"UK Director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, wants to prosecute people for sharing or posting content that could 'start racial hatred,' or could be 'likely to.'"
So you're responsible not only for the housing, food, and welfare of sociopaths; you're also responsible for their *potential* emotions about your opinions of them. Doesn't stabbing the natives of the country you just broke into risk "starting racial hatred"? WTF does "starting racial hatred" even mean?
I remember a couple decades ago being outraged by stories from the UK involving home invasions in which the homeowner defended himself and his property and was sentenced to prison, while the invaders were caressed and coddled. I can't say that I remember clearly what the British public's response was, but there wasn't enough reaction to stop that bullshit in its tracks. Predictably, it's now gone from being illegal to object to having your house broken into, to being illegal to object to having your whole country broken into.
I think the homeowner you might be referring to was a farmer named Tony Martin. He was sentenced to be jailed for life in April 2000 for shooting dead a burglar who was a 16 year old teenaged boy named Fred Barras. Via the Guardian:
Tony Martin was released from prison in 2003. Via the BBC:
Twenty years on from what he calls "that fateful night", Martin maintains he does not "have to excuse myself for anything", and believes the law still falls short in protecting householders defending their homes.
He insists his "problem" - the term he uses to refer to the break-in, shooting and imprisonment - matters, because he believes he should have been treated as the victim, not the criminal.
"I've always said when people get into exceptional circumstances which are beyond the norm, the law should leave you alone," he said. "You should be protected in law against these things."
Prof David Wilson said Martin became a powerful and divisive symbol, held up both by those who believed his actions were justified and those who did not.
"Was he defending his home from intruders or simply a vigilante taking the law into his own hands?" said Prof Wilson, emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.
"I don't think any journalist missed the opportunity to frame that story in the way that suited their readership."
Despite those interpretations, Martin was found guilty - and the impact of his case has not changed the legal facts, Prof Wilson said.
"The law has not changed. You are allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself and your property.
"The test of what's reasonable was not felt to have been met in Martin's case because the intruders were running away."
The law allows for reasonable-force-against-intruders to be used - a test Martin failed, leading legal experts to warn after the verdict that he should not be seen as "the typical Englishman trying to defend his castle".
Yes, Tony Martin. I recall it being outrageous because of the authorities' depraved indifference to the series of break-ins on his property and their shrugging off all his appeals for help. The cops were at least as much to blame as the repeat burglars, but Martin, the victim, was the one punished for everyone else's failings.
Where I live, the responsibility for deciding whether property is worth dying for lies with the person thinking about stealing it. The FAFO doctrine.
"UK Director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, wants to prosecute people for sharing or posting content that could 'start racial hatred,' or could be 'likely to.'"
So you're responsible not only for the housing, food, and welfare of sociopaths; you're also responsible for their *potential* emotions about your opinions of them. Doesn't stabbing the natives of the country you just broke into risk "starting racial hatred"? WTF does "starting racial hatred" even mean?
I remember a couple decades ago being outraged by stories from the UK involving home invasions in which the homeowner defended himself and his property and was sentenced to prison, while the invaders were caressed and coddled. I can't say that I remember clearly what the British public's response was, but there wasn't enough reaction to stop that bullshit in its tracks. Predictably, it's now gone from being illegal to object to having your house broken into, to being illegal to object to having your whole country broken into.
I think the homeowner you might be referring to was a farmer named Tony Martin. He was sentenced to be jailed for life in April 2000 for shooting dead a burglar who was a 16 year old teenaged boy named Fred Barras. Via the Guardian:
Martin's mother Hilary, 86, said it should have been the burglars in the dock and not her son. She added: "I am shocked. I am disappointed. I can't believe it. Because of this verdict decent people will not be able to sleep at night. He was merely defending himself against people who were thieves and vagabonds." https://web.archive.org/web/20150429103452/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime3
Tony Martin was released from prison in 2003. Via the BBC:
Twenty years on from what he calls "that fateful night", Martin maintains he does not "have to excuse myself for anything", and believes the law still falls short in protecting householders defending their homes.
He insists his "problem" - the term he uses to refer to the break-in, shooting and imprisonment - matters, because he believes he should have been treated as the victim, not the criminal.
"I've always said when people get into exceptional circumstances which are beyond the norm, the law should leave you alone," he said. "You should be protected in law against these things."
Prof David Wilson said Martin became a powerful and divisive symbol, held up both by those who believed his actions were justified and those who did not.
"Was he defending his home from intruders or simply a vigilante taking the law into his own hands?" said Prof Wilson, emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.
"I don't think any journalist missed the opportunity to frame that story in the way that suited their readership."
Despite those interpretations, Martin was found guilty - and the impact of his case has not changed the legal facts, Prof Wilson said.
"The law has not changed. You are allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself and your property.
"The test of what's reasonable was not felt to have been met in Martin's case because the intruders were running away."
The law allows for reasonable-force-against-intruders to be used - a test Martin failed, leading legal experts to warn after the verdict that he should not be seen as "the typical Englishman trying to defend his castle".
https://web.archive.org/web/20190817152242/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-49355814
Yes, Tony Martin. I recall it being outrageous because of the authorities' depraved indifference to the series of break-ins on his property and their shrugging off all his appeals for help. The cops were at least as much to blame as the repeat burglars, but Martin, the victim, was the one punished for everyone else's failings.
Where I live, the responsibility for deciding whether property is worth dying for lies with the person thinking about stealing it. The FAFO doctrine.