liked this post, you can leave a comment and/or a kudos! Click the "Thumbs Up!" button above to leave a Kudos

Comments

The reason for a Britex vote

The reason for a Britex vote is the same as a Trump vote the people are so sick of the powers that be they want to give them a good kicking. If the Politcos lose the people a opptunist will take the ball. After all Hitler was voted in.If you keep treating voters as unwashed loser scum they will bite back at voting booths.I think Blair put the cap on this will his lies and spivery Wilson had lot of fault but keep us out of Vitnam when the Yanks wanted us in. Unlike Bushes home boy Blair THE KING OF LAIRS.

True

Blair was an out and out liar.

bev_1.jpg

A blinkered view

Rhona McCloud's picture

Whether it's on guns for all or on national isolationism each member of the great voting public sees life from a very narrowly blinkered egocentric viewpoint but then the Total Perspective Vortex showed the one thing thinking life can't afford is a sense of proportion.

As an ex-academic I imagine that the delay in filling university posts is part of the process of paying people less than they deserve for the 'stand-in' job they are doing while depriving them of any job protection. As she's getting it from all sides I predict Cathy will soon 'blow up' and some arses will be kicked.

Rhona McCloud

I thought Scots didn't wear frilly anything under Kilts

We love our firearms over here. Ask King George.
After Dunkirk, the Home Guard were armed with donated guns from American private citizens. From pistols to shotguns, to .22 rifles. So many weapons were lost on the beaches and in the channel, manufacturing barely rearmed the Army. Remember, if not for Hitler's fortune teller, the Nazi's would have crossed the channel, the invasion probably would have succeeded.

Karen

Military Crossing of English Channel

The Nazis had a snowball's chance in Hell of crossing the channel. They lacked the necessary specialized landing vessels and adequate naval strength. The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy would have made mince meat of the Germans.

When the Western Allies crossed the channel, they employed the largest armada ever assembled and they enjoyed air supremacy. With all of that, success was not certain. Even Stalin, in an Order of the Day, acknowledged the achievement.

G/R

True.

True.
The Germans wanted the British to withdraw from the war, leaving the German free to build the empire from the Rhine to the Urals.

The thing that absolutely astounds me on the gun argument here

is that if more citizens carried guns there would be fewer mass shootings since an armed citizen would shoot back and stop the mass murderer. Sure, I'm just waiting for a situation something like that where you end up in a battle royal with the hero citizens killing more people than the possible criminal who started it. Mass insanity.

Yep the myth of The Citizen Hero

There is nothing worse then a confused situations when a panicked and armed person just starts to shoot indiscriminately. Sorry, but the average person is not SAS or Special Forces trained or Police trained for that matter and hardly has the discipline in a crowded situation where 20 other citizen 'heroes' pull their guns and then they all start shooting at each other as, 'heh', they are holding guns.

agreed

I spent most of my life in the NYC area and there are quite a number of police shootings in which bystanders have been hit. I cannot imagine how badly untrained people would do.

The UT Tower Shooting

In this case armed civilians assisted the police during this mass shooting in 1966.

Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help locate the sniper. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This action largely protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[79] Police sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that he had observed a single sniper firing from the observation deck. Lee tried to shoot Whitman from the plane, but the turbulence proved too great. Whitman shot at the plane, and it moved off to circle from a greater distance. Whitman never shot any of his victims more than once after they had fallen to the ground. It is believed that Whitman kept in his mind the U.S. Marine Corps tradition of "one shot, one kill" of warfare training.[89]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

The Tower Shooting - 40 Years Later ("armed citizens shot back with their deer rifles")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818290/posts

Oh dear.

Christina H's picture

I think that work and the police are going to overwhelm Cathy and she could well explode (or implode).

As for the recent tragedy we (and most of the world) cannot understand the American's love affair with guns. Yes the constitution allows the bearing of arms but this was when the country was young and there were myriad dangers. If you want to shoot animals then that is down to you - but openly selling assault weapons which are designed for only killing people surely cannot be right these days. Still that is down to the American people and unless attitudes change nothing will happen.
Certainly if Mr. Trump wins the presidency nothing will happen and at times I wonder if America is ready for a woman president especially with the attitude of many regarding gender. Let the voters decide - it is said that a country get's the leaders they deserve.

Here in the UK until about 20 years age there was an ancient statute that allowed a citizen to shoot a scotsman within the city walls of York but only with a bow and arrow - now that is a specific and weird throwback to the middle ages.

Christina

I believe

Angharad's picture

a similar one occurs in Chester about shooting Welshmen. Interestingly, I don't think a reciprocal arrangement arises in any of the Welsh cities about shooting Englishmen.

Angharad

I'm not sure

Christina H's picture

But in those days the English made and kept all the statutes so we have the records as opposed to the Welsh and Scot's they didn't need a law to kill an Englishman they simply did the job.

Christina

Americans right to bear arms

Americans right to bear arms is as much apart of the USA as burgers and V8s. But do they need to sell AKs M15s ect to the public or to a man who had more than one chat with the FBI.Hunting rifles ect well it is the US. But weapons that should only be in the hands of the armed forces or LEOs is not a good idea and if the NRA cant see that well???

The problem is

Angharad's picture

the right to bear arms seems to trump that of the rest of the population not to be shot.

Angharad

I can't see

Maddy Bell's picture

What short sleeves have got to do with guns?


image7.1.jpg    

Madeline Anafrid Bell

Right to Bear Arms

The concept that the constitutional right to bear arms applies to individual citizens is apparently a recent interpretation. It is my understanding that an older interpretation was that it applied to state militias.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The current interpretation comes from a US Supreme Court ruling in 2008 with a clarification issued in 2010.

Michelle B

A well regulated Militia

Correct, there shouldn't be another interpretation. The founding father thought that a militia would keep the government in check, not three guys in a pickup truck with AR15. In no place does it state that a citizen can own a gun much less the ridiculous amount of firearms own. In 1783 the best gun in the world at the most fired 3 rounds per minute as opposed to how fast one can pull a trigger.

I am all for people to own flintlocks, pretty sure the monster in Orlando wouldn't have got a second shot off.

In the end its all about fear and hate. Fear of people of another color, of religion, of social status, sexual orientation, another gender and those that with their rhetoric turn that fear into hate

++++++++++++
Cartman: A fine day of plundering we had boys. What about yourselves? Here you are lads, plenty of booty to go around. A round of grog for me boys. A round of grog for everyone!

Interpretation of the Constitution

There is a wonderful site:
http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
Which compares the USA and CSA Constitutions.
The CSA text:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the comment of the author:

Though there are no changes per se, Second Amendment scholars in the US have long argued over the significance of the punctuation in this clause. The CSA's version gets rid of a few commas, which makes the language closer to what gun control advocates believe the amendment was supposed to say, namely that the right to keep and bear arms only exists if one belongs to a militia.

As the CSA Constitution was written only 74 years after the USA one, one might speculate that the authors of 1861 might had known people who had written the original, or at the very least knew people who knew those who had written the text in 1787.

We seem to have a lot of

We seem to have a lot of Constitutional experts here. In 1787 the Militia was not the National Guard. It was the farmer in Concord or New York who would grab their guns, ban together and prevent the Government from oppressing the people, It seems to be significant that the protection of gun ownership is right after the freedom of speech. How do you protect the First Amendment? by stamping your foot?

Karen

Karen, I hate to tell you

Karen, I hate to tell you this but the old militias that fought back then did in fact become United States Army National Guard. The problem is the name "militia" was allowed to be used for state defense forces(state militias) after the name "National Guard" was adopted in 1916. The new National Guard only changed name and not role, but their roles within the state were duplicated by the state militias.

In 1933 the old militia units were severed from the new militias by mandating that National Guard soldiers take dual enlistments, hence their state and federal roles and thus their call-ups to federal service overseas. State guards/militias can't do that, they share a historical name but the current militias are not the same.

Given that we are from Massachusetts, simply ask anyone in the 1/181st, 1/182nd, 101st Engineers, or 104th Field Artillery and they would proudly tell you that their units are direct descendants of those who fought at Lexington, Concord, Bull Run, and other battlefields.

I'm told STFU more times in a day than most people get told in a lifetime

The point is they are

The point is they are government troops. the ownership of firearms by the citizens is to protect themselves from abuses by the government.
Don't forget, the British WERE the government in 1776. Several times in Boston large crowds of people carrying firearms caused the British to back off. The Boston Tea party had the troops out numbered by the armed protesters.

Being American in a gun culture ...

There is not just one kind of American or British, or Welsh or Irish or any other race. I am very relaxed around guns, having been raised with a rifle loaded and standing by the door. It was very rural, Oregon in the 50's and foxes and such were always trying to get at the chickens and such. I was taught that the rifle was a tool and not an extension of the male penis.

Later, in the military, I was Military Police and carried a .45 all the time. In civilian life, when I got called out on service calls at 2:00 AM, I always took my pistol with me in my tool belt or secreted elsewhere, and I had a concealed weapon permit. I never spoke to anyone about it, and with my "serve and protect" mentality never though of using it on anyone unless they were a malcontent who was bent on harming me.

On the other hand, we have an element in our society that are gun nutters to my way of thinking, and if it were not guns, it would be the best truck, the largest fish, the biggest Elk or Deer, or the best boat. These things are an extension of the fragile male ego. Many are trophy hunters where as my family were subsistence hunters. The former are repulsive to me, though I will do nothing to impinge upon their right to do as they wish.

I've reluctantly come round to the idea that an AR-15 or some such, which fires 800 rounds a minute of lethal small bore ammunition has no place whatsoever in American Civilian culture. I do understand the fear that once one sort of gun is regulated, then where does it stop? Unfortunately, I do not have answers for these apprehensions. Though I can see for sure that public pressure for some sort of gun regulation is mounting. In the mean time I wonder if those same people are intelligent enough to see that violent TV programmes, video games, and such teach violence?

In the face of increasing radicalism in America, and not just from Jihadist Muslims, I have doubts that America will survive to 2100 AD. I should be long gone and forgotten by then and thankful for it.

Gwen

Opposed to standing army

As far as I understand the founding fathers were strongly opposed, at least at the time of writing the constitution, to the US having a standing army. This made it necessary to rely on (well regulated) militias in order to protect the country from external enemies.

Personally I don't bother with handguns. If it can't down an aircraft or sink a ship I'm not interested.