Human rights are not conditional

Of course they are. The right to liberty is conditional on not breaking the law and being incarcerated. Ditto the right to freedom of movement.

On subject, the Tories have advocated a move from ‘reasonable’ force to ‘not wholly disproportionate’ force for years now. This is probably not of great legal moment, in that a householder is given a lot of leeway in what determines reasonable force, but what, I suspect, it is designed to do is reverse the impression that a householder is less protected than a burglar by the law.

It is, in other words, a populist move. And almost certainly a popular one too – remember the Today Programme law? A hard one to argue against too, especially as the ridiculous ’so you could torture someone to death then?’ point is answered by the ‘not wholly disproportionate force’ threshold.

It’s fun to rag on Nadine Dorries – living proof that brains are optional – but this is a perfectly reasonable policy. Or at any rate, not wholly disproportionate.

‘At the time Sunny argued that he thought the law stood fine as it was but sympathised with Conservative attempts to strengthen it in favour of householders who have their house broken into. Ultimately he supported his friend’s mantra ‘If you don’t want your ass kicked then don’t break into my house.’’

Actually what Sunny said was that if he had a gun he’d ‘blow that mo fo away’ which kinda makes Cameron look like a woolly liberal.

‘Of course they are. The right to liberty is conditional on not breaking the law and being incarcerated. Ditto the right to freedom of movement.’

No, they’re not conditional otherwise they wouldn’t be ‘human rights’ – and since the ‘Law’ can be more or less whatever the State decrees that week limiting ‘human rights’ to those that don’t, say, photograph a cop beating an innocent bistander, seems to restrict these rights rather drastically.

Why not offer the full quote shatterface, since you claim to be so balanced?

But Munir had Hussain not only had burglars in his house – they also tied up his family and tormented them. I cannot guarantee that if I came back to my house and saw that being done to my family, I wouldn’t pull out a gun and mow that mofo down straight-away

3 – the HRA, for example, says the following:

(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics and drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

In other words, the right to liberty is both qualified and conditional.

Would Tory policy of “not wholly disproportionate” force being allowed let me chase burglers down the street and beat them with a cricket bat, inflicting such brain damage that the accused burgler is – oh irony – ultimately unfit to stand trial? I don’t think any of them have answered that question yet…

And yeh course rights are conditional, it’s called responsibility if I remember the cliche correctly.

ie: you have the right to talk shite, but the responsibility not to incite destruction/hatred…
or you have the right to liberty, but the responsibility not to go around breaking whichever laws you fancy.

course there is an argument about the responsibility of breaking incorrect/immoral laws – civil disobediance etc- but that’s a different kettle of fish entirely.

@ Tim J:

On subject, the Tories have advocated a move from ‘reasonable’ force to ‘not wholly disproportionate’ force for years now.

Well, as you know, Grayling in December suggested that the Tories would change the law to allow anything short of ‘grossly disproportionate’ force, and then had to walk it back, in the face of the charge that he was advocating a ‘license to kill burglars’. And Cameron’s description of householder’s rights goes dramatically beyond Grayling’s earlier suggestions. For if burglars leave their human rights outside, they must leave their right not to be subjected to grossly disproportionate force outside.

This is probably not of great legal moment, in that a householder is given a lot of leeway in what determines reasonable force, but what, I suspect, it is designed to do is reverse the impression that a householder is less protected than a burglar by the law.

Well it is of legal moment. Householders are treated solicitously insofar as it is recognised in law that they may not be able to think clearly in the heat of the moment, and so may be mistaken about what is reasonably required to repel an invader. That is not the same as allowing them to use disproportionate force, as the Tories propose, even in the cold light of day.

As to the public view of the law, wouldn’t the Tories be better serving us all if they used the limelight to dispel the misunderstanding that the law is weighted against householders? The amount of Tories I have seen on Twitter claiming dishonestly that burglars’ rights take priority over those of householders is (for want of a better word) criminal.

A hard one to argue against too, especially as the ridiculous ’so you could torture someone to death then?’ point is answered by the ‘not wholly disproportionate force’ threshold.

On the contrary, it is hard to deny that unreasonable, disproportionate force ought not to be permitted. It is almost definitionally inappropriate to use such force. And to repeat, allowing householders to use unreasonable, disproportionate force is not the same as acknowledging that they will often make an honest mistake in the heat of the moment about what is reasonable. For the Tory proposal to allow unreasonable, disproportionate force would also apply to those who act in cold blood.

As for the point about torturing someone being ridiculous, it is not. For whilst the grossly disproportionate test would presumably rule out torture, Cameron and Dorries’s suggestions yesterday about burglars losing all rights would not (and do not make out that Dorries went beyond what Cameron said, because she didn’t. Cameron didn’t say that burglars leave only some of their human rights outside). What is really ridiculous is that the leader of the Conservative Party would use such a reductive, unqualified, meat-headed slogan to express his beliefs about the limits of self-defence. According to the slogan, there simply are no limits. His claim goes well beyond even the previous, ill-advised populism of Grayling. And for this he has been rightly criticised.

As to the public view of the law, wouldn’t the Tories be better serving us all if they used the limelight to dispel the misunderstanding that the law is weighted against householders?

Exactly – if there is a widespread misunderstanding of the law then the answer is to try to change people’s perceptions not to change the law.

There is also a wider point to be made. Cameron has been banging on about Broken Britain a lot lately. If that slogan means anything, it presumably means we live in a society in which violence is too commonplace, life is cheap, and compassion is lacking. I find it impossible to square Cameron’s concern with Broken Britain with his suggestion yesterday that there are no limits to the beatings one can mete out to an intruder to an intruder on your property, even one that is not, or has ceased to be, a threat to you or your family.

‘But Munir had Hussain not only had burglars in his house – they also tied up his family and tormented them. I cannot guarantee that if I came back to my house and saw that being done to my family, I wouldn’t pull out a gun and mow that mofo down straight-away’

Ah, you couldn’t *guarantee* you *wouldn’t* ‘pull out a gun and mow that mofo down straight away’.

That’s *entirely* different: that’s compassionate.

When someone commits an act of burglary, they are, quite literally, placing themselves outside the law.

Such people do not deserve, morally or ethically, the same legal protections as people who stay within the law.

What is so liberal about sticking up for dangerous criminals at the expense of decent people?

Worth quoting Sunny at length:

‘When it comes to law and order I’d describe myself more centrist and right-wing than on the left in many cases. I’ve been to far too many countries like India where the rule of law is woefully missing, and as a result poor people lose out because they don’t have the connections (or money) to get adequate justice. The law there, in most cases, is an ass.

‘With rule of law also comes the right to self-defence: another issue I’m fairly big on. Of course law enforcement should take precedence, but if I’m being attacked then I want to be able to deal with the problem than have to wait for the police.

‘Which is why, I find myself with the Daily Mail in being outraged over the sentencing of Munir Hussain.

”Salem spent two weeks in hospital recovering from his injuries after he terrorised Mr Hussain and his family in their home on September 3, 2008.

”Mr Hussain, 53, was jailed for two and a half years for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and his brother Tokeer received 39 months for the same offence.”

‘Now, I accept that the law should ensure that people are not allowed to mete out vigilante justice. I also accept that proportionality is important – in that if someone punches me, then mowing them down with an M-16 Assault Rifle is likely to land me in jail.

‘But Munir had Hussain not only had burglars in his house – they also tied up his family and tormented them. I cannot guarantee that if I came back to my house and saw that being done to my family, I wouldn’t pull out a gun and mow that mofo down straight-away. As my mate said: ‘If you don’t want your ass kicked then don’t break into my house‘.

‘To that extent, while I think the law fairly ok as it stands, I do sympathise with Conservative attempts to strengthen it in favour of householders who have their house broken into.

‘PS. Ireland is about to change its laws on self-defence, giving people the right to use force, including lethal force, against attack in their homes if they believe they will be the victim of murder, rape, kidnapping etc. I’m all in favour of that.’

—–

So you say you’re ‘centrist or right-wing’ on law and order, you share the Daily Mail’s ‘outrage’ and you support Conservative attempts to strengthen the law ‘in favour of home owners’.

(Oh, and you also think India needs more vigilantes because what that country really needs is summary justice.)

Not a word, of course, about the fact that home invasions are so incredibly rare in this country that basing policies on such extraordinary circumstances would be madness, or about the possibility of innocent people being targeted by outraged mobs or teenagers being accidentally shot by their parents while sneeking home after all-night parties.

Shatterface @ 12,

Assuming you were in that situation, what would you do? If you were in a position to, I assume you’d see it as your duty to stop the torture of your relatives, yes?

To what extent should you put yourself at risk?

Try to persuade them of your liberal credentials and assume you could talk them down?

Offer the torturers a a bout of fisticuffs?

Consider that, if your attempt at freeing them was to fail, you’d all be worse off?

Call the Police?

Find that 9mm automatic that absolutely ever citizen has in their desk drawer and use it?

Me? I’d call the cops….

“Now whether or not there is a human right to not be tortured is a not matter for debate. The idea that you can forsake this right for entering someone’s house is not on the table either.”

Why not ? I’ve always thought of the protection of law as something that is only granted if you stay within it. If you knowingly behave outside the law then you do not deserve its protection, anything else in inequitable. In this sense human rights absolutely are conditional.
In reality few juries have convicted a householder who uses reasonable force and because of that I think the law as it stands generally works quite well, even though it does create (in the minds of people like you) a ludicrous equivalence between the “rights” of someone who would happily stab you to death for your car keys and the rights of someone naturally protecting thier family/property.
The tory proposal will clear this up, puting the burden on prroof on the crown to show that the force used was grossly disproprtionate.

@12 “Not a word, of course, about the fact that home invasions are so incredibly rare in this country”

So “rare” that I know of 2 people (in completely different parts of the country) being burgled in the past month ? You may as well say that murder is rare so we shouldn’t bother to legislate for it.

@ 6 “inflicting such brain damage that the accused burgler is – oh irony – ultimately unfit to stand trial? I don’t think any of them have answered that question yet…”

Yes, that was convenient wasn’t it. Funnily enough he has been arrested several times since the “injury” for burgulary, so he’s obvioulsy fit enough to do that. God you people are so naive.

shatterface – for all your hysterical attempts at mud-slinging, you don’t actually know what the law is right now do you?

Here’s a scenario:

armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer’s shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted

That is the law how it stands now, and what is what I was talking about above:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_170632

What the Tories are advocating is going further. Do you really have to be so thick??

What is so liberal about sticking up for dangerous criminals at the expense of decent people?

What are you, some sort of shatterface clone? You’re asking what is so liberal about demanding some form of proportionality in law?

Matt Munro @ 14,

I think you are being ingenuous when you say this:

Why not ? I’ve always thought of the protection of law as something that is only granted if you stay within it. If you knowingly behave outside the law then you do not deserve its protection, anything else in inequitable. In this sense human rights absolutely are conditional.

Well, no. Not exactly. It seems to me that – particularly in advance of a ‘guilty’ verdict in a court of law – that the protection of the law applies.

It certainly wouldn’t seem appropriate that one could release ones own psychotic inner self on the trapped burglar, without at least a finger being raised to the lips of society at large.

For being a burglar is a tad more honourable than being an out and out sadistic lunatic, no?

You too should take the test at 13.

Be honest. What would you do?

@16.

Well yes. No-one is disputing that Walid Salem is a career criminal, but doesn’t the fact that he apparently commited ID fraud after his beating prove that arbitary vigilante-style violent “justice” doesn’t actually work as a deterrant?

There is a difference between legitimate self-defence (as you point out @14 “In reality few juries have convicted a householder who uses reasonable force and because of that I think the law as it stands generally works quite well”), and running after the criminal with three mates, beating him with a golf club and a cricket bat with such force that it breaks into three pieces and according to three independant pyschiatrists caused brain injury. That’s the difference the court was originally (and correctly, IMHO) trying to make, before caving to tabloid justice and moral panic.

Remember BNP-supporting Tony Martin? Shot that 16 year old in the back? Hardly self-defence.

The fact is none of these cases outcomes would be any different under the Conservative policy, and they should have the balls to admit it.

Aside but Harrys place are now banning any posts that show that they have been running anti Labour posts.
Here are to two that have been banned.
“Forget the Muslim angle they, have the same economic right wing libertarian views as Charles Moore and Fraser Nelson.
Name ONE difference between the four journalists.

and

He was not sacked fIs HP a LEFT wing site Mark2.
On issues such as education, the NHS, welfare, taxation and privatisation I would say they are libertarian right.
I wouldn’t say they are social democrats economically. They believe in neoliberal solutions to the world’s problems.
Secular and socially liberal. Yes but that is common ground amongst most of the population.”
A little like your site.

.
Lucy and the HP gang seem to be working for central office and this just a predictable campaign by HP to get Dave in.

Well done Sunny.

Old Labour,

Well, who’d have thunk it?

But why is it ‘Well done Sunny.’

I’d have thought, correct me if I am wrong, that Sunny is no fan of Harry’s Place?

Perhaps you could explain a bit more?

Matt Munro @ 14 – “The tory proposal will clear this up, puting the burden on prroof on the crown to show that the force used was grossly disproprtionate.”

The burden of proof is already on the crown to disprove a defence of self-defence, once it has been raised (which, of course, it wasn’t in the case that provoked this whole debate). And that defence already allows for the fact that someone who feels threatened cannot be expected to weigh all the facts to a nicety.

’shatterface – for all your hysterical attempts at mud-slinging, you don’t actually know what the law is right now do you?’

Hysterical? I’m not the one fantasizing about mowing ‘mofos’ down.

Where’s this gun from that you are suddenly pulling out? You’d have to walking into the situation armed in the first place. What exactly are the chances of you walking in on a home invasion – and armed? It’s a right-wing power fantasy.

If you actually have a gun and you are thinking these thoughts you should turn it in: a responsible gun owner (like myself) keeps their weapon in a locked metal cabinet. We don’t invent scenarios in which we’d use it on another human being. Maybe if you’d actually worked with ex-offenders you wouldn’t see criminals as target practice.

Do you stand in front of a mirror at home practicing your ‘Are you talking to me?’ speach?

Shatterface,

Do you stand in front of a mirror at home practicing your ‘Are you talking to me?’ speach?

Seems to me that is all you could do. You have failed to answer my question at 13.

In fact you don’t know what you’d do, do you?

You have no answer.

Presumably those who think having a gun handy in these circumstances think the police should be armed too? I mean, they’re far more likely to encounter these situations than ordinary citizens.

But the argument against arming the police is that it increases the likelihood of criminals arming themselves – and shooting first. That argument works against armed response to burglers too. If a burgler thinks there’s a good chance of running into armed home owners he’s far likelier to arm himself too.

‘In fact you don’t know what you’d do, do you?

You have no answer.’

I’m not going to walk into this situation armed anyway, am I? I thought I made that clear. If I had time to sneak past the burglers, unlock my gun cabinet and load my shotgun I’d have time to call the police. Even if I did get to the gun I’d probably just threaten them with it. Ever had a shotgun pointed at you? Would you pull that trigger? Any idea of the *damage* it would cause to human flesh and bone?

What exactly are the chances of *any* of this happening anyway?

Seriously? You want to make law based on watching ‘Funny Games’?

Kingoldby,

When someone commits an act of burglary, they are, quite literally, placing themselves outside the law.

Such people do not deserve, morally or ethically, the same legal protections as people who stay within the law.

So we should deny them habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial? Perhaps we could keep them locked up, rape and torture them with impunity, too? And kill them? Is that what you’re suggesting?

What is so liberal about sticking up for dangerous criminals at the expense of decent people?

What is the ‘expense’? What is being expended?

Incidentally, the torture of a burglar isn’t far-fetched. There was a case in the UK – that of one of the few householders (or equivalent) prosecuted – where a shopkeeper laid in wait for a burglar, beat him, tied him up, pushed him into a hole, and set him on fire.

shatteface: You’d have to walking into the situation armed in the first place. What exactly are the chances of you walking in on a home invasion – and armed? It’s a right-wing power fantasy.

Well done for shifting the goal posts around once I pointed out that my example was perfectly within the law and you were the one trying to paint me to the right of Chris Grayling. The rest of your crap can be safely ignored.

douglas – I’ve deleted that comment.

Matt Munro: The tory proposal will clear this up, puting the burden on prroof on the crown to show that the force used was grossly disproprtionate.

What Tom said above. Quite a lot of you on here making wild accusations don’t actually seem to know the law as it stands. That also goes for the Tory party.

Check out “The Outlaw Gordon Brown” @ youtube dot com/thisisjohnnyblack

Sunny,

douglas – I’ve deleted that comment.

Thanks. I have enough trouble defending what I actually think here rather than what some lunatic puts into my mouth…

Anyway Shatterface, who I genuinely have time for usually, is quite out on a limb on this argument.

I’m not going to walk into this situation armed anyway, am I? I thought I made that clear. If I had time to sneak past the burglers, unlock my gun cabinet and load my shotgun I’d have time to call the police. Even if I did get to the gun I’d probably just threaten them with it. Ever had a shotgun pointed at you? Would you pull that trigger? Any idea of the *damage* it would cause to human flesh and bone?

What exactly are the chances of *any* of this happening anyway?

Seriously? You want to make law based on watching ‘Funny Games’?

The only sensible answer that Shatterface has is mine too.

Call the Old Bill.

An incident like this, as he says, is so far away from our usual experience that the law should recognise that as an expedient mitigation. If we do not act logically then that is just because, just because we are well and truly out of our comfort zone.

Doesn’t excuse after the fact torture, or shit like that.

7 – read what Cameron actually said in full, in the interview linked to.

the proposal has been put forward which is to say that unless the action you take as a homeowner is grossly disproportionate…

The rhetoric about leaving human rights at the door is just that: rhetoric. The policy is, as it has been for ages, to move from ‘reasonable’ force to force which is not ‘grossly disproportionate’.

For whilst the grossly disproportionate test would presumably rule out torture, Cameron and Dorries’s suggestions yesterday about burglars losing all rights would not…

See above.

On the contrary, it is hard to deny that unreasonable, disproportionate force ought not to be permitted. It is almost definitionally inappropriate to use such force…

Ditto

According to the slogan, there simply are no limits…

Ditto.

This simply isn’t a big legal deal. As you know, the courts are usually pretty forgiving on householders who over-reacted on the spur of the moment. But this policy isn’t really aimed at the courts, it’s aimed at – well, what does Cameron say in the interview that this whole thread is about?

the reason for changing the law is people I think do find it rather unclear what the current framework of reasonable force actually means, and one of the reasons for raising the threshold is not just what actually happens in the court of law, but it’s to make sure that fewer cases frankly are taken to court, that fewer people are arrested for doing what I think is perfectly legitimate which is to defend yourself in your own home.

What is or is not reasonable is always likely to be a fine judgement, and one which the CPS are not sufficiently confident of making – far easier to have a court do it. Make the test more lenient, and you will change both the public perception and the likeliness of charges being brought in the first place.

Alternatively, the Tories want to subsidise Britain’s important rack, thumbscrew and iron maiden manufacturers, hopefully testing them all on cute little kittens.

What is or is not reasonable is always likely to be a fine judgement, and one which the CPS are not sufficiently confident of making – far easier to have a court do it. Make the test more lenient, and you will change both the public perception and the likeliness of charges being brought in the first place.

“On an informal trawl the CPS has only been able to find 11 cases in the last 15 years where people have been prosecuted for attacking intruders into houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of these appear to have resulted from domestic household burglaries.” – CPS press release

So why do people get the facts so ridiculously wrong?

From that press release:

So long as a householder is not acting in retribution or revenge, the force used in self defence would have to be wholly excessive and out of proportion before a prosecution would be contemplated.

So what’s the problem with changing the law to reflect the reality? If the test used by the CPS is ‘not grossly disproportionate’ why the outrage about the prospect of changing the test in law to ‘not grossly disproportionate’?

What a sensible, moderate policy…

Because changing the law to ‘not grossly disproportionate’ would mean that people could quite deliberately use force that *is* out of proportion.

The situation at the moment is that you can use whatever force seems necessary, but no more, and account will be taken of your mental state when considering whether you were only doing what seemed necessary. That is sensible, it’s just, and it’s pragmatic.

35 – and it’s not the test used by the CPS in determining whether to prosecute, who have obviously decided that when determining what seemed ‘reasonable’ to a householder, the only practical way of doing so was to eliminate the grossly disproportionate and allow everything else.

This policy is either not much of a change in the practicality of the law (my view), or it is a grotesquely illiberal authoritarian measure (LibCon’s view apparently). But if it is the latter, then the CPS must have been acting in a grotesque, authoritarian and revolting manner for a decade or more, without anyone seeming to worry too much.

It probably wouldn’t make a huge amount of difference to the situations that would be prosecuted, no.

But that’s not the whole issue.

It would enshrine in law a principle that disproportionate force is allowed, which goes totally against the principle of self-defence. The CPS saying ‘under the circumstances, we can see why you *thought* that was reasonable, so we won’t prosecute’ is not the same thing as making it legal to use disproportionate force in general.

On top of that, thanks to the way the media coverage has gone, and Cameron’s leaping on the Munir Hussain bandwagon, it would encourage people to retaliate against their attackers as Hussain did, thinking that was now allowed.

And all for what? There’s no evidence whatsoever that the current law is failing to protect householders.

It would enshrine in law a principle that disproportionate force is allowed, which goes totally against the principle of self-defence.

There is no real legal difference between ‘reasonable’ and ‘not wholly disproportionate’. Look at the judgement in R v Palmer:

If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation.

That’s a definition of ‘reasonable force’ that amounts to it not being wholly out of proportion. These are common law concepts, determined by precedent. What the purpose of this law change appears to be is a nudge to the public perception of what your rights are – by changing a legal term of art into a more widely understandable one. As I said above – not much of a change.

I don’t see how ‘not grossly disproportionate’ is at all easier to understand. I also don’t agree that R v Palmer necessarily shows that ‘reasonable’ and ‘not wholly [or grossly, which may or may not be equivalent] disproportionate’ are equivalent.

But even if I accepted those, there *is* still a significant difference of principle between having a law which says you may use reasonable force, and one which says you may use force which is disproportionate, albeit only up to some level of disproportion.

If there was a major gain to be made in correcting a law that was unjust in practice, maybe that principle would be worth sacrificing. But the law is working fine at the moment, and all that this sort of suggestion does is mislead the public into thinking that it isn’t.

But even if I accepted those, there *is* still a significant difference of principle between having a law which says you may use reasonable force, and one which says you may use force which is disproportionate, albeit only up to some level of disproportion

The law effectively already says this. There is not a straight line of amount of force, starting at none, moving to reasonable and ending at disproportionate. The test for whether the force used was reasonable already relies on whether or not it was wholly disproportionate. Stabbing an unarmed intruder to death is clearly disproportionate. But it can also be a reasonable act of self defence.

It is, incidentally, also already the case that a burglar (for example) can only sue the householder if the force used against him was, ahem, ‘grossly disproportionate’. If those words are your bug bear, then I’m afraid the pass has already been sold. In the CJA 2003 as it turns out.

I also don’t agree that R v Palmer necessarily shows that ‘reasonable’ and ‘not wholly [or grossly, which may or may not be equivalent] disproportionate’ are equivalent.

Without prejudice I assume? If you don’t like Palmer, try Chisam:

where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor…

The legal system is currently using the ‘Cameron test’ in determining whether cases go to trial. Clarifying the law so that it reflects this is little more than common sense.

Matt Munro@15

Sorry to come to this late, but:

“[Home are invasions] So “rare” that I know of 2 people (in completely different parts of the country) being burgled in the past month ? You may as well say that murder is rare so we shouldn’t bother to legislate for it.”

The term “home invasion” is a woolly one that’s normally used to refer to burglaries or robberies that take place when someone’s in the house. Those are actually pretty rare, and even rarer when you’re talking about people deliberately breaking into a house while the occupants are in to rob them.

It’s sometimes used a little bit dishonestly by pundits to deliberately conflate burglaries when someone’s in the house and the burglar either doesn’t know or tries not to disturb them with deliberate invasion and robbery of the occupants. You even see the odd criminoligist using similar tactics to pretend that burglaries when someone’s in the house are way higher in the UK than the US because Americans have guns.

Most of that is waffle. Sorry. Short version – home invasions are actually rarer than plain burglaries.

Some helpful comment at CharonQC.

The rhetoric about leaving human rights at the door is just that: rhetoric.

I don’t believe it should be dismissed as mere rhetoric. It is dishonest guff, which devalues ‘rights’ for the sake of political expediency.

It is dishonest because it will not deliver what some voters appear to want (the right to beat, torture and kill with impunity anyone who enters their home).

The fact is that there is no problem with the law as it stands nor CPS policy. There is however a problem with public perception and I’d rather Cameron attempted to correct it than appeal to it.

And it should be noted that Hussain did not plead self-defence. See also this found via the previous link.

“this is the shallow level on which she wants to discuss law and order.

How the Tories maintain their grip on that issue is beyond me.”

Beyond you? Really? Is this because you think violent right wing “englishmanshomeishiscastle cantmakeitup” power fantasies mixed with a persecution-at-the-hands-of-the-librul-establishment-which-loves-criminals-and-hates-your-kids complex is something our electorate dislikes? And where on earth would you get that idea from?