[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.

[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.

[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!

[satchmodog9]

Charles Clarke... Nice ears.

[Ohioan]

Traditional legal principles in the Anglo-American world recognize that one can use whatever force is necessary to prevent a felony. But I guess, there as here in many jurisdictions, they are more concerned that the criminal not be killed or badly injured than in the rights of law abiding people to protect the fruits of their lives' labor.

Frankly, I would allow a one year real estate tax abatement, to any home owner who benefitted society by terminating a burglar. (That is probably far too chintzy. The saved cost of incarcerating the bastard for even a year would justify a many year abatement.)

The greater benefit to the termination, of course, would be in an example that would save other weak brained individuals from a life of crime, and other home owners from a threat--including that of visits from the one terminated.

Surely, I have proposed a reform, here, whose time has come.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Paperdoll]

ECHOES OF THE FUTURE?


Shiver my timbers, this thread puts me in mind of "signs of things to come in Washington State as the darling of the King County burglars is sworn in as guv today."

[Paperdoll]

>(Gov't still wants you to hide in bathroom during break-ins)<

Talk about your constipation!

[AmericanChef]

Hope their mailing list to burglars is up to date 'cuz they're gonna wanna get the latest news: Attention residents!! If someone breaks into your home, you are to cease and desist, and let them do whatever they want! If you attempt to stop their plundering, you will be arrested and sentenced immediately!

[Oberon]

Great Britain needs to change its name. How about "Adequate Britain" or "Mediocre Britain"?

[Winniesboy]

There's widespread misunderstanding about the nature of British law on this issue, not only outside the UK (as some of these posts demonstrate) but within the country also. The fact is that British citizens do have, and have always had, the right to use reasonable force, which can include lethal force, on intruders to their property. As the Director of Public Prosecutions has just reminded us in a radio interview I've been listening to, for every much-publicised but rare case where a householder in these circumstances has been prosecuted, there have been approximately fifty cases where no action has been taken against the householder, even when that householder has used a firearm to lethal effect. The law chooses (arguably wisely) not to attempt to define what constitutes reasonable force, but to leave this to be determined by the very different individual circumstances of each case. Only rarely, when the Crown Prosecution Service decides there is a case to answer, is a prosecution brought: and it's then up to the jury, with direction from the judge on the legal precedents, to use their judgement on whether the force used is or is not reasonable in this particular case. The Tony Martin prosecution was brought only because the intruder was outside the property and running away when shot in the back: and in that case the jury decided (although the judge made it quite clear the arguments were finely balanced) that the degree of force used was not reasonable. Part of the problem with the massive publicity at home and abroad since then is that the impression given is that the Tony Martin prosecution is the norm in Britain, when in fact it's very much the exception. Oh, and before someone asks how lethal force can legally be used when there are no legally-owned guns in the UK, just a reminder that many guns (mostly shotguns) can be legally owned, are widespread, and have been used to lethal effect without prosecution in these circumstances.

[IamConservative]

Here's an idea, why not enact a law: "Everyone must hide their jewelry in the toilet tank."

When the burgler comes in, beat the sh$% out of him.

[Caipirabob]

"The death march of our society, our very culture, shall continue unabated, thank you."