• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

MOST BURGULARS VOTE LABOUR

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
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."
 
#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?
 
#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!
 
#9
The law should read:
If an intruder enters your abode you shall beat him/her/it senseless; drag him/her/it to the curb and make him/her/it available for rubbish removal. Shall you fail to do so you shall be branded on the fore head "STUPID CNUT" and be forced to walk the earth the rest of your days with that brand
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
Escape-from-PPRuNe said:
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.
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
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!
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
Escape-from-PPRuNe said:
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.
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?

Thugs were let out of jail to burgle us
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 13/01/2005)

Sitting quietly in his living room enjoying the midday summer sun and his Sunday newspaper, Charles Gennard looked up to find a balaclava-clad intruder standing over him brandishing a weapon.

The man, Lee Collier, pushed him to the floor and bound his hands with cable while an accomplice, Stuart Clarke, ran upstairs and grabbed Mr Gennard's wife, Gwen, who was running a bath. Roughly, and threatening her with a screwdriver, he pushed her downstairs and tied her hands together.

The pair, who were wearing black overalls, then shouted at the couple to hand over the keys to the safe and, after eventually heeding the Gennards' plea that it was empty, made off with £28,000 worth of antiques and jewellery.

When the police were called, Clarke's name was soon mentioned, being a well-known local villain, but he appeared to have a perfect alibi. He was serving 10 years for conspiracy to rob at the North Sea Camp open prison 80 miles away in Boston, Lincs.

Clarke's partner, Lee Collier, was in the same jail, serving five and a half years for robbery.

The two, who were both 25 at the time of the burglary, believed they had committed the ideal crime.

Telling wardens that they were spending the day visiting their families - which they were allowed to do at weekends – at 8.30am they took a car that Clarke kept at the jail and drove to his old stamping ground, a clutch of villages south of Loughborough, Leics, and targeted the Gennards' detached home in Seagrave. After terrorising and robbing the Gennards, they took Polaroids of the goods they had stolen and hid some of them at a cafe where Clarke had been working as part of his rehabilitation. At 6.30pm they signed themselves back into jail.

Clarke and Collier were caught when a cleaner found the Polaroids and the pair's balaclavas in a shoebox at the cafe. Last month they were jailed for 12 years each after being found guilty of aggravated burglary. The stolen goods have never been recovered.

Yesterday Mr Gennard, 71, said he was "amazed and horrified" when he found out that they were being allowed out of prison at the time they committed the crime.

Seventeen months on, he and his wife have come to terms with what happened and, while they said they do not live in fear, they admit that after six burglaries in the past 15 years they have "every security measure available".

Mr Gennard said: "I remember it being one of the hottest and sunniest days of the year. I was in the living room and they came through the patio doors at the back of the house. I didn't even have time to stand up. He was just there standing above me.

"I was handcuffed and forced to lie on the ground face down while they got my wife. Collier was quite gentle but Clarke was very rough.

"He wanted the keys to the safe. I kept telling him the safe was empty and that we don't have a key for it, but he didn't believe me. He held his foot over my head and said, 'If you don't tell me where the keys are I'll smash your head in'. My wife was begging him to leave me alone."

Mrs Gennard, 69, said: "At one stage he smashed the glass door of a cabinet trying to get the cut-glass ornaments inside and I was bit worried then because I didn't want to think about what he would do with a piece of broken glass in his hand.

"Then one of them punched a hole in one of the doors, even though there was a key in it. He just said, 'The insurance will pay for it'."

Despite being roughed up, the couple said they did not at any stage fear for their lives although, thinking about it since, that may have been a hasty conclusion.

Mrs Gennard said: "Clarke was obviously unstable. He was shaking when he tied me up and was really agitated. While it was all going on I was just wondering where it was all going to end. You never know what little trigger could have set him off and then anything could have happened. It was very frightening."

Mr Gennard has written to the Home Secretary demanding an explanation. He said: "We have two seriously dangerous criminals serving out sentences in one of the most liberal open prisons and carrying out armed robbery at the weekends in a vehicle parked at the prison, probably with no tax or insurance. It beggars belief.

"We feel the prison system is to blame. In our opinion they have failed in their duty to monitor criminals in their charge and put us at risk. I also think that it is ridiculous a dangerous criminal serving 12 years serves only six, and part of that in such a lax regime.

"I don't think criminals who have carried out serious crimes should be allowed in open prisons, and perhaps they should be fitted with electronic tags if they are allowed out. But just to be able to book yourself out when no one has any idea where you are going is preposterous."

He and his wife were critical of Charles Clarke's decision not to change the law governing the right of homeowners to tackle intruders.

Mrs Gennard said: "I think you should be allowed to do what you like to them. Maybe if I'd brandished a knife it would have frightened them off. Maybe knowing that the householder can do anything to them could be a deterrent."

Mr Gennard added: "I'm a sprightly 71 but I don't think it would have been wise to tackle a 25-year-old who spends his evenings in the prison gym. But it is stupid that when someone comes into your house you are worried about what you can do to him in case it costs you your freedom."

North Sea Camp has a controversially lax regime. Last year its governor, Keith Beaumont, was suspended following a surprise inspection. He is facing a misconduct probe amid claims of drug use and bullying at the jail.

During the burglars' trial, Leicester Crown Court heard that in 2003 more than 80 inmates absconded.

Lord Archer, who was jailed for four years for perjury, spent 11 months of his sentence there.
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.
 
#16
There is nothing surprising about this turn of events.

The hoodlum and the welfare state politician are business partners. Most people resent seeing their business partners subjected to gratuitous injury.

1. The politician disarms the householders so that the hoodlum can work in safety.

2. The hoodlum terrifies the public into demanding greater powers for the politicians.

Anthony Burgess brought out the "symbiotic" relationship between public officials and private thugs in "A Clockwork Orange." The novel and the Stanley Kubrick film were both excellent. If you haven't seen them already, I recommend both highly.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts