Brits Get The Right Of Self Defense

Until now, there was only a common law right to self defense in Britian that was at best unclear and which often functioned to make a criminal of a law abiding citizen doing nothing more than acting to protect their person and property. That is true no longer. Britain passed a law in September (I completely missed it) that goes into effect today outlining what appears to be a fairly robust right to self defense. This is superb news for Britain and it is a law I never expected a Labour Parliament to pass. I stand corrected. In a post written within the past 24 hours, Britain's Devil's Advocates, I took the socialists to task for the harm that they were doing to religion and law and order. My comments as to the former stand. My comments as to the latter, many of which were precisely on the British lack of a clear right to self defense, obviously are no longer accurate. It is not often that I am happy to be proven wrong and actually savor the taste of finely cooked crow.
_______________________________________________________

This from the Telegraph:

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.

However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.

The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their own homes in the wake of a number of high profile cases.

In 2000, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter for shooting an intruder in his home.

Earlier this year, Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.

The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided Mr Singh should not be charged.

Until now people have had to prove in court that they acted in self defence but the changes mean police and the Crown Prosecution Service will decide on cases before this stage.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves "instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate.

He added the changes in law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim.

Mr Straw – and other Labour ministers – have previously repeatedly blocked attempts by opposition MPs to give greater protection to householders.

. . . The new self defence law, which came into force yesterday, is contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and was announced by Mr Straw last September.

He is understood to have decided new laws were necessary after he was involved in four "have-a go’’ incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home.

. . . Mr Straw said: "The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side.

"The Government strongly supports the right of law abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.

"Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it – in other words, making a reality of justice.

"These changes in the law will make clear – victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal.". . .

Read the entire article. You have to love how the law came about - the Home Office Secretary involved in chasing down criminals personally. One, my hat is off to him for his personal bravery. Two, the fact that his acts led to his support for a change in the law suppports a critical hypothesis that I formed long ago, that the elitist left has only a tenuous hold on reality and that their utopian attitudes change only through the rare personal exposure to reality. Now if Britain would only send the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury over to live in Saudi Arabia for a few months and get a chance to gain a greater understanding of Sharia law . . .

(H/T Bookworm Room)

Read More...

Summary only...

Stockholm Syndrome At The BBC?

The suicidal partnership between the far left - or the chattering class as they are known across the pond - and radical Islam is mind boggling. It is also ironic given that the hard socialist left in the West rejects "religion" and has warred against Christianity for the past two centuries. At any rate, it is the hard left chattering class who have run the BBC since its inception. Thus it is no surprise, though mind numbling amazing, that the Beeb is running a drama that has militant Chrisians beheading peaceful Islamic victims in Britain. I am pretty sure the BBC was able to dispense with the disclaimer that the drama is not based on real events.
____________________________________________________

The BBC produced a drama, Bonekickers, in which innocent Muslims in Britain are attacked and beheaded by evil Christian radicals. Are the BBC just incredibly misguided and simple minded multiculturalists, or does their inability to assess reality go deeper than that, into some sort of group Stockholm Syndrome where they now identify with their attackers and are actually unable to discern reality.

Just out of curiosity, how many militant CHRISTIAN organizaitons with a recent history of deadly violence against non-Christians can you name? For that matter, can you name the last Christian to behead an innocent Muslim? As Gateway Pundit says, this really is beyond parody.

This is a two'fer for the BBC. They have denigrated Christianity - something the marxian multiculturalists in Britain have been doing as part of their war on Christianity for over a century. And the BBC have pretended that Muslims are non-threatening victims. The irony is that the next non-Muslim in Britain murdered by an Islamist will have paid for the production of this incredible piece of misguided piece of work from the BBC.

Update: The MoxArgron Group's intergallactic musings on this are funny and pointedly accurate:

If this show was based on facts, instead of prejudices, they'd be doing stories on honour killings, kidnappings that end in torture and beheadings, rapes, bombings, and mass slaughters, all done in the name of a fundamentalist religion, and guess what, it's not being done by Christians.

Read More...

Summary only...

Britain's Growing Problems of Immigration & Emigration

Until now, the very topic of immigration has been off limits in Britain. Anyone with the termerity to raise the issue was charged by the chattering class with being a racist. Indeed, it was only last week that a Tory MP candidate was forced to withdraw from the political race for remarks on immigration that, while aggressive, were well within the realm of what should be reasoned debate at this point in Britain.

The forced resignation of the Tory MP candidate shows that the Tories and their leader, David Cameron, do not have the stomach to force a much needed debate. Out of control immigration, both from within and without the EU, and rising emigration are drastically changing the face of Britain. Both are a result of the disastorous years of multicultural social experimentation by the left made all the worse by EU law that in effect, mandates open borders as regards immigration by citizens of the EU:

Britain is experiencing unprecedented levels of immigration with more than half a million foreigners arriving to live here in a single year, new figures show.

Last year, 510,000 foreign migrants came to the UK to stay for at least 12 months, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time 400,000 people, more than half of whom were British, emigrated.

An exodus on this scale - amounting to one British citizen leaving the country every three minutes - has not been seen in the UK for almost 50 years.

Overall in 2006, there were a record 591,000 new arrivals. Only 14 per cent of these were Britons coming home.

It is the first time the number of foreign migrants has topped half a million and the statistics do not include hundreds of thousands of east Europeans who have arrived to work in Britain in the past two years. This is because most say they are coming for less than 12 months and do not show up as long-term immigrants.

The figures suggest that only one sixth of the immigrants were from the states which joined the EU in 2004.

The biggest influx was from the New Commonwealth - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - with more than 200,000 migrants.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, nearly four million foreign nationals have come to Britain and 1.6 million have left. Over the same period, 1.8 million Britons have left, but only 979,000 have returned.

. . . Yet despite high levels of emigration and a low birth rate, the population is still growing rapidly because of immigration by the equivalent to a city the size of Bristol every year.

This is placing huge pressures on public services, with councils claiming they are not getting enough financial help from the Government.

Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the Local Government Association, said the Government - which earlier this month had to apologise for publishing incorrect figures on foreign migrants working in Britain - had no clear idea of where all the immigrants were going and their impact on services.

. . . Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said: "Two thirds of yet another record level of arrivals come from outside the EU.

"They could and should be subject to much tighter controls."

Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman, said: "These figures prove that immigration is still running at unsustainably high levels.

"This is the direct result of the Government's 'open door' approach which has totally failed to consider the impact of immigration on public services, housing and community cohesion."

. . . Little research has been done into the reasons for the exodus of Britons, though it appears more are going abroad to retire though many younger people are leaving to work.

A study last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggested that one in 12 UK nationals may now be living abroad.

There are 250,000 second homes owned by British nationals in France alone.

Surveys indicate that another one million are set to pack their bags for good over the next five years and a further 500,000 live abroad for part of the year.

. . . The difference of around three million between the emigration of British nationals and immigration of foreigners represents a five per cent turnover of the population in 10 years.

Previous immigrations did not exceed one per cent over 50 years.

This significant turnaround in population has inevitably changed its ethnic composition.

Over the past 20 years, the white British population has decreased slightly while the number of ethnic-minority Britons has doubled.

. . . Little research has been done into the reasons for the current exodus of Britons, although it appears more are going abroad to retire while many younger people are leaving to work.

Read the article here. I love the line in there about no one is sure why there is such an exodus of native Britons. Britain's open borders policy is a product of the "multicultural" mindset - and it is working a tremendous change to the face of Britain. Perhaps this article by Professor Daniel Pipes might provide an explanation for what seems to be a very mysterious situation to the British chattering class. As one of Her Majesty's subjects recently remarked to me, "its the chattering classes who, having bulloxed everything up, are now the ones leading the charge out of Britain while the rest of are left to sort out their mess."

Read More...

Summary only...