Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Bring Out Our Girls

Myleene Klass appears to be a nice down to earth girl and as vulnerable to crime just like the rest of us. When she disturbed youths burgling her garage she waved a knife at them from inside her house thus scaring them away. What follows due to Myleene being a fitty is the police looking stupid again, when somebody is reported to have told her she could be arrested for having an offensive weapon.

Now this didn't exactly ring true at the time with me, because even the dimmest officer knows that you can't be arrested for possession of an offensive weapon in your house, unless you're stupid enough to admit having a "made one" which you had in public before it reached your house. I think that the CPS would call that a weak case and in most circumstances decline a charge. Now this all came out at the launch of a new TV show that Myleene was promoting so call me a cynic ............ but why aren't Hertfordshire police putting up more of a rebuttal? Maybe if we rolled out our own fitty press person we could get some coverage.

Myleene has back tracked somewhat and it's spun as a defence of property thing as Herts deny any warning was made to her. As long as Myleene doesn't chase her burglars away and stab them she could in certain circumstances use a knife to defend herself. People just need to know where they stand with this. It's pretty clear in law but again what is reasonable in the circumstances rears it's head.

Now all own up. Who keeps something handy just in case you are confronted in your own house by felons? I've got a lovely little wooden ornament that somebody brought back from holiday for me. I keep it behind my bed and if need be could use it effectively and correctly. I wouldn't hit somebody around the head with it unless the threat to me warranted it. I am in effect trained to use it and more importantly trained to justify it's use. My old man prefers a length of 2 be 2 hard wood and I have heard of people who sleep with a knife nearby just in case.

My personal opinion is that anybody in your house unlawfully who stands their ground offering aggression and gets whacked should lose their rights to protection from the law. The law should favour the householder who did nothing to bring about the confrontation. Of course shooting them in the back as they flee is hardly self defence, but the law needs to understand the flight or fight process. You would have to be pretty centred as a MOP to avoid a little bit of retribution.

So for any MOP out there here is the law:

Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Common Law

A person who is attacked or who believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself or another. In this situation a person is acting in lawful self defence. What does acting in lawful self defence mean? The law is that a person only acts in lawful self defence if in the circumstances he believes that it is necessary for him to defend himself or another and the amount of force which he uses in doing so is reasonable. Two questions arise. Firstly, did the person believe, or may he honestly have believed that it was necessary to defend himself. If the person did not believe that it was necessary to defend himself, then self defence simply does not arise. The second question is, taking the circumstances, as the person believed them to be, was the amount of force which he used reasonable? The law is that force used in self defence is unreasonable and unlawful if it is out of proportion to the nature of the attack or if it is in excess of what is really required of the person to defend himself.

I don't know how to word out the thieving slag deserved it in the above but I'm sure some legal eagle could try.


Hogday said...

Well posted SOC> When I had a police flat that overlooked Brixton prison, I found that I was in a area where there were 40 robberies a week and the SOP for a burglary was for a gang of 4+ to boot the front door in, whether there was anyone in or not, and steam in with knife/machete to steal/gbh/worse. I was a clay buster, so when I was at home, my Savage Stevens 12ga pump was under the bed with 4 up the tube. Plan A: 1.Verbal warning accompanied by racking 1st round into the chamber; 2. If no further retreat possible, one round of number 7 into lower legs, re-chamber and up aim to centre mass; 3. Start singing "Men of Harlech"

Blue Eyes said...

This seems to be a "hot topic" at the moment, doesn't it! As I posted when I slated Chris Grayling, I think the law is quite understandable and fair as it stands. What makes things more difficult are the typical "Mail" stories which spin the line that criminals have more rights than victims, etc.. What the "Mail" et al fail to publish is the follow-up to the "shopkeeper arrested defending himself" type stories where after questioning he is released without charge.

As the CPS bloke said the other day, most self-defence "offences" aren't prosecuted so they don't even have to be heard in court.

Having said all that, there must be some way of formulating a criminal principle of the old "coming to court with clean hands" principle that civil law sometimes sticks to. I.e. if you've commenced an attack on someone how can you possibly be regarded as a victim? If you get seven bells kicked out of you by a householder whose house you shouldn't be in, how can you possibly complain?

Blue Eyes said...

Hogday - sounds like the area has gone downhill since you lived there...

George Saint said...

A good posting and equally good responses, sadly not what you will see adorning the first half a dozen pages of any red-top you care to choose. The problem appears to be less the actions of anyone involved in and incident that has been reported than it the manner in which it is reported.

You are free here to discuss in a calm, reasoned, informed and rational manner while the media, especially the failing and all but redundant printed format, requires sensationalist and inflammatory coverage to sell itself. Another reason to continue reading here and use my wife's Daily Mail to line the cat's litter tray.

Anonymous said...

I played hockey well enough to have my own stick. I keep this handy in case of any unfortunate "eventualities".

Thankfully, I have found that I live in an area where such things are a rarity.

Anonymous said...

Myleene regrets she has no klass.

Anonymous said...

Does it matter what the law is if the police feel like arresting you they will and later maybe let you free.

Dandelion said...

Hear hear, anonymous 3.29

As for "theiving slag" - I cannot believe that a police officer would think it acceptable to use this type of hateful misogynist language, whatever the facts of the case. This makes me think that you are not suitable to *be* a police officer - I am tempted to report it. Seriously. This type of casual hate-speech is quite inappropriate for someone charged with upholding the law.

It looks to me like the police have a long way to go vis-a-vis their attitudes.

Stressed Out Cop said...


Where you been? HNY and all that

So I take it you are if faced with an intruder in your house .. you would take tea together ?

I'm really trying not to be judgemental ... but with people who burgle houses when people are in their beds it's hard. You see I deal with the victims. That affects my initial thinking response having seen their distress = reaction.

Anon - The post is about people powers not the police arresting people.

Blue Eyes said...

It's good to see the naysayers getting upset about the use of a word rather than the real points raised! This is the sound of BE being totally unsurprised.

Dandelion said...

I know, I know! HIGNFY back atcha!

I was faced with an intruder in my house. I pretended to be asleep. I was too afraid to phone the police, because my local ones abused me terribly the last time I was in danger.

But that's by the by. I just don't think it's ever ok to call a woman a slag. Is not ok to abuse someone's sexuality. Even if they aren't a nice person. If they're really so bad, you should have plenty of ammo without stooping to abusive language or behaviour.

So anyway. How are you? Haven't read blogs in yonks...

Metcountymounty said...

Dandelion - calling a male a thieving slag is perfectly common and appropriate police speak, just as a woman can be a thieving little scrote bastard. Considering most criminals are male anyway, slag is usually aimed at them. For example the common phrase "slag don't die" which is commonly used when a criminal (invariably male and usually seasoned) recieves an injury that would inevitably kill any real human.

MTG said...

Do I have grounds to suspect indulgence in one of your creative language moments, MCM?

Terrible enough to be the simple truth - but this gullible civilian cannot be certain.

Metcountymounty said...

Believe what you will Melv, if you don't hear it all the time then of course it's going to be unfamiliar but slag is most definitely used in reference to male criminals.

English Pensioner said...

Apparently in Bali, foreigners are warned to avoid renting cars because if they have an accident they will be blamed.
The local logic is impeccable, the accident wouldn't have happened if the visitor hadn't been there, and thus he must be the cause.
We should apply the same logic to intruders!