New Laws to Protect Have a go Heroes

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Azrael2006, Sep 27, 2007.

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. Home owners and "have-a-go heroes" defending themselves against burglars and muggers will have greater protection from prosecution, under an urgent review of the law to be unveiled by Jack Straw today.

    Aside from the automatic reaction we will all have of "about Bloody Time", is it just me or does anyone else think this is just spin and will be so diluted and hindered by red tape to be as ineffectual as our current laws?

    Will it also address the issue of us being able to give a couple of 15 year olds a good kicking, when we find them downstairs with our DVD player and a stanley knife?

    more can be found in the telegraph at this link:
  2. Have to agree with the comment about spin. Isn't it strange that labour are introducing a shed load of policies which 'seem' to sound like what we've ben banging on about for ages. I think they might know they could be onto a loser if they don't start listening. But for me it's far too little and far too late.
  3. Anyone spot the magic word?
  4. exactley, same a protecting yourself and home.

    w*nkers and a w*nk government

    spin spin spin

    worse than a pile of scheize
  5. About bloody time!!

    But yes I think this is spin, there will be so many ifs and buts to this. God help you if there is an unarmed robbery in your house but you deliver one of those 'lucky' punches.

    I find it really hard seeing why there should be any laws, rules and regs to how the home owner should act in case of being burgled or whatever. If your in my house and get battered for it, tough sh1t!
  6. All seems like a desperate grab for Conservative votes if they spring a "surprise" election on us....

    Have to disagree with Stephanie, in that we should have some form of restraining laws on the application of force even if its in defence of our own homes...

    Otherwise I would just do a pulp fiction and "me and some of my hommies (sp?) are going to work them over with some pliers"

    Difficult to rob someone if your fingers look like minced meat
  7. Sorry, is that the same Jack Straw that was Home Secretary when the farmer Tony Martin was arrested and locked up for tackling burglars at his home in Norfolk some years back?

    If it is, then he wants to have a word with himself. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - my arrse. But, it sounds good at the conference.

    Soundbites, sweaty palms and yet more spin.
  8. Well essay (sp?) if you look at it that way then I agree, if you have the time to tie them up and or torture them for several hours then yes, laws do need to be put in place for that. Little bit physco!!

    However if you catch the crim and batter him while your OH phones the police then I think that is justified - and a normal reaction IMO.
  9. 8) 8) 8) When will it be law 3007? 8) 8) 8)
  10. Is this new 'law' likely to cover PCSOs,even if they do not 'have a go?'
  11. We don't need new laws, we just need the present laws to be applied in a sensible manner.
  12. I should be deeply wary of any socialist government's urgency to introduce new laws on crime, particularly this one's. 'Zero Tolerance' in particular, may well have worked in New York under an American Republican mayor, but translate that into the United Kingdom under the new Dear Leader Gordon and you get something which looks suspiciously like a War Against ThoughtCrime. See The Grauniad for starters.
  13. Once again NuLabor spins to appear to give us what we already have. Having made people believe we do not already have that right they then tell us they will give back what they never took away in the first plaace
  14. Haaang on! "Greater protection from prosecution"?

    Government makes the laws which determine what people are prosecuted for, and they lay down the policies and guidelines which determine whether or not a prosecution is pursued.

    They've just promised to protect us from themselves! How magnanimous.
  15. There are some states in the US where, if you find someone in your home, you are allowed to kill them.

    This is based on the assumption that they may be there to do you harm.

    The gun lobby over there cites the lower levels of burglary in these states as a testemony this law's sense.

    Guns aside, if it was ok to hospitalise someone by beating them with a big stick with a nail in in, on the assumption that they had a knife ( you could always "lend" them one afterwards) would we approve?