This could be a long rant.......
Reading other peoples blogs is becoming a pastime for the evenings - well it beats watching the shite on the 100+ channels that ntl pump into my house - there is more to be had reading about what the likes of Carl Tyler is doing in Paris, or what Darren Adams thinks about Charles & Camilla. (I don't agree by the way - give the berk [Charles] a difficult choice for a change - marry Camilla & relinquish any chance of being King or don't marry her & you can do what you like! The fact that he has stated in the past that his relationship with Camilla is "non-negiotable" proves what a self centred, ignorant, arrogant twat he is)
Meanwhile back in the land that the pompous arses inhabit, a wine waiter is at hand at every moment.....
I recently commented on another blog [http://www.tonycocks.com/] with the positive news about what a homeowner can do if confronted by a burglar - kill them if you want to! I'm sure that all of us feel like we would want to do something if we found some scumbag ransacking our property, but in reality the cowards run a mile if they see or hear anything apart from an OAP. Have a read of the Guidance for householders on the force they can use to tackle intruders that has been published jointly by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It reaffirms that householders can use reasonable force to defend themselves, their families.
"Ken Macdonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, said: “The law is on the side of the householders. We aim to reassure them that if they act honestly and instinctively, in the heat of the moment, this will be the strongest evidence that they acted lawfully and in self-defence.
“Prosecutions of householders for tackling intruders are extremely rare – only a very few in the past 15 years. Even where householders have badly injured, or even killed burglars, the CPS has declined to prosecute unless they have used wholly excessive force.”
Chris Fox, President of ACPO, said: “We want everyone to clearly understand that they can use force to protect themselves, or others. The force used should be reasonable force. While we have to investigate the circumstances of such events, we will always remember that anyone engaged in a criminal act should expect reasonable force to be used against them by their victim.”
Some of the points from the guidance include:
Wherever possible you should call the police.
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self- defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon. As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.
You do not have to wait to be attacked if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted.
However, if, for example:
Having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them;
You knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involved the police, you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
If the intruder runs off the situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen’s arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not. "
My advice - make use of technology & install CCTV, might sound extreme, but a good deterrent nonetheless - various starter wireless kits available & if you're a gadget fan you can go all the way up to full colour PIR activated IR day\night vision camera's that record onto a HDD [which is what I have installed]. My next suggestion may seem a little pre-meditated & extreme.... buy & then secrete a baseball bat somewhere handy in the house (make sure you buy a mit and a ball - that way it could be reasonably been seen in the eyes of the law as a useable recreational toy rather than an offensive weapon), act without any hesitation & break the legs of anyone you don't recognise as friend\neighbour\colleague\family member [although my Brother is a twat & will get a pasting one day] - you might have to apologise to the occasional Postie, but I'm sure they would be glad of the rest for a couple of weeks recovering. Clearly once incapacitated following the guidance above, you cannot act with any malice & continue beating the bastard, phone the Police & let them do it for you.
As Mr Adams has recently got out of his bed & posted a comment after a few weeks away I feel I should comment on one of his subjects - foxhunting. I am a fully paid up member of the Countryside Alliance & various other Countryside Conservation groups as well as several Shooting & Fishing Associations, because I fear for the right to continue what I do as a country sportsman (trout fishing & clay pidgeon shooting).
I do think that the fox population needs to be kept in check, I have seen what one fox can do when it gets into a chicken run - it kills every chicken & eats one or two, not a big problem I hear you say - but it is equally as barbaric as a pack of dogs ripping a fox apart - life and death happen in the countryside every day. I dissagree strongly with the practice of digging out a fox when it has gone to ground, if the fox can get away by any means possible then good luck to it. I'm not a follower of hunts, some of the people who hunt do seem pompous & out of touch, [see the photo below] others are normal country loving people who like a hack around land that is not normally available to them.
I hate the tactics taken up by the sabateurs, the aggressive & antagonistic attitude of some of them is what sets off a train of violence & retaliation from both sides. In the past hunting with a pack of dogs has been legal, this is now not the case, so the sabateurs have taken it upon themselves to act as some kind of rural police - who appointed them!? I'm sure that there will be a long running game of tit for tat, hunts acting within the law will still be able to kill foxes, the anti's have shown their true colours by complaining about hunts killing foxes after the ban, they wanted a ban on hunting with dogs, not killing foxes!
My own fear is that this is just the beginning of an attack on country sports as a whole, you probably have an opinion on global warming or pollution - you cannot possbily think for a second that driving a car is a good idea for the environment? But you still do it as your life wouldn't be as enjoyable or convenient for you and your family. It doesn't make it right, but purely by continuing to drive, you are making the same stand as others are making for their right to hunt\shoot\fish - their lives would not be as enjoyable without those activities that they have been doing for years and years......