This is the mindset of British Parliament...
From a discussion in the House of Commons on the merits of the Amendment to the Householder Protection Bill. (Feb 2005)
Mr. Pound: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The person who would have benefited most from this Bill is Kenneth Noye. He was a convicted gangster who killed a police officer who happened to be on Mr. Noye's property without Mr. Noye's permission. Mr. Noye said in court that he had a reasonable suspicion that this figure coming through the shrubbery in his garden was going to do him harm, so he killed him. Kenneth Noye could be prayed in aid in support of this Bill just as much as Brendan Fearon could. Brendan Fearon was mentioned earlier, as was Fred Barras, the 16-year-old boy killed by Tony Martin.
Every politician says that hard cases make bad law, and I understand that the case of Tony Martin is the most extreme case in many ways. However, we cannot avoid the fact that many people out there will see this
Bill not as the Kenneth Noye law but as the Tony Martin law. We have a responsibility to place on record that Tony Martin killed a 16-year-old boy with an illegally held pump-action shotgun. I said earlier that we were talking not about legal niceties and trivialities but about life and death. Fred Barras will never have the opportunity to mend his ways or to become a worthwhile contributing citizen of this country. He will never have the opportunity of redemption, because he died at the age of 16. I hold no brief for those who break into other people's homes, but I cannot, with anything other than great sadness, look at a situation in which a 16-year-old boy in bad company is shot once and then again, in the back, as he flees the home of Tony Martin.
I think that we have to look in our hearts and ask, "Was that 16-year-old boy so incapable of redemption that he deserved death?" I suggest that he did not deserve death, and that any implication in the Bill that anybody who breaks into someone's home deserves death would be a step too far—one that leads us into very dangerous waters. (emphasis mine). -- Steven Pound, MP Earling North
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050204/debtext/50204-15.htm
The bill in question was
intended to allow home owners more latitude in tackling burglars, by providing that they will not be guilty of any offence unless they have used grossly disproportionate force. It would apply to England and Wales. As far as I know, the Bill is still in Standing Committee and has not been voted on.
Details on the Tony Martin case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/0,2759,214318,00.html
Cliff notes: in 1999 a rural farmer shot and killed a 16 year old boy by the name of Fred Barras in the process of breaking into his house, and injured his 29 year old accomplice.
Police charged Martin with the murder of Barras and attempted murder of the accomplice, Brendan Fearon. Martin was convicted of murder in April of 2000 and sentenced to life in prison. After a long drama with accusations of jury tampering and a lengthy appeals process and replaced council, Martin got his sentence reduced to manslaughter and 3 years imprisonment. He was released in July 2003 from Prison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm
That my friends, is the attitude that holds sway in Merry old England. The belief that human life is paramount, and that there is almost no justification what-so-ever for it to be taken, by ANYONE, under almost any circumstance.
That belief gives no credence to the right of the homeowner to be secure from intruders, and by action and implementation of the law holds that time and time and time again in England NO property or violation of ones home is justification for a deadly assault on an individual.
And, for the most part, they think our views on such things are backwards, hopelessly outdated and unsophisticated, and make our society one that borders on barbarity.
I knew there was a reason people left when they had a chance.