Burglars aren’t proper humans shock!

Tough on crime, inhumane on criminals.

In a rather radical step (for a politician), David Cameron – in an attempt to consolidate even more votes against NuLab in the upcoming elections – has been quoted as coming out with a rather impressive new idea.

He has suggested something I, and every other copper on the face of the planet, have been shouting about and voicing an opinion on since time began and cavemen first learned how to shape a rather large, clubby-looking piece of wood into a PR-24 baton.

Burglars, he says, should lose any human rights the minute they break into someone’s house.

Mr Cameron said “The moment a burglar steps over your threshold, and invades your property – with all the threat that gives to you, your family and your livelihood – I think they leave their human rights outside.”

My question is, why stop there, Mr Cameron?  Why not include joy riders, thieves in general and any other scrote who decides (implying some element of choice was available to the miscreant) to break the law?

I can say for a fact that if I was woken up in the middle of the night to the sounds of some knuckle-dragging low-life raiding my personal possessions and threatening the safety and sanctity of my family so that they can get their next drug hit, I will endeavour to use the maximum force available to me to subdue them.  If the pondlife were unlucky enough to break into my household, that may even include the use of a firearm if the circumstances called for it.  What if the burglar were killed?  Tea and medals.  Saves a long and costly court case just for the waste-of-oxygen to be given a community sentence, not to mention saving all the future victims of his repeat offences that he would have been able to go on to commit.

My reasoning?  It’s dark, I can’t see and don’t have the time to think about what weapons they’ve got, The Boss and miniKop need protecting at all costs and I know the kind of scum that commit this kind of crime.  It is certainly not unreasonable to expect them to be armed with a knife or worse.  Me? If I’ve been woken up in the middle of the night, the best protection I’ll be wearing will be a rather bad temper and whatever weapon I’ve picked up on the way out of the bedroom.

Unfortunately some people do take it too far – the Hussein’s, for example.  But all the time an offender is on my premises and is resisting arrest, I will make use of the weapons and training available to me to incapacitate that offender.  You don’t break into someone’s house to have tea with them – you’ve only got a couple of things on your mind and none of them mean you’re considering the human rights of the victims.

I was going to sit out of this election as I don’t believe there’s enough of a difference between the two parties, but I suspect Mr Cameron may be swinging my opinion his way with this one.  Suggest bringing back capital punishment for some of the spongers and ‘permanently unemployed’ out there and he’ll definitely have my vote.


Tags: , , , , , ,

36 Responses to “Burglars aren’t proper humans shock!”

  1. Adam Says:

    I’m yet to be 100% convinced that the Hussein’s did take it too far – it was just a lesson with a rather steep learning curve.

    Don’t break into someone’s house, tie them up and threaten them and their family with violence, and they you won’t get chased down the street and spanked to within an inch of your life.

    Does that not come under preventative measures? I very much doubt the real criminal fellow or his friend will try tying up anyone else.

  2. policeboy Says:


    I was going to write about this, but I think I’d just be repeating your views, which happen to be almost identical to my own. I’ll disagree with you that the Husseins went too far; I’ve had tunnel vision in a scrape, and not thought clearly until afterwards, but you have to accept the emotion and terror he must have been feeling at the time?

    Secondly, I heard that the Conservatives were considering scrapping the ECHR in England, and moving towards a more UK constituion, whereby only grossly disproportionate firce is punished.


    • kkop Says:

      The Husseins went too far in that they chased the offenders out of their own house and down the road. No amount of terror they would be experiencing can account for a cold, calculated action such as that.

      The problem is, if you don’t draw a line (at the front door, say), then you’re going to seriously confuse ‘self defence’ with revenge. How many defendants are going to claim that the person they’ve just assaulted in the street had tried to burgle their house – even if they hadn’t?

      I’m afraid that for the sake of clarity in not confusing self defence with revenge and summary justice, I will always be of the opinion that the Husseins’ case was a step too far.

      • Adam Says:

        I hear what you’re saying, and for the simple argument of the precedent it would set in (ostensibly) allowing people to assault others with impunity and claim justifiable retaliation, I’d agree that they have to be said to have gone too far.
        Morally speaking, however, I have no problem with what the Hussein’s did and don’t think what they did could be described as “cold, calculated action” – after what had just happened, I think your blood is going to be up for a good 5-10 minutes and goes beyond rational thought.
        Just my thoughts.

      • policeboy Says:


        You say ‘no amount of terror’, and that’s where we don’t see eye to eye. I don’t have any children yet, but I can imagine if you feel like they, along with the rest of your family, are in real danger after being tied up, it’s going to have to be some serious amounts of terror that you’re feeling. I can’t imagine what they were thinking, because I don’t think they were; I think they were just ‘doing’.

        Surely, someone who was thinking would take the time to immediately call the Police, ambulance and then see if the members of their family were well after the ordeal?

        I’ll be honest in that I didn’t consider your ‘but-they-just-burgled-me’ defence to an assault, and it does pose some difficult questions should any legislation come in, in the next few years. At end of it all, it comes down to CPS to make that choice, and the courts to decide if they were right. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to confuse revenge and self-defence, but I believe that by doing what they did, the Husseins were essentially displaying so much force, that they were defending themselves from it ever happening again.

        I just don’t think they did anything … ‘wrong’.

        Hope you can see where I’m coming from.


      • kkop Says:

        Ah, policeboy, I’m afraid there’s a huge difference between gut-chilling, pant-filling ‘terror’ and the emotions that you are describing that I’m sure were going through the minds of the Husseins.

        You’re right, terror can drive you to do extreme things, but you’ll never convince me that leaving the safety of your house to chase down a ‘burglar’ (they were actually hired to rough Mr Hussein up for allegedly poking the hirer’s wife – there’s more to this story than ‘burglars turned torturers’) and beat him about the head repeatedly with a length of wood whilst shouting, “Who sent you? Who sent you?” at him is anything other than just as criminal as the original actions of the ‘burglars’ and a long stretch past the definition of reasonable force and self defence.

        We could always just agree to disagree on this point – we do actually agree that the offenders deserved it, though. 😉

    • kkop Says:

      Adam – ‘morally speaking’ is a whole other argument in its own right. ‘Morally speaking’, the kind of criminals that we deal with on a regular basis should be exterminated like the vermin they are or at the very least permanently prevented from breeding – and the ones that callously kill innocents in the course of their crimes, such as the car thief who ran over its owner a few weeks back (NO car or community sentence is worth someone’s life), should be used for medical research.

      That way, they’ll be making the one and only useful contribution to society and humanity that they’ll ever make and karma, which is the basic building block of fairness, will be satisfied. No-one ever seems to cry out about the human rights of the victims of all these crimes and how they were wilfully disregarded by the scrotes who committed the crimes.

      So don’t get me wrong, I agree that the guy in the Hussein’s case got his just desserts, but I disagree with the legality of the method in which it was served.

  3. Fee Says:

    Having a hubby who works shifts, I’m often alone with my girls at night. Any scumbag breaking in will take his chances with me – and whatever weapon comes to hand. At the very least, there’s a full set of golf clubs beside the wardrobe, and while I can’t play golf to save my life, I wouldn’t hesitate to brain Billy Burglar with the first one I grab. I knew these nice high ceilings had a purpose – it leaves me room for a good overarm swing! There’s also a handy set of mini-weights, which I’ve proved I can chuck with a fair degree of accuracy. Or just use them as a club.

    If they scrap the ECHR in England, I might just consider moving. I’m sick to the back teeth of readng about criminals using it to claim (more) cash from the state.

  4. Crime Analyst Says:

    Surprise surprise thought as the article continues ….
    Mr Cameron was later criticised by Lord Mandelson, who branded his comments a “sound-bite”. He admitted the message would be applauded by many. But he said “It’s not a practical principle of law that you can operate and which you say that anyone attempting to burgle another house, thereby renounces all their rights under the law.
    “What sort of country is he trying to create?”

    The sort of country the majority of the public are now screaming for… one with a spirit of fairness for the real victims, where we can actually defend our loved ones and our hard earned property rigorously, without the fear that WE will become the accused.

    Outside of election times, many of us are blinded by the apathy this political system and its players encourage. On the run up to this election, the questions we have to ask are “Who is most likely to act in the real interests of the majority of UK tax paying citizens?” and “Who is most likely to get stuck in and try and right the massive criminal wrongs of the last twelve years?”

    Both major parties have fouled up big style during their respective terms in office.

    In recent years the British people have been increasingly denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by politically correct elite with its own agenda. All this in a country that invented modern Parliamentary democracy.

    On capital punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been eroded as politicians fail to offer the British people real choice on such vital issues.

    We are owed that choice and we should restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. More REAL democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels is what is required.

    There should be a Bill of Rights that guarantees basic fundamental freedoms to the British people. Ordinary British people should have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, so that it is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

    Some laws that exist on the statute books prevent people from making a free choice. They should be abolished, along with the “Human Rights Act” which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world bleeding our nation dry.

    Traditional free speech should be a “given” supported by citizen-initiated referenda whose outcomes are binding on Parliament. That is true democracy, NOT the farce of Government we have witnessed and endured these past generations.

    Like you KK, in recent years I’ve not been inspired by our political leaders. It used to be mere disatisfaction with the state of the country that led to a change in power. What I can’t recall in my lifetime though, is a greater sense of public anger on so many fronts for the atrocities committed and spawned by this Government. I am far from being a screaming blue tory, but having seen the billions in credit wasted away to what is now hundreds of billions in debt, with a hands off management style of bureaucracy in all the key sectors, dessimating the “common sense” approach that would turn the country around, I went in search of what the parties had to say.

    Everyone has to make their own decision when the ballot boxes appear, and having looked at the Conservative Policy for Social Reform, including major upheaval of the corrupt Criminal Justice System, I am inclined to agree with you that the swingometer is rapidly looking better in the blue sector than the red.

    All the promises in the world mean diddly squat if they don’t deliver, but on the basis of what we’ve ensured under NuLabour, I honestly can’t see Cameron and crew doing any worse.

    That Chris Grayling is already at odds with the validity of ACPO (he’s had a few noisy scraps with Sir Hugh), and the other Police Quangos almost gets my vote for that alone.

    As a “by the way” – for someone who was in undecided about blogging in his own right a few weeks ago, you’re doing a great job. I now look forward to your posts knowing they will inspire healthy and informed debate. Well done mate, keep them coming.

    • kkop Says:

      Thank you very much – I consider that high praise indeed. I am still operating under the illusion that I’m ‘just trying this out to see how it goes,’ but it seems to be ticking along nicely for the moment!! 🙂

    • RocketDodger Says:

      Crime Analyst,

      An excellent and succinct post.

      It’s politics and sleaze as you have described that have allowed the BNP to crawl out from its cave.

    • allcoppedout Says:

      Not much more to say on this one CA. I’m going to campaign against my own Nulabour bully, but no one is really talking about what’s needed.

      My guess is we are corrupted by a nomenclature – similar to the Sino-Soviet ones of the past. We need to shaft them and make them work for a living as well as the scrote.

      I think the Husseins should have had a wrap on the knuckles, but gaoling them was pathetic. No doubt they should have converted Catholic and appeared in Cherie’s court?

      We have neither the carrots nor sticks to deal with what is going on.

  5. Tony F Says:

    Hear hear!

  6. RocketDodger Says:

    Nope KKop, still cannot believe you are a copper, YOU ARE NOT FLUFFY ENOUGH! LOL

    The ECHR and the HR legislation in this country needs either binning or a serious revamping.

    We now have terrorists, Enemies of the State (that’s people who want to kill you, me, your children and everyone else for those still not quite sure) who we:

    A. Can’t deport
    B. Can’t imprison

    Not to mention thousands of foreign criminals who can’t be sent back to their own countries because they might be………punished.

    If you’re HR Lawyer (thank you Matrix, Cherie and Tony) delete ‘punished’ insert ‘tortured’. Because in their mind, any country wise enough to have a penal system different to our own (read most of the world) ‘tortures’ not ‘punishes’

    Come the Revolution!!!

  7. Adam Says:

    Looks like the first salvo.


    • kkop Says:


      I suspect that my next post is going to be slightly abstract from current affairs but it’s going to be about my biggest concern in modern society which this news article illustrates perfectly.

      Thanks for the link, Adam. Watch this space.

      • allcoppedout Says:

        I suspect everyone is facing cuts except the bwankers KK. Our MPs should be first. All of them should have to fork out for the expenses incurred by Legge et al. About two-and-a-half grand each.
        I forget the term for being convicted for being there and doing nothing other than encourage the crime, but the MPs have obviously done that.

  8. Tired and Fed-Up Says:

    100% with you, kKop but, being the cynical old scrote that I am, I just do not trust or believe anything these charlatans say any more. With the build up to the GE, we’ll get political ‘pledges’ not promises and Cameron is sufficiently savvy to know what matters to decent people and thus secure lots of votes. Bear in mind, this was the man who guaranteed a referendum on Europe which he then reneged on, not to mention the fact he formerly extolled the virtues of “hugging a hoodie” – am I being too hard on the man if I think the timing of his change of opinion is a bit convenient?

    I’d love to see what I’d regard as real justice return to this country, with the Police, courts and prisons free to exact the true price of crime on the perpetrators – and not because I’m one of a baying horde, eager to see blood letting but because it’s RIGHT. There are people locked up who are never, ever, ever going to be in any way decent members of the community, contributing to society. But they will be free in a few derisory years, at liberty to wreck more lives, smash belongings, cause misery and snuff out life. If that sounds defeatist, it’s not – it’s just true. Violent non – British thugs need expelling, the rope has to be seriously considered for the worst this nation produces and punishment needs to be a punishment – not an inconvenient stop-gap between bouts of criminality.

    Sorry. KK, every time I write on your forum, I end up taking the express to rant central! And Crime Analyst is spot on – this is a top blog which I thoroughly enjoy reading through and then boring everyone with my banging-on. Go on – make it permanent; you know it makes sense.

    • kkop Says:

      T&FU – don’t apologise, feel free to sound off here whenever you want!

      Thanks for your comments – it’s nice to know my rants are appreciated too! 😉

      • Tony F Says:

        As before, Hear hear!

        Let’s be honest, if asked, I would think that most honest people would like to see proper punishments for crimes. I often advocate hanging, or something similar, but to be honest, I don’t think it should be used except for particularly violent crimes. But as things are, there is no deterrent. We don’t deport violent criminals because they may be executed back home. And this is our problem, in what way? I think it’s easy. Don’t commit crime. Be a productive member of society, especially if you want the benefits of this society (I don’t mean hand outs), other wise please feel free to have assisted state suicide forced upon you.

    • allcoppedout Says:

      Sadly all true Tired. Our (fortunately gone) scrote couple must cost around £100K to police, social serve and the rest – which excludes what they cost us in lost wages, careers and illness. They feed their kids booze and drugs and have made it all generational. She’s just had another kid – god knows in what condition given her habit. She’ll be using this in mitigation come sob-storying over an arson and serious assault in a couple of weeks. Witnesses have already been intimidated. They only left because a judge finally wouldn’t overturn bail conditions after she was locked up again next door in breach of them.

  9. kkop Says:

    If you commit the crime, you do the time.

    There should be no wavering on that rule. If prisons are overcrowded, either build more or introduce the death penalty for more offences.

    But the problem we’ve got currently is that the criminal justice system is systematically failing victims and the public in general.

    Prisons do not work as places of rehabilitation. The rate of repeat offending is 70%+ – so 70% of prisoners who have been caught go to prison for a few months/years, then are released to re-offend in society, creating more victims in a vicious circle.

    The solutions to this problem are probably too drastic for the do-gooders to stomach – certainly until they start becoming repeat victims themselves.

    • Adam Says:

      I’d be a liar if I said that rehabilitation was foremost on my mind – if money is invested, no doubt it’s possible, but I think of prison as a place to put those not fit to mix with society, to give society a break from them. If they can also be rehabilitated, then that’s just a bonus.
      If we need to spend money, then I vote for more prisons and less diversity apparatchiks.

  10. policeboy Says:


    Agreeing to disagree, agreed. It’s been a long time since I’ve enjoyed debating with another person online. I nearly choked on my previous nights refs that I never got chance to eat, when I heard we get £100 per phone call. I don’t know which form to fill in for this, but with the amount of victim recontact we have to do now, I could probably retire by the time I become Police-middleagedman!

    The job we do, and the job the public think we do, really are two ENTIRE worlds apart.

    And yes, we can agree on the fact they did derserve a bit of a shoeing 🙂


  11. allcoppedout Says:

    I tend to believe in getting the retaliation and rehabilitation in first. There are about one and a half million kids needing it now. What we end up with is piss poor bandaid non-solutions. The real solutions are complicated and come down to needing more jobs people can get easily and do without more of our credulous education system.
    Worrying about crooks getting a bit of a shoeing ain’t any use. Look at the crud about John Terry using the Human Rights Act. Victims have almost no chance under this typical for the fat-cats legislation. We could start by giving people the right not to have to have the scrote living amongst them or on the streets outside.

  12. Dungbeetle Says:

    People seek Pleasure….
    Rewards [bio feedback] beget doing more of the same.
    Punishment is pain and no one likes pain.[some never feel the pain too]
    So why do we reward those that give pain to others?
    All thieves should have their benefits deducted to level that they be poorer.
    [ 2 eyes for each eye taken]

    Whether it be fiddling the expense account ala ministers and members of Parliament or those that steal from local Tesco’s, Steal a million then pay back TWO, Steal a pound then deduct the parents benefits by Two quid.
    But as long as it profitable to steal, it will continue.
    Unfortunately some have very short memories and will never stop, they have a disease, Klepto [major or minor] etc? thus should do some should shoveling of the faeces 14 hrs a day, till they beg for Mercy.
    [some will like of course so try something else]

    Yes – the Hussein’s, went too far but Crown was also unjust .

    When the Perp knows that he will suffer consequences he looks for easier targets, Just like some Policemen rather give out simple tickets rather than do some heavy stuff as your management gives better rewards to numbers than to quality.
    Most of the homo erectus like to take the easy path, when ever possible.
    So KK you will never be out of work.

  13. Tony F Says:

    Steal a pound and you’re a thief.
    Steal a country, and you’re a hero.

  14. Minty Says:

    I thinks the Husseins went too far… once the scum had fled, then the threat had gone. I don’t think they Hussein’s) desereved to go prison for it. I hope to hell i never get to taste the fear that they must have to be driven to do what they did.
    If (god forbid) anyone broke into my home, i would consider them fair game untill they had left…. like call me Dave said, they leave their rights at the door.
    Having said that the Husseins went too far, i do think the scumbags got what they deserved…. though have no doubt they will be looking to obtain compensation for the injuries sustained. Quite how they intend to qauntify “loss of earnings” for career criminals i don’t know!
    As long as crime goes unpunished (or not properly punished) then criminals will committ crime. Invest in prisons and make them slightly less cosy and give them great capacity- it will pay in the end. Obviously there should be rehabilitation built into this.

  15. allcoppedout Says:

    Given we are failing to find a home n prison for 50,000 scrote, what are we doing putting people like the Hussains or that poor woman who had to kill her suffering child in gaol?

  16. Crime Analyst Says:

    Mr Cameron said “The moment a burglar steps over your threshold, and invades your property – with all the threat that gives to you, your family and your livelihood – I think they leave their human rights outside.”

    I agree with him on this and the Law does need looking at sharpish.

    The “reasonable force” defence has been weakened by the courts all too often coming down on the side of the intruder.

    Fewer such cases would ever get to court if the bar was raised as suggested by Cameron and Grayling to prosecute only homeowners who use “grossly disproportionate” violence against an intruder.

    The same problem may arise with a new threshold though, unless there is a definitive understanding of what is “grossly disproportionate” force.

    It’s an age old argument that needs greater clarity. I agree with you KK that Husseins actions were excessive under the common application of “reasonable force”. Unless some guidance were given to what is “grossly disproportionate” he might still have exceeded the threshold.

    It’s a sign of the shifting legal opinion, supporting popular public concern,that whilst he may have been excessive in his retribution, a custodial was considered inappropriate.

    The real travesty in all of this is the pathetic treatment in court, of Saleem Wahid, the scrote who started all this. Whatever his motives, theft or jealousy, nothing justifies his actions that started it all.

    As we know, Hussain caught up with Saleem as he fled the house after the family reinforcements arrived. Salem, 57, a creer criminal, persuaded a judge at Reading Crown Court that he was suffering brain damage. He also received an absolute discharge for alleged offences of possession counterfeit credit cards, a forged UK driving licence and handling stolen goods, committed months before the raid on Hussain’s home, after successfully arguing he was unfit to plead in that case too.

    Salem must have laughed his socks off as he received a two-year supervision order and was allowed to walk free.

    Surprise surprise, Saleem has since been arrested on suspicion of other crimes – raising questions about the severity of his injuries. Egyptian-born Salem’s list of more than 50 convictions stretches back to 1980.

    Despite crimes including possessing a firearm and 27 theft offences, the longest prison stint was 42 months.

    Within weeks of walking free from court after his brain damage bullshit, Salem went on another crime spree. He was then given an absolute discharge at St Albans Crown Court last November over five new charges after the court was again told that he was unfit to plead. He is also being investigated over other alleged offences.

    Michael Wolkind QC, who acted for Mr Hussain at his trial, said: “The fact Salem has gone on to allegedly commit further offences suggests he cannot be significantly brain-damaged. If he is committing further offences then the prosecution should re-examine the findings and bring in new psychiatrists to have a fresh look.”

    Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “Our criminal justice system will only be credible if it is seen to look after the victims of crime and not allow those who commit offences to get away with it”.

    Tory MP Philip Davies said: “What this man did to Mr Hussain was absolutely horrendous and he should be in prison for it, regardless of any other offences he may have committed. No civilised society should be forced to tolerate this man causing carnage wherever he goes”.

    If he is fit enough to commit crimes then he’s fit enough to stand trial. Even if it were proved that he had suffered brain damage, SO WHAT? His own actions brought that one about, it would have been a bit of summary justice as we used to call it. Brain damage sustained in such circumstances should not have served as a get out of jail free card. Prison for a very long time is the only place for this arse hole and justice will not be seen to be done until he is banged up.

    • kkop Says:

      I’m sorry, Crime, but I have to disagree.

      I feel that the only place a repeat offender like Salem should be is not prison, but either on the bilge decks of a tramp steamer back to Egypt, or 6 feet under.

      No amount of prison is going to rehabilitate someone of his criminal tendencies or convictions. All prison will do is provide a brief respite for the public whilst his criminal activities are curtailed.

      P.S. New blog coming soon, I promise, work is just getting in the way as usual! 😉

      • Crime Analyst Says:

        Given the power to decide his fate, I’d agree wholeheartedly mate.

        You’ve probably seen my views on the foreign national contribution to crime. 84,000 prisoners 11,500 of them foreign natiionals costing £440million a year from our soddin taxes! Kicking all of them out would solve the prison overcrowding in one fell swoop. As it is, they offer the shits £5000 a time to go home with a pre paid credit card loaded for £500 to boot. Nah, they say, I can screw more than that here if I stay.

        It seems expatriation of offenders to prisons in their country of origin can only happen if there is an agreement between the countries. So, why don’t they change the immigration laws so that they’re not allowed in unless there is an expatriation agreement in place?

        Under the 12 years of this Government, the net immigration numbers (Outflowing less the Inflow) are bloody scary. I was doing a spreadsheet on it last night with data from the ONS. Almost 2 million EXTRA immigrants since King Tony came to the throne. £20million in interpreter fees etc etc, not to mention the burden on health, education, housing etc….

        My main focus is how it affects the justice system and our social standards as a result.

        This has long since ceased being a racial issue, it’s one of simple overcrowding, the financial and social consequences that go with it. Saleem Wahid if not a UK citizen is just one of thousands of examples that you guys witness more than we are exposed to.

        Sorry mate, I meant to say… actually I agree with you 100% but the system is shite, but I went off on a rant!

        . . . . . . took a minute then to read my e mails. Just got an alert that some bloke called kKop has written an article on confidence in the police, another good subject worthy of informed debate,

        It is hard work writing articles around the full time job isn’t it? The sense of release and venting is worth it though mate, and the general public need to know this stuff.

  17. Furor Teutonicus Says:

    XX Mr Cameron may be swinging my opinion XX

    Why not? He swings his own often enough, why not yours as well?

  18. Stonehead Says:

    Why restrict your choices to corrupt Labour, corrupt Tories, or staying home on the sofa with a beer? There will be other candidates and we should turn out in droves to vote for anyone but the usual two suspects. Or the Lib Dems, SNP, etc.

    I know the media pundits will drone on about chaos, disaster, mayhem etc if there’s a hung parliament, but so what? A few months or even a year or two of chaos couldn’t be any worse than lurching from one lot of dipsticks to another and then back again. After all, they’re all much the same under the skin: mainly toffee-nosed slime who were chums at university, have never really had to work for a living, think they know better than the rest of us, and think we’re all here to maintain their perks and comforts. (And much of the national media is also drawn from the same group of chums.)

    We, as in the voters, should actually get off our butts for a change and vote the whole sorry lot out. Then sit back and watch the recriminations as both parties turn on themselves.

    It would be almost as good as throwing them all in the Thames with concrete boots.

    As for the defending your home arguments, I think the right decision was eventually made about the Husseins. They went too far and the convictions recognise that. But they weren’t in a calm, rational state of mind at the time and the revised sentences reflect that.

    I can readily say that as I’ve had three experiences with people breaking into, or attempting to break into, my house.

    Two were straightforward burglaries, one was an extremely violent attempted home invasion with my nine-month pregnant wife and toddler son in the house. (Actually, make that four experiences—I also had to deal with my wife’s stalker a few years earlier.)

    In the first two, the intruders were persuaded that it really would be wise to conduct their activities elsewhere. (This was outside the UK.)

    With the attempted home invasion, I took up position on the stairs and was fully prepared to do the three men serious bodily harm if they attempted to come up those stairs. Fortunately, it never came to that as North Yorks police were on the scene very quickly and pursued the trio into the woodland behind the house. (Unfortunately not catching them.)

    Was I terrified in any of these three incidents? No. I was implacably angry that toerags dared invade my space and, with the home invasion, threaten my wife and son. I’ve been involved in a few nasty scrimmages here and there, and have no doubt I would have torn into them with a fair degree of savagery if it had come to it. And I’d have made damned sure they weren’t coming back.

    But, I also know in a calmer situation, as now sitting at my desk or in the dock before the beak, that it can considered that it really isn’t appropriate to rip someone’s bollocks off and stuff them down their throat. Merely subduing them would be considered enough.

    However, try being that self-disciplined and restrained in the situations I’ve experienced or the Husseins experienced.

    And that’s why I think the right decisions were made in the case of the Husseins. Yes, they went too far and failed to stop when it could be cooly and rationally considered that they should have. But how many of their critics could have stopped at what the legal system might consider a reasonable point?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: