Posted on 01/01/2004 4:31:32 PM PST by blam
BBC listeners want right to kill burglars
By Sally Pook
(Filed: 02/01/2004)
If listeners of the Today programme could introduce a new law to Britain, it would be one allowing them to kill an intruder in their home should the need arise.
That was the surprise - and, in the programme's own word, controversial - choice of listeners who voted for the piece of legislation they would most like to see in the statute book.
The audience for the Radio 4 programme were asked to put forward ideas that had a real chance of becoming law. Five were shortlisted and more than 26,000 took part in the final vote.
The winning idea, announced yesterday, would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their properties from intruders. It received 37 per cent of the vote.
It narrowly beat a proposed Bill making it mandatory for individuals to offer their organs for transplant after death, unless they specifically opted out.
Miranda Holt, the assistant editor of Today, said yesterday: "It is a controversial decision, I admit. We have received quite a lot of emails from our listeners about the result and some are horrified. None of us knew how the voting would turn out, but this shows there are a lot of people who are concerned about their properties.
"What surprised us more than anything, however, was the number of people who voted. Our listeners are certainly not apathetic."
The result was welcomed by Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his Norfolk home four years ago.
After hearing the outcome he said he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
He told the programme: "People now know what is going on and they are taking notice.
"It is heinously wrong that you should live in fear in your home. That if somebody breaks in you are going to have the law jump down on you. It is just not right."
Asked whether he would do the same thing again, he said: "In the same circumstances, yes, if I am terrorised. People are highly jeopardised in this country. We are looking bloody stupid in the world."
The other shortlisted Today proposals included a law to ban all Christmas advertising and the erection of municipal street decorations before Dec 1, which won five per cent of the vote.
A law to limit to two the number of terms a Prime Minister could serve and to make it compulsory to vote in general elections won nine per cent, while a law to ban smoking in all work places won 20 per cent.
Ms Holt admitted yesterday that the winning proposal was unlikely to become law, as did Stephen Pound, the Labour MP for Ealing North who has volunteered to persuade a colleague to promote the idea as a Private Member's Bill.
"My enthusiasm for democracy is slightly tempered to be perfectly honest," said Mr Pound.
"I can't remember who it was who said, 'The people have spoken - the bastards.' It is quite likely that this Bill is unworkable.
"In the end it depends on whether an MP is willing to take it forward. But just because Today listeners come up with the Tony Martin Memorial Bill doesn't mean it will become law."
Mr Pound preferred the runner-up and said he had already spoken about it to John Reid, the Health Secretary. "He is quite interested in it. We may be picking this one up as well."
Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, called on ministers to back the organ transplant idea. He said the Government should allow a free vote on the subject as part of an amendment to the Human Tissue Bill.
A vast array of ideas were put forward by Today listeners. Warren Edwardes suggested a No Small Print Bill. Hattie Brock, aged nine, suggested a Better School Dinners Bill, which would allow for pupils to eat chips only once a fortnight.
John Lee suggested Britain should adopt European time and Richard Tems said it should be illegal for employers to force their employees to work on nationally recognised public holidays.
Lynne Truss, the writer and broadcaster, wanted to legalise the defacing of public signs in order to improve grammar and Damon Albarn, of the pop group Blur, wanted to banish Pop Idol style "zombies".
One unnamed listener suggested that anyone caught towing a caravan should be beheaded.
Oughta be an obligation.
I liked "The people have spoken - the bastards." Sums it up for us peons, everywhere.
Is that a sign over the heart area saying "shoot here"
Yes, they do. But probably everybody looks bloody stupid to everybody else.
A "caravan" is a trailer.
Lock and load, limeys!
Although this has nothing to do with your argument, New York City has a lower murder rate than any other large city in the United States. And it went down again in '03.
This demonstrates that the editor doesn't "get it" any more than the rest of the people quoted in the article (other than Mr. Martin, who clearly does get it because he's experienced it.)
It's not "their properties" they're concerned about, you fool woman, it's their health, their lives, their wives' and childrens' lives, and the debilitating fear of living at the mercy of goblins all the time.
You'd think when Paul McCartney (or was it George Harrison?) was almost stabbed to death in his own home by an intruder and had to try to defend himself with a lamp, they would have gotten the message, but no . . .
I am so glad that I live in a country where I can defend myself from would-be burglars, housebreakers, and hoodlums. And yes, I have, twice. No shots were fired, and nobody was hurt. My dad, on the other hand, once shot a burglar in the @$$ with two barrels of bird shot. Never had any more trouble with burglars . . . .
Of all the nerve. I can think of a few things to call Mr. Pound as a matter of fact.
He was stabbed so badly that he couldn't even defend himself, I recall, and his wife was the one who attacked the intruder with a lamp!
That it most certainly is, at least from the point of view of the ordinary citizen. From the dismissive attitude of the politician quoted I'd guess it isn't high on his list of priorities, however, at least not as high as a little judicious organ farming from an electorate whose personal insecurities are not necessarily to his disadvantage. A population afraid is a population dependent on the government. Why should he change that?
Of course, a population enraged is a population that puts heads on pikes, and a politician sensitive enough to tell when a little advantageous fear turns into a lot of disadvantageous rage is one that can survive the storm. The rage here is at 37%. I think I'd be sitting up and taking notice at this point. They're nowhere near mandating legal possession of firearms, much less their use, and frankly I doubt they'll ever be (short of widespread violent anarchy). But it is encouraging that the prevalent attitude that no individual has a right to act in self-protection is under review. That is a bad, even a suicidal, idea, and every big-government pimp ever born loves it.
"The 10-minute struggle ended when 52-year-old Olivia Harrison struck Abram over the head with a table lamp, almost knocking him cold. Officers say without Mrs Harrison's intervention the situation could have been "much worse" and that "she is the real hero"."
Why can't the Brits see that effective weapons in the hands of responsible citizens are the best defense against weapons in the hands of the bad guys? (And the bad guys ALWAYS have weapons. That's why they're renaming English cities Gunchester and Bangingham . . . )
But as I don't have to live in Great Britain, I think I'll laugh!
Of course, if you're my dad, you run around the corner of the house, take cover behind the firewood, and yell, "HALT OR I'LL SHOOT!" followed in one nanosecond by BLAM! BLAM!. Of course, in that case I was the one who surprised the burglar breaking in a bedroom window. I was all of 12 years old, and I managed to maintain my Marine belly crawl for about ten seconds, then ran like a rabbit. The burglar exited the way he came, only to be caught in the crossfire of Dad's old Parker double, which he snatched up from the living room sofa when I screamed. Nothing like being shot by the very best.
They should be allowed to kill the intruders and then donate the organs.
I consider the rapid neutralization of home invaders to be a sacred duty. :)
Of course I live in Texas, where we are citizens, not subjects.
Poor old England, I hope they wake up in time from all the follies of their politicians' ways.
For those in the dark as to when lethal force can and cannot be used, some plain writing from the 17th century.
Nothing is to be accounted hostile force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal [to the law], and it is such force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him.
A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse on the highway, when perhaps I have not 12 pennies in my pocket.
This man I may lawfully kill.
To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore to me when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force. I endeavour to retake it.
The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully.
The reason whereof is plain to see; because the one using force which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it, and when it was gone it was too late to appeal.
The law could not restore life to my dead carcass.
The loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of Nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction.
But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I might Nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction.
But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I might have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds in that way.
John Locke, "An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government", Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", #207, originally published in England, 1690.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.