Foxy NB sorry

[FWB]

It occurred to me that enforcing the ban on foxhunting could be dealt with in the same way as enforcing the speed limits on our roads.
In the good old days you could get stopped by the police for speeding in your car safe in the knowledge that when you finally got home you would find that your house had been burgled.
Now we have these safety camera partnerships manned by civilians who never speed, the police are free to get back to their real job---making sure that people in funny clothes riding horses dont let their pet dogs kill foxes. Rabbits are ok.
The trouble is that when the people in funny clothes get home they will find that their houses--or rather castles--will have been burgled.
SO what is required is The Foxy Safety Parnership. Then we can have civilians taking pictures of horses and the police can get back to their real job of arresting homeowners who defend themselves against burglars.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Ah yes

But soon you will be able to defend your house

I would recommend GPMG front and rear, Claymore mines along the drive and flame thrower as last resort.

I assume Blunkett has been burgled.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[RobEllis]

I think you will be allowed to shout loudly at the burglar as long as you don't frighten him or hurt his feelings.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Parsonsheath]

Great idea, sadly I am somewhat absent minded, so I will have to move home for my own safety, or pin the plan showling the location of the WOMD on the front gate.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bob_tyler]

Perhaps a GPMG would be just a little heavy. Claymores would be a good idea but I think he would want the available supply for himself

I always thought that the Mk V Sten (wooden butt) was a handy little close quarters weapon. After all you couldn't hit anything over about 25 yards with it unless you were lucky. Perhaps at any greater distance shooting could be considered unnecessary force.

Mind you, I think bringing back hanging for burglary would be a greater disincentive! I'd vote for it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Mk V Sten - Bl@@dy dangerous, if you drop it it keeps on firing. It also doesnt have the stopping power or the magazine capacity of the old Thompson machine gun beloved by Al Capone et al.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kds]

Naaah - he has a dog.
Ken

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.canongrange.co.uk>Bed and Breakfast, cathedral Green Wells, Somerset Canon Grange</A>

 

[bob_tyler]

Keep a firm grip, don't drop it or you will be on a 252!

The Tommy Gun was more complicated made with finer tolerances and liable to jam.

If the Sten won't stop firing, don't swing round or you might shoot SWMBO who was hiding behind you. (Or on the other hand????)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[nicho]

Now that, is the most sensible suggestion I've heard for a long time!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Shakey]

All this rubbish about new laws to defend your house/self are, IMHO, just that - rubbish.

The law already allows you to use 'reasonable force'.

The problem lies with the CPS pursuing cases that should never be allowed to go to court, where some smart a**e prosecution lawyer makes an innocent law abiding person defending their home look like Fred West.

I would not think it is 'unreasonable' to beat seven shades of s**t out of any burglar in someone's house.

Likewise, if the innocent party was elderly, frail, ill etc. I would not think it 'unreasonable' for them to stab or shoot an intruder.

I don't think we need some vote grabbing new law, what we need is for the CPS to stop persecuting law abiding citizens for acting in self defence.

If I was ever in such an unfortunate situation, I'd argue that I'd rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six.

Rant over. Sorry.

<hr width=100% size=1>It could have been worse - it could have been me.

 

[Bergman]

No need for apology - I enjoy a good rant.

Trouble with law is it depends on definition of reasonable.

Personally I would favour ritual disembowelment as being a modest and reasonable form of deterence.

Sadly the courts appear to take a different view.

I think what they want to say is that those who deliberately and knowingly set themselves outside the restraints that the law puts on all of us inevitably put themselves outsides the protection of the law. In other words they are "outlaws" and that is something that they are afraid to do.

As for the Sten gun - not on your life (literally?) I know of a wonderful story about someone who put a Sten on the passenger seat of his car. Sadly I couldn't possibly tell the rest here.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ShipsWoofy]

aw


tell the damn story

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[Sgeir]

this is a family show

<hr width=100% size=1>I had a very nice link until Kim told us off about it. I'm not bitter mind.

 

[rhinorhino]

I agree - the proposed new law seems like an ideal way to dispose of any unwanted spouses and/or children ---- "opps I mistook him/her for an intruder....."
Anyway "Grossly excessive" seems to leave as much scope for debate (ie a trial) as "reasonable force" without the help of an established body of case law.

<hr width=100% size=1>