Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cutaway, Jan 12, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Once again the 'government' have decided to ignore the public.
    The majority of the public don't vote for Labour so why on earth should they be heeded ?

    Given the present mob's track record of wasting dosh on pointless legislation, one can only assume that the reasoning behind the lack of change in the law is to support Burgular's Rights - ie the right to continue their chosen method of earning money must not be infringed. Well there's another voting block secured !

    But then given the example of honour and good citizenship set by this 'government' and happily endorsed by Bliar, could we have expected anything else......?

    :evil: :evil: :evil:

    Tougher intruder laws ruled out

    The current law allows 'reasonable' force to be used in defence
    The law on the amount of force householders can use against burglars will not be changed, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has announced.

    A review has concluded the current law, which allows people to use "reasonable force" against intruders, is "sound".

    But Mr Clarke says there will be a publicity campaign to ensure people understand they can protect themselves.

    The Tories want a change so only those using "grossly disproportionate force" would risk being prosecuted.

    That call has been backed by outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, saying people were uncertain about what was allowed.

    Publicity campaign

    Mr Clarke's announcement on Wednesday came just ahead of Tory MP Patrick Mercer's private member's bill for changing the law getting a first reading in Parliament.

    The home secretary said: "I have concluded that the current law is sound but needs to be better explained to all concerned, especially for householders."

    A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public
    Chris Fox
    Association of Chief Police Officers

    He said the review, announced by the prime minister last month, had included consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the director of public prosecutions.

    Mr Clarke said the CPS had recently issued guidance on when people should be charged and Acpo was ensuring police officers understood the current law.

    Information would shortly be published and advertised to the public so people were clear "that the current law ensures that appropriate steps to protect themselves, their family and their property will always be justified".

    Public pressure

    Mr Mercer said he was extremely disappointed by the news but said he would continue to try to get his bill passed, especially as several police officers had supported the move.

    He pointed to a survey for Virgin Money Insurance which suggested that 87% of people think current law on the issue is weighted in favour of criminals.

    "This is public opinion, this is democracy, I'm amazed the home secretary is choosing to ignore this," said Mr Mercer, claiming Labour was treating his bill as a political football.

    Acpo president Chris Fox said that amid "real public concern", it was important everybody knew that police and prosecutors would support people using appropriate force to confront burglars.

    He argued: "A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public and improve their confidence in the criminal justice system."
  2. Another nail in their coffin... :twisted:
  3. Suddenly Flunkett doesn't seem so bad.....
  4. Ventress

    Ventress LE Moderator

    The law should allow you to set up two SF GPMG's and then get the dead burgular's family to pay for the rounds you expend!
  5. Last night some chap in Staffs had at some intruders who were holding his wife with a Katana, I wonder who'll get the longer sentence the burglar or the homeowner?
  6. We all know the answer to that one :evil:
  7. Given this shoddy crews' previous, this does not come as such a big surprise to me. After all, they have delivered nothing from the '01 manifesto (of tangilbe value at least), much less from the '97 election.

    What does surprise me is the timing. The one thing this bunch of miscreants and wastrels are usually good at is timing and spin. Given the popular support for increasing occupiers legal defence rights (ie reducing the criminals!), I for one am surprised this wasn't tucked away and left until after the impending election.

    As stated previously though, this could be another nail in their coffin. If only the Conservatives could become effective? Now that is the question!
  8. Well that's another tick in the "fcuk you" box from the Labour Louts :evil:
  9. The law should read:
    Just another spam neo-con chiming in...I'd just shot them, but hey I can still own and carry a firearm :D
  10. This whole thing has been nothing but shameless electioneering on the part of a Certain Political Party, and I'm glad it's been decently buried. Fact: you already have the right to use "reasonable force". Why would you want to use unreasonable force? And what would be better about being able to use force that was unreasonable but wasn't grossly disproportionate - if that makes any sense at all? Fact: the total number of prosecutions in the last 15 years is 11. Fact: some cases that weren't prosecuted involved dead burglars.

    This was all a tired bunch of bollox got up by Michael Howard, and I don't see why Blair should have played his game.
  11. Oooooooh, hark at you :roll:
  12. Surprised Cherrie Blair hasn't taken on a few burglers cases to get burgler alarms and security lights banned as an infringement on their right to "earn money covertly".

    Read in Daily Express yesterday a bloke has just been hammered for protecting his 5 years old, yes FIVE YEARS OLD son from a mugger.

    He has never had a problem with cops before, yet now has a criminal record. If he appeals he has been told he could go down!

    Ventress wrote
    This could work, but would prefer to keep them alive. They could be tied up in stocks and forced to eat dog s*it. Besides what two SF GPMG's would fcuk the decorating up good and proper! :twisted:
  13. The law's attitude isn't the question here. It's the compensation culture that is the worry. Whilst the CPS may agree you've used 'reasonable force' and in the process only scratched the thieving chav bastard, a civil court may be persuaded differently by money hungry self-serving lawyers.

    Giving the householder extra powers not only strengthens his position in a criminal court, it also makes it that much harder for a burgler to claim damages in a civil court.

    Me, I'd hang 'em all. Lawyers included.
  14. NO one asks if we allowed to use force to defend ourselves why cant we have firearms ? or is some granny supposed to use a rolling pin to defend ourselves
  15. Anyone read the Torygraph today?

    The case above makes your blood boil! :evil: The couple should sue the Home Office who had custodial responsibility for the scum and failed to exercise it. I would chip in to their fund if legal aid was not forthcoming (little chance of that :evil: ).

    I have to confess, I do believe burglars have some rights - ie. the right to drop the swag bag and run away or surrender, but nothing else. If they fight back, they should be under no illusions that, if the fight ends with their death or serious injury, then they are still at fault under the law.