[Drizzt]

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
05 May 2003

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=403287&host=3&dir=60

;) StandingWolf: Would you like me to go ahead and post your comment for ya? :p

[CZ-75]

I can't wait to see how agricola spins this one. ;)

[WonderNine]

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[cordex]

*laugh*

This is a joke ... right? Where'd you get this? The Onion?

Very, very funny.
Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".
Question:
Does this count as "Hue and cry"?

[agricola]

Sad to say, this is entirely understandable. Martin was justly found guilty of the killing for two main reasons - the statements that he made to Police were found to be inconsistent with the other aspects of the case (ie: he stated that the burglars were attacking him, the evidence suggested they had been fleeing); and secondly because he had a long history of behaviour that showed he at least had a callous disregard for anyone who he considered was a trespasser, or worse a trespasser and a gypsy.

Now Martin is fool enough to state in front of the Parole Board that he wont be a threat to anyone except those that he considers are trespassing - given that in the past his behaviour has included shooting at apple scrumpers and shooting out his brothers windows after an argument, its clear (and indeed was found in the appeal) that Martin lacks the ability to make the judgement regarding the proper use of force for a given situation.

Hence he remains inside. On one level its like a bloke who stabs someone after a road rage incident saying ""Well I wont do it again as long as noone cuts me up".

[Kharn]

I wonder what those guys are smoking, and if the Democrats have a stash of it.

Agricola:
On one level its like a bloke who stabs someone after a road rage incident saying ""Well I wont do it again as long as noone cuts me up". So you're saying someone (ex-cons are people too) should just take a knife to the chest and try to walk away? :rolleyes: Everyone has a right to life, that includes the right to fight back, and if necessary, kill the person or persons that are attempting to kill you. You might not recognize it as a right, but it is.

Kharn

[agricola]

kharn,

Which is the nub here. Martin did not face a deadly threat from either of those burglars and yet killed one and wounded another. Thats not "the right to preserve life" - in fact its the opposite of it.

[Kharn]

Agricola: Its a simple concept, enter someone's house after dark to commit a crime and expect to die; even the Bible says that a homeowner cannot be punished for killing an intruder during the night.

Kharn

[c_yeager]

Which is the nub here. Martin did not face a deadly threat from either of those burglars and yet killed one and wounded another.

So what exactly makes you qualified to determine that the burglars didnt pose a deadly threat to Mr Martin? Would you be willing to bet your life on that? It appears that Mr Martin wasnt.

[agricola]

kharn: yep, unfortunately we live in a system of law and rights of man and not according to religious doctrine so your point is invalid.

c_yeager: i can make that assumption because a jury of the mans peers found him guilty of the crime of murder based on the facts of the case.

[Monte Harrison]

This mindset, the whole notion of protecting criminals, is absolutely baffling to me. It is absolutely no mystery why crime in the UK is skyrocketing. "Come on in and take what you want, even murder and rape us if you like! We won't stop you!"
I don't care what the bahble says about anything. Someone who thinks they have the right to enter another person's home and take their possessions and/or threaten their safety is NOT someone who deserves to be protected from harm from the homeowner. QUITE the contrary! Break into my house while I am home, and you WILL stop a bullet, and the police and Arkansas law will be foursquare behind me! This is exactly as it should be!

Whew, gotta stop and take some deep breaths after reading stuff like this.
Ohmmmmmm..........Ohmmmmmm...........

[CZ-75]

The spin is making me dizzy.

Nearly every point made has been about Tony Martin, rather than whether burglars and other home invaders should be allowed damages for injury suffered in the commission of their crimes. :rolleyes:

[agricola]

cz,

that was dealt with in the article itself:

"A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month."

noone is saying that burglars should be able to sue those who prevent them committing their crimes, but like it or not they still enjoy the protection of the law when they get shot in the back.

[CZ-75]

Government lawyers...will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

I've redacted the above to omit reference to Martin.

Please tell me how the article has dealt with this concept.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

The statment above is the only thing the article has said about the matter.

Not a positive outcome by any means.

noone is saying that burglars should be able to sue those who prevent them committing their crimes, but like it or not they still enjoy the protection of the law when they get shot in the back.

I don't believe the govt. lawyers are arguing just to protect criminals fleeing the scene. You may think that they are, but I posit that this will hinder every homeowner's attempt to defend themselves and property by making them subject to damages in so doing.

[agricola]

cz,

the article doesnt say anything of the kind (one would expect better from the Guardian's Sunday sister paper). the statement of the lawyers:

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

refers to the criminal liability of a homeowner when in the same situation as Martin, or the chap from Tottenham. The reporter then tries to spin it so as to say that this means that the burglar will find it easier to sue the homeowner - which is patently nonsense.

Like it or not, when you commit an offence you do not lose all your rights as a citizen - thats been the case ever since the days of the Gracchi.

[UnknownSailor]

In defense of agricola, even through most of the United States, you can't shoot a fleeing criminal in the back with a 12ga. Mr. Martin would have been up for murder in the States, too.

The statements of the attourney concerning Mr. Martin's alleged threat to criminals if he were to be paroled is an insight into the mindset of the police, IMO, and the British government (by association):
The rabble aren't supposed to protect themselves, and burglers need protection from homeowners.

[CZ-75]

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

Did they really say "unlawful," or is this an "understood" statement in parentheses? If not, then why wouldn't this open up unlimited liability for homeowners?

What exactly are the distinctions for "unlawful"?

Would it be "unlawful" to hit a burglar with a cudgel while they were in the commission of a burglary? Stab them while they were coming at you?

If all means of resistance on the part of the homeowner are "unlawful," then wouldn't he be liable as the writer has suggested? Considering the laws regarding meaningful methods of defense in the UK, I think this is a strong possibility.

[buzz_knox]

kharn: yep, unfortunately we live in a system of law and rights of man and not according to religious doctrine so your point is invalid.


Actually, in the civilized world, there is a presumption of intent to cause harm sufficient to justify deadly force when someone enters an occupied residence at night.

[Mute]

noone is saying that burglars should be able to sue those who prevent them committing their crimes,

And how exactly is one supposed to prevent dangerous criminals from committing their crimes without using force that may prove to be lethal to a criminal? Perhaps sewing a big letter S on all your clothing? Maybe farting in their general direction?

[agricola]

cz:

I dunno, but it was probably added by either the journo or the sub-editor because of the word that comes next (murder) which is of course an unlawful killing. the point is not, as so many here would wish, that a man cannot defend himself in his own home - but rather that just because a burglar has broken into your property does not suspend his protection under law. As many of you are no doubt aware, pretty much all of our legislation regarding weapons recognizes the difference between ones home / other private property and a public place, so the percieved lack ofmeaningful methods of defense in the UK is less applicable (if indeed it ever is)

mute:

you cant 100% prevent people committing crime - even in the idealised CCW world. all you can do is make it as likely as possible that the criminal will face the justice of his or her peers.

buzz:

youre joking, right?

[buzz_knox]

Nope, not in the least. You said that the law didn't recognize the principle and I simply stated that most civilized nations do hold precisely that. The common law (which we inherited from pre-socialist Great Britain) was that "a man's home was his castle" (in the non-PC parlance of the time). It basically said that if you break into it when the owner is there and you can have reasonably expected the owner to be there, the law will presume that you chose to commit the crime when the owner was there and thus had an intent to harm the owner. Great Britain has, unfortunately, eliminated this doctrine.

Perhaps our difference is that for me, civilized means respecting the right of self-defense and personal safety, not the right to be free to rob those who are disarmed by goverment fiat.

[agricola]

ok then, what if the burglar runs off?

[buzz_knox]

If he gets out the door, then he gets away, to be caught or not later on. But if you were to open fire while he's in the house, IMHO, I doubt if there would be charges given that he is still in the house and still a threat. Is he running for cover or is he running away? A reasonable person would generally believe that a person who has already made the decision to invade your home while you're there is prepared for a confrontation.

[agricola]

What if youre asleep? A house with no lights on and someone asleep upstairs looks a lot like a house with no lights on and someone on holiday, especially to the casual criminal. The law must take the standpoint that one can only take a life if you or someone else is directly threatened by another. Simply breaking into your house is not enough justification for the killing of another - there must be other factors present.

Do you think the Martin killing was justified?

[Geech]

Why err on the side of the criminal, agricola? We have no way of knowing the intent of the criminal. We have no way of knowing how far the criminal was willing to go. It's entirely possible that even if the perp thought the house was empty that he'd be willing to kill anyone inside.

[buzz_knox]

What if youre asleep? A house with no lights on and someone asleep upstairs looks a lot like a house with no lights on and someone on holiday, especially to the casual criminal. The law must take the standpoint that one can only take a life if you or someone else is directly threatened by another. Simply breaking into your house is not enough justification for the killing of another - there must be other factors present.

It already takes those factors into account. It recognizes that a home is not the same as an office or store, where one can expect it won't be occupied after business hours. The very purpose of a home is to be inhabited at night. The law presumes in favor of the homeowner, and rightly so. What standard would you accept? Allow the homeowner to fight back after the home invader demonstrates his intent with a couple of shots or stabs?

As for the Martin situation, honestly, I don't have an opinion on it. He did something stupid, but the "victim" was scum.

One clarification is in order, to forestall the typical argument about the law not giving homeowners the right to execute someone. What the law recognizes is that in the confines of a home where you generally don't have the means or duty to retreat safely, if you kill an intruder, the belief that the person's uninvited and unrestrained presence is a threat will be deemed reasonable. If you order that person not to move and/or to leave, and they comply, then you do not have the right to pop them in the back of the head as a summary sanction for waking you up. If they refuse to comply or engage in furtive movements after seeming to comply, the presumption that they are up to no good remains.

[Don Gwinn]

I think the Martin killing was entirely justified, if the facts as reported are to be believed. There are several dozen reasons they might have been turned away from him when he shot them, and one is that they were fleeing, but that doesn't make it so. Even if they were literally running in the opposite direction from him, that doesn't mean they had decided they would leave and not attempt to harm them. It means that in that instant they were withdrawing at least one step farther from him.

Buzz Knox is not kidding about the presumption of intent. If someone breaks into my house tonight, I am to assume that he means harm to my family. I will attempt to capture him, and if he disobeys commands I will shoot him. If he turns his back while disobeying my commands, I will still shoot him. Afterward, I will surely wish I hadn't had to shoot him, but the choice was entirely his. All I did was sleep in my own house. He came looking for trouble and found it. If I believe he's armed and he makes even the most slightly threatening move toward my family, he's dead where he stands. We call that "the reasonable belief that you, or someone else, are in danger of imminent deadly harm."

Back in the day, my grandpa shot a man in his backyard who was attempting to steal his chickens. Now, there was no reason to assume that man would come inside to kill grandpa, but grandpa needed those chickens. They were his and he had invested much time and labor in increasing them. The other man had no right to them, but grandpa wasn't keen on going out in the dark and having a wrestling match to find out if he had a knife, so he did the pragmatic thing: he shot the poor, downtrodden son of society squarely in the buttocks with two loads of rock salt (bet y'all thought people didn't really use rock salt, huh?) The next day he went to the town doctor to ask if anyone had been examined the night before. The doctor told him he'd seen a patient with Holy Buttocks Syndrome who'd promised he'd never touch another man's property again if only the doctor would keep his name secret, and he wouldn't tell grandpa who it was for anything.

No doubt the poor, unfortunate wretch and victim of society suffered terribly with his Salty Butt-Wounds, but he also learned a valuable lesson. And again, nothing happened to him that he hadn't chosen. He went looking for trouble and found it.

[agricola]

What standard would you accept? Allow the homeowner to fight back after the home invader demonstrates his intent with a couple of shots or stabs?

the standard would be that the suspect was doing something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger. Factors like darkness, the victims state of mind at the time, what the suspect was doing etc would be taken into consideration. Its significant that both of the cases lamented here and on TFL were of the homeowner shooting (or stabbing) the burglar as he was in the process of leaving (or left in the Tottenham case).

[Geech]

What's reasonable? It can vary so much from perp to perp. You'd have to be a mind reader to know for sure.

[moa]

In the States in some places a person that burglarizes at night an occuppied residence is often referred to as a "cat burglar".

And a psychoanalyst of the criminal mind will tell you that cat burglars are potentially one of the most dangerous types of criminal because of their mental state.

If one is encountered at home, it is probably not a good idea to start slowly mulling over all the potential legal implications to taking quick and decisive action.

[Kharn]

Agricola:
the standard would be that the suspect was doing something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger.
I bet if you took a poll on this board asking "If someone entered your house during the night while you slept, would you believe that your life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger?", you would find most would respond in the affirmative. If asked in rural America, the majority answer would still be the same.

Kharn

[matis]

...they were the land of the Magna Carta and all that.

Now their socialism has taken them far enough along that it's forced them to turn things inside out.

Once the moorings have slipped -- no telling where the boat will drift.

In Britain, they've already foundered -- they're breaking up on the rocks of hard reality.

I wonder where we're headed?

Matis

[BenW]

What if youre asleep? A house with no lights on and someone asleep upstairs looks a lot
like a house with no lights on and someone on holiday, especially to the casual criminal.
What if the homeowner was on vacation and left the lights off, and all the windows and doors open? None of these scenarios make any difference. The burglar has no right to enter a home regardless. I should not have to leave my lights on all night (or take ANY steps) to give a burglar the impression that I might be home. The burden is on the criminal to stay out of my home, not on me to keep him/her out.

[Mute]

the point is not, as so many here would wish, that a man cannot defend himself in his own home - but rather that just because a burglar has broken into your property does not suspend his protection under law. As many of you are no doubt aware, pretty much all of our legislation regarding weapons recognizes the difference between ones home / other private property and a public place, so the percieved lack ofmeaningful methods of defense in the UK is less applicable (if indeed it ever is)

Really? What you're suggesting seems to contradict what is actually happening. If a stranger is in my home with a weapon, he's got one choice. Drop his weapon and head towards the door. Any other action will be considered a possible threat.

It seems to me that the British legistlation would have homeowners give as much reasonable doubt as possible to a criminal until they actually have bullets flying at them and blades slashing in the air towards the jugular. Seems to me that would be a bit too much leeway to allow for a proper response. Let's be honest here. I do not want to kill another person over material property anymore than you do, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give a criminal with violent intentions a tactial advantage over me. If the law makes that my only option, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed or done away with altogether.

[2dogs]

burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders

The world is going slowly, and painfully insane.:(

[MeekandMild]

Do you think the Martin killing was justified? For years I've wondered at the false distinction between killing in self defence and killing to protect property and killing to protect the commons and prevent the return of a criminal.

In the first case one kills so that the criminal cannot end their own life. In doing so they may be lengthening their own life by a day or a decade so they are protecting their life at its end. They are protecting their own right to grow old, decrepit and toothless.

In the second case they kill so the criminal cannot take the time in the middle of their life they worked to save the money to buy the stolen items. They are protecting the youth they spent buying the items which are stolen. They kill to prevent their own enslavement.

In the third case they kill so as to gain some peace of mind so that they can live a more fruitful future. They kill so they can risk going out to dinner or to the show and know that when they return their life's work won't be vanished out the door. They kill so their family and friends won't be slaves to the same thief.

So in answer I would say the Martin killing was not only justified but heroic in a time when England sorely needs heroes. Whenever I read Aggie's rationalizations it saddens me to think that as he goes so does much of England. So the blood of Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder and Henry V and all the great men of history goes to nourish bastards who think only of comfort and appeasment.

No Aggie, don't answer this post. You are not worthy.

[agricola]

ROFLMAO @ Meek

shooting an unarmed man in the back as he is running away is now defined as "heroic" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

would you only be happy if we returned to the days in which men and boys were hung for stealing bread?

sorry, that should read enslaving the baker and his family :rolleyes:

easily the most unintentional piece of humour i have ever read here or on TFL

[QKRTHNU]

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences,
If they're in someones home they're not in "Public".
and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."
Unlawful?:confused:

Oh yeah, forgot. Those brits don't consider self-defense lawful. :rolleyes:

[MeekandMild]

Like I said. Some folks would be happier sold as slaves.

[TallPine]

Simply breaking into your house is not enough justification for the killing of another

WRONG !

Of course, you would have to survive my dogs, first :neener:

[Geech]

easily the most unintentional piece of humour i have ever read here or on TFL

Only if we discount your posts on the subject, of course.

[Drizzt]

Lawyers back burglars


By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political Editor

FURY erupted last night after David Blunkett’s lawyers said burglars need protection from householders.

They insist villains deserve to be treated like any member of the public — and MUST be able to sue homeowners who attack them during a break-in.

The Home Secretary’s lawyers will make their bizarre argument to High Court judges today in a legal bid to block a parole claim by jailed farmer Tony Martin.

The barmy advice last night threatened Tony Blair’s promise to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.

Mr Blunkett last night insisted he had nothing to do with the ruling.

His aides refused to condemn it — confirming that criminals are entitled to rights.

But Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: “This is the height of absurdity. The Home Secretary said to me he would back my amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, blocking burglars who try to sue for damage done to them while burgling.
“Now his department appears to be going in the opposite direction.

“The world has clearly gone mad. Why on earth should I be able to sue for things that happen while I am in the process of burgling?”

Furious Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: “The public are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender.

“Burglars forfeit any rights they have when they commit a crime.”

Mr Martin, 58, has served four years for manslaughter after killing 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras.

But today Home Office lawyers will say Mr Martin is still a threat to burglars — and must not be let out early.

Leaked papers show they believe burglars should be guaranteed protection from homeowners who try to protect their properties.

The document says: “It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be members of the public whilst committing criminal offences.”

Mr Martin has refused to show remorse for shooting his burglars and until he does cannot be considered for parole.

A second burglar shot by Mr Martin — Brendon Fearon — had his claim for damages thrown out by a Nottingham court. But Fearon, 33, managed to sue with legal aid.

Norfolk farmer Mr Martin will be freed in July but today High Court judges will consider a case review.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003202323,00.html

[agricola]

His aides refused to condemn it — confirming that criminals are entitled to rights.

:what:

a shocking concept..... seriously, you should pick quotes from any UK paper but if you want to use articles from the Sun please please first do a Google-search for "the Sun" and "Hillsborough" and, if possible, talk to someone in Liverpool about why that paper is still boycotted fourteen years after the tragedy. It is a disgrace and the shame of the British Press.

[jmbg29]

Feh! Break into my house at night, and you'd better be able to run 1,001 feet per second or better.:rolleyes:

Can't run that fast? Whine to Satan about your friggin' rights. :fire:

[kannonfyre]

Whether or not it be legal is besides the point. Common folk like us need to stand up as one and tell the criminal community that we'll NEVER take their crap! :fire: Burglars need to KNOW that they will be VIOLENTLY resisted by homeowners whilst robbers and rapists should be aware of the fact that we'll DIE FIGHTING before they can have our money or our bodies.

I second the belief that criminal scum should pay DEARLY with LIFE and LIMB for the way that they make their "living".

Frankly speaking, the home invader that trespasses on my property will feel my razor sharp cleaver biting DEEP into his shoulder blades before getting even a WIFF of my valuables. :cuss: I'd rather DIE than allow some scumbag to cart my belongings away!!

If homeowners were allowed to KILL any and all burglars on their property, I opine that the burglary rate would fall rather quickly in the UK.

[0007]

I wonder what the response of the home secretary in merry old england would be to the burgler that broke into his home would be. I doubt seriously if he would help the burgler out the door. Oh, I forgot He's one of the special people who have their own guards. Agricola, we've missed your humorous defense of the(new) criminal justice system in England. As near as I can make out, if you have something in your house that I want or need to support my drug habit or for some other whimsicle need, I'm entitled to come in and take if I can, and you can't stop me if I turn my back on you, right? Hitler's probably really PO'd that he just didn't wait a for a few more decades before coming to the channel, heh, heh, heh.

[agricola]

Its nice to know that we would have dealt with Hitler whenever he decided to come.

By the way, Martin has lost his appeal, for the reasons already stated by myself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3010949.stm

[Intune]

Burglars and rapists taking classes in record numbers!

New Walking Backwards classes are making a killing in Jolly Ol England. The classes are overflowing with eager young criminals learning the ropes. DVD players, tv sets and torn nightclothes are being taken in as payment. Schools will also accept future royalties in court cases against homeowners. "It's about time they recognize us as equals. We work as hard as they do!" Said Chester Molester.:fire: :rolleyes:

[Bog]

Right.

Last week, having moved house, my friend left his jacket on the kitchen table. It being a glorious Summer's day, we left the back door open to have a breeze. We wandered out of the room for no more than five minutes, to check out emails and respond to any waiting messages. We returned to the kitchen.

Oh, bugger.

My friend's jacket's gone, and the back gate is gaping wide. This jacket contained:

A £400 pound pocket computer.
His doorkeys to his house, and a couple of letters with his address on
His cellphone.
His wallet - cards, cash, the whole shooting-match.
Plus the usual pocket-sundries of a technological existance.

Had we discovered this thief, in the course of his efforts, we have agreed that we'd do the natural thing. Bring him down with anything to hand (probably, this being the UK, a thrown half-brick) and then broken the limb carrying the coat.

Why do you think we'd do that? Apart from the obvious thing of a thrown half-brick being a lot faster than a running human?

Why would we have proceeded to hurt him?

Because pain is a lesson that people remember.

If a court had fined the mealy-mouthed so-and-so, he'd have probably stolen from someone else to pay it off. If he'd been given a custodial sentence, his time Inside would have taught him how not to get caught, and how to carry off bigger crimes. Pain teaches. Very little else does.

This whole thing about the shooting is a travesty. These two scumwads had been repeatedly breaking-and-entering, and harrassing the poor sod, and brandishing blades and blunts at him. He finally lost it, and plugged 'em.

He should have gotten a commendation for saving court-costs. Instead, he had his life destroyed far more than those theiving morons could ever have done.

'Course, since then, there's Dubya to deal with, and frankly that's put me off the US bigtime - Bush and his Speshl Guys are busily turning America into as bad a Gulag as the UK from where I sit. Gah. It makes me tired.

[CZ-75]

'Course, since then, there's Dubya to deal with, and frankly that's put me off the US bigtime - Bush and his Speshl Guys are busily turning America into as bad a Gulag as the UK from where I sit. Gah. It makes me tired.


Right, and you can stay where there's no hope or emigrate and try to make a difference someplace where things haven't totally gone to hell...yet. You're another vote against the Welfare and Big Brother state. Quitchyerbitchin'.

[Bog]

CZ-75: All I have to work with are the data as I see 'em... if it seemed like belly-aching, then I'm not presenting my view properly. It's more a case of seeing two sub-optimal choices, and trying to figure out which is the least-worst. Don't get me wrong - by all accumulated information so far, the US and the UK are the two least-likely countries to make me actually shriek over their mismanagement.

Doesnt' make either of 'em what I'd want 'em to be, though. I'm still trying to puzzle out which one gives me the best chance to shape a space for myself and my loved ones which I'm able to find tolerable.

[CZ-75]

I saw your view just fine. I'm only wondering why you're hanging tight to that lost cause where you live, when we could use someone like you here. Sure, we've got abuses of our rights, current and forthcoming, but it won't get any better w/o persons with the proper mindset to counteract them.

What I'm seeing is that you want to stick to the oppression you know rather than come to a more free location b/c you see a similar situation on the horizon on this side of the pond. I say that it's not here yet and you can swell the ranks of those wanting to do something about it. I'm encouraging you to quit belly-aching about what might transpire and come throw in your lot to help ensure that it won't.

Regards.

[Bog]

CZ.

Good point. Well made. I made it plain since TFL that I plan to come over, but have things which I have to do first. Those things have taken over to a certain extent - we'll see what happens. Thank you, though, for the implied compliment. I'll do what I can to live up to it.

[0007]

Bog, when you're ready, come on down to FL. We can still abuse burglers there, and CCWs are relatively easily aquired.

[Battler]

Bog - I don't like some of the things the Feds are doing WRT the war on terror; but think about it. . . . . .

You've heard a lot of Ashcroft-bashing. But remember, John Ashcroft is an honest man, and although I am not religious, I can respect (and trust) someone that devout. His religion is WHY he is bashed, BTW.

Recall also that he is replacing an attorney general who did WACO and threw Elian back over the wall after picking him up at gunpoint.

Ashcroft has fought to have gun records, as per law, left confidential.

Some new security actions have taken place. The airport security thing is unfortunate, I'll give you that. But look at the source of complaints that the US is losing its "civil freedoms" under Bush/Ashcroft. Are these the people who complain about the gunowner abuse? Are these people who complain about a Jesse Jackson shakedown?

They are merely complaining because it's a Republican in the whitehouse. Most of the complaints are at seeing TERRORISTS in red outfits on Guantanamo island, even while celebrating Castro, who does far worse to his own people.


Would you talk of rights? The US DOES have very powerful agencies that enforce laws, good and bad. But in which situation are you living under the greatest oppression? One with less gun bans; but with armed ATF agents ready to nail you to a cross? Or one with an almost total self-defense ban (like UK); but that people merely accept and consequently needs little enforcement?

The strength of law enforcers, in and of itself, is not an indication of oppression. Your freedom of your action that you can engage in without drawing their ire is.


There is no comparison between the US and the UK. Those (particularly in liberal media in UK) who call the US less free are telling you lies.

The only exception I can think of where the UK may be better for one is if one lives off of welfare (I include the school/transportation as welfare). But any slave has to figure out eventually that even with the "free food and shelter" slavery is a raw deal.

[agricola]

nothing amazes and saddens me more than people deriding the UK media for being wrong in its views of the US and then, in the next breath, the same people then make sweeping statements based on nothing more than what they have heard / read.

if the UK is so bad because it doesnt allow people to dish out their own punishment, then i am glad it is that bad. pain is not "the only language they understand".... if it was, then crime wouldnt occur in Saudi Arabia.

[MeekandMild]

Aggie, the 'badness' of the UK goes well beyond any narrow discussion about guns. I suggest you get up to snuff on your history. I won't go into gory details lest I be threatened again by one of the less literate moderators, but British statutory law is little better r.e. individual civil rights of the subjects than Islamic Law. Most of our ancestors didn't leave becasue of any great overweening British respect for their civil rights you know.

If you don't believe me, grab your fly rod and spend a weekend in Scotland trying to fish on the rivers or try to put in a garden on your own ancestral common ground.

[agricola]

rofl

Its nice to see the one of the staples of anti-UK bias sneaking into this otherwise good discussion. as i am in a biting mood, the Scots at Culloden were part of a rebel alliance :cool: that lost and paid the price. For every horror story one must remember that a good deal of Scots, though they would probably never admit to this, fought for the English during that campaign, just as more than a few English fought for BPC.

as for: If you don't believe me, grab your fly rod and spend a weekend in Scotland trying to fish on the rivers or try to put in a garden on your own ancestral common ground, I presume you'd be supporting the rights of Native Americans to reclaim their "ancestral common ground"? For every Culloden there is a Sand Creek.

meek you represent a trend in American opion that seems determined on one hand to laud the state of English law in the 1700s as codified by Blackstone and yet decry the state that produced those ideals. Personally, i find that state and that system abhorrent and I salute those ancestors of mine who freed the common man from the legal tyranny that was imposed on us. That the system is different from that which you consider as ideal for us is your problem, not ours.

stop trying to derail the thread please.

[MeekandMild]

Aggie, but YOU are the one derailing the thread! You brought up Culloden! I never mentioned it. Nor did I ever mention being a fan of the codification of crown law which stripped the people of their ancient rights. Your statement was a disinformation ploy wasn't it? You know as well as I that Blackstone was the basis for both the disenfranchisement of the 1800's and the midcentury wave of voluntary immigration to the US!

I do think your analogy between the rights of the British commoners and Indians was on topic however. (Is a little bit of light seeping its way past those tightly closed eyelids?) I think the same elitest mindset is present whether it makes British subjects captive in their own homes or reserves over 80% of US property for the government and multinational corporations. The only major difference I see is the Secretary of the Interior and the Board of Directors of the Fed don't wear ermine robes.

While you're out there fly fishing you might ask what the Scottish survivors of the Battle of New Orleans found when they came home. You really don't want to know.