Home Politics & Debate
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 MemberFormer 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.

----

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sure I saw this when I was browsing the other day...

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/defendyourhome/#detail

    That is probably why, because one already exists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    Sure I saw this when I was browsing the other day...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hm I suppose, they do say they email no matter what. I'd just wait. I can say it'll most likely be denied seeing most already exist but your "detail" is a lot more structured and worded than most on that site...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    Hm I suppose, they do say they email no matter what. I'd just wait. I can say it'll most likely be denied seeing most already exist but your "detail" is a lot more structured and worded than most on that site...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What change in the law do you want to see, you already have the right to defend yourself so I'm not sure how that could be changed?

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    What change in the law do you want to see, you already have the right to defend yourself so I'm not sure how that could be changed?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess that's what I'm curious about - whether you're asking for a change in the law or that people should be more aware of what their rights actually are?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with Jim. The petition doesn't appear to ask for anything specific, or anything that isn't already the case. I think a bit of a myth has emerged that it's illegal to use force to protect your property, because some people have been charged for killing people that were running away, which obviously isn't the same thing. That should remain illegal (although the sentencing should certainly reflect the situation they were put in).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No reasonable person would sign the petition. There are, however, many daily mail readers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You only ever hear about the minority of cases that go badly and end up in the press. From them only a small amount actually result in a conviction anyway.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The man who was prosecuted recently after beating a man who had threatened his family. He was prosecuted because after the incident he then gets a crew of people to beat shit out of the attacker and give him brain damage, yes well AFTER the original incident.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and because he denied even being there......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those petition things on the Downing Street website are a total waste of time. I noted on this very forum last year that the most popular petition at the time was one to get the Prime Mentalist to resign. Did the the man who likes to throw secretaries off their chairs if they type too slowly and all-round cunt in question take the hint? No. Infact, he's now talking about staying in charge of Labour even if they lose the next election. It's no wonder people think he's completely bonkers.

    As for the issue at hand, I don't think the law needs changing personally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Those petition things on the Downing Street website are a total waste of time. I noted on this very forum last year that the most popular petition at the time was one to get the Prime Mentalist to resign. Did the the man who likes to throw secretaries off their chairs if they type too slowly and all-round cunt in question take the hint? No. Infact, he's now talking about staying in charge of Labour even if they lose the next election. It's no wonder people think he's completely bonkers.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    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.

    Ah, but we didn't elect Brown to be prime minister.
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We don't elect prime ministers in this country, we elect the party. However it's now becoming a popularity contest and people seem to forget that the day to day running of the nation has been and will continue to be performed by the same faceless civil servants for decades.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah, but he wasn't head of the party we elected at the time. Like.. I wouldn't vote for labour now because I think Brown is a twat. Some of the polices etc are okay... but he is just... not PM material.
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    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.
    I don't recall being given the opportunity to vote on whether I wanted to see a Gordon Brown government in this country. He almost gave it to us back in September 2007, but chickened out. This when he would have easily won an election and seen off David Cameron at the same time. Yet in the election which Brown will soon be forced to hold, (unless Mandy advises him to declare a state of emergency) millions of people will still vote for the one-eyed fuckwit. And all because Call Me Dave promises - to a nation that's absolutely sick to death of Labour - more of the bloody same.

    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.
    Nice digression though, any opportunity to call Gordon Brown a cunt can't be missed, eh?
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I don't recall being given the opportunity to vote on whether I wanted to see a Gordon Brown government in this country.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As for the OP, not sure what point you are trying to make.

    The law already covers what you are asking for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Actually you did.
    No. The government that was up for grabs in the 2005 election was a Tony Blair government. Brown has never had the guts to see how confident the electorate feel in him.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You must've had your head in the sand if you didn't know a vote for Labour was a vote for Gordon Brown. It was never a secret. The Tories ran a campaign saying "Vote Blair, Get Brown" and then when people did, they started harping on about how nobody had voted for Brown. They can't have it both ways. But claiming that these petitions don't work because the PM didn't resign when a handful of people (in the context of 60m people) asked him to? I agree with you that there pretty pointless, but there have got to be better examples than that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's a fine line when it comes to intruders. If someone is just stealing from your house, legally you can protect yourself but only if they attack you first. If someone has a gun for example then chances are you won't think rationally - which should be taken into consideration more often... but then again allowing someone to basically get a free-pass at beating the living daylights out of someone because they entered your house unlawfully is a bit far-fetched.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The easiest way to sum the law up in layman's terms is as follows.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    No. The government that was up for grabs in the 2005 election was a Tony Blair government. Brown has never had the guts to see how confident the electorate feel in him.

    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.

    I am, for once, with you on this one SG.
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    No. The government that was up for grabs in the 2005 election was a Tony Blair government.

    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.
    Brown has never had the guts to see how confident the electorate feel in him.

    If you ignore the fact that he's been elected since 1983. :facepalm:
    Blair's line on his departure date was patently dishonest

    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    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.

    You don't even vote for a party, but for an individual MP. MPs also change parties between elections.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is it worth pointing out that this thread really is nothing to do with Gordon Brown?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You don't even vote for a party, but for an individual MP.

    Yeah, mentioned that earlier...
    MPs also change parties between elections.

    Good point. Sir Winston Churchill being a prime example I suppose. What was it, twice?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    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 ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.