Homeowners who attack burglars to be protected (From Bucks Free Press)

"GREATER protections for home owners who attack burglars during break ins "

Those few words just about sum up the pathetic laws in this country. Human rights gone mad.

I'm pretty sure if you rough-up a perpetrator and apply a blow-torch "which I was using at the time" to his genitalia, then you are still looking at a stretch inside.

How about an "anything goes" rule Chris?

'Bash a burglar' .... and pray tell what is wrong with that? Don't want to be bashed, then don't burgle ... easy. Personally, I like Stalemate's view, "anything goes" and the application of blow torch to the nether regions! Tigeran hit the nail on the head re the Human Rights laws; not in my house Mr Burglar, your on your own!!

At last the rights of the home owner take priority over the rights of the burglar.
~
No doubt once the law comes in an awful lot of burglars will be taken to the police station via the A&E department of the nearest hospital...
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.

It is probably worthwhile mentioning that the case of Munir Hussain quoted in this article is completely irrelevant.

Grayling is talking about a law change that will allow homeowners to physically defend their home, in their home.

In the case of Munir, he went out on the street to physically attack an intruder.

Also, most people do not know the person burgling their home, so the attack cannot be in anyway personal or vengeful.

I do wish the BFP would get its facts straight before talking about specific cases. That guy deserved jail for what he did and anyone who does the same after Grayling brings these changes on to the statute books will still be going to jail.

The law already allows someone to use reasonable force to protect their home.

This is just soundbite-politics designed to sound good to the Torygraph and Daily Wail reading right wingers.

Kadoogan wrote:
The law already allows someone to use reasonable force to protect their home.

This is just soundbite-politics designed to sound good to the Torygraph and Daily Wail reading right wingers.

Oh god, another bleeding heart with no idea what they are talking about........ Lets just hope you never get burgled and have to defend your family or property eh?! Would be a different story then wouldnt it?!

tigeran wrote:

Kadoogan wrote:
The law already allows someone to use reasonable force to protect their home.

This is just soundbite-politics designed to sound good to the Torygraph and Daily Wail reading right wingers.

Oh god, another bleeding heart with no idea what they are talking about........ Lets just hope you never get burgled and have to defend your family or property eh?! Would be a different story then wouldnt it?!

Again, the current law allows for reasonable force in defending your property. A position I fully agree with, so take your pathetic 'bleeding heart' bleatings and shove it.

Kadoogan wrote:

tigeran wrote:

Kadoogan wrote:
The law already allows someone to use reasonable force to protect their home.

This is just soundbite-politics designed to sound good to the Torygraph and Daily Wail reading right wingers.

Oh god, another bleeding heart with no idea what they are talking about........ Lets just hope you never get burgled and have to defend your family or property eh?! Would be a different story then wouldnt it?!

Again, the current law allows for reasonable force in defending your property. A position I fully agree with, so take your pathetic 'bleeding heart' bleatings and shove it.

You are talking rubbish just like all limpy left whingers! The only thing pathetic here is your understanding of right and wrong!
Like I said if you ever have to endure a break in you would be the first to go crying to mummy complaining about it!! LOL!!
Please, go home to mummy where it is much safer and you wont be traumatised by the outside world, bless x.

From the Directgov website (the website of the UK Government), this is how the law currently stands:

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/CrimeJustice
AndTheLaw/VictimsOfC
rime/DG_069883

So then tigeran, one of us knows what they are talking about, and it's clearly not you.

Kadoogan wrote:
From the Directgov website (the website of the UK Government), this is how the law currently stands:

http://www.direct.go

v.uk/en/CrimeJustice

AndTheLaw/VictimsOfC

rime/DG_069883

So then tigeran, one of us knows what they are talking about, and it's clearly not you.

My my you are on a power trip arent you! The law is limp and so are your views, its quite simple! Now dont get your knickers in a twist, its ok to be wrong, just please dont take it to heart and do anything rash. You will realise your failings one day but until that day I would advise you stay at home with mummy and please, BE CAREFUL! x

tigeran wrote:

Kadoogan wrote:
From the Directgov website (the website of the UK Government), this is how the law currently stands:

http://www.direct.go


v.uk/en/CrimeJustice


AndTheLaw/VictimsOfC


rime/DG_069883

So then tigeran, one of us knows what they are talking about, and it's clearly not you.

My my you are on a power trip arent you! The law is limp and so are your views, its quite simple! Now dont get your knickers in a twist, its ok to be wrong, just please dont take it to heart and do anything rash. You will realise your failings one day but until that day I would advise you stay at home with mummy and please, BE CAREFUL! x

The only thing that is 'quite simple' here is you.

I have no worries about dealing with a burglar should I be unfortunate enough to have one in my home, because I know the law supports me in defending it. You'll be the one cowering in the corner wimpering about how evil bleeding hearts won't let you do anything. I advise you to build yourself a bunker with a big thick steel door so you'll be safe from the big bad liberals. Be sure to line it with lead.

Kadoogan wrote:

tigeran wrote:

Kadoogan wrote:
From the Directgov website (the website of the UK Government), this is how the law currently stands:

http://www.direct.go



v.uk/en/CrimeJustice



AndTheLaw/VictimsOfC



rime/DG_069883

So then tigeran, one of us knows what they are talking about, and it's clearly not you.

My my you are on a power trip arent you! The law is limp and so are your views, its quite simple! Now dont get your knickers in a twist, its ok to be wrong, just please dont take it to heart and do anything rash. You will realise your failings one day but until that day I would advise you stay at home with mummy and please, BE CAREFUL! x

The only thing that is 'quite simple' here is you.

I have no worries about dealing with a burglar should I be unfortunate enough to have one in my home, because I know the law supports me in defending it. You'll be the one cowering in the corner wimpering about how evil bleeding hearts won't let you do anything. I advise you to build yourself a bunker with a big thick steel door so you'll be safe from the big bad liberals. Be sure to line it with lead.

I fully understand your resentment but like I said being wrong is nothing to be ashamed of, if anything use it to grow with, feed off it to become a better person, you will feel better over time!
Ok if it makes you feel better about being wrong, I will be 'quite simple'. Now like I said try to stay calm, dont do anything silly and take yourself off home to mummy where you will be safe and sound! Feel better now? I hope so. Just remember I am here to help! x

P.S you CAN become a better person!

Wow...you positively rejoice in your own stupidity don't you?

Resentment? What am I resenting exactly?

In support of your views so far you have presented lots of bile. I have presented information from the government's own website. Please therefore provide some proof about how I am wrong that doesn't come from your own fevered imagination. Or just make another post like your previous three and remove any remaining doubt that you are a moron.

Perhaps you could leave your bedroom for a moment to ask mummy and daddy for help with the big words?

Kadoogan wrote:
Wow...you positively rejoice in your own stupidity don't you?

Resentment? What am I resenting exactly?

In support of your views so far you have presented lots of bile. I have presented information from the government's own website. Please therefore provide some proof about how I am wrong that doesn't come from your own fevered imagination. Or just make another post like your previous three and remove any remaining doubt that you are a moron.

Perhaps you could leave your bedroom for a moment to ask mummy and daddy for help with the big words?

If it makes you feel better then yes, I am a moron, and I do have a fevered imagination and ok, i will rejoice in my own stupidity if it really does help you but please dont go hurting yourself, its not worth it! Take care! x

Bless! Who would have thought the woolly brigade could get so worked up?!!! I am impressed!!

I note that you still cannot actually debate the subject at hand, and are therefore continuing to reply in a manner the average 6 year-old would be ashamed of.

Typical behaviour of someone on the far left or right who deal solely in soundbites, and can't back them up.

Kadoogan wrote:
I note that you still cannot actually debate the subject at hand, and are therefore continuing to reply in a manner the average 6 year-old would be ashamed of.

Typical behaviour of someone on the far left or right who deal solely in soundbites, and can't back them up.

Will you get back in your pram!!

You mummy must be so disappointed in you.

Kadoogan wrote:
You mummy must be so disappointed in you.

Ok, I admit this is all a bit childish!

Can you please answer me one question, if this law is 'adequate' then how come so many times you here of the victim (the house owner) being hauled up in court for defending their own property? If the law can be interpreted like that how can it be adequate?

Does this include if they come on to your property your drive way, your garden,trying to steal your car, trying to get into your shed, they are tooled up surely you should be able to protect yourself in the same way

Because they may have gone beyond defence of their home and into handing out their own form of punishment, which is a separate thing. The court is there to decide whether they did or not.

You should also consider the fact that you are rarely going to hear about all the occasions where someone used reasonable force and did not end up in court. 'Homeowner deals with burglar in lawful manner' isn't a story that sells newspapers, so doesn't get printed, or reported on TV.

I would agree that there will be some cases that end up in court that shouldn't have gone that far (as is the case for many of our laws). In such cases those involved with taking it forward should learn from the experience for dealing with future cases.

I absolutely stand by the fact that the law does not need to be changed. The application of it may be incorrect on occasion, but there are better things to spend time and money doing than making wholesale changes to a law that already does what most people want it to do.

Kadoogan wrote:
Because they may have gone beyond defence of their home and into handing out their own form of punishment, which is a separate thing. The court is there to decide whether they did or not.

You should also consider the fact that you are rarely going to hear about all the occasions where someone used reasonable force and did not end up in court. 'Homeowner deals with burglar in lawful manner' isn't a story that sells newspapers, so doesn't get printed, or reported on TV.

I would agree that there will be some cases that end up in court that shouldn't have gone that far (as is the case for many of our laws). In such cases those involved with taking it forward should learn from the experience for dealing with future cases.

I absolutely stand by the fact that the law does not need to be changed. The application of it may be incorrect on occasion, but there are better things to spend time and money doing than making wholesale changes to a law that already does what most people want it to do.

I understand your point entirely, especially about the media fueled hysteria over 'you cant do anything anymore' but I still believe that if someone has broken into someone elses property then that is where any laws protecting that person ends. You broke into someones house, where you should not be and the owner batters you to within an inch of your life? Tough luck, you should not have been there in the first place. Any law that allows even the slightest chance of a criminal prosecuting a victim because they were defending their property is a waste of time and ours does.
This country's laws nowadays appear provide more protection for the criminal than the victim and its about time things changed. Human rights? Does not always seem to work both ways!

Children Children, now then