Not just for loss of earnings, 'apparently' the experience has left him unable to perform sexually. :spin:

shame:D

Sound slike a bonus to me!

Depriving him of children can only be a good thing going by his "morals" or lack of them!

Well, looks like the human gene pool is gonna improve slightly

I'm not sure which is worse. Having a police force armed with truncheons, electronic stun-guns, rubber batons etc who are never around if you need them and if they are they are reluctant to use their weapons; or courts with judges who don't want to send criminals to prison.

It is any wonder that people are obliged to protect themselves when the state is useless.

All you can do is reduce the chances of being burgled by implementing as many security measures you can afford and buy a large 'family pet' Doberman to greet unwelcome visitors.

The only way we will get proper justice in this country is when judges, senior politicians and others charged with operating the legal system are affected by crime. Then they really will stand up and take notice as it affects them.

Hmmmmm...... to bring the police back into this.....

10 minutes ago they were way too busy tailgating me with their full beams on as I went about my own business driving home from seeing my girlfriend :rolleyes:

Shock - horror - it's the only time I've seen them in weeks and they were displaying the worst driving I've seen yet if I'd been doing 31mph........:rolleyes:

I for one am apalled at the reaction of the police in any burglary, as they don't seem to deem it waranting any attendance unless life has been threatened. And even if you install alarms they don't take much heed to them either. As for poor Tony Martin, I think anyone who was on the recieving end of the campaign of breakins that he sustained, would have been going out of their minds with the hassle of it all and the result was as we know not good.
But the man should not have been there! If he wasn't he wouldn't have been shot in the first place! As to him sueing, well it beggars belief! So he can't have kids! Good! He isn't a good role model anyhow, and his kids would be like minded no doubt too, following his example and stealing their way through life as that seems to be all he knows.:mad:
So it leads to the fact that all us normal soles end up in prison and the nutters are on the loose! What a world!

What an incredibly liberal society we live in that we give career **** like that any rights and consideration under the law. In many parts of the world he would be told that he had brought his misfortune upon himself and to stop whining. Here we are concerned about whether his rights were infringed while he was committing his crime!

lol....

http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn...in/1261348.php

The police and government in this country banned the ownership of handguns which achieved the following...

The responsible licensed owners of the weapons handed them in as per the instructions of the law, meaning that the people legally entitled at the time to own the weapons no longer had them. Does anyone else see a flaw in this?

Yup, The criminals who posessed them didn't hand them in and still own them.

Yet another example of the government empowering the criminals.

If someone broke into my house and was armed then I am sure they would have gone via the kitchen and found a knife on the way by the time the police arrived to collect what was left of them.

Reasonable force in the defense of the property when someone is armed enough to kill you.....

I do like that:D

Ho hum, here we go with the Tony Martin debate again and, as traditional, we see the "string them all up, an Englishman's home is his castle" arguments.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can offer a few clarifications following discussions on this with a friend who is (but don't take this as gospel just in case I've misunderstood him)

1) Trespass: This is a *civil* offence, not a criminal offence. It only becomes a criminal offence when you have "aggravated trespass" eg when a trespasser obstructs or intimidates a lawful activity or when the trespasser commits another offence, such as damage to property.

If someone is trespassing on your property you have the right to remove them using "reasonable force".

AIUI the Police are not able to arrest someone for a civil offence.

2) Reasonable force: This is the *minimum* necessary force required to defend yourself or your family. It does *NOT* allow you to shoot someone in the back who is running away because this is not "defending yourself".

3) Assault and Battery, Actual Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm.

Assault is a hostile act that causes another person to fear attack. Battery is the actual use of force in an assault.

If you exceed the minimum level of necessary or reasonable force then you can be found guilty of a crime. This means that if you decide to kick seven bells out of an intruder or hit them with an axe or shoot them in the back you can be prosecuted for at least Assault and Battery and very possible Actual or even Grievous Bodily Harm which are *serious* offences.

It may have made you feel good, but you won't like the consequences, so don't be stupid.

4) Rights.

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

By the same token, everyone has the same responsibilities under the law and will face the same penalties if they break it.

IMO if we want to call ourselves a "civilised society" we *cannot* pick and choose who has rights and who does not otherwise we end up with "some are more equal than others" and that is not a society I want to live in.

Final point:

Speak up everyone who wants to pay *more* tax. (Listens to the sound of wind blowing...)

Everyone seems to demand "the Police should do more", "we need more Police", "the Police don't catch enough criminals", but it is *YOUR* money that pays for them, so if you want them to do more, you're going to have to put your hand in your pockets!

If someones tresspessing on my property, with intent to cause damage or steal MY things, then il remove them with whatever force i feel is required, be that knocking 7 bells into them.

Law needs changing them, because if a burglers allowed to come into your property, and then have rights protecting him.. well
:shrug:

I think the newer speed cameras are totally automatic.

Anyway, surely every fine paid by a speeding motorist could go back to the police for more officers?

afaik they were intimidating Martin....threats and taunts

Quote:

2) Reasonable force: This is the *minimum* necessary force required to defend yourself or your family. It does *NOT* allow you to shoot someone in the back who is running away because this is not "defending yourself".

As I have already said, it was a dark night and there were unknown numbers of burglars threatening him harm.

Quote:

If you exceed the minimum level of necessary or reasonable force then you can be found guilty of a crime. This means that if you decide to kick seven bells out of an intruder or hit them with an axe or shoot them in the back you can be prosecuted for at least Assault and Battery and very possible Actual or even Grievous Bodily Harm which are *serious* offences. It may have made you feel good, but you won't like the consequences, so don't be stupid.

Thats nice, I'm glad you feel able to make split second decisions in the dark, in the middle of nowhere with multiple intruders on the premises. You have a cooler head than many of us.

Quote:

4) Rights. Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

Yes, thats a shame. Bit of an oversight don't you think?

Quote:

By the same token, everyone has the same responsibilities under the law and will face the same penalties if they break it.

No we don't. Martin stayed in jail longer because he was deemed to be a "danger to burglars"...ffs

Quote:

IMO if we want to call ourselves a "civilised society" we *cannot* pick and choose who has rights and who does not otherwise we end up with "some are more equal than others" and that is not a society I want to live in.

So you want thieving, drug dealing, never worked a day in their lives career **** to have the same rights as people who go about their business lawfully? I say you should forfeit some rights when you go about unlawfull business.

Quote:

Final point: Speak up everyone who wants to pay *more* tax. (Listens to the sound of wind blowing...) Everyone seems to demand "the Police should do more", "we need more Police", "the Police don't catch enough criminals", but it is *YOUR* money that pays for them, so if you want them to do more, you're going to have to put your hand in your pockets!

We pay enough tax already. It is the way that it is spent that is the problem.
Final point: The police are here to protect us. They failed to protect Martin to the point that he had to defend himself. All the police(and I meet a lot of them) that I have spoken to about his case say that the law needs changing and he should never have been locked up.
Wake up and smell the coffee...