Great Britain: No change on burglar law (Gov't still wants you to hide in bathroom during break-ins)

The Sun (U.K.) ^ | January 11, 2005

[Stoat]

No change ... Charles Clarke

BREAKING NEWS

No change on burglar law

By SUN ONLINE REPORTER

THERE will be no reform of the law on how much force householders can use to tackle a burglar, the Home Secretary has decided.

 

Charles Clarke ruled that existing legislation was "sound", but needs to be better explained.

Instead, a new campaign will educate the public about how far they can go to defend their property under current law.

Prime Minister Tony Blair last month said he would support a change in the law, if Government consultations showed it was necessary.

The move followed Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens's statement that people should be allowed to use what force was necessary when tackling intruders without facing prosecution.

At present the law says “reasonable force” can be used by householders, but campaigners complain that too many are subject to police investigation of their actions.

Debate on the issue followed the death of John Monckton who was stabbed to death during a burglary at his home in London's Chelsea last November.

• Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says.

[Stoat]

Please pray for our British Friends, that they might be safe despite their government doing whatever it can to ensure the contrary.

[lady lawyer]

A government that protects burglars in the act of burgling.

[SJSAMPLE]

"Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says"

With what, harsh language?
They willingly abandoned their right to self defense when they outlawed the tools of the trade.

[TXBSAFH]

Come to TX, our responce is somewhat different. A loaded 12ga Remington 870.

[SeamusVA]

They can always throw a glass of hot tea at the burglar.

[traviskicks]

In Israel and Switzerland, where all males (and possible females in Isreal, not sure) are given AK47s (as part of their mandatory military training) when they turn 18 there is little to no crime.

I wonder why.

[Fog Nozzle]

Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says.

"In the absence of a clear mandate, we'll just leave things as they are and begin the process of educating the public as to their humanitarian responsibilities towards house burglars." Chas. Clarke.

The sun has definitely set on the British Empire.

[lady lawyer]

The level of insanity evidenced by this law is hard to overstate. It's so easy to protect onesself from being shot while breaking into another's home. Simply don't do it. Why on earth should the government protect burglars?

[Personal Responsibility]

Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says.

I want to meet the other 1% of brits who think the burglars have equal or more rights than the homeowners.

[Slipperduke]

Rest assured, as long as I have my well-oiled Duncan Fearnley cricket bat under the bed, at least one Brit is still defensible.

[Gingersnap]

"Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says. "

I have zero understanding of how British politics work but shouldn't such a clear majority be able to get the laws changed? British FReepers! What's the story there?

[MarineBrat]

Go ahead... take my bidet!

[Stoat]

The level of insanity evidenced by this law is hard to overstate. It's so easy to protect onesself from being shot while breaking into another's home. Simply don't do it. Why on earth should the government protect burglars?

I believe that it's primarily because the government doesn't wish to admit that they are wrong in abrogating citizens of the UK of their basic rights to personal defense, and conferring those responsibilities entirely to the government.  This is a foundation of Socialism, and to suggest that The People are to be trusted in this matter would represent, in the government's view, an ideological collapse.

It would also provide a precedent in questioning the government's other fiefdoms, such as healthcare.  It would magnify the voices of those who are denied kidney dialysis machines because they are outside of a government-imposed statistical survivability demographic as well as a host of other people who are either denied or are suffering under restricted services of one type or another due to private industry and enterprise being shut out.

My great hope is that it won't be too long before the citizens of Great Britain will rise up en masse to protest and change these evils that are being inflicted upon them, entirely by the Left I might add.  They have been beaten down for far too long and deserve far better than this.

[Gorzaloon]

I have zero understanding of how British politics work but shouldn't such a clear majority be able to get the laws changed? British FReepers! What's the story there?

Those 99% are unarmed commoners.

Probably even drink at Workingmens' Clubs.

[beaver fever]

Edge only, not on the flat. If they don't obey the rules all bets are off.

[prion]

I have zero understanding of how British politics work but shouldn't such a clear majority be able to get the laws changed?

Not without an opposition party. The Tories have totally lost the plot and decided to run as Labour Lite. When the other guy's no better, what do you do?

[Slipperduke]

Oh, heavens above, no!

No thief in the dark is going to force me into a graceless stroke of the willow.

[Stoat]

Rest assured, as long as I have my well-oiled Duncan Fearnley cricket bat under the bed, at least one Brit is still defensible.

With all due respect and courtesy, when push comes to shove I am wondering which you would most likely want to lay your wager on?

OR

You, and all of our law-abiding British friends, deserve far better.  You deserve the RIGHT to walk into a legal, public gun shop and walk out with THIS today:

You also deserve:

• To be able to keep this and any other weapons of your choice in your own home, accessible to you at any time, and to have any amount of ammunition of your own choice available to you as well.
• To live in a society where it's understood that your person, and those around you are WORTHY of having their lives protected, by lethal force if necessary.
• To live in a society where it's understood that your HOME is worth defending against invasion, with lethal force if necessary.
• To be free from undue government harassment if you should be faced with the need to defend you property, your person, or those around you.

 

I will not be happy until you are afforded these rights, which we in America consider 'basic' rights.

If, after securing these rights you choose to use your cricket bat instead, then that is entirely your right also.  But I want the choice to be YOURS, not the government's.

(getting down off of soapbox now)    :-)

[beaver fever]

I say if the burglar enters the popping crease do him in smart fashion and the bye is yours.

Corporal, fetch me a gin and tonic, double quick march. That's a good man!

[Slipperduke]

Top man! Good show, old bean.

*slumps into deckchair with glass of pimms and The Daily Telegraph*