Review the laws surrounding offences against the person

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Why is this idea important?

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Amend the Offensive weapons act

We currently have the situation where a law abiding citizen who, on discovering a pistol in a field, retrieves the pistol and takes it to the police, can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon as the concept of mens rea came into effect the moment he retrieved the weapon, regardless of his long term ambitions for the weapon.

We also have a situation where possession of a swiss army knife by an adult in his cubbyhole (or glove compartment) is sufficient to have this man charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

Possession of offensive weapons should not be a stand-alone criminal offence as the term "offensive weapon" is relative and in theory could be applied to any object including the bic pen in my pocket or the laptop that I am using t type this message…

Pens can be used to stab (in the right place a man can bleed to death, and the laptop…well if you smack someone in the right place, you can also kill them…

Why is this idea important?

We currently have the situation where a law abiding citizen who, on discovering a pistol in a field, retrieves the pistol and takes it to the police, can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon as the concept of mens rea came into effect the moment he retrieved the weapon, regardless of his long term ambitions for the weapon.

We also have a situation where possession of a swiss army knife by an adult in his cubbyhole (or glove compartment) is sufficient to have this man charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

Possession of offensive weapons should not be a stand-alone criminal offence as the term "offensive weapon" is relative and in theory could be applied to any object including the bic pen in my pocket or the laptop that I am using t type this message…

Pens can be used to stab (in the right place a man can bleed to death, and the laptop…well if you smack someone in the right place, you can also kill them…

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Repeal laws preventing the public defending themselves and others

Members of the public have a common law duty and right not only to defend themselves and others, to prevent loss or damage to property and to arrest offenders, but also to prevent a breach of the peace.

However, laws such as Section 1 of the "Prevention of Crime Act 1953", which make it an offence to be in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, prevent us from having the necessary tools to protect ourselves and others. These defensive tools, such as batons and irritant sprays, should be permitted for persons with no violent crime convictions and carrying them to protect oneself and others should be a "reasonable excuse". However the police will not accept this, so this law (and any other related ones) should be repealed and replaced with one that allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and others against criminals.

These defensive tools are only what the police are allowed to carry to protect themselves, but members of the public are expected to walk around defenseless and in no position to assist their fellow citizens. The police do their best but obviously they can't be everywhere at once and much of the time all they can do is catch the offender after he's disposed of the rent money or wages he's stolen from the victim, or left them with life-threatening and changing injuries, if not brain-damaged or dead. If the public were allowed to carry defensive weapons, they would have a chance at repelling such assaults and other people would be more inclined to come to their assistance. On too many occasions the police have refused or been unable to come to the assistance of someone in time and it is unacceptable that in such situations the innocent person under attack by armed criminals is rendered defenseless by the state.

I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to carry knives and guns and I'm open to the idea of having some sort of training program (perhaps run by some of the soon to be made redundant police officers) leading to a license before a person is allowed to carry defensive items, although the principle should be that all adults have the right to own and carry such items, unless banned by reason of a violent crime history or serious mental health problems.

This would in no way jeopardize the state, as it will still have trained firearms officers and the army to defend itself against insurrection, but will give citizens a chance to stand up to thugs and defend themselves and others, rather than having to scurry about with their their heads down, hoping that a thug doesn't decide to single them out, and then hope that the police might turn up in time to prevent them being left permanently disfigured, brain-damaged or dead.

There are too many cases of citizens being persecuted by the authorities for defending themselves: for example, Kenneth Blight, 51, who stabbed a 19-year old who was threatening him with an axe in his garden, was given a two-year suspended sentence but the Attorney General sought to have the sentence increased. Instead the court halved the sentence, although Mr Blight did spend 4.5 months on remand.

And Omari Roberts, 23, who stabbed a 17-year old burglar who rushed him in his mother's home, who spent 7 months on remand before the CPS decided to charge him with murder and wounding with intent, based on the allegations of the other, 14-year old, burglar. Mr Roberts then spent another six months on remand, so imprisoned for 13 months in total, before the CPS dropped the case because the 14-year old confessed he'd lied that he'd been
chased down the street.

And James Killen, 18, who stabbed a 46 year-old man who was stabbing his mother (who subsequently died from her injuries) in their home, arrested on suspicion of murder. Thankfully he was not charged, but why should citizens who use quite legal and obviously necessary force, in this case after seeing his mother being subjected to a brutal and horrific attack, be subjected to the additional and quite intolerable stress of being arrested and treated as a criminal.

Despite only legally being allowed to use the same reasonable force as the public, police officers who kill suspects, whether accidentally or by design, even when lethal-force was quite unwarranted, are rarely subjected to the stress of being arrested and treated as the criminal and locked up for over a year, but are merely questioned after being allowed to confer and compare notes with colleagues. If this is sufficient to ascertain the truth, then it should be the same procedure used for citizens where there is reason to believe that they are the victim and were merely defending themselves or others.

If citizens were permitted to own defensive items, they may have been able to use them in some of the above cases, rather than having no choice but to reach for the nearest kitchen knife to defend themselves against an attacker who they have to assume is willing to kill them and thus they have to stop them before they have a chance to do so, only to be persecuted for using a lethal option, when the less-than-lethal options available to the police are denied them.

Why is this idea important?

Members of the public have a common law duty and right not only to defend themselves and others, to prevent loss or damage to property and to arrest offenders, but also to prevent a breach of the peace.

However, laws such as Section 1 of the "Prevention of Crime Act 1953", which make it an offence to be in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, prevent us from having the necessary tools to protect ourselves and others. These defensive tools, such as batons and irritant sprays, should be permitted for persons with no violent crime convictions and carrying them to protect oneself and others should be a "reasonable excuse". However the police will not accept this, so this law (and any other related ones) should be repealed and replaced with one that allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and others against criminals.

These defensive tools are only what the police are allowed to carry to protect themselves, but members of the public are expected to walk around defenseless and in no position to assist their fellow citizens. The police do their best but obviously they can't be everywhere at once and much of the time all they can do is catch the offender after he's disposed of the rent money or wages he's stolen from the victim, or left them with life-threatening and changing injuries, if not brain-damaged or dead. If the public were allowed to carry defensive weapons, they would have a chance at repelling such assaults and other people would be more inclined to come to their assistance. On too many occasions the police have refused or been unable to come to the assistance of someone in time and it is unacceptable that in such situations the innocent person under attack by armed criminals is rendered defenseless by the state.

I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to carry knives and guns and I'm open to the idea of having some sort of training program (perhaps run by some of the soon to be made redundant police officers) leading to a license before a person is allowed to carry defensive items, although the principle should be that all adults have the right to own and carry such items, unless banned by reason of a violent crime history or serious mental health problems.

This would in no way jeopardize the state, as it will still have trained firearms officers and the army to defend itself against insurrection, but will give citizens a chance to stand up to thugs and defend themselves and others, rather than having to scurry about with their their heads down, hoping that a thug doesn't decide to single them out, and then hope that the police might turn up in time to prevent them being left permanently disfigured, brain-damaged or dead.

There are too many cases of citizens being persecuted by the authorities for defending themselves: for example, Kenneth Blight, 51, who stabbed a 19-year old who was threatening him with an axe in his garden, was given a two-year suspended sentence but the Attorney General sought to have the sentence increased. Instead the court halved the sentence, although Mr Blight did spend 4.5 months on remand.

And Omari Roberts, 23, who stabbed a 17-year old burglar who rushed him in his mother's home, who spent 7 months on remand before the CPS decided to charge him with murder and wounding with intent, based on the allegations of the other, 14-year old, burglar. Mr Roberts then spent another six months on remand, so imprisoned for 13 months in total, before the CPS dropped the case because the 14-year old confessed he'd lied that he'd been
chased down the street.

And James Killen, 18, who stabbed a 46 year-old man who was stabbing his mother (who subsequently died from her injuries) in their home, arrested on suspicion of murder. Thankfully he was not charged, but why should citizens who use quite legal and obviously necessary force, in this case after seeing his mother being subjected to a brutal and horrific attack, be subjected to the additional and quite intolerable stress of being arrested and treated as a criminal.

Despite only legally being allowed to use the same reasonable force as the public, police officers who kill suspects, whether accidentally or by design, even when lethal-force was quite unwarranted, are rarely subjected to the stress of being arrested and treated as the criminal and locked up for over a year, but are merely questioned after being allowed to confer and compare notes with colleagues. If this is sufficient to ascertain the truth, then it should be the same procedure used for citizens where there is reason to believe that they are the victim and were merely defending themselves or others.

If citizens were permitted to own defensive items, they may have been able to use them in some of the above cases, rather than having no choice but to reach for the nearest kitchen knife to defend themselves against an attacker who they have to assume is willing to kill them and thus they have to stop them before they have a chance to do so, only to be persecuted for using a lethal option, when the less-than-lethal options available to the police are denied them.

Reasonable force/Defending the home

I find it utterly absurd that in a lot of cases that I have read or heard about, the victim gets the harsher punishment. People should be able to defend their homes and families without the worry of being prosecuted for doing so. Also, reasonable force needs to be redefined. It is impossible to tell what reasonable force means. There needs to be radical changes in self defence.

Why is this idea important?

I find it utterly absurd that in a lot of cases that I have read or heard about, the victim gets the harsher punishment. People should be able to defend their homes and families without the worry of being prosecuted for doing so. Also, reasonable force needs to be redefined. It is impossible to tell what reasonable force means. There needs to be radical changes in self defence.

Intruders into househoulds should lose all rights – and househoulders who injure intruders should not face arrest, court etc.e

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

Why is this idea important?

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

A sensible right to self/home defence

Lots of talk about owning guns etc for self defence. Although I now live in the USA and own guns and have a concealed carry pemit I agree it is not in the British psyche. However current law forbids anyone to carry anything which can be conceived as a weapon and this is wrong. Any mugger knows that it is unlikely that their victim can defend themselves – so the nurse coming off a late shift and having to take the tube home when it is deserted then walk from the station to home is vulnerable. For gods sake make some defence items legal such as pepper spray, short baton whatever. The criminals have them because they are criminals, like they carry knives – more legislation on knives only affects the law abiding citizen. For years even before I came to the US I carried a lock knife with a 3" blade thinking it was legal – I now discover I was breaking the law. That is crazy as I carry it out of habit and use it daily for all sorts of things. I feel naked without it. My wife as a nurse often used to walk from Ancoats hospital with her scissors in her hand in her coat pocket.

Why is this idea important?

Lots of talk about owning guns etc for self defence. Although I now live in the USA and own guns and have a concealed carry pemit I agree it is not in the British psyche. However current law forbids anyone to carry anything which can be conceived as a weapon and this is wrong. Any mugger knows that it is unlikely that their victim can defend themselves – so the nurse coming off a late shift and having to take the tube home when it is deserted then walk from the station to home is vulnerable. For gods sake make some defence items legal such as pepper spray, short baton whatever. The criminals have them because they are criminals, like they carry knives – more legislation on knives only affects the law abiding citizen. For years even before I came to the US I carried a lock knife with a 3" blade thinking it was legal – I now discover I was breaking the law. That is crazy as I carry it out of habit and use it daily for all sorts of things. I feel naked without it. My wife as a nurse often used to walk from Ancoats hospital with her scissors in her hand in her coat pocket.

Clear and precise review of existing self defence laws

I'd like to see an extension to the current self defence laws. We've all seen instances where householders have been taken to court for protecting their family from intruders. This needs to stop. It's the reason why people put their head down and walk on when they see a crime taking place in the street. They have a genuine fear of prosecution. 

Youths harassing vulnerable members of our communities know the law is on their side, particularly if they are under age. 

I'd like to see the law open to allowing disabled people, elderly people and victims of serious crime the right to own a pepper spray/taser, even initially only in their own homes. This would be subject to a licence which would be retracted if the law of use was breached. They are not always as capable of self defence as other members of the community and should be afforded additional help and assurances. 

I'd like to see the police working with the community, offering free self defence classes to those most at risk. This would help build relationships back between police and public. 

The public needs to have it's confidence restored because there aren't enough police to be on every street corner. People must be confident that self defence will be unlikely to result in prosecution, especially if someone breaks into their house. The law should presume the intruder is armed and willing to use a weapon and allow the occupier to use self defence accordingly. 

Why is this idea important?

I'd like to see an extension to the current self defence laws. We've all seen instances where householders have been taken to court for protecting their family from intruders. This needs to stop. It's the reason why people put their head down and walk on when they see a crime taking place in the street. They have a genuine fear of prosecution. 

Youths harassing vulnerable members of our communities know the law is on their side, particularly if they are under age. 

I'd like to see the law open to allowing disabled people, elderly people and victims of serious crime the right to own a pepper spray/taser, even initially only in their own homes. This would be subject to a licence which would be retracted if the law of use was breached. They are not always as capable of self defence as other members of the community and should be afforded additional help and assurances. 

I'd like to see the police working with the community, offering free self defence classes to those most at risk. This would help build relationships back between police and public. 

The public needs to have it's confidence restored because there aren't enough police to be on every street corner. People must be confident that self defence will be unlikely to result in prosecution, especially if someone breaks into their house. The law should presume the intruder is armed and willing to use a weapon and allow the occupier to use self defence accordingly. 

Let my home be my “castle” again

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

Why is this idea important?

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

An Englishman’s Home is His Castle.

An Englishman's home is his castle is an idea that should be enshrined in law. If someone breaks into your property, you should be allowed to defend yourself and your property (from uninvited invasion) by or with whatever means you choose. If someone decides to break into your property (for an example let's say it is at night), you don't have time to be rational, or to check whether or not the intruder has a weapon – you will grab whatever is to hand to defend yourself and your property and evict (or capture) the intruder. The intruder has to know that if they are breaking the law, they need to worry about more than being caught by the (never there when you need them) police. A change in law to affect this situation would cut the number of burglaries due to the fear of being caught by a householder. Using "reasonable force" is currently misunderstood. Whatever force I decide to use against an uninvited (and unknown to me) intruder is, as far as I am concerned, reasonable.

Why is this idea important?

An Englishman's home is his castle is an idea that should be enshrined in law. If someone breaks into your property, you should be allowed to defend yourself and your property (from uninvited invasion) by or with whatever means you choose. If someone decides to break into your property (for an example let's say it is at night), you don't have time to be rational, or to check whether or not the intruder has a weapon – you will grab whatever is to hand to defend yourself and your property and evict (or capture) the intruder. The intruder has to know that if they are breaking the law, they need to worry about more than being caught by the (never there when you need them) police. A change in law to affect this situation would cut the number of burglaries due to the fear of being caught by a householder. Using "reasonable force" is currently misunderstood. Whatever force I decide to use against an uninvited (and unknown to me) intruder is, as far as I am concerned, reasonable.

Improve self defence laws

Too often people are unable to defend themselves for fear of breaking the law, and when people do defend themselves they are often arrested.

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves using any means needed.

This should include the legalisation of batons, CS gas and pepper spray (in short projecting forms).

Kids today carry knives to defend themselves, and many have been killed as a result, ASP batons are designed to reduce the risk of death, and CS gas and pepper spray, despite being very painfull are extreamely less than lethal.

Leathal force is thankfully rarely needed in this country, and I think you could really impact knife crime and muder rates by making this middle ground.

remember similar to carrying a glass bottle, keys or a lead pipe, carrying it doesn't have to be illegal for the inproper use of it to be.

Why is this idea important?

Too often people are unable to defend themselves for fear of breaking the law, and when people do defend themselves they are often arrested.

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves using any means needed.

This should include the legalisation of batons, CS gas and pepper spray (in short projecting forms).

Kids today carry knives to defend themselves, and many have been killed as a result, ASP batons are designed to reduce the risk of death, and CS gas and pepper spray, despite being very painfull are extreamely less than lethal.

Leathal force is thankfully rarely needed in this country, and I think you could really impact knife crime and muder rates by making this middle ground.

remember similar to carrying a glass bottle, keys or a lead pipe, carrying it doesn't have to be illegal for the inproper use of it to be.

Self Defense

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)

Why is this idea important?

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)

Self Defence re-think

I believe that the current law on Self Defence is tilted in favour, not of the law abiding citizen, nor of the criminal but of the police. It is effectively down to the Police to decide what is and what is not reasonable force, and as such they use it to their advantage to cement their position as 'protectors' of life and property.

An adult human can make decisions themselves, and policepersons cannot be in all places at once. It would be preferable to set out a specific and unambiguous framework for self defence that leaves no possibility for the innocent being punished, nor the guilty being let off or able to litigate against the victims of their crime.

It should be legal to use force to defend oneself if an intruder enters ones property for example, and it should be legal to use force to defend oneself 'in the street' if you feel that your life or health is in danger. This would be similar to the US situation where a person is allowed to defend himself against an assailant.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the current law on Self Defence is tilted in favour, not of the law abiding citizen, nor of the criminal but of the police. It is effectively down to the Police to decide what is and what is not reasonable force, and as such they use it to their advantage to cement their position as 'protectors' of life and property.

An adult human can make decisions themselves, and policepersons cannot be in all places at once. It would be preferable to set out a specific and unambiguous framework for self defence that leaves no possibility for the innocent being punished, nor the guilty being let off or able to litigate against the victims of their crime.

It should be legal to use force to defend oneself if an intruder enters ones property for example, and it should be legal to use force to defend oneself 'in the street' if you feel that your life or health is in danger. This would be similar to the US situation where a person is allowed to defend himself against an assailant.

Self Protection

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

Why is this idea important?

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

GIVE US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BACK OUR GUNS!

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Why is this idea important?

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Restore our right to bare arms.

After the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and most recently, the tagic shootings in Cumbria. Gun laws have come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. Both the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings resulted in gun laws in this country being changed. Restricting the sale and ownership of certain firearms, in an attempt to stop it happening again. It didnt. 

Why is this idea important?

After the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and most recently, the tagic shootings in Cumbria. Gun laws have come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. Both the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings resulted in gun laws in this country being changed. Restricting the sale and ownership of certain firearms, in an attempt to stop it happening again. It didnt. 

Support self-defence, don’t punish it

People who try to defend their property, their families and themselves from actually or potentially violent thieves and hooligans can find themselves in the dock.

This is completely against natural justice. It allows the cocky yob to exploit his 'rights' to steal and assault with impunity and forbids the victim from self-defence.

If I keep a baseball bat by my front door (I don't as it happens) and use it in defence I am deemed to have had prior intent to bash yobs' brains in and am automatically in the wrong from the start. Yet where is it more intelligent to keep such a weapon than by the front door?

The milksops who run my local police advise us, if threatened, to retreat upstairs and call 999. If I'm lucky, an officer will visit some hours later and take a statement. Meanwhile, my house may have been trashed and my family harmed.

Why is this idea important?

People who try to defend their property, their families and themselves from actually or potentially violent thieves and hooligans can find themselves in the dock.

This is completely against natural justice. It allows the cocky yob to exploit his 'rights' to steal and assault with impunity and forbids the victim from self-defence.

If I keep a baseball bat by my front door (I don't as it happens) and use it in defence I am deemed to have had prior intent to bash yobs' brains in and am automatically in the wrong from the start. Yet where is it more intelligent to keep such a weapon than by the front door?

The milksops who run my local police advise us, if threatened, to retreat upstairs and call 999. If I'm lucky, an officer will visit some hours later and take a statement. Meanwhile, my house may have been trashed and my family harmed.

Restore the right of self-defence

Repeal all bans on private ownership of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, and the use of firearms for justifiable self-defence in one's home, on one's land, and in one's place of business. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all bans on private ownership of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, and the use of firearms for justifiable self-defence in one's home, on one's land, and in one's place of business. 

Being safe

I would like to be able to defend my familey with a tszar gun i am not in support of being armed with hand guns.

This i think would suffice to defend m familey against an armed criminal.

I will not waffle on but i think the general public need a little help to protect themselves.

Thanks R

Why is this idea important?

I would like to be able to defend my familey with a tszar gun i am not in support of being armed with hand guns.

This i think would suffice to defend m familey against an armed criminal.

I will not waffle on but i think the general public need a little help to protect themselves.

Thanks R