Clarke: Hands off burglars

[Mon Ami Mate]

Clearly in touch with his electorate, after a careful review our new Home Office Minister has come out on the side of thieving scumbags...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4167865.stm

Intruder law will stay unchanged

The current law allows 'reasonable' force to be used in defence
The law on the amount of force householders can use against burglars will not be changed, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has announced.
A review has concluded the current law, which allows people to use "reasonable force" against intruders, is "sound".

But Mr Clarke says there will be a publicity campaign to ensure people understand they can protect themselves.

The Tories want a change so only those using "grossly disproportionate force" would risk being prosecuted.

That call has been backed by outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, saying people were uncertain about what was allowed.

Publicity campaign

Mr Clarke's announcement on Wednesday came just ahead of Tory MP Patrick Mercer's private member's bill for changing the law getting a first reading in Parliament.

The home secretary said: "I have concluded that the current law is sound but needs to be better explained to all concerned, especially for householders."

A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public

Chris Fox
Association of Chief Police Officers

He said the review, announced by the prime minister last month, had included consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the director of public prosecutions.


Mr Clarke said the CPS had recently issued guidance on when people should be charged and Acpo was ensuring police officers understood the current law.

Information would shortly be published and advertised to the public so people were clear "that the current law ensures that appropriate steps to protect themselves, their family and their property will always be justified".

Public pressure

Mr Mercer said he was extremely disappointed by the news but said he would continue to try to get his bill passed, especially as several police officers had supported the move.

He pointed to a survey for Virgin Money Insurance which suggested that 87% of people think current law on the issue is weighted in favour of criminals.

"This is public opinion, this is democracy, I'm amazed the home secretary is choosing to ignore this," said Mr Mercer, claiming Labour was treating his bill as a political football.

Acpo president Chris Fox said that amid "real public concern", it was important everybody knew that police and prosecutors would support people using appropriate force to confront burglars.

He argued: "A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public and improve their confidence in the criminal justice system."

[BliarOut]

I think we just need to see a few more dead burglars to back the governments words on this

[richardthestag]

Mon Ami Mate said:

The Tories want a change so only those using "grossly disproportionate force" would risk being prosecuted.

There that seems like an open and shut case, just when I wasn't sure who I would vote for this year

[lanciachris]

the article said:

Mr Clarke says there will be a publicity campaign to ensure people understand they can protect themselves.

Im envisaging tv ads of burglars entering homes and being set upon by starved dogs. and sponsored re-runs of the home alone movies

[love machine]

Edited to remove hopping mad rant.

>> Edited by love machine on Wednesday 12th January 15:05

[apache]

Mon Ami Mate said:

He argued: "A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public and improve their confidence in the criminal justice system."

There, don't you feel all reassured and confident?

confident and sure that the law never will favour those who can pay a fine

[jacobyte]

Makes me seethe.

Yesterday our 13yr old girl came back from school. An older girl had stormed into the classroom, walked up to another girl in the class and started beating her up, saying "you gave my frined a dirty look, you fg bitch".

Because of the nannying laws of this country, the teacher was not allowed to physically make contact with her. He could only stand there and tell her to get off. Eventually several kids managed to prise the attacker off, but not before some very nasty damage had been done.

When the attacked girl woke up she couldn't even remember her own name - Fortunately she will be OK, but certainly not for a few weeks.

We all know full well that there will be no punishment. Lucky for the teacher that he didn't intervene or he'd almost certianly be doing time.

When will the bloody lentilists realise that they are doing more harm than good when protecting scum like that?

:exasperated:

[cotty]

I consider anyone entering my house uninvited in the middle of the night through a locked door a threat to my life and I will respond with equal force. If they dont like it, don’t break in.

[cotty]

love machine said:

Edited to remove hopping mad rant. >> Edited by love machine on Wednesday 12th January 15:05

nah should have left it in

[cotty]

jacobyte said:

Makes me seethe. Yesterday our 13yr old girl came back from school. An older girl had stormed into the classroom, walked up to another girl in the class and started beating her up, saying "you gave my frined a dirty look, you fg bitch". Because of the nannying laws of this country, the teacher was not allowed to physically make contact with her. He could only stand there and tell her to get off. Eventually several kids managed to prise the attacker off, but not before some very nasty damage had been done. When the attacked girl woke up she couldn't even remember her own name - Fortunately she will be OK, but certainly not for a few weeks. We all know full well that there will be no punishment. Lucky for the teacher that he didn't intervene or he'd almost certianly be doing time. When will the bloody lentilists realise that they are doing more harm than good when protecting scum like that? :exasperated:

If that had happened in my old school she would have been dragged off the other girl by her hair marched up to the headmaster with much hair pulling on the way and then caned.

Ps it was a boys school I went to, don’t know how they disiplined gilrs in the olden days

[cotty]

Isnt Charles Clark the guy with the stubble and the sticky out eays who look like a teddy bear

And by teddy bear I mean someone I would like to drop an anvil on

[Eric Mc]

I've always wondered whether we need new legislation or just a different interpretation of the current legislation i.e a reinterpretation of what "reasonable force " should mean.

Better guidance for judges and juries is probably all that is required rather thsn a whole raft of new rules, regulations, definitions, test cases etc etc etc.

And yes, that is him - although to me he resembles more closely an annoying cartoon interpretation of a mouse - a bit like the mouse in "An American Tale".

>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 12th January 15:25

[love machine]

It is pointless ranting because it is met like this....

"You don't have to tell me, I know".

That basically sums it up. Come the revolution, I want all their heads on sticks.

[cotty]

Oh come on why cant we just whack the thieves, they’d do it to us and they know there in the wrong and should not be breaking in

>> Edited by cotty on Wednesday 12th January 15:28

[granville]

love machine said:

It is pointless ranting because it is met like this.... "You don't have to tell me, I know". That basically sums it up. Come the revolution, I want all their heads on sticks.

Would you care for a membership form? :hehe?

[mondeoman]

Stupid Home Secretary Geezer said:

Mr Clarke said the CPS had recently issued guidance on when people should be charged and Acpo was ensuring police officers understood the current law.

The only guidance that is required there is

NEVER

You break into someones house, you lose all entitlement to fair treatment.

How about the CPS issuing guidance on when crims should be charged?

[jacobyte]

cotty said:

jacobyte said: Makes me seethe. Yesterday our 13yr old girl came back from school. An older girl had stormed into the classroom, walked up to another girl in the class and started beating her up, saying "you gave my frined a dirty look, you fg bitch". Because of the nannying laws of this country, the teacher was not allowed to physically make contact with her. He could only stand there and tell her to get off. Eventually several kids managed to prise the attacker off, but not before some very nasty damage had been done. When the attacked girl woke up she couldn't even remember her own name - Fortunately she will be OK, but certainly not for a few weeks. We all know full well that there will be no punishment. Lucky for the teacher that he didn't intervene or he'd almost certianly be doing time. When will the bloody lentilists realise that they are doing more harm than good when protecting scum like that? :exasperated: If that had happened in my old school she would have been dragged off the other girl by her hair marched up to the headmaster with much hair pulling on the way and then caned. Ps it was a boys school I went to, don’t know how they disiplined gilrs in the olden days

I went to a boys school, too. At my prep school we had a few girls there, and just like the boys they would get the cane (but only on their hands).

[chassis 33]

jacobyte said:

Because of the nannying laws of this country, the teacher was not allowed to physically make contact with her. He could only stand there and tell her to get off. Eventually several kids managed to prise the attacker off, but not before some very nasty damage had been done. When the attacked girl woke up she couldn't even remember her own name - Fortunately she will be OK, but certainly not for a few weeks. We all know full well that there will be no punishment. Lucky for the teacher that he didn't intervene or he'd almost certianly be doing time.

I do voluntary youth work at a local centre, and while the cold letter of the law, IMO, says contravines the fact that the teacher is responsible for the wellbeing of the pupils, the school property and themselves.

My take on this in my work, from the training i have undergone, is that if, say, two "equally built" 14yo's are having a scrap, leave them to it. Chances are it will end as quickly as it started with nothing more than bruised prides.

If a 14yo is beating the crap out of a 10yo, or an individual is known to be persistantly bullying another, i get involved. Then, there are official routes to report the incident. If either of them or their parents want me arrested for that so be it, i will feel no shame being sent down for my actions if they resulted in another staying safe. While the kids are in the youth centre it is my resonsablity for them to leave safe and unharmed.

Thats not to say i would go and knock the agressor out, but it is possible to restrain an individual in order to protect another, or indeed take action to prevent injury, by "getting in between" the two individuals, and removing one or the other to the refuge of the centre's office.

My 2p

Regards
Iain

[richardthestag]

jacobyte said:

I went to a boys school, too. At my prep school we had a few girls there, and just like the boys they would get the cane (but only on their hands).

As oposed to their what ?

I only ever got the stick across my hand. The arse end of things was reserved for, Clifford, the size 16 plimsole, who was often delivered with a run up that would put a fast bowler to shame.

[granville]

jacobyte said:

Makes me seethe. Yesterday our 13yr old girl came back from school. An older girl had stormed into the classroom, walked up to another girl in the class and started beating her up, saying "you gave my friend a dirty look, you fg bitch". Because of the nannying laws of this country, the teacher was not allowed to physically make contact with her. He could only stand there and tell her to get off. Eventually several kids managed to prise the attacker off, but not before some very nasty damage had been done... We all know full well that there will be no punishment. Lucky for the teacher that he didn't intervene or he'd almost certianly be doing time. When will the bloody lentilists realise that they are doing more harm than good when protecting scum like that? :exasperated:

Remember the wierd trio of oriental wizard warriors with unfeasibly large, upturned wicker washing baskets on their heads, from the seminal flick 'Big Trouble in Little China?'

At the film's end, our hero, the venerable Kurtinium Russelaggio, dispatches the baddies' leader & overall head honcho with his usual, blundering guile.

At the sight of the demise of his master, one of the three, loyal basket case acolytes, is so enraged that he begins to expand, unfeasibly and simply explode with uncontrollable rage.

Precisely the effect of liberalism and frankly, exactly how nazi Germany started...