Ken Clarke to clarify Self Defence Law ???

LONG RANGE CAPT

Well-Known Member
With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense, where does it leave things and what could it lead to?

With his statement that ''People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary, to protect themselves and there homes''

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???


Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

BBC News - Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to clarify self defence law
 
Just seen it well done Ken I hope you stick to what you have said. I for one believe that once someone breaks into your property they should loose all their rights not to get hurt. They made a premeditated decission to enter and thus should know they have lost their rights to protection. There is no justification that I can see for them being in your property and with out doubt I would take on anyone who theatened me or mine. There is no way they whould get up the stairs any where near my wife and kids and if that means killing them by whatever means so be it.

Frankly I dont care if or who that offends its a statement of fact.

Mark
 
your a brave man and i'm sure many of us on here feel the same, but stop short of saying so publicly. I do however hope that ken sticks to his guns and share the view that someone in an unlawfull act should lose the right of protection from the law during that crime, if they break in they must be prepaired for the consequences, whatever they might be.
There are parts of the law that state that it's an offence to stand by and watch a crime being commited without acting, and that you have the right of self defence, it's about time they were used in the right context to protect the innocent, then criminals would think twice and crime rates would fall for fear of the consequences if caught in the act. Also it's about time the CPS started using the NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTREST clause to stop stupid prosecutions for this sort of thing.
 
It's about time that people started saying what they feel and not pussyfooting around an issue wondering who might hear them. So WELL DONE MR CLARKE! We will hold you to your word!
Our society is all the worse for firm standards not being respected. It's time the pendulum was pushed back into balance instead of being in favour of stupid political correctness and the like.
Silence = cowardice IMHO in this respect.

Ian
 
Just seen it well done Ken I hope you stick to what you have said. I for one believe that once someone breaks into your property they should loose all their rights not to get hurt. They made a premeditated decission to enter and thus should know they have lost their rights to protection. There is no justification that I can see for them being in your property and with out doubt I would take on anyone who theatened me or mine. There is no way they whould get up the stairs any where near my wife and kids and if that means killing them by whatever means so be it.

Frankly I dont care if or who that offends its a statement of fact.

+ 1 :tiphat:
 
I don't think that the CPS would hesitate prosecuting you if you used a fire arm in the act of self defence against a home invader. This idea will never get onto the statue books as is. you can bet your last penny on it.

All this will lead to is an increase in tw&ts being armed when they come into your house as they will expect you to be armed too.

I would be more interested in having the right to set non lethal defences in the home there are some pretty good non lethals out there that will stop short of killing an invader.
 
Unfortunately this will come down to minimum force so if you execute scum breaking in to your property armed with their fists you will be in the wrong.

That is week liberlism for you

Dave
 
your a brave man and i'm sure many of us on here feel the same, but stop short of saying so publicly. I do however hope that ken sticks to his guns and share the view that someone in an unlawfull act should lose the right of protection from the law during that crime, if they break in they must be prepaired for the consequences, whatever they might be.
There are parts of the law that state that it's an offence to stand by and watch a crime being commited without acting, and that you have the right of self defence, it's about time they were used in the right context to protect the innocent, then criminals would think twice and crime rates would fall for fear of the consequences if caught in the act. Also it's about time the CPS started using the NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTREST clause to stop stupid prosecutions for this sort of thing.

To be honest its got nothing to do with being brave its about protecting those closest to you and I dont think that anyone in that position would do anything differant. Its human instinct to protect your family. Surely whether armed with a gun , a knife or a cricket bat if no more than out of fear of the unknown most would have a go and the up shot is that it could prove fatal for one or the other. But to let it happen without even trying I believe is unlikly in most cases. Its just a case of making sure the right one goes to prison after the event.

Mark
 
All in all there seams nothing different in what ken clarke says, other than, in his stament he uses the word "necessary force" in stead of " minimum force".
it still means you WILL get prosecuted for taking any action that results in the permanant bodily harm or death of an intruder. what the bill is more likely to give you, is the probability of not being able to be sued from the intruder themselves, in relation to the instant justice you gave them.
 
So WELL DONE MR CLARKE! We will hold you to your word. Ian

Alas, poor Yorric - methinks holding Mr C to his word will be extremely problematic. They will jaff about on this one until it all goes away, or come up with some fudge or other. Anything he says now is simply hot air. After the rape fiasco, quickly followed by the 'let 'em out early if they cop a guilty plea' nonsense, Ken is probably for the chop as soon as decently possible. I bet they've booked a slot at the Dignitas clinic already.
 
Better tried by twelve than carried by six,


:evil:HORNET

Ok but just remember that on cannot hurt the criminal ............................................................... No-No bad for business and let's face it crime is big business. Without thier fanning the fear element in the man in the street, sorry ladies, they have no excuse for the control centres, alarm companies, CCTV, security products and that's without the milking of the legal aid system. Nope they actually have no interest in reducing crime as it feeds all these which no doubt they have healthy shares in.

No as for making comments on this site about protecting oneselves..............


Please be very careful as I am not sure all those who use it have ones best interest at heart. You could be putting you hand up for a nice visit by the boys in their black combats and hi-vis vests.
 
With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defence, where does it leave things and what could it lead to?

Got to wait and see how the statute is phrased. The right to self defence is already established in common law (1688 bill of rights), but statute and judgements over the past 40 years plus the Labour party's enthusiasm for human rights has degraded the right to defend and confused people over what force can be used. So bring it on.

With his statement that ''People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary, to protect themselves and their homes''

That already exists for self defence, I await with interest to see if he allows homeowners to assault thieves for being on the premises and for no other reason. E.G. if you find a thief with your PC in his hands will it be legal to whack him with a poker or a base ball bat to prevent theft and or the invasion of privacy. Putting fear back where it belongs, in the thief's mind.

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''

Hopefully this includes protection of property.

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???

Crime in the USA has fallen over the past 20 years quite markedly, so I hope so.

Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

BBC News - Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to clarify self defence law

One small step to undo the labour parties stupid policies I hope.
 
FWIW. My opinion is that old Ken will be put out to pasture with all of the other old politicos, in any event even if he does what he says, anyone foolish enough to defend themselves will most certainly end up as the criminal due to the influence of the judicial system that has little common sense and always supports the criminal fraternity.
 
Many laws start off with a line that indicates that everything below is an offence unless you are a police officer acting in the course of your duties this allows the police to do things that might under normal circumstances be against the law such as drive through a red light, or exceed the posted speed limit or whatever.

I suspect it would be a relatively simple matter to change the relevent laws so they contained a similar clause stating that a person would not commit an offence if the person they attack/injure/kill had entered or was in the process of entering illegally.

Of course it is possible to see problems with such laws in that crimial elements could use them to their advantage in engineering a situation where they assulted or killed someone and were then able to show that this person was entering illegally. It is removing this "loophole" that would be the difficulty when constructing such a law.

I was also interested to note in the media coverage I heard of this that Ken was always very careful to use the word "criminal" in relation to what he was talking about. This would incline me to suspect that the householder might still be subject to civil action and such an action might run for years with the householder being unable to pay for a decent defence while the family of the crimial would all be getting legal aid to finance making life a living hell for the householder. This might actually be worse, in terms of health, welfare and duration, for the householder than a prison sentence and so I believe this would need resolved before any such decent and reasonable self defence law would be really effective and would really benefit the innocent who just happened to get caught up in someone elses crime.

I believe it might be useful to allow the past record of criminals to be taken into account - so if you break the neck of someone who is already known to police for breaking into houses then you should, given reasonable physical circumstances, be in the clear right from the first instant with full presumption that you are innocent and were acting in self defence. Under these circumstances, assuming the criminal is dead, then his next of kin should be liable for your expenses and for your trauma and shock. The government should be liable to provide you and your family a month long stalking holiday somewhere nice and of your choice to allow you to come to terms with the events. This would be much less expensive than keeping the criminal in jail and court appearances on and off for the rest of his life. :)
 
It is all sound bytes guys. The simple truth is that if you wake up in the middle of the night to intruders you will do whatever necessary to protect your family. The consequences will follow after the actions you take. My own personal view is that if someone enters your home illegally it should be acceptable to send them off to meet their maker.
 
what would you do when your children and wife in the house and unknown intruder(s) breaks into your home? You may be hurt and even killed and something else terrible could happen to your family. The law needs to protect the rights of a person who fears for the safety of their family above that a criminal.

If you get up because you fear for your kids safety and you come come face to face with a guy in a mask, your instinct is not to ask the guy if he would like to sit down and have a nice cup of tea.
 
Back
Top