Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.
This is a sea change for the way things have been done in (formerly) Great Britain. Previously, the homeowner who defended themselves against invading goblins would frequently find themselves in more trouble than the yob who actually broke in. I jokingly claimed that anyone in Britain who had someone break in and defended themselves should take the invader's wallet and claim they were mugging them - then it's only a ticketable offence (note the proper British spelling).
It's nice to see that the Brits are finally catching up to where things were, oh, about a thousand years ago...
That is all.
4 comments:
Glad to help. I must admit, when I first read the story, I thought something had slid in from a Parallel Universe.
Right now I just consider this paying lip service. They started this whole thing on defending your home back in January, yet a whole family was arrested for defending their home from 4 masked men breaking in.
I'll believe it when I actually see it.
Jay, I can handle you denigrating my mother country, in fact you are in the main correct but remember a thousand years ago we Brits had to greatest human right of all, habius corpus. Thanks to the rock ape that put us all 3 trillion in debt you Americans don't.
Which Americans don't have habeas corpus?
Or, do you mean the prisoners in Guantanamo? They aren't Americans, they weren't captured in America, and even if they had been captured as uniformed lawful combatants subject to the Geneva Convention protections of POWs, they could be held indefinately, until cessation of hostilities.
They would be the ones who have been had their habeas rights upheld since 2004. Unlike earlier unlawful enemy combatants, who were held to be without without habeas rights AT ALL. . . because there is a difference between "enemy combatant" and "common criminal" or "political opponant"
(Habeas doesn't mean you have to have a trial -- it only means the government has to prove that holding you is legal.)
I guess Long Kesh, Belmarsh, and all the times that England or the UK suspended habeas for their CITIZENS (and earlier, subjects) purely by Act of Parliment doesn't count, huh?
Post a Comment