New Home Defence Legislation

The right to use any means to defend your home against intruders

  • Damn good idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We should leave this to the Peelers, they're jolly good chaps

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I wish to wire a claymore to my doorbell

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


Kit Reviewer
The Today programme on fuddy-duddy Radio 4 asked it's listeners to come up with some new legislation - on absolutely any subject. Education, child-care, social security, traffic, employment, land rights for gay whales, any subject that they thought would have a beneficial effect on the country as a whole. It proved interesting......

This clipping comes from the Telegraph - I apologise for the cut & paste, but I'd like to state that I'm NOT BB !

Telegraph 06/01/04

Go ahead, burglar, make my day
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/01/2004)

"Mark Steyn may prefer American hillbilly culture to that of the Swedish nanny state," wrote Ann Widung of Eastbourne on our Letters page last September. She was dissenting from my observations on the remarkable passivity of bystanders at the murder of Anna Lindh. "You may criticise the Swedish police," continued Ms Widung, "for being inefficient in solving murders, but I prefer to live in a culture of peace and solidarity to one of fear and gung-ho mentality. Better a nanny-state baby than Mark Steyn's 'citizen'."

Well, it's true I subscribe to a gung-ho mentality, but I don't live in a culture of fear. In fact, British friends visiting me in this corner of northern New England from their crime-ridden leafy shires always remark on my blithe unconcern about "home security". I don't have laser alarms, or window locks, or, indeed, a front-door key. Like most of my neighbours, I leave my home unlocked and, when I park the car, I leave the key in the ignition because then you always know where to find it.

I'm able to do this because - and this is where the gung-ho bit comes in - I live in a state with very high rates of gun ownership. In other words, if you're some teen punk and you want to steal my $70 television set, they're likely to be picking bits of your skull out of my wainscoting. But the beauty of this system is that I'm highly unlikely ever to have to blow your head off. The fact that most homeowners are believed to be armed reduces crime, in my neighbourhood, to statistically insignificant levels. Hence, my laconic approach to home security.

Now I understand Ms Widung prefers her "culture of peace and solidarity". I think this means that, when confronted by a ne'er-do-well, she'd hold hands and sing What the World Needs Now is Love, Sweet Love. I wouldn't personally recommend this, because, if he wasn't in a murderous rage beforehand, he almost certainly will be by about halfway through the middle-eight. But each to her own. Still, Ms Widung must surely be dismayed by the number of her fellow nanny-staters who voted in Today's poll for a "listeners' law" that would permit property owners "to use any means to defend their homes against intruders".

A "listeners' law" is, of course, a pathetic gimmick. Judging from the reaction of Stephen Pound, MP, the modish proponents of "direct democracy" believe in letting the people's voice be heard only so long as it agrees with what their betters have already decided. So, having agreed to introduce the listeners' choice as a Bill in Parliament, Mr Pound was a bit shocked to find the winning proposal wasn't one of the nanny-state suggestions (a ban on smoking, compulsory organ donation, mandatory voting) or the snobby joke ones (a ban on Christmas decorations before December), but the right to defend your home.

One can easily foresee New Labour, having run out of anything else to regulate, introducing the smoking/organs stuff halfway through a third term, and even the Christmas decorations ban is well within the ambition of the more zealous council planning enforcers.

So, reasonably enough, Today listeners voted for the only proposal they knew for certain the governing elite will never go for. Why, the People's Champion himself, Stephen Pound, dismissed it as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation. I can't remember who it was who said, `The people have spoken, the bastards'."

That would be Dick Tuck, a long-ago California state senate candidate, in an unusually pithy concession speech. It's an amusing remark as applied to the electorate's rejection of oneself. It's not quite so funny when applied, by Mr Pound, to people impertinent enough to bring up a topic that you and the rest of the governing class have decided is beyond debate. As used by Mr Tuck, it reflects a rough'n'tumble vernacular politics; as used by Mr Pound, it comes out closer to "Let 'em eat cake".

None the less, the professional opinion-formers came down on the side of Mr Pound. The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest.

But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then.

But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.

And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser.

In my part of the world, that's virtually unknown. In America as a whole, 12.7 per cent of burglaries are of "occupied homes"; in Britain, it's 59 per cent. Installing a laser system may make your property more secure, but it makes you less so. As for Ann Widung's "culture of fear", it's not American therapists but English ones who've made a lucrative speciality out of treating children traumatised by such burglaries.

As I wrote in September, to expect the state to protect you is to be a bystander in your own fate. It's interesting that, during the recent security scares, the terrorists seem to have been targeting BA and Air France. They seem to reckon they've a better chance of pulling something on a non-US airline. I hope that's not true, and that when the next shoebomber bends down to light his sock, he'll find himself sitting next to some gung-ho Brit rather than the "peace and solidarity" type.

You can have a nanny state if you prefer. But not for long.

Comments ?[/b]


Interesting. I seem to remember that when they were trying to deny Tony Martin's parole one of the lawyers argued that burglars need protecting from over protective home owners. I don't advocate US style gun laws but agree that we should have more clout to defend our homes. Those against it will argue that you could kill someone and fake a burglary - but with decent and sensible ROE's it could be worth serious debate.


Kit Reviewer
I think in these days of modern forensics only a complete plank would be so daft as to try to fake a burglary, or a life threatening confrontation. As you say it's all down to sensible ROEs.
I think we should be able to use reasonable force and less of ‘I fell thru your roof, so I am going to take legal action’ crap…

Of course, ‘reasonable’ is the key word, if say a big ****** jumped on you and kicked seven shades of shite out of you then you can say this is overkill and not reasonable force, but it depends on the intentions of the burglar and the occupier of the house, if some old bird kills a burglar with a ash tray, far game, she is old and he is a puff to be killed from a old woman.

However an example like Tony Martin is not reasonable force, shooting someone in the back, outside of your property, that is running away, using your illegal shotgun is a tad overkill. Leaving the lad to bleed to death is barbaric. If some scraggy looking ****** waves a shotgun at you, you will soon disappear sharp’ish, at most a warning shot to put the shits up them would have been sufficient.

So breaking their arm and stuffing a object like a rolling pin up their ring is okay, shooting in back is not, even in the wild west. (i.e. Baghdad!)


Kit Reviewer
You notice that the simplest crime Martin could have been nicked for, posession of an unlicenced firearm, he wasn't ? Probably didn't help that he was a white male homeowner either. That and nailing the scrote in the back...... :twisted:
but maybe in cases of a crime happening you should be able to sue the local police force for failing to prevent it. I would say making the police more accountable for crime would be a good way to make them enforce the law.
Incident in bangor yesterday stones thrown on the road when a motorist a man jumped into the passenger seat and held a knife to the drivers throat and stole the car.
Anyone engaging in criminal activity should automatically start forfeiting their rights.

If those two scrotes weren't in his house they wouldn't have been shot.


I have recently had first hand experience of an attempted burglary and have indeed just returned from court after giving evidence against the scroats that tried it.

My philosophy on this is simple, the second that you illegally set foot in someone else’s house without permission from the homeowner, all of your rights should be left at the door. i.e., you break into my house, I should be allowed to kill you.

Plain and simple. I work my boll0cks off to provide nice things and a nice house for my family and me. Any t0sser that thinks he can just walk in off the streets and help himself to the hard-earned fruits of my labour deserves to be killed. Extreme, I know, but I have just had to stand opposite one of these low lifes in court and give evidence against the cnut knowing full well that he will probably only get a community service sentence and within 24 hours will be out burgling the less fortunate residents that don't have the same kind of security set up that I have at home (mainly as a result of the FAC rules).

If I would have caught him red handed and shot the fcuker, he wouldn't be able to fcuk anyone else’s life up would he? Ours was only an attempted burglary and the effects to the missus and kids are still lingering, constantly looking over the shoulder, jumping at the creaks of the house at night, worrying if the kids bikes are OK in the garage etc, etc.

A mans home is his castle, if you breach that castle, you deserve to die, even if you are running away after the act.

They should have knighted Tony Martin and if the opportunity ever arose, I would do exactly the same, be it in the front, back, head, chest or one fcuking finger at a time with a catapult.

I actually feel sorry for the police they are in a no win situation they have insufficient numbers to cope with rising crime and are further handicapped by the ammount of time they have to spend filling in forms to try and process criminals who if the cps deceides to proceed against the courts will either fine (which the scroat won't pay) or a suspended sentence or community service. Yes it would be nice to be able to sort thease scroats ourselves but there are to many do gooders who beleive society is to blame for thease scroats( society ie: us). The criminal justce system needs a major overhaul but will MP's do it no. Why because most of them are lawyers.
You already have the right to use "reasonable and proportionate" force in self defence or (I think) to prevent the commission of a crime. If Fred Barras had been waving a knife around, Tony Martin would not have committed a crime. Also note the bit about prevention/self defence - that doesn't extend to revenge.


You are bang on - it is reasonable force that is the key. In sympathise with Tony Martin although he did go too far. I think a review of punishment as a stronger deterrent should be looked into. If I can nick someone's stuff and only have to mow so old folks lawn if I'm caught what is my incentive to not do it. If I faced a spell being rogered senseless in prison I'd certainly thing twice.
I think the laws should extend further.
We are more inclined, as a society, to be outraged at the idea of our property being under threat.
The idea the discussions now being put are given priority over 'Sarah’s Law', the 'Date Rape Laws' and 'Vulnerable Peoples Safety Rights' is a reflection on many people in power.
Yes we have the right to defend our property, by any means necessary, if that then means I have to explain to my kids why I have a two foot square of concrete set with a gun safe in my bedroom, then so be it.
If I have to sit them down every month and go over panic plans, and safety tips with them, then so be it.
If I have to strategically place items I know to be of use if an intruder ever did gain access, then so be that also.
I want them to feel safe, and to know I will do all in my power to make that possible as well.
But further.
I want to power I have to protect them to go further, and I want the law to provide that power of protection.
I want to know that if the guy next door is a paedophile I will be told . (Sarah’s Law, based on Megan’s Law) I want to know if my sister, her daughter, or any of my friends go on a date and they are raped that the guy will not be able to hide behind a law that has grey patches . (The right to consent is an area of question. Is no always no? October 2002 debates on green paper)
I want to know If I choose a nursing home for a relation that they will be cared for be people who have been screened, and that the law will force the owners and staff to report any and all allegations of abuse, however minor . (The nursing staff are vetted by the UKCC, all other staffers are employed by the individual nursing home and are not vetted. Nursing homes are often frightened to report abuse of elderly, or simply ignore the problems. UKCC report to parliament 2002)
Three of an unknown number of point we need to include if we are really to be Kings in our own Castles and Keepers of our Households, all of which have been tabled and are STILL under review and refinement.
To ensure the protection of ALL parties.
Escape-from-PPRuNe said:
You already have the right to use "reasonable and proportionate" force in self defence or (I think) to prevent the commission of a crime. If Fred Barras had been waving a knife around, Tony Martin would not have committed a crime. Also note the bit about prevention/self defence - that doesn't extend to revenge.
Hmmmm. What springs to mind, are the words "Officer, I thought I saw a knife in his hand, and I was in fear of my life - he must have picked up one of my kitchen knives when he heard me coming downstairs".

As others have said - you just need to work within the ROE.


on the other hand i must say be careful about shooting first askign questions later , because that man climbing through your window might be simply drunk and entered the wrong house thinking his misus has locked him out or lost the keys etc .

it could be YOU in the dock.

i support the right to defend my home but i would like to think first before i kill him
Basic ROE lound warning if you don't stop Fair Game
Having worked with various burglars they don't really give a shit.
Tony martin stoped one permantly and the other one is limping so if he trys running now the coppers can catch him. Don't want to be shot don't be a thieving scumbag
If an intruder crosses your threshold, whether to rob, rape or kill, you can only assume the worst; to do otherwise is to place you and yours at risk. Remember, too, that the risk is engendered by that intruder's actions. You may not have time to retreat to a safer location, as advised by the powers that be. Your children, sleeping in another, perhaps distant room, may be at risk, if you were to do so. Ample justification for the use of force
In the least threatening case, why should you tamely surrender the fruits of your labour to some sub-literate member of the underclass. Whatever is taken, it cost you time to acquire, part of your life was expended to gain it and probably more will be expended to replace it, even if you are insured. Theft removes part of your life! Again, ample justification for the use of force.
Tony Martin may not have been the most sympathetic kind of character but he had been burgled up to 30 times, with little effective reaction by the local police. At a guess I would say that he was a frightened man and frightened men sometimes don't make the best decisions in a tight spot. However, note that he had removed a section of the stairs and erected some barricades. In the press this was presented as some kind of dastardly, premeditated trap, designed to hold the burglars so that he could shoot them more easily. If so, why were there not two bodies instead of one. I'd draw the conclusion somewhat differently, that he was trying to STOP them breaching his last redoubt. Note, also, that the wounds were low, in the legs, not in the torso.
It's all too easy to second guess these things, as Mark Steyn wrote, but the decision to make a GO/NO GO forcible response, to an intruder, has to be the province of the homeowner, not some judge living in a cosy, protected environment with a guaranteed rapid police response. I'd say that Tony Martin exercised the moral right to defend his home; the law, as directed by the trial judge, ignored moral justice, and simply adhered to the cringingly liberal view that criminals have carte blanche to do as they wish.
I have no sympathy for anybody who puts himself in harms way to commit a crime.
Perhaps I'll change my nickname:- Judge Lynch?

Similar threads