User Tag List

Risultati da 1 a 3 di 3
  1. #1!
    Data Registrazione
    05 Mar 2002
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Predefinito UK:Bannano le armi e il crimine...aumenta

    8,000 a year: serious gun crime doubles under Labour
    By Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild
    05 January 2003

    Crimes involving guns have almost doubled since Labour came to power. Shocking figures to be published later this week will reveal that more than 8,000 gun crimes were committed in the past year.

    This latest grim statistic will push gun crime to the top of the political agenda following a week in which two teenage girls in Birmingham became the latest victims of Britain's growing culture of gun violence. Yesterday, the mother of Latisha Shakespear wept as she laid a bouquet of flowers at the scene of her daughter's murder. Post mortem results revealed that the teenager died from a gunshot wound to her chest while her friend Charlene Ellis died from a gunshot wound to the head.

    David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will tell MPs tomorrow that he is introducing a minimum five-year prison sentence for possession of illegal firearms. Currently there is no minimum sentence. On Friday, he will convene a conference of senior police officers, customs officials, the Crown Prosecution Service, immigration officials and community representatives to step up the campaign against what the Home Office sees as largely a "black-on-black" crime.

    In 1997-98, there were just over 4,900 recorded crimes in England and Wales involving the use of guns, other than air weapons. The figure had climbed to 7,362 for the year ending April 2001. Home Office sources have indicated privately that 2001-02 statistics will show an increase along the same lines as previous years. A regional breakdown of the figures show that gun crime is overwhelmingly an inner-city phenomenon. In 2001-02 guns were used to kill 73 people, half of them in London or Manchester.

    A survey for The Independent on Sunday shows an increase of nearly 23 per cent in offences involving firearms. This figure is based on statistics from 11 police forces.

    Il parere dell'NRA:

    FOR AMERICAN GUN OWNERS who haven’t gotten energized for the upcoming elections, the ultimate inspiration to get involved can be found in two words–England and Australia.

    In those two nations, formerly-free people can tell you about the real nature of "gun control"–where all schemes, no matter how benign-sounding, lead to the same ultimate end: forced disarmament of peaceable individuals by government. And make no mistake about it, if pro-gun forces are defeated in this fall’s all-important House and Senate elections, anti-gun politicians who have been quiet for the past several months will come out of the woodwork with more restrictive gun control schemes than ever before.

    Be it in the form of gun owner licensing and registration, or safety requirements, or gun storage, or mandatory training, each step in England and Australia was followed by another step, and another, until law-abiding gun owners were forced into a final step–forfeiting their personal property, and with it their liberties.

    Mass forfeitures of registered firearms began in England in 1988 following a murderous rampage by a deranged individual in Hungerford. The government banned whole classes of pump and semi-auto shotguns and rifles. Then following another rampage, in Dunblane, Scotland, by another madman in 1997, Britain criminalized possession of large caliber handguns, then all handguns.

    In Australia, it was private possession of all semi-auto rifles and semi-auto and pump shotguns that was criminalized following mass murders committed by a deranged loner armed with an illegal semi-auto rifle at Port Arthur in the state of Tasmania.

    In both nations, because of the brutal acts of lone individual criminals, legal private property of all citizens was declared contraband, then confiscated. The rationale used for this theft of freedom was twofold: That disarming all citizens of their firearms would deprive lone sociopathic mass murderers of the tool with which they killed; or that the forfeiture of firearms by innocent law-abiding people would prevent criminal violence by an always-lawless underclass.

    Invariably, the media and politicians said that disarming the public was for its own good. Nothing could be further from the truth. The wholesale loss of liberty in England and Australia will never stop the murderous acts of single sociopaths. How can it? The answer is obvious.

    If curbing violence was the promise of "gun control," it has proven to be a cruel lie and a fraud. In both countries, victims of criminal violence are piling up.

    Ever since gun confiscation orders were instituted, England and Australia have rushed ahead of the rest of the industrialized world in terms of sheer violence by their criminals against the now-disarmed and vulnerable public. In terms of the likelihood of people becoming victims of crime and violence, England and Australia now rank either first or second in the indus-trialized world, far outstripping the United States in virtually all categories.

    According to the International Crime Victims Survey conducted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, England, Australia and Wales consistently won the dubious honors of having the highest burglary rates and the highest rates for crimes of violence such as robbery, assault and sexual assault in the 17 top industrialized nations.

    Conducted in the year 2000 with interviews involving 35,000 individuals, the survey was summed up as a shocker in the British press. The Guardian reported the study "shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime."

    Violence and Shootings–all marked by the mindless brutality of utterly lawless criminals–are controlling and crippling every aspect of modern British society. Yet, self-defense with any of the few firearms allowed for private ownership is a serious crime.

    As armed violence has increased, the British and Australian politicians and their media elites have promised yet more gun control. In Australia, they are after all handguns. In England, with very few categories of firearms left for legal private ownership, it’s now bb and pellet guns they are after.

    As always, the new ban is sought based on a murderous rampage, but this time, in 2002, the political notion of innocent gun owners paying the price for the acts of madmen has been taken to an even more bizarre extreme by Prime Minister Tony Blair. An April 28 headline in The Sunday Scotsman announced, "Prompted by shootings in Germany, Tony Blair orders crackdown on convertible air guns."

    This call to "control" air guns was keyed to the murderous acts of a deranged expelled 19-year-old student in Erfurt, Germany, who killed 17 schoolmates on April 16 with a handgun. That mass killing led to Germany tightening already draconian gun control laws. But what on earth does that have to do with British citizens who own air rifles or air pistols?

    Citing those murders, The Sunday Scotsman, said, "The government is now planning further controls on the lethal weapons (air guns), including an across-the-board ban, or at least a registration scheme designed to stop them from falling into the hands of youngsters and high risk buyers."

    But air guns owned by citizens who would agreeably comply with a "registration scheme" have no connection with guns used by armed, violent criminals. Criminal predators have guns, and they always will. In fact, criminals in Britain now have an estimated 2 million illegal guns, including machine guns, smuggled from Eastern Europe.

    Yet, Tony Blair, under intense political criticism for his utter failure to deal with armed criminals, would once again punish the innocent.

    The Scotsman warned that, "The shootings in Germany have brought fresh urgency to a gun control debate which was stimulated in Britain by the murderous rampage of Thomas Hamilton through a Dunblane primary school six years ago ... ."

    After the murders, Parliament moved in 1997 to ban private possession of all handguns except .22 caliber. There was a "buyback" scheme and licensed gun owners were told to hand over their property. Also included in the "buyback" were all nature of items associated with shooting–everything from holsters to scopes.

    As for small caliber handguns, they were indeed moved out of private homes. The government permitted licensed owners of .22 caliber pistols and revolvers–under strict police supervision–to keep them under government-supervised security at approved gun clubs. Licensed handgun owners were allowed, under very stringent circumstances, to visit their guns.

    But when Bill Clinton’s good friend Tony Blair became prime minister with his Liberal Party in control of Parliament, those remaining small caliber handguns were forfeited as well. People were paid for their property, but their property had been taken by government edict.

    In all, the government took 162,000 registered handguns from licensed owners. The government said the new ban–this confiscation from secure government-approved centralized locations–"prevents legally held guns from falling into the wrong hands." But government hands were, indeed, the wrong hands. This was simple theft by government.

    The final day for licensed British handgun owners to turn in their remaining handguns was Feb. 27, 1998. The Home Secretary proudly announced, "The government fulfilled its pledge to remove all handguns from the streets of Britain today." Ironically, these were guns that were never on the streets–they were in good people’s private homes.

    When the last registered handgun was forfeited by the last remaining licensed handgun owner, the Blair government said it "has put a firm brake on the development of a dangerous gun culture in the u.k." But the so-called "dangerous gun culture" that Tony Blair stamped out was made up of law-abiding citizens who had answered to the "harmless" call for licensing, registration and whatever other restrictions the government demanded. The banned "gun culture" included Britain’s Olympic competitors who were forced to practice their sport on freer soil–in France, Switzerland or the u. s.

    Almost immediately, the level of violence and the brutal nature of that violence exploded against the newly-disarmed civil populations. Headlines from British papers tell the story:

    "Handgun crime soars despite Dunblane ban"… "Police move to tackle huge rise in crime"… "London gun murders tripled in 2001"… "Steep rise in violent crime"… "Top gangs getting more guns, warn police" ... "Handgun crime up despite ban"… "Gun crime rise in London"… "Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities."

    The London Evening Standard reported on Dec. 19, 2001, "Gun crime in London is rocketing, with increases of almost 90 percent in some firearms offenses, Scotland Yard reported today. New figures show London murders with guns increased by 87 percent in the first eight months of the year com-pared with the same period last year."

    The Daily Telegraph of Jan. 3, 2002, reported, "Police fear a new crime explosion as school-age muggers graduate to guns … the number of people robbed of personal property at gunpoint rose by 53 percent … . Ballistics experts warn that firearms are now cheap and easily available."

    The Telegraph reported "the number of young people committing serious crimes, including murder and grievous bodily harm, has almost doubled in seven years."

    Various news outlets covered the story from a different perspective, but their conclusions were the same, very bad news–terrible news for ordinary and unarmed British subjects.

    All of this was magnified for the world in a stunning report issued by the un Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute in July 2002, which found England and Wales to be far ahead of the rest of the Western world in terms of violent crime.

    The headline in The Independent laid it out in very simple terms: "Britain is now the crime capital of the West." Among the findings reported were that "nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people" and that "England and Wales also have the worst record for ‘very serious offenses’ ... ."

    With half the innocent public falling victim to crime, the issue of unbridled street thuggery has overwhelmed all else in terms of British domestic issues. All of this in a nation where personal self-defense–armed self-defense–is a crime. The inevitable response of government to its failed gun control schemes? Calls for more gun control, of course.

    But there’s more. And here’s where those who don’t own guns–even those who hate guns–should take notice. In addition to calling for more gun control, the Blair government has pressed for laws erasing many of the ancient civil liberty protections that were adopted from English Common law and incorporated into the United States Constitution. Unlike the u.s., Britain has no constitution protecting the rights of the people.

    If the Blair government succeeds in its wish list, citizens will lose the right to choose trial by jury, the right to remain silent, and the right against self-incrimination. Hearsay evidence –gossip–will be admissible in criminal trials. And double jeopardy–the 800-year-old legal principle that prevents government from taking a second, third or fourth shot at trying a defendant–will be lost.

    Under the Blair proposals, the new law destroying double jeopardy will be retroactive, so that old cases where defendants were acquitted can be reopened and retried, and perhaps retried again. Among the legislation put forth by the Blair government in a White Paper is the use of pre-videotaped testimony, negating the individual’s right to confront an accuser, and to challenge that testimony in open court.

    And the Blair government wants sentencing in criminal cases to be based on something other than firm law, where punishment is tailored to individual defendants at the whim of judges. If Blair succeeds, British courts will fast become inquisitions.

    There are some who might believe that such expediencies would be good for our own country. But imagine Charles Schumer or Hillary Clinton as u.s. Attorney General zealously prosecuting defendants accused of violating some new gun control scheme dreamed up by the likes of the Brady Campaign (hci) or the Violence Policy Center, or Americans for Gun Safety.

    And imagine all those honest gun owners and dealers who were persecuted during the batf abuses of the 1980s being recharged and retried today.

    Our unique Bill of Rights–including the Second Amendment–protects us all. Where Americans are "the people," Britons are still mere subjects, with no protections of a Bill of Rights. They have no Second Amendment safeguard, so the assault on firearms ownership will not end until not one single private person possesses legal arms of any type.

    The Handgun Network–the British equivalent to the Brady Campaign–has said, "Of course illegal guns are a big problem … but we mustn’t forget that almost all illegal guns start out legal, so its not so easy to draw a neat line between the two … creating a safe society has got to be about cutting down on illegal and legal weaponry."

    On its Web site, the Handgun Control Network published an extract in which it admitted crime had gone up since the gun forfeitures … but said, "Gun control advocates never predicted that the ban would immediately rid the country of all gun crime."

    Of course, that is a flat-out lie.

    If anybody ever thinks that outlawing firearms from the hands of good, decent citizens creates "a safe society," the example is indeed in England, which proves itself a beacon to armed criminals whose level of violence make their American counterparts meek in comparison.

    The real threat OF deterrence by an armed citizenry, which certainly exists under most American law, is not possible in Great Britain today, not only because of the firearms confiscations, but because using any of the legally held firearms left to British householders in defense of self, family, or property is also a crime.

    Witness the story of Tony Martin, a 54-year-old farmer, whose home on a 350-acre rural tract had been repeatedly burglarized and robbed. In fact, thieves had broken into his home and outbuildings at least two dozen times. On the night of Aug. 21, 1999, Martin heard burglars inside his home and confronted the criminals with a shotgun. He wounded one thief and killed another. A third house breaker got away.

    The dead burglar had a history of crimes of violence and crimes against persons and property. He had been arrested for 29 different crimes including burglary, theft and assaulting police. The two other career criminals had been hauled before the court on criminal offenses 52 times and 35 times.

    But it was Tony Martin who was prosecuted with the greatest zeal. The Crown Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to life in prison. Although the Court of Appeals (akin to our u.s. Supreme Court) ultimately reduced Martin’s sentence after changing his conviction to manslaughter, Martin is still in prison, serving seven years total.

    In the meantime, the surviving wounded burglar, Brendon Fearon, was consulted by officials of the Home Office–in prison–as to whether or not Tony Martin could be subject to parole. Further, on July 2, 2002, the London Daily Mail revealed that the government had given £5,000 of taxpayers’ money to burglar Fearon (now a free man) to fund a lawsuit against Tony Martin.

    This is the "safe society" created by the work of Britain’s gun control fanatics:

    Good people in jail for defending their homes against violent criminals and drug addicts.

    Good people living in fear of the rule of a heavily armed and ruthless thug underclass.

    Good people disarmed and helpless.

    Evil people armed to the teeth.

    Good people paying the price for criminals and madmen.

    That’s gun control. It will prove out in America, if citizens ever buy into the notion that there is strength in being defenseless.

    And it could prove out in America if law-abiding, peaceable gun owners decide to sit out this fall’s elections or cast their vote based on some other social issue or subject.

    This November could mark an important turning point in American history–a time when we could head down the dangerous, tragic road taken by England and Australia. It’s a time when nra members and all freedom lovers must set other issues aside and again Vote Freedom First.

    Between now and next month, take the time to find out which candidates support your rights, then throw your full support behind those candidates.

    And don’t forget what could happen if you decide to forego your right to vote this fall. In fact, if you need a reminder, just take another look at England and Australia.

    This article is a revised excerpt from Wayne LaPierre’s forthcoming book, Guns, Freedom and Terrorism, published by Boru Books.

    •   Alt 

      TP Advertising



  2. #2!
    Data Registrazione
    05 Mar 2002
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Tuesday, 14 January, 2003, 11:42 GMT
    Why Britain needs more guns
    By Joyce L Malcolm

    As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.
    "If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.

    For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

    Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

    The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study,England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

    But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

    The 'wild west' image is out of date

    Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

    But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

    You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

    Concealed weapon can be carried in 33 states

    Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

    A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

    When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

    Gun crime rates between UK and US are narrowing

    The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

    First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

    According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

    Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.

    Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Data Registrazione
    24 Jun 2002
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Predefinito Altri dati da Craig Roberts

    Paul Craig Roberts

    August 1, 2002

    How the British maximize crime

    Note: The following is the second of a two-part series

    Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

    Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the United States?

    Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an anti-social act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

    Joyce Lee Malcolm blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong." Her careful research in "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," just released by Harvard University Press, leads to this conclusion: "Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant."

    Malcolm begins her study of English crime rates, weapons ownership and attitudes toward self-defense in the Middle Ages. She continues the story through the Tudor-Stuart centuries, the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. She finds that five centuries of growing civility, low crime rates and declining firearm homicide rates ended in the 20th century.

    Malcolm shows that an unprotected public at the mercy of criminals is the result of (1) the 1967 revision of criminal law, which altered the common-law standard for self-defense and began the process of criminalizing self-defense, and (2) increasing restrictions on handguns and other firearms, culminating in the 1997 ban of handgun ownership (and most other firearms).

    In England, the penalty for possessing a handgun is 10 years in prison. The result is the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose by 53 percent.

    These shocking crime rates are understatements, because "the English police still grossly underreport crimes. ... The 1998 British Crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated."

    A disarmed public now faces outlaws armed with machine-guns. People in London residential neighborhoods have been machine-gunned to death. Gunmen have even burst into court and freed defendants.

    The British government forbids citizens to carry any article that might be used for self-defense. Even knitting needles and walking sticks have been judged to be "offensive weapons." In 1994, an English homeowner used a toy gun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

    A British Petroleum executive was wounded in an assault on his life in a London Underground train carriage. In desperation, he fought off his attackers by using an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

    A youth fearful of being attacked by a gang was arrested for carrying a cycle chain. After police disarmed him, he was set upon and hospitalized as a result of a brutal beating. The prosecutor nevertheless insisted on prosecuting the victim for "carrying a weapon."

    Seventy percent of rural villages in Britain entirely lack police presence. But self-defense must be "reasonable," as determined after the fact by a prosecutor. What is reasonable to a victim being attacked or confronted with home intruders at night can be quite different from how a prosecutor sees it. A woman who uses a weapon to fight off an unarmed rapist could be convicted of using unreasonable force.

    In 1999, Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar has already been released from prison.

    American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.

    The assault on England's version of the Second Amendment was conducted by unsavory characters in the British Home Office. Long before guns were banned, the Home Office secretly instructed the police not to issue licenses for weapons intended to protect home and property.

    In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. Malcolm reports that criminals face minimal chances of arrest and punishment, but a person who uses force to defend himself or his property is in serious trouble with the law. A recent British law textbook says that the right to self-defense is so mitigated "as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."

    An Englishman's home is no longer his castle. Thanks to gun-control zealots, England has become the land of choice for criminals.



Discussioni Simili

  1. tra quanto mi bannano?
    Di l'inquirente nel forum Il Seggio Elettorale
    Risposte: 332
    Ultimo Messaggio: 23-06-13, 15:59
  2. tra quanto mi bannano?
    Di l'inquirente nel forum Fondoscala
    Risposte: 331
    Ultimo Messaggio: 15-06-13, 15:12
  3. Perchè mi bannano sempre?
    Di Josef Scveik nel forum Fondoscala
    Risposte: 4
    Ultimo Messaggio: 18-07-12, 10:46
  4. All'armi!All'armi!All'armi siam Polisti!
    Di pietro nel forum Comunismo e Comunità
    Risposte: 36
    Ultimo Messaggio: 28-02-06, 12:51
  5. Risposte: 0
    Ultimo Messaggio: 25-10-05, 21:17

Permessi di Scrittura

  • Tu non puoi inviare nuove discussioni
  • Tu non puoi inviare risposte
  • Tu non puoi inviare allegati
  • Tu non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226