Engish Law now completely insane

by **BobHelm** » January 10, 2010, 12:46 pm

Well here are a couple of incidents that really take the biscuit!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100110/ten ... 3eada.html

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 956044.ece

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

This is complete insanity & flies in the face of hundreds of years of what the law has always said. English justice has always prided itself on following common sense, whatever the actual letter of the law says.
I still believe that if someone enters your property illegally that they are voluntary giving up ANY legal rights.
I find it complete insanity that you are not allowed to protect yourself & family while on your own property.
I am sorry that what little respect that I had for the Police Force has now disappeared.

by **Laan Yaa Mo** » January 10, 2010, 1:04 pm

Khun Helm, we have the same insane laws in Canada. There is a Chinese on trial now for fighting back against three guys who tried to rob him. He and two workers chased after these thugs, captured them and held them until the police arrived. They were charged with kidnapping!!!

But, do not blame the police who, after all, are only doing their job. Blame the lawyers, judges and politicians who have changed English common law to English insane law. It stinks!

by **jai yen yen** » January 10, 2010, 1:12 pm

Not only are they charging the chinese shopkeeper but they gave the robber a reduced sentence in return for being a witness against him. :-k

by **jackspratt** » January 10, 2010, 1:40 pm

Bob it has long been the case in English, and therefore Australian law, that you can only use proportionate force when defending yourself (and others) - inside or outside your home.

The first story would have a bit more credibility if the news item had bothered to quote the police side of the story.

In the second case, it is up to the police to chase and apprehend offenders. You have never (and nor should you have) been able to chase someone down the street, and beat them up with a cricket bat - to the point of causing permanent brain damage.

by **Zidane** » January 10, 2010, 1:58 pm

Tilokarat wrote: Blame the lawyers, judges and politicians who have changed English common law to English insane law. It stinks!

These three groups are responsible more than anybody for the UK being flushed down the toilet.....it is so sad that ordinary decent people have allowed this to happen.
I do agree with proportionate force being used.However,what is a young mother alone with a child supposed to do when she finds someone peering through her windows after midnight ? The offenders are hardly likely to feel threatened if she starts pointing a bottle of Fairy Liquid at them ! I think waving a knife without going outside threatening them was an option many people would have chosen.
She could have been raped and both her and her daughter murdered.No doubt the intruders would have got some "do-gooder" lawyer to get them a reduced sentence ! [-X

by **BobHelm** » January 10, 2010, 2:02 pm

"Proportionate force" is fine, we are now talking NO force.
I think it is very debatable if,legally, you cannot pursue & apprehend a criminal. It is something the police have never recommended (for danger to the chaser of what the criminal might do) but never said it is against the law. As you are well aware I am rarely a member of the 'hang em' brigade. I do, however, believe that if some one breaks into private property to commit a crime then the owner has a right to take any action that they deem necessary to protect it.

by **Texpat** » January 10, 2010, 3:03 pm

I have to laugh.

Seriously. These examples provide some measure of insight as to why many Britons hold laws, politicians, council members and policemen in utter contempt. It's madness.

See today's Times Online for another whopper -- parents must accompany children aged 15 and under to the hongnam on licensed premises. :oops:

by **Aardvark** » January 10, 2010, 3:14 pm

Bob, not trying to highjack your thread but look at this one !! A Doctor puts his Car in for a Service and the Mechanic takes it for a test drive so fast that he enacts the HOON laws. Not being Guilty of any crime himself the Car is impounded for 28 days and the Doctor has to pay hundreds of Dollars to get his Car back...http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa ... hoon-laws/ I know it's not the same life or death scenario you are talking about, but shows the same stupid thinking of our finest legal minds :shock:

by **jackspratt** » January 10, 2010, 4:14 pm

Aa there is a very good and logical reason for the car being driven by the hoon to be impounded.If it was not the case, the hoon would be free do as he/she wishes, provided they were not driving their own car.

The good Dr is making a bl00dy big song and dance about it, when all he needs to do is hire a car for the month (he may have to slum it in a BMW), and then sue the mechanic for all his costs (including the impound fees) when he gets his Lambo back.

And then look for a new (and more responsible) mechanic.

by **Aardvark** » January 10, 2010, 4:28 pm

Aren't you missing the point Jack ?? HE was not in possession of the said Vehicle at the time, so why should the Law persecute him ??

by **jackspratt** » January 10, 2010, 4:39 pm

Are you suggesting they should impound the driver instead

It is not much different to other laws which allow for the seizure of property which has been involved in the commission of a crime, even where the property does not belong to the offender.

If, as they say, they will change the law to allow impounding a vehicle which belongs to the hoon, rather than another's vehicle in which the hooning occurred, that would be reasonable. Unfortunately that is not the law at the moment.

by **Aardvark** » January 10, 2010, 4:59 pm

I wonder how you would feel if you were the Victim, or are you just angry cause the guy happens to be a Doctor, ie Rich

and you the goody two shoes on other threads =D>

by **jackspratt** » January 10, 2010, 5:08 pm

I would be very p1ssed off - but I would do exactly as I suggested above.

What gives you the idea I am angry - I thought I was being quite rational? It's not my car.

And not sure what "Rich" and "goody two shoes" have got to do with the price of eggs :-k

by **Galee** » January 10, 2010, 6:03 pm

Add this one to the list.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -warn.html

You run the risk of being sued if you try to clear snow outside your property.

by **MALC** » January 10, 2010, 8:25 pm

there is not another country as insane as uk. how its changed in 2 yrs iv been away. roll on udon

Engish Law now completely insane

Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Re: Engish Law now completely insane

Who is online