New Laws to Protect Have a go Heroes

#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:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nlabour127.xml
 
#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
The move - to be announced by the Justice Secretary in his Labour conference speech - will be aimed at ensuring that those protecting themselves or their homes in a "proportionate" way will not find themselves in court.
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
Azrael2006 said:
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
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.
 
#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
Azrael2006 said:
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:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nlabour127.xml
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?
 
#16
We don't need new laws, we just need the present laws to be applied in a sensible manner

Totally agree- The current law clearly states that if you fear for your safety and have an agrressive opponent you can take the tw*t out with a pre emptive strike -like you dont wait to be stung be a wasp you mallet the little f@cker ( ie I acted in self defence and was genuinely scared I would get stung - self defence!!)

A lillte point that the Plod doesn't like to tell you if you fear for your life or safety you can hit first.

Crimimal law act 1967 - "Only such such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime"..... shitty point is the word"reasonable" so if 16 stone of thieving pykie comes up the stairs both barrels from the wife is ok.

Police and Criminal evendence act 84 - "min force necessary must be reasonable to achieve teh objective" - the fat 16 stone f@ck was aggresively comming up my stairs - the only way I could stop him was both barrels or with a pick helve.

Also remember -You get done for what you say to plod ,not necessarilly what you have done. .. opening line is alway " I was shitscared and feared for my safety plod - thats why I ran over the c@nt in my car officer. :)

not - "how would you know you fu@kface you were watching the leaves in the local pond drown or saving lives by filling up an important speed camera at the time. :oops:
 
#17
ViolentBadger said:
We don't need new laws, we just need the present laws to be applied in a sensible manner.
Ding. Is the correct answer.

"Rules/laws are for the obediance of fools and the guidance of wise men/women(1)"



(1) That's as PC as I can be arrsed to be.
 
#18
londonirish said:
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?

Self defence only has to be appropriate to the circumstances you believed you were in, so it would be enough to only believe he had a knife, after all 'lending' one of your matched set of kitchen knives might be a bit of a give away. The big trick is to stop when the miscreant is subdued, the extra kick in the balls just for the hell of it is always a potential problem.

Defencd yourself with out fear, but move onto the offensive and you may have a few problems.
 
#19
Whiskybreath wrote
'Zero Tolerance' in particular, may well have worked in New York under an American Republican mayor,
Rudy Giuliani's 'Leadership' is my bedside reading at the moment. The man, the master (after Lee Kuan Yew). In addition to the massive reduction in crime and improvement of quality of life for New Yorkers (and visitors) under his administration he got people off the dole and into work. He makes the point that some administrations (perhaps like our current one) remind those on benefits of their entitlement to money for nothing. Paraphrasing; we're going to maintain an underclass because we need your votes, we need to feel important. By being 'on your side' you'll vote for us.

I wish John Smeaton had turned down the invitation to appear at the Labour Partei's Rally. Labour have presided over this shift in police/court attitude where people are afraid to defend themselves or other people because of the possible legal (not physical) consequences. Here is a bloke that gave a doing to a bloke on fire who wasn't directly threatening him. He should have been done. I'm glad he wasn't.
 
#20
ABrighter2006 said:
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?
Yes its the same. I heard him interviewed this morning on the Today program on radio four. He said something along the lines of 'he was guilty so lets put that to one side' Then he proceeded to launch into stories of his donning a cape and fighting crime recovering handbags for old ladies on the street. All using resonable force of course.
 

Latest Threads

Top