Posted on 12/08/2005 1:18:03 PM PST by David Hunter
A bill that would have allowed homeowners and shopkeepers to use greater force to defend themselves against burglars was 'talked out' of the House of Commons today.
To the dismay of Conservative MP Anne McIntosh, who proposed the private member's bill, the legislation ran out of time after Labour MP Andrew Dismore talked for a total of three hours and 17 minutes on the issue.
MPs are allowed to talk about a proposal as long as they stick to the subject and Mr Dismore - known for his long speeches in the Commons in the past - surpassed his own record and scuppered the bill at its second reading.
The former lawyer discussed the bill's legal minutiae at length in what Ms McIntosh described as "negative behaviour".
It was the second time the Conservatives had attempted to change the law in the victims' favour. Patrick Mercer's bill passed its second reading in the Commons earlier this year by 130 votes to four, but also ran out of parliamentary time.
Speaking after the debate, Ms McIntosh said: "The negative behaviour of government backbench MPs today shows that the Labour party simply do[es] not care about the rising fear of crime among the general public.
"This was a bill that was chosen initially by the people, was genuinely needed and had widespread support, yet Labour decided to block it."
She added that the bill was "necessary" and that she believed most people would have "given it their support".
"Sadly, the government felt that they could ignore this strength of feeling and maintain the unacceptable and inadequate status quo," Ms McIntosh said.
The bill would have amended current laws so that only people who used "grossly disproportionate force" against intruders on their property would have been liable for prosecution.
Its proponents, who included shadow home secretary David Davis, said it would have restored the balance between the criminal and the victim, but the government maintained property owners already had sufficient rights.
The initial version of this bill was suggested in a BBC radio programme phone-in poll:
...It was trailed as a "unique chance to rewrite the law of the land". Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.
But yesterday, 26,000 votes later, the winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament.
Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.
"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."... Article.
This bill could have prevented the prosecution by the pedants in the Crown Prosecution Service of law-abiding householders who had to resort to force against burglars, in cases such as this:
...He said he remembers walking into a downstairs bedroom and surprising a burglar who had climbed in through the window.
"I caught him and he lashed out at me and I reacted with the club that I had and I still have now, " Mr Godfrey-Brown said.
He struck the intruder, breaking his leg.
[snip]
After he hit the intruder, who turned out to be a soldier, the man "limped off" and Mr Godfrey-Brown called the police.
But Mr Godfrey-Brown, now retired and living in Devon, soon found out this was just the start of a nightmare - he was later charged with grievous bodily harm.
He pleaded not guilty and elected for a crown court trial to prove his innocence.
The stress of the pending case hung over him for months.
[snip]
He said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case around a week before the trial. He believes the reason given was insufficient evidence.
"I was exceedingly angry about that," he said. "I went through that drama of nine and a half months. Why couldn't the CPS have dropped it earlier?"... Article.
Contrast the way this bill was handled in the House of Commons (HoC) to the way the Home Office's latest pet project was dealt with:
When the ID cards bill was being debated (in January) it was passed before ten groups of amendments and six clauses could even be considered. This was because of a "guillotine motion" introduced by the government to rush the legislation through. They had a similar motion that meant the subsequent committee stage had to be completed by Thursday the 21st of July, even though they did not finish reviewing the whole bill or its amendments. The committee then produced a report, which was allowed just one hour of debate in the HoC. The Third Reading and debate of the bill in the HoC was limited to a single afternoon session.
The proposed national ID card scheme will do nothing to protect people in their homes from professional criminals, (nor prevent terrorism), but McIntosh's bill would have detered burglars and intruders from doing their dirty work and protected householders who had been forced to use physical force against burglars and the like. The Labour party are truly beneath contempt.
Well the great UK electorate keeps voting that rabble back in, this is (part of the price) they pay.
Maybe Gordon can devise a way to means test self defence LOL
It's obvious. The Socialist Labor Party, does
not want the serfs to think they have a right
to protect themselves and their own. The Labor
Party wants all such decisions to be made by
them.
Also, things that are blunt are banned, and things that are heavy are banned, and things that are blunt AND heavy are RIGHT OUT AS WELL!!!
Well, lets see... that about cover it then??? if not, Run Away... RUN AWAY!!!
Can't make it up.
I didn't vote for those worthless idiots, in fact in England more people voted for the Conservative party than voted for Labour and Blair only won because our skewed constituency boundaries gave him a majority of English MPs. Across the whole UK, Labour was elected on just 21.6% of the eligible vote and no party has a majority in the House of Lords! (The smallest proportion of the vote of any government majority since 1832). Hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies. During the last Parliament Blair was only able to impose his controversial top-up fee legislation because he had the support of Scottish MPs, (whose constituents would not even be affected by the new rules). This is particularly insulting to the English as Labour has given Scotland a Parliament to address its demands for self-government.
You might be interested in this...
You are talking about a government that wanted
to make Chef's knives illegal. Because the
doctors said that they were used in too many
attacks, and should be taken away from people
who are not doctors or professional chefs.
Can they get to be bigger buffoon brains?
Count on it.
OK, had forgotten those election facts. So when is the next boundary commission report due ?
OK, had forgotten those election facts. So when is the next boundary commission report due ?
Indeed, anyone acquainted with history and origins of a Criminal code in the English speaking world, should know that the whole reason for outlawing private vengeance, after a crime, was that the State would prosecute and punish and prevent a form of anarchy, with family feuds, etc.. The idea was never to tilt the balance against a property owner defending what was his, while a crime was in progress. Traditionally, a property owner could use whatever force was necessary to prevent a felony--burglary and theft above a small amount, both being felonies. Terminating a criminal, where necessary to prevent the completion of such a crime was always permissable, before the Socialist war on legitimate human achievement reached its present levels of success.
This sort of news should fill all decent people with a sense of revulsion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
yup...
'The current [boundary commission] review must be completed by April 2007, but the Commission expect to finish during 2006.' Source.
I understand the British culture, and the wild west frontier mentality of firearm possession is a uniquely American thing, but British culture is also being changed by a lax immigration policy, and many of the new arrivals don't have the traditional British views regarding criminal violence.
I quite agree. Unfortunately, the social liberals and the NuLabour cretins are in the process of turning Britain into an anarcho-tyranny. A nation where the control of genuinely dangerous elements (like professional criminals) is put on the back burner, but the surveillance, legal harassment and taxation of the law-abiding citizenry is increased in leaps and bounds.
What has happened here is shameful and you can be sure that myself and many of my associates at Free Britannia will be writing some very frank letters to Andrew Dismore MP after his disgraceful behaviour. Most British people supported this law change and its just typical that this incident has received so little publicity from the leftist BBC.
The right to own firearms is a different issue to the subject of the article of course. Most people in Britain who are against the private ownership of firearms are profoundly ignorant about them and regrettably this trait is shared by most MPs. I very much support a right for householders to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defence in their homes. Unfortunately, this opinion would be regarded by most Britons as highly controversial.
We have the same debate in America about self-defense as Britain does, and the various states have wildly different standards as to how much force can be used and under what circumstances.
But even in the most liberal states in America, the amount of force allowed is higher than what you may use.
Now combine this with the American cop who joined the police over there, then quit because they won't allow cops to be armed when going into dangerous situations (such as first responders to robberies).
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.