Like the rest of the world, I’d noticed the story about NuLabour not being sensible. Sorry, that’s too general. The story about New Labour ministers deciding that, no, we don’t need to set the balance of law in favour of the victim and away from the criminal. In this instance, regarding defence of life and property in the event of burglary, they decided that the current law (which is an Ass) is fine.
Well, I didn’t comment earlier a) because I figured that most people would know where I stood on the issue and b) I was waiting to see if a particular fella commented on it first.
Guess what? He did. And, as always, he does a fine job of it.
Oh sure, if people don’t understand the law, bring in the PR people.
How NuLabor. Never mind what the peasants actually want (tougher penalties for lawbreakers, more protection for the law-abiding) — we just need to explain it better to the peasants.
How about just making it real simple, so that everyone, burglars and homeowners alike, can understand?
Break into someone’s house, and you can be killed or otherwise wounded or injured by the homeowner, at his discretion, without penalty.
In other words, how about giving the benefit of the doubt to the law-abiding, rather than to the fucking criminal?
If this seems a little extreme for the Brits, feel free to compare the burglary numbers of, say, London or Birmingham with those of South Carolina, where the above is pretty much the way it works.
And, because it’s the sort of thing I like to hear, I’ll make a note of another bit:
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrats? home affairs spokesman, welcomed the Government?s decision, saying the present law allowed self- defence. He did not want people to “feel it?s your responsibility to go down the stairs and actually attack the burglar”.
You fucking gutless pansy.
Of course it’s one’s responsibility to confront evil when it has invaded your home. The police are only there to load up the corpse, or to follow the blood trail.