If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
A petition I made to 10 Downing Street
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I made a petition a week ago to 10 Downing Street on their e-petition site. It has neither appeared in the "accepted" or "Rejected" section yet, despite about 30 new, obscure ones appearing. It's an obvious attempt at censorship to me.. What do you think about it?
---
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make changes
to the law whereby law abiding citizens are sometimes fatally
unable to use force when facing a criminal intruder in their
own home, due to the fear of a perverse legal system that would
convict THEM of wrongdoing.
The law is necessary to protect the citizens of a given society
from those who wish to undermine it.
So why, in the context of the plain human instinct to defend
your home, family and life - does it repeatedly favor those who
were breaking the law in the first place and presenting
themselves as an aggressor in someones private property where
they should feel safe?
The decent citizens of this country need to know the law is on
their side, not the criminals who see this ridiculous
predisposition in the law as the go ahead to break into peoples
home's and businesses.
Mr Prime minister, we propose that by changing the law to
reflect the ever increasing need for people to feel safe in
their own home will go toward restoring some faith in a
government that many feel has sold them out.
----
---
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make changes
to the law whereby law abiding citizens are sometimes fatally
unable to use force when facing a criminal intruder in their
own home, due to the fear of a perverse legal system that would
convict THEM of wrongdoing.
The law is necessary to protect the citizens of a given society
from those who wish to undermine it.
So why, in the context of the plain human instinct to defend
your home, family and life - does it repeatedly favor those who
were breaking the law in the first place and presenting
themselves as an aggressor in someones private property where
they should feel safe?
The decent citizens of this country need to know the law is on
their side, not the criminals who see this ridiculous
predisposition in the law as the go ahead to break into peoples
home's and businesses.
Mr Prime minister, we propose that by changing the law to
reflect the ever increasing need for people to feel safe in
their own home will go toward restoring some faith in a
government that many feel has sold them out.
----
0
Comments
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/defendyourhome/#detail
That is probably why, because one already exists.
It still should have appeared in the rejected list - and ultimately is significantly more comprehensive than those found in the requisites you cited.
Exactly friend, I just feel strongly that this is an issue that impacts us all, and trancends "traditional requirements" - the fact that if we wake up to a threat in our own home, we've only beauracracy in the back of our mind. That can't be right in any and any circumsance - It goes against innate human nature. We, as a nation must fight, in a society like this - for the right to defend our very existence.
I'm not aware of any cases where anyone has died because they didn't defend themselves because of the law - there's cases where people have been prosecuted for what they did but not the other way around. It may be they need to look at your statement that people have died because of the law before publishing the petition.
It may also be that because the election is about to take place they've stopped publishing anything at the moment, given it would be the new administrations decision whether or not to shut down or revise the petition website.
As to the suggestion to change the law, I suppose you could suggest that no one could be prosecuted for anything they do in their home if they claimed self-defense but then you're faced with situations like Tony Martin, where you've got a mentally ill man with an illegal firearm executing a man by shooting him in the back. Not to mention it would actually make it very easy to kill someone and claim self-defense.
The problem is that kind of change fundamentally undermines the basis of law in the UK. As our courts stand there aren't any absolute laws that apply to violence against another person - cases are always considered on merit instead.
I know if I wake up and someone has broken into my home then bureaucracy would probably be the last thing on my mind until I was safe, however I can understand if you've felt that way when something similar has happened to you, it must be pretty distressing to feel that powerless because of the way the situation is often presented.
Just a suggestion, but would it not be better to petition 10 Downing Street to invest money in making it clear to the public what their rights are to defend themselves legally?
Since this is something you obviously care a lot about I guess you already understand your rights but for anyone else interested in the discussion here's a link to how the law stands -
In brief it's -
"Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime."
"The more you fear for your safety and the more extreme the situation, the more force you can legally use"
"If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully."
"You may pursue, hit, or tackle a fleeing perpetrator to recover your stolen property and make a citizen's arrest"
The examples they use where someone may be prosecuted are -
"having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them;" or
"you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police"
The full leaflet is worth a read though -
CPS - Householders and the use of force against intruders
Indeed, but a great number of people feel feel they should fear no leagal repercussions should an INTRUDER make threat of any degree? I think a local should be invulnerable to the societal norms of the official.
Regardless, do you see how this could effect local burgulary rate which high enouch as it is? If local businesses know it wont be stood for, the culprits can be tracked easily.
If you're suggesting there being no legal repercussions at all, for anything that someone does to an intruder then it just seems difficult to justify really extreme examples.
For example, if an intruder breaks into a shop and the shop keeper hits the man and he falls down, hits his head and dies then that's already legal.
On the other hand if an intruder breaks into a shop and the shop keeper, with an illegal firearm, shoots him then whilst he's bleeding out ties him up, then watches him die without calling the police or an ambulance - to me that should be illegal.
By suggesting that you should never face any legal repercussions aren't you implying that even the latter case should be permitted?
To me that seems wrong, even in extreme situations I don't believe all boundaries of law should be ignored.
I've dealt with countless cases where someone has defended themselves and nothing has happened to them.
The whole thing is media hype. You are perfectly entitled to use force to defend yourself. People only get into trouble when they go over the top.
As for the issue at hand, I don't think the law needs changing personally.
The reason why the Prime Minister didn't resign is because we have this crazy thing called representative democracy, which means that we elect our politicians by voting for them, and not by signing ridiculous petitions. You will also be aware that one of the most popular petitions on the Downing Street website is the one to make Jeremy Clarkson PM. Fortunately, that's not quite how we do things.
And I would say that the real mentalists are the majority of the people who make and sign such ludicrous petitions, not the PM for ignoring them.
Nice digression though, any opportunity to call Gordon Brown a cunt can't be missed, eh?
Ah, but we didn't elect Brown to be prime minister.
Xx
Xx
As for Jeremy Clarkson running the country, he couldn't honestly do any worse than Brown. The prospect of Clarkson running this country is not a bad one. Believe me, I'd like to call him worse things. Even repeatedly using what is supposedly the most offensive word in the English language doesn't come close to describing how much I hate the man.
Actually you did.
As has been said we elect MPs in this country. The pparty with the most gets to form a Govt. We don't elect a PM.
However even if you don't accept that argument it was pretty fucking obvious, hell even stated, that Blair wasn't going to serve a full term after the last election. Only an ignoramus wouldn't have seen Brown being the successor.
The law already covers what you are asking for.
Blair's line on his departure date was patently dishonest, much like his line on everything else. He should have either gone in 2005 or left at the forthcoming election, not chickened out.
Use whatever force you need to
1)defend yourself
2)apprehend the person who is breaking the law
So long as the force is roughly proportionate to the level of force being used on you. If someone is stealing from you and all you actually need to do to stop them is sit on them, then that's what you do. If they try and fight you, then fight back. If whilst they're on the ground, or running away and you decide to smack them in the face with a spade? Well, then my friend you're going over the top.
It's also worth pointing out that the sentencing guidelines will take other factors into account. ie was the person bigger than you, were they stronger/younger, male/female and most importantly, were they in YOUR house.
There's no need to change the law, all that needs to happen is for the media to stop falsely reporting on people who "defend" themselves, when what they have actually done is gone way over the top and meted out revenge instead of defence.
I am, for once, with you on this one SG.
Xx
No it wasn't. I think you are getting confused in the type of elections we hold here. We don't vote for a person, we vote in a party. Whoever is leader of the winning party gets to be PM. History has shown that leaders can change inbetween elections.
If you ignore the fact that he's been elected since 1983. :facepalm:
Was it really? Maybe you should have paid more attention, I thought it was pretty clear at the last election atht he wasn'tgoing to serve a full term...
You don't even vote for a party, but for an individual MP. MPs also change parties between elections.
Yeah, mentioned that earlier...
Good point. Sir Winston Churchill being a prime example I suppose. What was it, twice?
Churchill was first elected as a Conservative in Oldham, then as a Liberal in Manchester North West, then left politics after Gallipoli to join the army though stayed as an MP. He sat with the opposition on returning from the front and then came back into government as a member of the coalition.
He lost that seat in 1922 and stood twice as an independent before he was unofficially elected in Epping by local Conservatives and rejoined the party the year after.
He then joined the coalition government at the outbreak of war and was made a member of the War Cabinet, becoming Prime Minister in May 1940 after Halifax turned down the role (Halifax said the reason was that a Lord shouldn't govern though there's plenty of debate about possible other motives)
He was then defeated in 45 and re-elected as the Conservative Prime Minister in 51 until he resigned in 55.
He stayed an MP until stepping down in 64, at one point turning down the Queen's offer to be made Duke of London (his son objected, presumably as an aspiring politician this would have meant he couldn't have stood for public office or would have lost his office if his father died)
Phew! On top of that he's the only Prime Minister to win the Nobel Prize for Literature and was the first person (of only seven) to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States and only Mother Teresa joins him as a living person given the honour.
So, often disliked, seen as a warmonger by many, Liberal, Conservative, independent, nearly-Labour at one point and during his first stint as the PM he was never directly elected and thrown out after winning World War 2... to be fair he's not the best example of the normal way of doing things