The thieving scum have won !!!!
12 January 2005, 06:49 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: In the garage or in bed
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thieving scum have won !!!!
Just heard(sp) on the news that there will be no change in the law over they way we can protect our castle
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again
why am I not supprised !
Looks like the scum have won
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again
why am I not supprised !Looks like the scum have won
12 January 2005, 06:51 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Huxley
Just heard(sp) on the news that there will be no change in the law over they way we can protect our castle
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again why am I not supprised !
Looks like the scum have won
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again
why am I not supprised !Looks like the scum have won
12 January 2005, 07:08 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't give a flying f**k i would still smash their puny little heads in after i have dropped my 20 stone bulk on them despite what the law says.
Anyway is it true they cant charge you for murder unless they find a body?
i know a right good scrapyard around here who does favours!
Anyway is it true they cant charge you for murder unless they find a body?
i know a right good scrapyard around here who does favours!
Trending Topics
12 January 2005, 07:11 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley
Just heard(sp) on the news that there will be no change in the law over they way we can protect our castle
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again why am I not supprised !
Looks like the scum have won
Looks like our goverment has though of the law abiding people again
why am I not supprised !Looks like the scum have won
12 January 2005, 07:14 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
Not so; youve always been able to use reasonable force; what were you hoping for?
Just a joke the way the law sides with the criminal at the moment - someone breaks in, dog bites them so they sue the owner and get the dog put down - complete joke
12 January 2005, 07:16 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. The new home secretary fails at the first hurdle by letting the law abiding down once again, thus proving that he is equally as worthless as the last one.
Apparently though he suggests it's our fault because we're all too stupid to interpret the law correctly.
Apparently though he suggests it's our fault because we're all too stupid to interpret the law correctly.
12 January 2005, 07:21 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wolves
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, If the law had gone through, would you of been able to kill someone, put the body in your own home and then call it self defence. Or as happened in the states last year, when your 16 year old comes home late, you get to shoot them as you thought they were an intruder?
12 January 2005, 07:23 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
Not so; youve always been able to use reasonable force; what were you hoping for?
Most people would not have the strength to completely physically restrain an attacker and eject them from the premises without getting injured in some way, let alone wait for them to attack you with whatever weapon they may have before calculating what your "reasonable force" level should be.
Therefore your realistic choices are to do nothing and let them take all your belongings, or incapacitate them somehow, by stabbing them with a carving knife or wrapping a 7 iron around their head.
This would then be interpreted as unreasonable force by the police, even though you had no "middle ground" option open to you apart from total surrender.
Hence the criminal is favoured.
12 January 2005, 07:26 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the problem lies with the CPS's interpretation of the current law. A change in the law like you hope for would be terrible; just think it through.
This reminds me; in 1977 my father was charged with causing either ABH or GBH after he returned home from walking our dog; he lived in a West Derbyshire (now Derbyshire Dales) village and he hadnt locked the front door. The dog knew that someone was in the house and my father opened the door and let her in; the unfortunate scrubber was just going up the open plan staircase. He tried to hit my father with a jemmy, but he was too slow and my father hit him; really hit him (hes a big fella); he flew over the back of the settee; probably with a Doberman embedded in his arm. My father jumped over the settee and landed on him and didnt deny hitting him again; the dog was biting his leg at this point, a lot. He was still unconscious when the Police arrived 4 up in a Rover 3500 and took him away. The decision to charge my father who was a respectable company director, and also attempt to have our family pet dog destroyed was made entirely by the CPS; the Police were brilliant: "can you keep hold of him?" "yes; hes unconscious and Im sat on him" "nice one; we'll be there in five minutes".....
This went through the local magistrates court and ended up at Derby Crown Court where the judge threw the case out and awarded all costs.
Edited to add: I forgot to mention that the little bollocks will walk with a limp for the rest of his life...
Simon
This reminds me; in 1977 my father was charged with causing either ABH or GBH after he returned home from walking our dog; he lived in a West Derbyshire (now Derbyshire Dales) village and he hadnt locked the front door. The dog knew that someone was in the house and my father opened the door and let her in; the unfortunate scrubber was just going up the open plan staircase. He tried to hit my father with a jemmy, but he was too slow and my father hit him; really hit him (hes a big fella); he flew over the back of the settee; probably with a Doberman embedded in his arm. My father jumped over the settee and landed on him and didnt deny hitting him again; the dog was biting his leg at this point, a lot. He was still unconscious when the Police arrived 4 up in a Rover 3500 and took him away. The decision to charge my father who was a respectable company director, and also attempt to have our family pet dog destroyed was made entirely by the CPS; the Police were brilliant: "can you keep hold of him?" "yes; hes unconscious and Im sat on him" "nice one; we'll be there in five minutes".....
This went through the local magistrates court and ended up at Derby Crown Court where the judge threw the case out and awarded all costs.
Edited to add: I forgot to mention that the little bollocks will walk with a limp for the rest of his life...
Simon
Last edited by GC8; 12 January 2005 at 07:29 PM.
12 January 2005, 08:15 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4167865.stm
(Mercer is the Tory who brought the private members bill)
"Mr Mercer said he was extremely disappointed but would continue with his campaign, especially as a recent survey suggested 87% of people thought the current law was weighted in favour of criminals.
"This is public opinion, this is democracy, I'm amazed the home secretary is choosing to ignore this," said Mr Mercer".
So, as per normal, Nu Labia ignore what the voters want ..... well, there's an election looming lads!
Oh, and as people ahve said above, I'd take bog all notice of *reasonable force* if someone broke into my gaff ....
Dave
(Mercer is the Tory who brought the private members bill)
"Mr Mercer said he was extremely disappointed but would continue with his campaign, especially as a recent survey suggested 87% of people thought the current law was weighted in favour of criminals.
"This is public opinion, this is democracy, I'm amazed the home secretary is choosing to ignore this," said Mr Mercer".
So, as per normal, Nu Labia ignore what the voters want ..... well, there's an election looming lads!
Oh, and as people ahve said above, I'd take bog all notice of *reasonable force* if someone broke into my gaff ....
Dave
12 January 2005, 08:28 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: In the garage or in bed
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
Not so; youve always been able to use reasonable force; what were you hoping for?
Not so some fecwit ashalf has got more rights than me, in my own home
I would expect more than half of the population would think the same way as me!!!!
12 January 2005, 08:48 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
especially as a recent survey suggested 87% of people thought the current law was weighted in favour of criminals.
12 January 2005, 09:06 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsm1
Just because 87% of people in a survey believe the current law is weighted in favour of criminals doesn't mean it is.
12 January 2005, 09:20 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location: Location.
Posts: 3,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that a criminal who has entered your home to steal/whatever is able to sue you for hurting them is enough to warrant a law change.
Some body seems very quiet about this thread.??
Alas
Some body seems very quiet about this thread.??
Alas
12 January 2005, 11:35 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the big deal about protecting your castle? Try thick high walls and a deep moat, but I fear it'll be gone when the tide comes in.
13 January 2005, 02:19 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep and then have whoever else you live with be a second witness to the "unfortunate tumble",these scum are happy enough to use i fell onto it and my trousers fell down when going into casualty with cucumbers stuck up their bottoms so they won't be able to argue when the same excuse is used for broken noses and heavy bruising 
13 January 2005, 09:36 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this argument has been put forward on numerous occasions already, but I really feel it's public opinion that needs changing here, not that law. The law already gives homeowners the right to use whatever force they deem instinctively necessary to protect themselves and their property. 90% of ACPO memebers agree that it is perfectly adequate. What more do people want?
The idea that homeowners are being found guilty of using 'disproportionate' force left right and centre is a total myth. In the last 15 years there have been around 20 cases of people being convicted of this, and that includes commercial premises. That includes the case of a warehouse man who caught a burglar, tied him up, beat him, threw him in a pit and set fire to him ... no doubt many of the Scoobynet you will find that quite acceptable though ...
I get the feeling that peoples anger about this decision more about wanting to be able to mete out vigilante justice on criminals rather than simply defend ones person and property.
Rant over, back to work.
The idea that homeowners are being found guilty of using 'disproportionate' force left right and centre is a total myth. In the last 15 years there have been around 20 cases of people being convicted of this, and that includes commercial premises. That includes the case of a warehouse man who caught a burglar, tied him up, beat him, threw him in a pit and set fire to him ... no doubt many of the Scoobynet you will find that quite acceptable though ...
I get the feeling that peoples anger about this decision more about wanting to be able to mete out vigilante justice on criminals rather than simply defend ones person and property.
Rant over, back to work.
13 January 2005, 09:43 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
Laws are based on what the majority of people find acceptable or unacceptable. You can't argue that ANY of our laws are definitively right or wrong, you can only go on what "society" wants. If the survey is accurately representative of what society wants then the law should be changed.
13 January 2005, 09:47 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
I thought most people believe these days that speed kills?
, but most people I talk to don't believe speed kills, which is presumably why popular opinion is that resources should be dedicated to solving "proper" crimes such as murder and not fannying about on road sides inconveniencing motorists!
13 January 2005, 09:52 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
Nice try , but most people I talk to don't believe speed kills
, but most people I talk to don't believe speed killsI had this argument on IRC last night, fairly small group of people I know from elsewhere but a lot of them are university age and have swallowed the government line hook line and sinker.
Like with radical environmentalism and veganism, I expect most of them to grow out of it by the time they're 30.
One of them tried the environmental argument on me for having a Legacy (big, unnecessary, inefficient, wasteful), so I asked if he'd rather I bought a second car for the shopping runs.
13 January 2005, 10:00 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lum
Try this with the younger generation.
I had this argument on IRC last night, fairly small group of people I know from elsewhere but a lot of them are university age and have swallowed the government line hook line and sinker.
Like with radical environmentalism and veganism, I expect most of them to grow out of it by the time they're 30.
One of them tried the environmental argument on me for having a Legacy (big, unnecessary, inefficient, wasteful), so I asked if he'd rather I bought a second car for the shopping runs.
I had this argument on IRC last night, fairly small group of people I know from elsewhere but a lot of them are university age and have swallowed the government line hook line and sinker.
Like with radical environmentalism and veganism, I expect most of them to grow out of it by the time they're 30.
One of them tried the environmental argument on me for having a Legacy (big, unnecessary, inefficient, wasteful), so I asked if he'd rather I bought a second car for the shopping runs.
13 January 2005, 10:04 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
Sounds like you found yourself a load of lentil eating, tree-hugger students there! Hope you educated them!
Boy are they in for a shock
13 January 2005, 10:08 AM
#30
The current law reads 'reasonable force'. You can't seriously believe that we should be able to act as judge and jury and shoot the intruder - this would lead to anarchy by taking the law into your own hands.
No problem detaining them in your home and if you are in fear of your safety then picking up the first object you find and using it to protect yourself. This is classed as reasonable self defence.
No problem detaining them in your home and if you are in fear of your safety then picking up the first object you find and using it to protect yourself. This is classed as reasonable self defence.