Burglar Killed - Householder deserves a medal [Archive]

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 12:12

Dav id Cameron said Tuesday: ‘We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted.’

The law is very clear. The important words being:- Reasonable force Every case is determined on the facts of that case.

Unfortunately many people, some here too, believe they should be allowed to take the law into their own hands and do whatever THEY think they should be allowed to. Big Mistake !

Yep john I do think I can defend my property with any force I can muster.
For instance if I was woke up in middle of night, not with it for the first minute and I grabbed something and it resulted in the death of burglar tough ....
All human rights should be sacrificed when you illegally enter someones home with the intention to rob/attack the house holder:cwm23:
There is a solution to all this DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE!

stevie c

23rd June 2011, 12:21

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 12:23

i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him :Erm:

Providing the force use is considered as Reasonable then no charge. However, if for example you have advertised here what you would do, then like Tony Martin the Norfolk farmer, you will almost certainly be convicted.

I have personal experience of a person who killed a man who was trying to rob him where the coroner's court found that he was killed as a result of 'justifiable homicide.'

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 12:29

Yep john I do think I can defend my property with any force I can muster.
For instance if I was woke up in middle of night, not with it for the first minute and I grabbed something and it resulted in the death of burglar tough ....
All human rights should be sacrificed when you illegally enter someones home with the intention to rob/attack the house holder:cwm23:
There is a solution to all this DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE!

If your actions were considered as Unreasonable then you would probably be convicted.

As I said the important words are 'REASONALBE FORCE' in the particular circumstances.
ALL THE FORCE I CAN MUSTER would probably result in a conviction. And you have advertised your intentions here, they could be used to convict you. As in the Tony Martin case.

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 12:32

Tony Martin as far as I'm concerned did no wrong,he was sick and fed up of being burgled and since the law did little to help him took the law into his own hands.
Result one less robber on the streets even though the lad was only 16 he had been arrested 29 times:yikes:
People like him seldom change and he won't be robbing anyone else ever again.

Dedworth

23rd June 2011, 12:33

David Cameron on Tuesday said : ‘We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted.’

The law is very clear and always has been. The important words being:- Reasonable force Every case is determined on the facts of that case.

Unfortunately many people, some here too, believe they should be allowed to take the law into their own hands and do whatever THEY think they should be allowed to. Big Mistake !

I think stabbing a hooded intruder is a very reasonable course of action. Cameron needs to listen to the voice of ordinary citizens and change the wording to "use deadly force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted"

Anyway this incident happened in Manchester where the crazed judiciary dish out ASBO's to multi repeat offending street robbers so I'd expect the householder to get nothing less than a life sentence with a thirty year tariff

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 12:34

The law needs changing to any force required to take out the intruder.
Protect the victim not the criminal:)

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 12:37

The law needs changing to any force required to take out the intruder.
Protect the victim not the criminal:)

That is a different argument. I was pointing out the law as it is in UK.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 12:41

Tony Martin as far as I'm concerned did no wrong,

But he did get convicted of murder and was probably fortunate that it was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He said before the event that he would kill burglars in future (thus he proved his intent to kill) and he shot the burglary in the back, so he was not being threatened. He also lied about the circumstances of the shooting.

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 12:53

But he did get convicted of murder and was probably fortunate that it was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He said before the event that he would kill burglars in future (thus he proved his intent to kill) and he shot the burglary in the back, so he was not being threatened. He also lied about the circumstances of the shooting.
Good on him, As usual we turn part of the blame onto the person who's home is being burgled.
He said all this as he was sick and tired of the number of burglaries and as mentioned before lack of policing.
I get sick of hearing the word "reasonable force" is it reasonable I break into your house with the intention to rob you,scare the crap out of you and your family,take away all you have worked for,give you and your family bloody nightmares for the rest of your life.(can't imagine how it affects young children)
It's not and I'm not afraid to say on here or anywhere else what i may do if it happened to me.
The law should protect me and my family full stop.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 13:14

.

The law should protect me and my family full stop.

It is and that is why it protects burglars too and why it prosecutes burglars too.. At present within the UK people cannot take the law in to their own hands. If that changes so be it but until then the law is the law.

There is another side to this argument.

Some of those who shout the loudest that we should be allowed to kill people who commit crimes against us and that offenders should be sentenced to longer and tougher sentences, are often the same ones who shout the loudest about alleged police abuse of power and how they convict the wrong people.

De we really think that members of the public being allowed to take the law into their own hands would be more competent to judge who is guilty or not guilty?

It is difficult to be right in all cases.

joebloggs

23rd June 2011, 13:26

not that far from me, so a gang of 4 men break into your property, i think its resonable to use what ever force you need to defend yourself, the home owner decided to defend himself, its the gang that broke in his house, they made that choice, he didn't know what they were going to do to his family and wasn't prepared to be a victim...

how many on a jury would find him guilty of murder or manslaughter?

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 13:27

Some of those who shout the loudest that we should be allowed to kill people who commit crimes against us and that offenders should be sentenced to longer and tougher sentences, are often the same ones who shout the loudest about alleged police abuse of power and how they convict the wrong people.
Not me:)

Do we really think that members of the public being allowed to take the law into their own hands would be more competent to judge who is guilty or not guilty?

Well from some of the ultra lenient sentencing by judges I think plenty of judges don't live in the real world:NoNo:
But you have expanded the discussion now,of course there is a difference if someone nicks a bag of tangerines from asda I don't expect him to be gunned down by annoyed shoppers:laugher:
Im refering to the dreaded burglar in the night scenario,you're scared shitless, non coherent so whatever you dish out so be it.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 13:41

Not me:)

I'm referring to the dreaded burglar in the night scenario,you're scared shitless, non coherent so whatever you dish out so be it.

In such a case it might well be considered that ones actions amount to reasonable force, BUT if you have said prior to the event, that you will in effect use excessive force (kill the .......) then like Tony Martin that tends to prove that you intended to use excessive, rather than reasonable, force.

The 'secret' is not to advertise what you would do, then it cannot be used against you when you explain how you were only being reasonable in the circumstances as they presented themselves to you, at the time, in the dead of night etc and that you were not using pre-meditated force. In law, they are very different.

In Texas a person committing any offence can be shot dead. So ASDA thieves in Texas, be warned !

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 14:00

I had a guy from Saudi Arabia in the car and asked him if they sill chopped off your hand for stealing-He said yes but it's very rare:omg:
He said you can leave you car unlocked no one will touch it:xxgrinning--00xx3:
He then pissed me off by asking how much to fill my mondeo-I said about £80,He said he had a larger car than me and it was £4.00 to fill the tank:censored:

grahamw48

23rd June 2011, 14:00

A lot of conclusions being jumped to here.

Yes, I know it appears to have been a bunch of hooded thugs carrying out a robbery/burglary, but who did the knife belong to ?

Were the visitors to the house known to the 'victims' ?

Who exactly is in custody ?

Many questions to be answered. :)

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 14:36

A lot of conclusions being jumped to here.

)

Not really.

All the comments have been on whether it is reasonable or not to attack burglars.

Dedworth merely started the thread referring to the newspaper article.

But I take the point, if we had been discussing this particular alleged crime.

grahamw48

23rd June 2011, 15:02

Ok, yes it IS reasonable to attack burglars...IMO...as long as only 'reasonable' force is used to break their bloody necks. :)

Also, I'm in favour of amputation of limbs for PROVEN repeat offenders.

dontpushme

23rd June 2011, 15:58

:censored:ING HELL! Your government gives more rights to your criminals than they give you!

My bf's family was robbed last year. The balaclava-clad intruders broke down their front door and bashed into his parents' bedroom, threatening their lives if they didn't hand over whatever the robbers wanted. His dad had a club under the bed but because he couldn't do anything to those :censored:ing douchebags that your government protects, he couldn't do anything to protect his family and they had to spend a year in counseling and are still all feeling very unsafe in their own home. They live in Greater Manchester, btw. I don't care for jokes about how one place is safer than other places in the UK right now. All I know is no UK residents are safe in the knowledge that they can protect themselves if they ever get threatened. Stupid laws protecting horrible crooks and hurting countless people every year!

Grr! This is a joke! Your government officials need to be replaced. And I suggest asking any potential candidate what they plan to do about the unfair advantage the crooks are getting. This is all a big crock of bull-:censored:ing s:censored:t!

Sorry, I'm just fuming that the people who hurt Matt's family are still at large and there was nothing the family could do to protect themselves. I'd have broken both arms of the first guy to point a knife at my family and pulled his :censored:king nuts off, or for more "reasonable" force, I'd have kicked him in the knees to tear his ligaments! Then I'd have chased anyone else with a baseball bat!

I don't condone vigilantism or committing manslaughter even after you've already disarmed an intruder. But I will never support allowing homeowners to be terrorised left and right by intruders who feel smug because the law is on their side. NEVER.

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 16:00

F*CKING HELL! Your government gives more rights to your criminals than they give you!

My bf's family was robbed last year. The balaclava-clad intruders broke down their front door and bashed into his parents' bedroom, threatening their lives if they didn't hand over whatever the robbers wanted. His dad had a club under the bed but because he couldn't do anything to those f*cking douchebags that your government protects, he couldn't do anything to protect his family and they had to spend a year in counseling and are still all feeling very unsafe in their own home. They live in Greater Manchester, btw. I don't care for jokes about how one place is safer than other places in the UK right now. All I know is no UK residents are safe in the knowledge that they can protect themselves if they ever get threatened. Stupid laws protecting horrible crooks and hurting countless people every year!

Grr! This is a joke! Your government officials need to be replaced. And I suggest asking any potential candidate what they plan to do about the unfair advantage the crooks are getting. This is all a big crock of bull-f*cking sh*t!

(Sorry, I'm just fuming that the people who hurt Matt's family are still at large and there was nothing the family could do to protect themselves. I'd have broken both arms of the first guy to point a knife at my family and pulled his f*cking nuts off, or for more "reasonable" force, I'd have kicked him in the knees to tear his ligaments! Then I'd have chased anyone else with a baseball bat!)

:xxgrinning--00xx3:Thats more like it well said:D

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 16:15

F*CKING HELL! Your government gives more rights to your criminals than they give you!

My bf's family was robbed last year. The balaclava-clad intruders broke down their front door and bashed into his parents' bedroom, threatening their lives if they didn't hand over whatever the robbers wanted. His dad had a club under the bed but because he couldn't do anything to those f*cking douchebags that your government protects, he couldn't do anything to protect his family and they had to spend a year in counseling and are still all feeling very unsafe in their own home. They live in Greater Manchester, btw. I don't care for jokes about how one place is safer than other places in the UK right now. All I know is no UK residents are safe in the knowledge that they can protect themselves if they ever get threatened. Stupid laws protecting horrible crooks and hurting countless people every year!

Grr! This is a joke! Your government officials need to be replaced. And I suggest asking any potential candidate what they plan to do about the unfair advantage the crooks are getting. This is all a big crock of bull-f*cking sh*t!

Sorry, I'm just fuming that the people who hurt Matt's family are still at large and there was nothing the family could do to protect themselves. I'd have broken both arms of the first guy to point a knife at my family and pulled his f*cking nuts off, or for more "reasonable" force, I'd have kicked him in the knees to tear his ligaments! Then I'd have chased anyone else with a baseball bat!

I don't condone vigilantism or committing manslaughter even after you've already disarmed an intruder. But I will never support allowing homeowners to be terrorised left and right by intruders who feel smug because the law is on their side. NEVER.

Really great rant but a distortion of the facts.

The law in UK DOES ALLOW ONE TO PROTECT THEIR LIFE, THAT OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT OF ANOTHER.

What it does not allow is unreasonable force to do so. Reasonable force can include force which results in the death of the attacker, but as I said, each case is considered on the facts of that case.

dontpushme

23rd June 2011, 16:45

Maybe you consider that a distortion of facts, but any time an intruder breaks into a home, the homeowner should never be more afraid of getting arrested for trying to defend himself. Breaking into a home, the intruder is more likely to be prepared for a dangerous encounter than the homeowner, especially if the intruder directly confronts and threatens the homeowner. Unfortunately, as you said, each case is different. "Unreasonable" is also subjective. If I were a father who had a knife at my throat while someone tried to rape my daughter, I'd rather be arrested for killing the two bags of sewer scum than let anyone destroy the life of my child by standing there mulling over the fact that someone in court could reason that simply twisting my attacker's arm to get myself and my daughter away would be more "reasonable" since neither of us actually got hurt in the encounter. Maybe it's just the 3 years I spent in southeastern USA (where everyone legally has at least one gun in his truck and/or house), or maybe it's just that I've always been taught to defend the weak, but I do not agree that your law is "reasonable".

grahamw48

23rd June 2011, 16:46

F*CKING HELL! Your government gives more rights to your criminals than they give you!

My bf's family was robbed last year. The balaclava-clad intruders broke down their front door and bashed into his parents' bedroom, threatening their lives if they didn't hand over whatever the robbers wanted. His dad had a club under the bed but because he couldn't do anything to those f*cking douchebags that your government protects, he couldn't do anything to protect his family and they had to spend a year in counseling and are still all feeling very unsafe in their own home. They live in Greater Manchester, btw. I don't care for jokes about how one place is safer than other places in the UK right now. All I know is no UK residents are safe in the knowledge that they can protect themselves if they ever get threatened. Stupid laws protecting horrible crooks and hurting countless people every year!

Grr! This is a joke! Your government officials need to be replaced. And I suggest asking any potential candidate what they plan to do about the unfair advantage the crooks are getting. This is all a big crock of bull-f*cking sh*t!

Sorry, I'm just fuming that the people who hurt Matt's family are still at large and there was nothing the family could do to protect themselves. I'd have broken both arms of the first guy to point a knife at my family and pulled his f*cking nuts off, or for more "reasonable" force, I'd have kicked him in the knees to tear his ligaments! Then I'd have chased anyone else with a baseball bat!

I don't condone vigilantism or committing manslaughter even after you've already disarmed an intruder. But I will never support allowing homeowners to be terrorised left and right by intruders who feel smug because the law is on their side. NEVER.

I totally agree.

Unfortunately the voters keep electing pussies, thieves and upper class twits to councils and parliament, and that is where the interests of the MAJORITY of the electorate ends. :NoNo:

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 16:53

I totally agree.

Unfortunately the voters keep electing pussies, thieves and upper class twits to councils and parliament, and that is where the interests of the MAJORITY of the electorate ends. :NoNo:

I wonder just how many here have ever spoken one-to -one to their MP and expressed their personal view about how they want their representative to represent them. Very few I suspect. So don't blame 'them' for not doing what we want, blame 'us'

(I say this as I am 'involved in mankind' although I have no say in UK, I just pay most of my tax there. I do speak quite often to my local Councillor in Spain)

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 17:00

Dedworth

23rd June 2011, 17:00

I wonder just how many here have ever spoken one-to -one to their MP and expressed their personal view about how they want their representative to represent them. Very few I suspect. So don't blame 'them' for not doing what we want, blame 'us'

(I say this as I am 'involved in mankind' although I have no say in UK, I just pay most of my tax there. I do speak quite often to my local Councillor in Spain)

My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 17:04

My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her

I am not surprised at that Dedworth, but how many other people do you know who have done that ?

dontpushme

23rd June 2011, 17:13

The law in UK DOES ALLOW ONE TO PROTECT THEIR LIFE, THAT OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT OF ANOTHER and, as I said I worked on a case where a person killed one of three men who attempted to rob him and he was not prosecuted for anything.

But that's the thing. "Unreasonable force" is a subjective term that could mean anything or nothing. Unfortunately, when you're being attacked, you don't have time to sit down and list all the possible courses of action. So instead, the best course of action for many people would seem to be to just sit and be a victim.

My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her

Good for you. I was raised in a family that encouraged us to do the same. We've never shied away from talking to government officials if we had something important to say, and neither should anyone. They are public servants but they can't read minds.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 17:22

But that's the thing. "Unreasonable force" is a subjective term that could mean anything or nothing. Unfortunately, when you're being attacked, you don't have time to sit down and list all the possible courses of action. So instead, the best course of action for many people would seem to be to just sit and be a victim.

.
What amounts to "Reasonable force" in law is well established and well defined by numerous findings.

It is not a nebulous thing which 'could mean anything or nothing' as you seem to think.

It is of course subjective, as each case is considered on its own merits (in the light of the law as established over maybe hundreds of years).

Dedworth

23rd June 2011, 17:25

I am not surprised at that Dedworth, but how many other people do you know who have done that ?

errrm possibly one :)

Tawi2

23rd June 2011, 18:03

I always said the only thing Tony Martin did wrong was not finishing Brendon Fearon off and getting rid of the corpses,someone comes into your house uninvited they get what they deserve.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 18:31

I always said the only thing Tony Martin did wrong was not finishing Brendon Fearon off and getting rid of the corpses,someone comes into your house uninvited they get what they deserve.

But Tony Martin got convicted of murder and was probably fortunate that it was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He said before the event that he would kill burglars in future (thus he proved his pre-meditated intention to kill) and he shot the burglary in the back, so he was not being threatened. He also lied about the circumstances of the shooting.

Unless and until they make killing offenders lawful, the UK law has got it just about right.

Unfortunately people who have no legal training make unjustified assumptions based on dubious 'facts' which they read in the newspapers and others often believe what they say. Not great grounds for changing the law !

dontpushme

23rd June 2011, 18:58

What amounts to "Reasonable force" in law is well established and well defined by numerous findings.

It is not a nebulous thing which 'could mean anything or nothing' as you seem to think.

It is of course subjective, as each case is considered on its own merits (in the light of the law as established over maybe hundreds of years).

I haven't found any clear, well-established definition of "reasonable force", not even on the CPS website. I understand it means that I can subdue someone, but it's all subjective anyway. I mean, that article about the burglar getting stabbed and dying says the homeowner and his family were arrested. It clearly adds doubt to the dead man's part in the whole thing by calling him a suspected "burglar", but elsewhere, it's reported that the man's accomplices fled as the police were approaching, so they were identified as burglars. At this point, what's the point of arresting everyone in the household? If it's because of the investigation on whether the dead man was running away as he was stabbed, why not just arrest the one who stabbed the dead man?

Unfortunately people who have no legal training make unjustified assumptions based on dubious 'facts' which they read in the newspapers and others often believe what they say.

If your homeowners don't know what "reasonable force" is, then your government has not done a good enough job of telling the public what the "well-defined, well-established over hundreds of years" meaning of the term is. The CPS website gives examples and I think it does try to explain it as clearly as it can without listing specific courses of action, but if my definition of subduing an intruder is breaking his knees so he can't overpower a small woman like me and smashing the hand that's holding a gun and breaking all of his fingers in the process, and the jury's definition happens to be just to kick the gun out of his hand so it's out of reach, it's pretty obvious things are subjective, as we've already established. Even the CPS website says to just do what you feel is instinctively right. But people don't all have the same level of fear or feel the same level of threat in identical situations.

You have obviously never been in a situation where you feared for your life. I have. I already had the police officer on duty's number on speed dial and they arrived 4 minutes after I called, but by that time, my neighbor had already pulled out his gun and scared off the stalker who was trying to get in my apartment, a man I didn't know who found me after seeing me at the laundrette. That man had been coming to my apartment in the middle of the night and knocking on my bedroom window, sometimes staying until 2am and saying he "just wanted to be friends." Don't tell me my fear is more than what you deem "reasonable." If I'm afraid enough to use a kitchen knife on someone who's terrorising me, that fear is very real. If my neighbor had shot the man and he had been arrested, I'd have lobbied until death to free him. Good thing it happened in the US, where guns are legal and people can protect their life, loved ones and property with as much force as they have on hand.

As for Mr. Martin, I agree with the murder charge. The burglars were running away and he could've made a citizen's arrest instead, but he chose to shoot them. Besides, it was an illegal weapon.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 19:05

Dontpushme.

I want to keep going on about this. But suffice to say in 30 years as a CID officer in London, I never had much of a problem deciding what reasonable force amounted to. Neither did the barristers who were supervising cases where that was a factor. But then I am speaking from experience not surmising what might be in hypothetical situations.

grahamw48

23rd June 2011, 19:57

Fortunately guilt or innocence is not left for police officers or barristers to decide, that is the job of Magistrates and Jurors, and laws are made by elected members of parliament.

As responsible adult voters with wide experience of life, the members of this forum are perfectly at liberty to debate this subject too.

You are of course entitled to disagree with some of the opinions expressed.

johncar54

23rd June 2011, 20:09

Fortunately guilt or innocence is not left for police officers or barristers to decide, that is the job of Magistrates and jurys, and laws are made by elected members of parliament.

As responsible adult voters with wide experience of life, the members of this forum are perfectly at liberty to debate this subject too.

You are of course entitled to disagree with some of the opinions expressed.

In my day whether to charge a person with an offence was the decision of the Detective in charge of the investigation. The continuance thereafter and further or amended charges was the decision of the police solicitors dept, the barrister i/c the case and maybe the DPP.

As you correctly say the decision whether to find a person guilty or not guilty is that of the jury, as directed by the trial judge.

The law as it affects reasonable force is not a matter of statue law as decided by parliament but case law as decided by president in earlier cases.

bornatbirth

23rd June 2011, 20:22

i wish you guys would get the full facts about tony martin and the house which was broken into :xxgrinning--00xx3:

i think john is trying to you to lie to :Erm: if someone breaks into your home...dont tell the police that used the bat which you keep at the side of your bed...tell them that it was dark and you picked something up and lashed out at a stranger in your house tried to hit you :D

Ako Si Jamie

23rd June 2011, 20:54

These politicians need to get a grip.

If a person gets confronted by an intruder in his own home how does he know he doesn't have a gun or a knife or any other sort of weapon? He doesn't, but more than likely the intruder has some kind of weapon or tool. The occupant might have his kids in the house, so he's going to protect them at all costs. He can't be sure this intruder won't hurt/kill them or himself so he's going to do whatever he can to immobilise him. If it means a crack around the head with a baseball bat then so be it. If the intruder dies, tough luck! He shouldn't be there in the first place!

My mate was burgled but he slept right through it. The copper told him if he had woken up and confronted them he would have probably been stabbed. Says it all really!

les_taxi

23rd June 2011, 22:49

Mp's I'm afraid represent themselves and they decide which way to vote irrespective of the public's wishes.
Best example is capital punishment, over the years often it has been concluded that most of the public would like to see it brought back for certain heinous crimes.
But the Mp's have decided not to vote for it so clearly a case of mp's not doing what the majority of the public want:cwm23:
Re-guarding vigilante groups I'm not totally for it but not totally against it either.
If you had a persistent troublemaker and nothing was being done and peoples lives were a misery and you could sort it out yourselves why not?
Also how about pedophiles? If a known pedophile moved in next to my daughter and grand-daughter I would not hesitate in making sure the community knew about him.

johncar54

24th June 2011, 07:32

Sorry Les I disagree with you. MPs are elected by us to represent us. If a substantial majority of the people in their constituency express a particular view to their MP, and also tell their MP that if he/she does not support their wishes that they will not vote for them next time, I believe there would be very few MPs who would not do as their electorate want.

The big problem with the way MP's vote is that very few of their electorate ever contact them expressing their views.

You mentioned capital punishment. In I believe the 60's there was a free vote on capital punishment. I contacted my MP to ensure that he knew I wanted him to vote in favour of retaining it. In the conversation he said I was the third person who had contacted him, out of around 100,000 in his constituency, regarding the vote; It was the day of the vote in Parliament ! I have no reason to believe that is not an average figure for 'peoples involvement.' Later that day, my MP voted the way I wanted.

The reason why minorities often get the laws they want is because they are vociferous. The silent majority is ignored. I do not see that as a fault of the MPs nor the system but of us the ordinary voters, who say 'we can't change anything' and we just complain to our friends when things go against what we would like.

As for vigilante groups. If one could be sure they would always get it right, that 'might' be an argument in support but even the legal system (police, barristers, courts etc) with all there checks and balances get it wrong sometimes. What chance would a mob have of doing so? What we need in an efficient system of policing and prosecuting which ensure protection of the individual, up-holds the legitimate rights of all and justice win (the guilty get convicted, innocent never get charged). However, whilst we have a majority of solicitors and barristers in Parliament (ensuring that new laws do not interfere with their lifestyle and ability to get paid for arguing lost causes) that is not going to happen.

The utopian solution: Voters get a lot more directly involved with the way their elected representatives do their job, maybe with a panel of unpaid local people questioning their every move on a daily basis. But don't hold your breath, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon !

dontpushme

24th June 2011, 09:25

How easy is it exactly to contact your MPs? Are people generally encouraged to tell them their opinions?

Dedworth

24th June 2011, 09:41

How easy is it exactly to contact your MPs? Are people generally encouraged to tell them their opinions?

Very easy phone (to their office), post, email

http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/

Face to face at their regular consituency "surgeries"

Dedworth

24th June 2011, 10:18

Good bit here from Littlejohn

The Left-wing criminal justice establishment will fight this every inch of the way. If there’s one thing they hate, it’s those they accuse of ‘taking the law into their own hands’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2007471/Watch-Its-Call-Me-Tony-Martin.html#ixzz1QBQuJkCU

Dedworth

24th June 2011, 19:31

The grub who died was out on Police bail over another "suspected" burglary. Justice has been done

A burglar stabbed to death after an attempted break-in was on police bail for another burglary, it has emerged.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007232/John-Leonard-Bennell-Burglar-stabbed-death-bail.html#ixzz1QDgOV5vn

grahamw48

24th June 2011, 19:59

Yep....serves the :censored: right.

joebloggs

24th June 2011, 20:02

My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her

do you feel you've wasted your time :Erm:

grahamw48

24th June 2011, 20:04

I think he's been chatting her up. :icon_lol:

joebloggs

24th June 2011, 20:14

I think he's been chatting her up. :icon_lol:

no wonder why she looks so miserable :cwm24:

:D

grahamw48

24th June 2011, 20:32

Guess who I was lucky enough to go to school with.

Ann Widdecombe.

:laugher:

joebloggs

24th June 2011, 20:58

Guess who I was lucky enough to go to school with.

Ann Widdecombe.

:laugher:

:hubbahubba: lucky guy graham :rolleyes:

Englishman2010

24th June 2011, 21:15

My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her

Good for you Ded:xxgrinning--00xx3: I'm sure she appreciates your eloquent sarcasm and humour. She's probably added you to her blocked senders list now:icon_lol: Your e-mails will be sitting in her spam folder for eternity. Don't be surprised if the next time you meet her face to face she gets an injunction out on you preventing you from coming within 100 yards of her:icon_lol:

Dedworth

24th June 2011, 21:28

Good for you Ded:xxgrinning--00xx3: I'm sure she appreciates your eloquent sarcasm and humour. She's probably added you to her blocked senders list now:icon_lol: Your e-mails will be sitting in her spam folder for eternity. Don't be surprised if the next time you meet her face to face she gets an injunction out on you preventing you from coming within 100 yards of her:icon_lol:

:laugher: We said hello in the local shopping centre not long ago, haven't had the injunction drop through the letterbox yet.

joebloggs

24th June 2011, 21:39

:laugher: We said hello in the local shopping centre not long ago, haven't had the injunction drop through the letterbox yet.

maybe its a super injunction but no one can tell you about it :laugher:

Dedworth

24th June 2011, 21:43

maybe its a super injunction but no one can tell you about it :laugher:

Your probably right again Joe :D

Arthur Little

26th June 2011, 00:00

i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him :Erm:

:Erm: ... him or her - female burglars aren't exactly unheard of y'know!

grahamw48

26th June 2011, 00:24

Yeah, FEMALES.... coming in...grabbing your bits. :NoNo:

johncar54

22nd July 2011, 12:24

Quote Originally Posted by bornatbirth:-

i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him

My reply was:-

Providing the force use is considered as Reasonable then no charge. However, if for example you have advertised here what you would do, then like Tony Martin the Norfolk farmer, you will almost certainly be convicted.

I have personal experience of a person who killed a man who was trying to rob him where the coroner's court found that he was killed as a result of 'justifiable homicide.'

It has just been announced that no action will be taken in the case which prompted this thread.

I guess that supports what I have been saying in a number of threads, albeit that some members did not agree with me. !!!!