UK GOVERNMENT FIGHT AGAINST CRIME LABELED A FARCE– New laws that were designed to give homeowners greater rights at tackling burglars have been labeled a weak and meaningless farce as the Government rolls out what you can and cannot do to protect your home, family and belongings in the event of a burglary.
The new laws were specifically developed to allow homeowners to take greater action against would-be burglars and if this involved violence then so be it. It was designed to make would-be burglars aware that breaking into someone’s home could carry dire consequences but that deterrent has been watered down to such an extent that burglars must be delighted at the new laws.
The idea was to allow homeowners to use reasonable maximum force. The word ‘reasonable’ is highly ambiguous and in a court of law it is used to allow a judge and jury to determine the level of force necessary for protection in any given circumstance.
“Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are crime victims and should be treated that way.” Justice Minister Chris Grayling; Tory Party conference 2012
The Government has promised to allow homeowners to use maximum force when and if confronted by an intruder. This promise came about from the constant injustice homeowners and victims faced as many were arrested simply for defending their property.
Unfortunately, as with most Government promises and vows to change, the new rules clearly indicates the contempt Government has towards the people as it watered down the new laws, in according with the Liberal Left, that in effect will make homeowners not only victims of crime but victims of the justice system if they take action against an intruder.
Official guidance sent to judges, prosecutors and police shows:
- Homeowners cannot rely on the new defence if they find an intruder in their garden or chase them outside – the fight must take place indoors.
- Shopkeepers can only get away with disproportionate attacks on robbers if they live above their shop, and only if the two parts of the building are connected.
- Shop assistants and customers cannot get involved in the violence, unless their loved ones happen to be living in the store.
- Householders cannot use the defence if they are only trying to protect their property, rather than trying to defend themselves or their family.
The document admits: ‘The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproportionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder.’
This basically means that a homeowner does not have the right to take affirmative action against an intruder and that any such action can end up with the homeowner being prosecuted.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is clearly able to see that the new law does not allow homeowners the right to protect themselves adequately and that criminals, as the Liberal Left like to label them, are the victims of society that creates a set of unfortunate circumstances which compels them to commit crimes.
Look carefully at the image below. It is clear to see that a robbery is taking place and that the shopkeeper is defending himself and his property. This is an actual CCTV image released last week and while the perpetrator was armed with a gun the shopkeeper tried to defend himself with a chair. Under the new laws, and because the shopkeeper does not live above the premises, the shopkeeper could have been prosecuted if it had been determined that he had used ‘grossly disproportionate’ force; resulting in a fine, prison sentence and no doubt the perpetrator being able to sue for damages.
Yesterday critics lashed out at the Government saying their resolve was weak willed, derogatory towards victims and a clear indication that no criminal will face either the wrath of the public or the judicial system.
Over the last few months I have been watching Mr. Grayling and listening to what he has had to say about crime and the measures Government should take to redress the balance. At one point I even thought that if his ideas could be enacted into law we might just start to see criminals being treated as criminals. I even began thinking that Mr. Grayling might even make a good candidate as Tory Leader.
Sadly these thoughts are not longer relevant as all I see is yet another politician with empty words and rhetoric whose only plan is to hang on to the job regardless of his incompetency.
Once again the new laws firmly place the onus of crime not on the criminal but the victim and it will be the victim, if the victim takes action, to justify their actions in a court of law to determine whether such action was ‘reasonable and justifiable’.
This new law is basically a straitjacket for homeowners and an acknowledgement by the Government to their increasing levels of incompetency. Is it any wonder why, when a perfectly sensible law such as this is watered down until it actually protects the criminal, that the UK public no longer feels that there is any justice in our judicial system?
The original concept of allowing homeowners to tackle intruders has been taken away and in the process through left-liberal thinking has again empowered the criminal. What we should have is a law based on common sense and use the test of ‘reasonableness’ in a positive way.
I personally fail to see the problem of beating an intruder or even killing him for that matter. This might all seem a little extreme but sometimes extreme circumstances require extreme measures and no homeowner openly invites the intrusion.
We have become a society that gives more consideration to criminals and will readily punish victims for any actions they take to protect themselves. Clearly this is wrong and I for one would happily sit in a prison cell knowing I had taken the life of another in the pursuit of protecting my family and what we need is a Government in power that will see common sense and once again allow people to defend theirselves.
Remember a burglar has a choice as to whether they enter your property or not and therefore the entire risk and responsibility should be placed squarely on their shoulders. Unfortunately these new laws now clearly make it a crime to protect yourself.
Would really like your take on the article so feel free to leave your comments below.