| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| NAZZ |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 17:03:24
About time.
People should be allowed to defend their home,loved ones and to assist
others who are a target of crime without penalty.
Using reasonnable force,if situation nessecitates it, of course!!
A review is being launched into the law in England and Wales protecting those who intervene in criminal situations.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has been a "have-a-go hero" four times, said he wanted to clarify "that the law is on the side of the citizen".
He said self-defence laws work "much better than most people think, but not as well as it could or should".
The Conservatives said they had long called for a change in self-defence laws and called this "long overdue".
Mr Straw said he wants to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.
'Good citizens'
He made the announcement as Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth drew to a close with the party's traditional send-off, delivered by deputy leader Harriet Harman.
Mr Straw said he knew "from personal experience that you have all of a millisecond to make the judgement about whether to intervene" in a crime.
You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force
Justice Secretary Jack Straw on being a "have-a-go hero"
"The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens but also be seen to work on their side."
Of the four times when Mr Straw has intervened to stop criminals, he managed to detain the offender on three occasions.
In 1980 he overheard a burglar breaking into a members club in his Blackburn constituency, chased him down the street and detained him until police arrived.
HAVE YOUR SAY
As soon as you commit a crime you lose any rights that you may have had
Adrian Mugridge, Chester
Send us your comments
In the mid 1980s at Oval Tube station in south London he came across an 11-year-old boy who had just been robbed by a man and detained the offender.
He chased a man who had attacked a woman at the same underground station in the early 1990s, but did not catch him.
Then in 1996 he chased a man who had robbed a member of the public and detained the suspect until police arrived.
Public 'anxiety'
"I was presented, just by chance, with being a witness to criminal behaviour and thought I should intervene," Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Nick Clegg
My concern, frankly, is the government appears to be a bit confused
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman
"You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force."
He went on: "No-one knows whether you're going to intervene until it happens.
"Those that do intervene in this situation face the anxiety that they'll be the subject of a police investigation.
"Too many unnecessary police investigations take place. I want to make the law clearer."
Mr Straw wants people to be aware that the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows them to use reasonable force to apprehend suspects, but was not advocating recklessness, his spokesman said.
Home secretary's speech
Shadow Secretary for Justice Nick Herbert said that Mr Straw and Labour MPs had repeatedly rejected Conservative calls for the law to be changed to allow people to defend their homes against burglars.
He added: "The last time the Government cynically signalled a change on this they reneged just months later. People will rightly question the motive and substance of this latest review."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said the law did not need to be changed as it was "already very, very clear" that "proportionate, reasonable force" could be used.
No-one believes violent crime is down and her own department says it has doubled
Shadow home secretary David Davis responds to Jacqui Smith
In full: Jacqui Smith's speech
"My concern, frankly, is the government appears to be a bit confused," he told BBC Radio Five Live.
"On the one hand, Straw seems to be saying the law is working better than people think.
"On the other hand he seems to be stoking up public fear, if you like, by saying 'I'm going to review it', but not really saying in what way it's going to be reviewed."
The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service, judges and other government ministers are expected to be consulted during the review.
Meanwhile Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's speech covered, among other issues, Labour's commitment to give local people more information about the performance of local police, and tougher checks on people travelling to the UK.
She rejected Conservative claims there was "anarchy in the UK" and said it was irresponsible to stoke up people's fear of crime.
But shadow home secretary David Davis later rejected that suggestion.
He said: "The Home Secretary is in denial about the problems we face, which makes her part of the problem. No-one believes violent crime is down and her own department says it has doubled." |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Horseman7 |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 23:42:26
Norbert - new forum member - welcome.
Happy posting.
|
| Norbert |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 21:39:48
The 'Review' is a pre-election stunt, It will be forgotten the day after polling day.
In the event of prosecution in a self-defence case it is left to the jury to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the actions taken by the defendant in the circumstances presented before the court. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 21:05:47
In view of the Mess New Labour have made
both the Other 2 Partys are far better.
LibDems - No Iraq, NO ID CARD
Conservatives - No HIP, More Real Police, NO ID CARD (the most Important)
The ID CARD system will cost Billions and it will stop nothing,
just more american companys getting MEGA Contracts.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 20:51:58
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Many would say it was never as bad as this "New" Labour.
Who are a bunch of Neo Conservatives.
Let's forget the 'many would say' for a moment as you are unlikely to be able to produce any evidence to that. But you tell me how things were so much better before ... and yes, I do believe that asking you what your alternative is is not unreasonable LTNS. A vague anything would be better is hardly constructive debate. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 20:47:39
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
And of course everything was rosy and peachy before ...
Many would say it was never as bad as this "New" Labour.
Who are a bunch of Neo Conservatives.
The Point is 10 years was long enough,
and now Un-Elected PM Brown
is even trying to hide Blair.(as if to say he is a criminal)
That does not wash
he was part of that Blair set up.
They are ,infact, both War Criminals (Blair/Brown)
they were in Power among so much more Corruption.
And Iraq is at the Top of the List. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 20:30:24
And of course everything was rosy and peachy before ... |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 19:06:26
Why are you wasting time talking about Partys that do not have enough to get into
power.
You may have said you do not want it,
but you stand firm with New Labour as if they are the only party.
Brown may cause a Hung Parliament.
There is 3 Partys that can run the UK.
So when I say anything is better than Corrupt New Labour
it means the other two.
I will never Vote Corrupt New Labour in.
And it is bad - the Banks being corrupted
and no Real Police.
New Labour has had 10 years
that is more than enough time.
They Failed.
|
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:58:06
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
'Anything' is better than Corrupt New Labour.
FACT.
So this is not true then. Make up your mind flip flopper. New Labour is better than BNP for you, but Veritas and UKIP are preferable than Labour for you. You also would prefer a Conservative government to a Labour one.
I don't want a Labour or Conservative government, I've said it before. You eyesight must be dimming from staring at the screen too long.
You are not a constructive commentator LTNS. You moan about your popular villains without stating your alternative vision. That just makes you a waste of space. Anyone can moan and you do a lot of it. If it's all so bad, give us your plan. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:36:19
No
BNP would not be part of any deal.
FACT.
Hambag you stick with the Devil you know
because that is what you want people to follow.
Each To Their Own. |
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:29:56
So by definition of what you have said you consider a Veritas, UKIP or BNP government preferable to a Labour government.
The future would be safe in your hands then. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:03:26
'Anything' is better than Corrupt New Labour.
FACT. |
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 17:50:23
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Make the jails more unwelcoming.
Make the sentence a good deterrent.
Effective police on the streets to prevent crime.
Prevent crime and deter crime and the jails will not be so full.
Never under Stinking New Labour,
They have reduced Normal Police
and put in no good community people
in their uniforms.
Utter Scam.
Sign Of The Times.
If Fresh Smelling Conservatives
Become Elected by Cameron's
Middle Class Death Tax
Ten Pound Lump of Cheese Bait
On a Mouse Trap
They Will Fix The Police
And Make it All Perfect Again - FACT
Utter Utopia
Sign Of Future Times. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 15:07:28
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Make the jails more unwelcoming.
Make the sentence a good deterrent.
Effective police on the streets to prevent crime.
Prevent crime and deter crime and the jails will not be so full.
Never under Stinking New Labour,
They have reduced Normal Police
and put in no good community people
in their uniforms.
Utter Scam.
Sign Of The Times. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 14:51:35
Make the jails more unwelcoming.
Make the sentence a good deterrent.
Effective police on the streets to prevent crime.
Prevent crime and deter crime and the jails will not be so full.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:45:26
Not all offenders, though admittedly a fair number, are addicts. And addiction programs could be built into the mandatory sentencing. There is no need to take it as either or |
| moon23 |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:40:01
Decent complusory treatment programs for addicts would do more to reduce the burglary rates. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:37:32
Maybe ... but then think about all the prisons ... they seem to be full to bursting now.
I do agree that we need to look at mandatory sentencing a bit more closely though. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:35:44
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Perhaps the legal deterrent to burglary should be higher?
Ten years minimum.
That would not be unreasonable.
Get real, Ten years is a huge amount of time. We would all be paying through the roof with tax if the prision population was this size. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:24:23
Perhaps the legal deterrent to burglary should be higher?
Ten years minimum.
That would not be unreasonable.
|
| Horseman7 |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 12:02:24
I bare my arms throughout the summer.
|
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:20:12
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Since The UK Police
now have Tasers,
why not let The Public,
once passed a test on how to use it,
buy one.
It would be very handy for anyone who is unable
to tackle a Intruder.
It would also be a perfect tool for a rapist or for your tramp noshing hobby.
The public is not allowed to bare* arms for good reason.
*I meant bear  - and not the fuzzy kind either |
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:16:03
quote:
Originally posted by NAZZ
Bronson wannabe maybe,but hambag you gonna sit there and let some geezer threaten you and ransack your house?
Case in point may or june on a sat night at 2am a guy got in my home,daughter came screaming upstairs to wake me.
First thing you feel is scared,not knowing what you are facing,then adrenalin kicks in,protect wife kds,material stuff don't matter.
He was almost at the top of stairs when i came out of the bedroom.He had taken his trousers off for some reason.
Anyhoo managed to get him out of the house via the kitchen,where he tried to grab a serrated knife,got that away from him.
got him out of the house,fence panel smashed cos he went through it,and f**ked him off up the road.
There was no way i was going to sit about like a lemon and let him do whatever he wanted to.
Did not call the police,prob not got to my place till monday,plus they might have arrested me for unnessaccery force on the intruder.I used no weapon just justifiable,in my case,persuasion.
Could not get back to sleep afterwoods as the slightest noise from outside made you sit up real quick.
I'd do it again to protect my family,even if I was injured or worse.
No fucker is going to threaten me or mine!!!!!!
Of course not you plum. I didn't say sit there. Defend yourself by all means, which is what you did.
You should have called the police as well. There was a man with no trousers in your house, with who knows what intention who is now free to do it to someone else, and may get "lucky". |
| Hambag |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:10:12
The two words of contention are "reasonable" and "defence". Where it becomes unlawful is where you are defending with unreasonable force or you actually on the offence when you are in no clear danger. Naturally it is a grey area, but some issues are clearer. You are not allowed to execute people or exact retribution because someone has violated you home.
As much as can be argued we live under the rule of law. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law, It is for a jury to arbitrate guilt and a judge to pass sentence. It's a process which is blatantly not perfect and there are many injustices but it is the hallmark of a civilised society. If you let the public dispense "justice" you will get murdered paediatricians because illiterate vigilantes can't tell the difference from paedophiles. If this concept with it's flaws is to hard to grasp, ask yourself, would you prefer to live in a place like Somalia with feudal warlords and complete lawlessness.
|
| thedelboy |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 09:33:56
I have in the past defended myself (and my home)from miscreants,And ended up in the crap with the local constabulary,thankfully I have a very good family who paid for my legal expenses (Which I claimed back)the charge excess use of force!! scuzzzze me I reacted on the spurr of the moment,and do not know if I would react in the same way if it ever happened again |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:35:57
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
If there is a lull after any initial confrontation, then you may stop short of cutting throats but as Nazz pointed out the intruder may have gone for a weapon and your initial rection may have stopped the intruder. Do you give them a second chance while the police decide if they are going to turn up?
If they are not stopped in their tracks then you have not exercised suffcient force.
Look, I realise that all this is rather arbitrary. At best we can hope for a working solution ... |
| long time no see |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:22:21
Since The UK Police
now have Tasers,
why not let The Public,
once passed a test on how to use it,
buy one.
It would be very handy for anyone who is unable
to tackle a Intruder. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:15:07
If there is a lull after any initial confrontation, then you may stop short of cutting throats but as Nazz pointed out the intruder may have gone for a weapon and your initial rection may have stopped the intruder. Do you give them a second chance while the police decide if they are going to turn up? |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:05:24
We are talking about reasonable force ... that would, I assume, mean enough force to stop the intruder and no more. Now, admittedly it is well nigh impossible to sit here in the comfort of my room, secure in the knowledge that no one is going to enter uninvited, to fully enter into the state of mind that I might find myself in were I confronted by an intruder. It is also difficult to know how I would react were I faced with that contingency.
However I think Hambag put it quite nicely when he said that it is one thing to stop an intruder in his/her tracks and another to slit his/her throat once you have done so ... |
| Daveb |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 19:57:51
There is no resonable answer to why did you break in to my property.
There is no reason to suspect if you challange an intruder you will get a reasonable response.
There is no reason to hold back as you may only get one chance.
Reason will leave the building if you are protecting your family.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 17:46:18
On the other hand ... I can see what Hambag is driving at. The difference is in unlimited as opposed to reasonable force. I don't think that the right to unlimited force is something most of us want to see in place. Admittedly the term reasonable can be rather open to interpretation and that seems to be the sticking point in a profession that delights itself on exacts ... facts and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Trouble is that what is one person's truth may not necessarily be another person's truth when it comes to bearing witness and by the same token what is reasonable force for one is not necessarily reasonable force for another. |
