A
Ardross
Guest
an capall - possession proceedings or calling the police is advised for trespassers rather than murder.
As for the other example shooting social workers is out of order too
As for the other example shooting social workers is out of order too
Hmm, I am not sure I agree with you there, trevor. In the situation we are talking about here, we have a burglar breaking into someone's house. To justify murdering someone for that is beyond me. I accept that I should not have said what I did about the scum child who tormented Bianca Powell. I went over the top.
Hi Paul
Feelings run high, especially when you beleive you are right, as you do in the case of a young girl being persecuted for something that is not her own fault. Unfortunately I am of the same opinion regarding theives and robbers, they had a choice and made it, to enter my house at any cost, therefore they will have to take whatever the consequences of the following battle (I use that word, as it probably would be). Win lose or draw I would not let my belongings go without a bloody good fight. It may not come to murder, only time would tell, but it would be the last man standing. I have seen in the press what these people inflict on elderley and weak people all for the sake of a pint or the next dose of dope and they should not be given any sympathy at all. I know they should not all be tarred with the same brush but they are all burglars and theives.
Regards
Trevor
Feelings run high, especially when you beleive you are right, as you do in the case of a young girl being persecuted for something that is not her own fault. Unfortunately I am of the same opinion regarding theives and robbers, they had a choice and made it, to enter my house at any cost, therefore they will have to take whatever the consequences of the following battle (I use that word, as it probably would be). Win lose or draw I would not let my belongings go without a bloody good fight. It may not come to murder, only time would tell, but it would be the last man standing. I have seen in the press what these people inflict on elderley and weak people all for the sake of a pint or the next dose of dope and they should not be given any sympathy at all. I know they should not all be tarred with the same brush but they are all burglars and theives.
Regards
Trevor
BrianH
At the Start
Let's shoot all the drug addicts. While we're at it we'll lynch all paedophiles. Hanging's too good for the muggers, so we'll tie lead weights to their boots and throw them in the sea. By doing these things we'll ensure that we no longer have a violent society...
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Ah, some sense at last! :lol:
Or you could always follow Franco's example & export them all to the bordering city of the country he was trying to take over.....
Or you could always follow Franco's example & export them all to the bordering city of the country he was trying to take over.....
A
Ardross
Guest
And why don't we bring back the treadmill, pillory, stocks, ducking stool thumbscrews and the rack whilst we are about it .
BrianH
At the Start
Not tough enough
A
Ardross
Guest
or Monster
Hi All
Zero tolerance and all !!!!
Not a bad idea to get rid of drug pushers, definately a good idea to get rid of all paedophiles and let the victims of muggers face their families for a couple of hours after seeing what they have just done to their loved ones.
Everyone can have a laugh and a joke until it happens to their immediate family and then attitudes change.
Your daughters just been drug raped and is pregnant to some arsehole drug pusher - never mind , he had a hard paper round !!!
Your 5 y-o grand daughter has been sexually abused by some 50 y-o- pervert - never mind his wife has just left him and he's in a load of debt !!!
Your 90 -y-o- mother has just had the crap kicked out of her and is on deaths door all for the sake of a few quid - never mind his mother and father have split up and he needs help !!!
I only hope this thread is not being turned into something of a joke that cannot be in any way funny
Far too many do-gooders in the world.
Regards
Trevor
Zero tolerance and all !!!!
Not a bad idea to get rid of drug pushers, definately a good idea to get rid of all paedophiles and let the victims of muggers face their families for a couple of hours after seeing what they have just done to their loved ones.
Everyone can have a laugh and a joke until it happens to their immediate family and then attitudes change.
Your daughters just been drug raped and is pregnant to some arsehole drug pusher - never mind , he had a hard paper round !!!
Your 5 y-o grand daughter has been sexually abused by some 50 y-o- pervert - never mind his wife has just left him and he's in a load of debt !!!
Your 90 -y-o- mother has just had the crap kicked out of her and is on deaths door all for the sake of a few quid - never mind his mother and father have split up and he needs help !!!
I only hope this thread is not being turned into something of a joke that cannot be in any way funny
Far too many do-gooders in the world.
Regards
Trevor
BrianH
At the Start
Take a dispassionate look at the nations who respond to violent and other crimes with state violence - you might be surprised to discover that they remain the countries with the highest ates of violent crime. Strange, isn't it?
As a society we find it difficult to discipline children, so at the moment, in many but by no means all cases, they grow up without enough respect for authority and the law.
Until this issue is addressed then we will be asking the law to do something which we can't or don't want to do as individuals. And that must be wrong.
Until this issue is addressed then we will be asking the law to do something which we can't or don't want to do as individuals. And that must be wrong.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Terry's right, which brings us back to the question - should we really be talking about banning the smacking of kids when the discipline of them is clearly lacking already?
Well I tend to think that the government are right on this occasion. I don't like the idea of the state telling parents or anyone what to do in their day to day lives, but what else can be done? If you have bad parents then they will probably, in most cases, breed more bad parents.
So to turn it round you have to try to tell them to do and how to do it, and smacking isn't necessarily the answer, particularly for bad parents. I don't see good children being taken away from good parents just because a light smack was administered.
I suppose it is busybody politics but at least they are trying something.
So to turn it round you have to try to tell them to do and how to do it, and smacking isn't necessarily the answer, particularly for bad parents. I don't see good children being taken away from good parents just because a light smack was administered.
I suppose it is busybody politics but at least they are trying something.
A
Ardross
Guest
Does smacking kids work ? No - how many of the worst behaved kids have actually been hit and beaten by their parents - most i should imagine .
Smacking kids may make naughty children behave better but a lot of children don't forget it and it causes resentment. Generally, smacking kids is a release valve for exasperated parents rather than a corrective
Smacking kids may make naughty children behave better but a lot of children don't forget it and it causes resentment. Generally, smacking kids is a release valve for exasperated parents rather than a corrective
Hi Ardross
Maybe they deserved to be smacked in the first place, children should be taught to stay within the boundaries set down by their parents and should be disciplined if stepping outside these boundaries, unfortunatley all parents are not the same and will have differing sets of morals. If they are taught that it is wrong to pilfer things when they are young I do not beleive that when they are 15 or 16 y-olds they will do it just to spite their parents.
Regards
Trevor
Maybe they deserved to be smacked in the first place, children should be taught to stay within the boundaries set down by their parents and should be disciplined if stepping outside these boundaries, unfortunatley all parents are not the same and will have differing sets of morals. If they are taught that it is wrong to pilfer things when they are young I do not beleive that when they are 15 or 16 y-olds they will do it just to spite their parents.
Regards
Trevor
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into another debate about smacking kids but I disagree with you, James. Beating kids & smacking them are two totally different things & people who beat their kids anyway aren't going to stop it just because a law tells them they can't smack their kids. Ok, it's obviously not just the smacking that has anything to do with it, but as Terry says, a lot of kids are terrible now & have no respect for anyone or anything. Surely there must be something going wrong in the UK, because although not angels, the kids in Spain and Gibraltar are much better behaved & they actually have respect for other people in general. It is this respect that is lacking - does it come from TV, or schools, or what?
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
Getting back to topic ..........................
Tories back burglar defence bill
Mr Mercer welcomed the chance to bring the Bill.
The Tory party has thrown its weight behind a bill which would give householders freedom to fight back against burglars.
Newark MP Patrick Mercer plans to introduce a bill shifting the legal balance in favour of the householder.
The Tory security spokesman topped the ballot for private members' bills and earns parliamentary time for his plan.
The Metropolitan Police commissioner has said people should be able to use "necessary force" against burglars.
I defy Labour MPs to suggest this will be anything other than an enormously popular piece of legislation
Patrick Mercer MP
On Saturday, Sir John Stevens, England's most senior police officer, told the Daily Telegraph that householders should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
He told the paper: "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution."
Tories back burglar defence bill
Mr Mercer welcomed the chance to bring the Bill.
The Tory party has thrown its weight behind a bill which would give householders freedom to fight back against burglars.
Newark MP Patrick Mercer plans to introduce a bill shifting the legal balance in favour of the householder.
The Tory security spokesman topped the ballot for private members' bills and earns parliamentary time for his plan.
The Metropolitan Police commissioner has said people should be able to use "necessary force" against burglars.
I defy Labour MPs to suggest this will be anything other than an enormously popular piece of legislation
Patrick Mercer MP
On Saturday, Sir John Stevens, England's most senior police officer, told the Daily Telegraph that householders should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
He told the paper: "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution."
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
I am no conservative voter but at least these people are talking common sense, and it does prevail in the end? and getting back to what one would call basics!!!! your right to defend all you worked all your life for............
I would support this choice if given an option! say in a referendum ................
I would support this choice if given an option! say in a referendum ................
This topic is all too close to home for me... the family of the murdered man in S. London are holding his memorial service today - he's the chap who went to investigate sounds downstairs in his house in the middle of the night, found a man burgling the place, confronted him and was stabbed by the intruder who grabbed a kitchen knife.
It is understood that the murderer had a drug habit to feed... As he wasn't carrying the weapon, it is also understood that he will end up on a charge of manslaughter, not murder,as the defence team will bring in a defence of the intruder acting reasonably to defend himself...
The dead man was an ordinary, everyday bloke. Happily married, two small girls, nice job, nice home, paid his taxes etc etc. No record, not violent.
But because he went downstairs to investigate noises in the middle of the night in his own house, he ended up dead and his murderer will get off with manslaughter and a relatively pathetic sentence.
Sorry but I don't think this IS justice. I'm completely against capital punishment and I don't advocate prison lightly but it is quite easy to see where the grey areas are in this particular matter.
It's all very well but there you are, minding your own business in your own home, away in the land of Nod. Someone - for whatever reason - decides your home is going to be his/her target for ripping off your possessions. They break in, you investigate/retaliate and the intruder comes off worst. What happens next? As far as I can make out, YOU are then entwined in the due legal process. Even it you did use reasonable force, you still have to spend hours - no, days - justifying your actions. You have the stress hanging over you, there has to be expense involved, no doubt your insurance will be on hold or at worst invalidated during the legal process - and if you have a reasonable income, presumably no Legal Aid for you.
Reasonable force should indeed cover cases such as the above but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to and, while I don't condone any blanket 'licence to Murder' (which is too emotive a summing up in itself, James), it does seem that there is a growing need to ensure that truly innocent victims are protected from ending up as not only victims of burglary (or worse) but also from being victims of an unfair legal system.
It is understood that the murderer had a drug habit to feed... As he wasn't carrying the weapon, it is also understood that he will end up on a charge of manslaughter, not murder,as the defence team will bring in a defence of the intruder acting reasonably to defend himself...
The dead man was an ordinary, everyday bloke. Happily married, two small girls, nice job, nice home, paid his taxes etc etc. No record, not violent.
But because he went downstairs to investigate noises in the middle of the night in his own house, he ended up dead and his murderer will get off with manslaughter and a relatively pathetic sentence.
Sorry but I don't think this IS justice. I'm completely against capital punishment and I don't advocate prison lightly but it is quite easy to see where the grey areas are in this particular matter.
It's all very well but there you are, minding your own business in your own home, away in the land of Nod. Someone - for whatever reason - decides your home is going to be his/her target for ripping off your possessions. They break in, you investigate/retaliate and the intruder comes off worst. What happens next? As far as I can make out, YOU are then entwined in the due legal process. Even it you did use reasonable force, you still have to spend hours - no, days - justifying your actions. You have the stress hanging over you, there has to be expense involved, no doubt your insurance will be on hold or at worst invalidated during the legal process - and if you have a reasonable income, presumably no Legal Aid for you.
Reasonable force should indeed cover cases such as the above but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to and, while I don't condone any blanket 'licence to Murder' (which is too emotive a summing up in itself, James), it does seem that there is a growing need to ensure that truly innocent victims are protected from ending up as not only victims of burglary (or worse) but also from being victims of an unfair legal system.
A
Ardross
Guest
There is no such growing need Julie appalling as individual cases such as you mention are
1 The killer in the case you mention if shown to have intended to commit at least GBH ,which if you knife someone is pretty difficult to avoid, will be convicted of murder .There is no defence that would give rise to manslaughter . He could of course argue self defence but on the evidence as you put it his chances will be poor.
2 Such a change in the law won't stop burglary but could lead to a lot more deaths of householders and burglars for the reason that terry points out above
3 Generally , these cases do not come anywhere near court . A police officer has to investigate if someone is injured in the course of a burglary what happened . There is no way of avoiding that unless you give a licence to do what you like to a burglar . Do we want people having the right to execute burglars like Tony Martin ?
4 Frankly I regard a change in the law as proposed by the Commissioner as short sighted and dangerous and potentially a licence to murder e.g so long as Tony martin had shot the kid in his front rather than in the back it would have been difficult to prove his actions were unlawful under such a law .
1 The killer in the case you mention if shown to have intended to commit at least GBH ,which if you knife someone is pretty difficult to avoid, will be convicted of murder .There is no defence that would give rise to manslaughter . He could of course argue self defence but on the evidence as you put it his chances will be poor.
2 Such a change in the law won't stop burglary but could lead to a lot more deaths of householders and burglars for the reason that terry points out above
3 Generally , these cases do not come anywhere near court . A police officer has to investigate if someone is injured in the course of a burglary what happened . There is no way of avoiding that unless you give a licence to do what you like to a burglar . Do we want people having the right to execute burglars like Tony Martin ?
4 Frankly I regard a change in the law as proposed by the Commissioner as short sighted and dangerous and potentially a licence to murder e.g so long as Tony martin had shot the kid in his front rather than in the back it would have been difficult to prove his actions were unlawful under such a law .
simmo
Senior Jockey
Given the general depth of feeling that the law as it currently stands does not give enough protection to the householder, what would you suggest instead Ardross?
BrianH
At the Start
I am not the qualified barrister on here but as I understand it the law currently allows you to use all reasonable force to protect yourself and others. Are we not just arguing as to what constitutes "reasonable"?
I'd just like to offer my view that killing an unarmed person by shooting them in the back is probably not reasonable. Or am I being unreasonable?
I'd just like to offer my view that killing an unarmed person by shooting them in the back is probably not reasonable. Or am I being unreasonable?