Crime is up, a bit, but still low overall; burglaries don't appear to usually involve firearm violence...
Burglaries and violent crime in England and Wales rose markedly over the last year while overall crime levels remained stable, according to annual figures.
Burglaries went up by 14 percent in 2010/11, the British Crime Survey (BCS) showed, with around one in 40 households saying they were victims of burglary or attempted burglaries.
This is in stark contrast with the previous year, when burglaries fell by nine percent.The BCS figures, published on Thursday, also showed a 6 percent increase in violent crime, fuelled by sharp rises in domestic violence and assaults with minor injuries.
While overall crime levels only edged up marginally, experts believe the declines in crime seen since the mid-90s are easing.
Overall there were an estimated 9.6 million crimes in 2010/11, compared with 9.5 million the previous year, according to the BCS statistics.
The figures, seen as the most reliable indicator of crime trends, are based on interviews with tens of thousands of people in more than 45,000 households.
Separate figures however showed a 4 percent fall in the number of crimes recorded by police, from 4.3 million in 2009/10 to to 4.2 million in 2010/11.
The number of burglaries recorded also fell 4 percent, while there was a 10 percent increase in reported thefts of unattended mobiles, wallets and purses from pubs, homes and gardens.Chief Constable Jon Murphy , head of crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "The official crime statistics show that the risk of being a victim of crime remains historically low. It does however warn that the drops in crime recorded since the mid 1990s may begin to ease.
"Of particular interest is the area of burglary and some other thefts, and we will be looking closely at both bulletins to see whether there are emerging patterns of criminality in those areas."The figures come as police forces up and down the country face cuts to their budgets under government austerity measures.
The coalition is planning to cut its £11 billion funding for the police in England and Wales by 20 percent by 2014-15.
Earlier this month Acpo president Sir Hugh Orde said the cuts and reforms risked "compromising the safety of citizens for reasons of expediency",
Crime and Security minister James Brokenshire defended planned reforms on Thursday, saying they were "urgently needed".
"Everyone has the right to feel safe in their home and local community," he said.
"We want to make the police more accountable to the public they serve and ensure that local policing priorities are focused on what local people want, not on what central government thinks they want."
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the figures showed some "very worrying signs".
"Now is not the time for the government to take risks with community safety by cutting over 12,000 police officers," she added. "People want crime to fall further and the government is doing nothing to help."
"Crime is up, a bit, but still low overall; burglaries don't appear to usually involve firearm violence..."
ReplyDeleteUnless of course you be stealin' a stereo from a gunloon'z house.
Burglaries are up 14% in England and Wales since they have banned guns. Also if you dare to defend yourself from burglers with a knife or a bat they will also put you in prison there while the burglars go free. I'm surprised burglaries are not up even more.
ReplyDeleteIs that really the world you want for us? Where if someone breaks into your home and you defend yourself you go to prison while the burglar walks?
No thanks.
Unless of course you be stealin' a stereo from a gunloon'z house.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should tell your thieving redistributionist douche-bags friends to stay the fuck home, and then they would not have to worry about violence as the end result of theft...... or give them your room number at the old commie home and give them all your government cheese..... and no one will get hurt.
But hey, keep the thieves safe that's what is right.....
"But hey, keep the thieves safe that's what is right....."
ReplyDeleteThe same premise which prohibits man traps to defend property applys here, the premise that human beings are more important than property. All human lives. That gives a greater weight to life than things, for most people, for civilized people. It does not mean that someone who appreciates the value of life approves of theft.
Clearly you have a problem grasping that principle. You seem more primitive and violent, and certainly don't do well with using words in civil discourse.
Therefore, I'm not finding your opinion to be of much value. It is simply crude and violent, lacking any depth of reasoning or ethical merit.
"The same premise which prohibits man traps to defend property applys here, the premise that human beings are more important than property. All human lives.
ReplyDeleteThen why don't you give d-O-c's thieves your address since you value their lives more than what you work.
"Then why don't you give d-O-c's thieves your address since you value their lives more than what you work."
ReplyDeleteAre you trying for some kind of assinine street cred in stupidity?
Because you seem to fail basic writing skills with 'what you work'.
Not to mention the lack of any intelligent reasoning expressed in the idea that valuing human lives equate to valuing property, or that valuing human life equates to approval of crime.
I don't need to refute your argument; you undermine it yourself so thoroughly.
FWM, What you're doing in this tediously repeated claim of yours is cherry picking stories to support your bizarre and unrealistic theory.
ReplyDelete"Also if you dare to defend yourself from burglers with a knife or a bat they will also put you in prison there while the burglars go free. I'm surprised burglaries are not up even more."
ReplyDeleteWhoops, need more citations. Please feel free to consult the guidelines furnished for your benefit after your last FAIL.
"Maybe you should tell your thieving redistributionist douche-bags friends to stay the fuck home,"
Geez, another gutless sack of shit, hiding behind a disposable blognomen. It stinks like Weer'dBeard, but it's hard to tell what sort of turd one has stepped in, at times.
Mikeb302000:
"Cherry picking" would indicate that Corpulent Pink Man actually provided a link. No link, no citation = making shit up.
The GOP in the MN legislature - the same ones responsible for the ongoing shut down - wasted the legislative session time on changes to the MN Castle Doctrine legislation. They could not come up with a SINGLE instance of someone being prosecuted for defending themselves in their home from a criminal. Not one.
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm a bit skeptical that there is a need for expanding when lethal violence is used. I'm still not persuaded by anything demonstrated here other than hysterical panic from the right.
Kinda like their hysteria over alleged voter fraud.......without any significant evidence of voter fraud nationally anywhere.
There are however instances of excess use of violence, like the unconscious alleged criminal being shot five times by the pharmacist posted earlier.
THOSE are the people we need protection from, not looser Castle Doctrine laws.
Demo,
ReplyDeleteHere's your fucking cite you keep crying for:
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110623/wl_uk_afp/britaincrimestabbingmanchester_20110623105037
As to your ramblings about "guidelines" or some such nonsense, MikeB has already established that cites and links are not required in discussions on his forum and if they ere, we are all waiting for about 1,000 of them from JadeGold. I'll furnish more after he does.
"Not to mention the lack of any intelligent reasoning expressed in the idea that valuing human lives equate to valuing property, or that valuing human life equates to approval of crime.
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't criminals fear harm to their person while committing a crime, stay out of my house and you won't get shot for stealing my hard earned things.
Geez, another gutless sack of shit, hiding behind a disposable blognomen.
You post all your info first you marxist bootlicker.......
It stinks like Weer'dBeard, but it's hard to tell what sort of turd one has stepped in, at times.
Again, I wish I had his gift for prose.......it must be hard for a aged bald-headed, crumb-catching goatee, redistributionist, to get the fact that more than on poster thinks he is an idiot....
"Why shouldn't criminals fear harm to their person while committing a crime, stay out of my house and you won't get shot for stealing my hard earned things."
ReplyDeleteStupid chickenshit anonymous, one of legion, could use some remedial writing help, like learning when to use a question mark instead of a period at the end of a sentence.
I assume that every criminal is afraid that he(or she) might be hurt or killed during the commission of a crime. The more effective deterrent happens to be a dog, not a gun.
Rather the argument I made was that the level of violence or harm used in defending property has to place the life and safety of everyone, every human being, above mere property. At the risk of reprising certain elements of Les Miserables, it is not justified to shoot someone to death for stealing a loaf of bread, not from a bakery, not from your kitchen. Human life is more valuable than property. Thast does not equate to leaving property completely undefended, or condoning crime. It does address relative priorities for harming another human being.
I'm guessing you've never had an ethics class.
"Again, I wish I had his gift for prose.......it must be hard for a aged bald-headed, crumb-catching goatee, redistributionist, to get the fact that more than on poster thinks he is an idiot...."
I'm a redhaired woman (with a very full head of hair), Anonymous. Or maybe you are unable to tell the difference between the admins who post here? As to who approves of what I write and who does not.....I've known what my IQ was since I was 8 years old. It is higher than some 95%+ of my fellow human beings on this planet, so in considering who thinks I am, in your words, "an idiot", I consider whether my critic is likely to be either less intelligent, or less well educated, or both, than I am before I take it too seriously.
You I don't take seriously at all.
For example, while FWM likes to promote the notion that defending yourself will land you in prison....that is not an actual problem. FWM's assertion that the crime rise is related to the absence of personal firearms differs from the opinion of those who analyzed that crime increase, including examining when, where, and how the crimes involved took place.
Ever one to oversimplify to distort the facts, that is our FWM; and when he doesn't have information, or when it doesn't support his point of view, FWM just makes stuff up. It is hard to take someone seriously who does that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHuman life is more valuable than property.
ReplyDeleteIts a nice idealistic thought. Most people don't share it. I see no reason why I must get a wrinkle in my shirt or break into a sweat when shooting some dirt bag who has entered my house uninvited. But if it bothers you so much, i guess I can bury him in the backyard over calling the police.
Not to be accused of the above anon, but i have a question.
Is the UK, like many countries in Europe still just reporting 'convictions,' or are they now including total occurrence to the data collected. Might explain why its always seemed artificially low.
Comment deleted
ReplyDeleteThis post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, did I make your 95% IQ cry?
No, you bored my considerably higher than 127 intellect with your stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI know concepts are difficult for you, but do keep in mind that if you stray too far off topic, we can delete your comments for lack of merit.
Anonymous, I will leave the explanation of law to Laci; he has a PPE, perhaps his philosophy background can sufficiently simplify the explanation that you will be able to comprehend it.
ReplyDeleteClearly you are ignorant of ethics, law, religion and morality, and basic history, if you really believe that, as you put it when I wrote life was more valuable than property:
"Its a nice idealistic thought. Most people don't share it."
Most people DO share it; you are simply claiming a non-existent consensus to try to bolster your psycopathic barbarism and pathetic ignorance.
You have no justification for your position other than you wish it were so.
I will give you just one example of how fundamentally accepted the premise is of human life being more valuable than property:
U.S. court case, Katko v. Briney, from the legal decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, in 1971, "183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971),
"the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."
"For example, while FWM likes to promote the notion that defending yourself will land you in prison....that is not an actual problem."
ReplyDeleteIt is an actual problem in Europe. Thankfully, it in not a problem in the U.S., yet.
What stuff exactly did I make up?
FWM asks what he makes up.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a separate post all by itself, but lets take this recent statement that because assassination attempts have targeted mostly Republican Presidents, it follows that liberals are violent.
Wikipedia sums up perfectly the lack of reasoned, rational thinking demonstrated by WFM in that statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Although attempts have been made to prove that most American assassinations were politically motivated actions, carried out by rational men,[1] not all such assassinations and attempts have been undertaken for truly political reasons.[2] Some have been perpetrated by people of questionable mental stability, and a few were judged legally insane.[3][4] Since the successor to the presidency, the Vice President of the United States, has usually been, and now always is of the same political party as the President, the assassination of the President is unlikely to result in major policy changes. This may explain why political groups headed by rational leaders typically do not make such attacks.[5]"
Nor does he demonstrate that those few who did act for political motivation were in fact liberal, or that there is a legitimate generalization from that to liberals as a group.
In fact, this demonstrates precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty, distortion, and outright stupidity personified by FWM's comments.
I don't believe I mentioned anything about a president or a vice president or a liberal on this thread at all.
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about self defense in England I thought.
What "recent statement" about Presidential assignations are you referring to? I don't remember ever authoring a post or a comment about a presidential assassination on this blog or on the entire internet for that matter.
WTF are you babbling about????
No, you bored my considerably higher than 127 intellect with your stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI know concepts are difficult for you, but do keep in mind that if you stray too far off topic, we can delete your comments for lack of merit.
So another admin let my comment thru and when you got back to the board you got pissed. (the difference between deleting and never approving.....)
The same premise which prohibits man traps to defend property applys (applies, try Websters, 127) here,
Mantraps are illegal beacuse they cannot apply reason, a person with a firearm can decide whether the thug climbing thru the window is just your average redistributionist that will be able to apply his own reason and flee or some other form of threat that needs to be put down....
Ah, FWM, I owe you an apology; I was writing while going back and forth between blogs I moderate. The presidential nonsense was one of the many anonumbasses.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after doing a little checking to confirm my information, I can confidently state that while there have been instances where someone in the UK went to jail after use of excessive force,usually against someone unarmed, when they didn't have to do so to preserve both life and property, it is rare, and not automatic at all for someone to be jailed for reasonable defense. You distort. You lie. You make stuff up.
I believe Laci can better address than I can the cases you are grossly misreperesenting in your statements.
English Law has changed somewhat, but the basic principles are pretty much the same as that articlulated by Blackstone that one can use only sufficient force to stop the attack and care must be taken that the defender not use more force than necessary, lest defender become aggressor.
ReplyDeleteSelf-defense in English law is a complete defense in cases involving all levels of assault (e.g., ABH, GBH, etc.) and can be used to mitigate liability from murder to manslaughter, where a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty uses a greater degree of force than necessary for self-defense!
Yes, if a soldier shoots an unarmed civilian, or even a possibly armed terrorist! See Operation Flavius.
Because of the completeness of the defense, self-defense is interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defense, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event.
The general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
Opinions differ on what constitutes a reasonable amount of force, but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty.
It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
Of course, cases such as Tony Martin and Munir Hussein are fairly uncommon.
Now, that Rupert Murdoch maybe out of the scene, the hysterical headlines cited by the pro-gun crowd may give way to more reasoned stories.
I don't believe I lie. I made a claim that in England if you defend yourself you can go to prison. That is not disputed, at least by a few accounts I have read.
ReplyDeleteAs far as making stuff up, you made the claim on another post that the administration's current order for FFL holders to separately report multiple sales of long guns was legal. I asked for an explanation of what law made that legal and you failed to respond. Care to now?
FWM: You either lie or you're abysmally ignorant. I'll leave it to you as to the reputation you wish to own.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "self defense is illegal in UK" meme was spawned by the Tony Martin case where Martin killed a burglar. The jury of his peers found Martin did not act in self defense. It was a case where the burglars had been frightened off and were fleeing when Martin elected to shoot them.
Quoting you word for word FWM:
ReplyDelete" Also if you dare to defend yourself from burglers with a knife or a bat they will also put you in prison there while the burglars go free. I'm surprised burglaries are not up even more."
That is a bald faced lie. No one goes to jail in the UK for defending themselves unless they use unreasonable force, just like here. And even the cases where someone HAS gone to jail for resorting to unreasonable force are very rare.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force
People go to jail in the UK for using excessive force and then trying to call it self defense as they do here, like shooting someone who is unarmed, or not a threat - like the person I posted about here who put five rounds into an unconcious robber, who was clearly no longer a threat.
You exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent. You clearly have no real knowledge of the law and how it is practiced in the UK. And worse, when challenged, you didn't do your homework to find out for yourself, or make the correction.
And then you follow that assertion up with positing a causal relationshp without any knowledge of the statistics, conveniently ignorant of what an analysis of the details of those statistics DOES show about the crime increase.
As to your question about FFL - there has been no successful court challenge, no challenge at all that I can find, to suggest that this was illegal. Beyond that, I inquired of my cousin, who HAS an actual FFL, from whom incidently I purchased MY first firearm, and he confirmed that this was in fact perfectly legal and that the idea it was not was 'just silly'.
I would refer you to the web site of the ATF:http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#multiple-handgun-sales
Now while you may have some crackpot theory of why ths is not a legal requirement, that doesn't make it illegal, nor does it appear that anyone has successfully even tried to challenge it.
I did read where the NRA was asserting they would challenge it:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7000
but that is very different from doing so, and a further magnitude of difference from succeeding at waging a challenge.
That work for you bunkie?
"So another admin let my comment thru and when you got back to the board you got pissed. (the difference between deleting and never approving.....)"
ReplyDeleteWrongo, I was the admin who approved your comment initially and then promptly deleted it after a quick re-read. Watch those assumptions, they can bite you in the ass.
The statement "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property." does not ONLY apply to man traps. It applies to any use of force beyond what is reasonably necessary to preserve one's own life. If your own life is not also at risk, you cannot legally harm or kill another person just to protect property. If - as an example - you were outside stealing my car, I couldn't open a window and legally shoot you in order to prevent that theft, because you would not be a threat to ME. If you break in to my house and steal my television, I cannot chase you down and shoot you to get it back either, because while that would protect my proprety, I am not in danger from you.
Get it now? I'll defer to Laci's explanation, since he is an actual practicing attorney with a law degree from Exeter, in the UK.
FWM wrote: "It is an actual problem in Europe. Thankfully, it in not a problem in the U.S., yet.
ReplyDeleteWhat stuff exactly did I make up?"
That it is an actual problem in Europe.
Your friend with the FFL is very wrong. Current law provides that a purchaser of multiple handguns must be reported. The law exempts long guns from this reporting requirement.
ReplyDeleteJust because it has not been challenged yet does not mean that it is legal. The new rule is only a couple of weeks old.
Personally, I do not have a problem with the reporting requirement. What I have a problem with is the fact that the administration made it up out of thin air without the legislature. If it is such a valuable tool, why did they not write a law to be put before Congress?
FMW: "Your friend with the FFL is very wrong. Current law provides that a purchaser of multiple handguns must be reported. The law exempts long guns from this reporting requirement."
ReplyDeleteNot friend, a relative who has held an FFL for more than 30 years.
FMW:"Just because it has not been challenged yet does not mean that it is legal. The new rule is only a couple of weeks old."
Actually, it IS legal until a court decides otherwise. Someone can posit that a court challenge will result in a rulig declaring it illegal, but until such a ruling prevails - and that is UNLIKELY in this instance - IT IS LEGAL. ONLY an appropriate court can find this illegal, not the NRA, no matter what delusions of influence they have.
FMW: "Personally, I do not have a problem with the reporting requirement. What I have a problem with is the fact that the administration made it up out of thin air without the legislature. If it is such a valuable tool, why did they not write a law to be put before Congress?"
1. It doesn't have to go through congress to be in effect; 2. seriously? the right has been obstructive to nearly all legislation and confirmations, regardless of how reasonable, necessary or appropriate; 3.it is precisely because it is so reasonable a requirement that it will not be found illegal - if there even IS an actual challenge and not just posturing.
The law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property. There is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant’s personal safety as to justify self-defense.
ReplyDeleteSpring guns and other man traps are not justifiable against a mere trespasser, or even a petty thief. They are privileged only against those upon whom the owner of the real estate, if he were present in person would be free to inflict injury of the same kind. The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises.
A possessor of land cannot do indirectly and by a mechanical device that which, were he present, he could not do immediately and in person. The possessor of land may not arrange his premises intentionally so as to cause death or serious bodily harm to a trespasser.
The possessor may take some steps to repel a trespass. He may use force, but only that amount which is reasonably necessary to repel the intruder. Moreover if the trespass threatens harm to property only – even a theft of property – the possessor would not be privileged to use deadly force, he may not arrange his premises so that such force will be inflicted by mechanical means. If he does, he will be liable even to a thief who is injured by such device. We express no opinion as to whether punitive damages are allowable in this type of case.
.
.
.
.
So I catch a thief coming in a window uninvited, point a gun at him and tell him to leave, he refuses to leave continues to climb in and advances on me, what do I do?
Wait for hime to bat the crap out of me?...... which will probably allow for the police to arrive since you think I am full it, crap that is.
Or shoot him?
The law seems to be the later.
Actually, it IS legal until a court decides otherwise. Someone can posit that a court challenge will result in a rulig declaring it illegal, but until such a ruling prevails - and that is UNLIKELY in this instance - IT IS LEGAL.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is an injunction will be granted in federal court. Being a fundamental enumerated individual right and all.
Is the UK, like many countries in Europe still just reporting 'convictions,' or are they now including total occurrence to the data collected. Might explain why its always seemed artificially low.
Care to answer the question?
"Actually, it IS legal until a court decides otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that the courts created laws, I thought that power rested with the legislature? The law is either legal now or it is illegal now. It may be in effect until challenged then a court may decide which it is but an unchallenged law is not automatically "legal".
"1. It doesn't have to go through congress to be in effect;"
Really? Do they not teach basic civics in Minnesota?
"2. seriously? the right has been obstructive to nearly all legislation and confirmations, regardless of how reasonable, necessary or appropriate;"
What "right" are your talking about? Where is it written that the President has the right to require long-gun reporting? What right, legislation or confirmation are your referring to?
"3.it is precisely because it is so reasonable a requirement that it will not be found illegal"
I don't recall that laws become laws merely because of their reasonableness. Maybe you need to watch this:
http://youtu.be/mEJL2Uuv-oQ
" - if there even IS an actual challenge and not just posturing."
There will be a challenge the NSSF is planning a suit now. The only way it will not be challenged if an amendment de-funds it first.
FMW wrote:"I didn't know that the courts created laws, I thought that power rested with the legislature?"
ReplyDeleteThen I am happy to educate you. Courts affirm or disallow the legality of laws when they are challenged, and further, through precedent case law additionally elaborates and expands on legislated laws. That includes ruling on the legality of regulation other than the legislated variety, such as executive orders.