News0 min ago
Surely this is a warm-up for 1st April?
38 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/4pzc5f9
It gets dafter each day.
Why shouldn't we protect our property from these criminals without the fear of being sued if they injure themselves?
No court in the land should award compensation to a criminal if the injuries they received were sustained in the pursuance of a criminal act.
Surely it would be in the interest of the insurance companies to jointly get together and fight to get the law changed, after all it is mainly them who have to pick up the bill.
It gets dafter each day.
Why shouldn't we protect our property from these criminals without the fear of being sued if they injure themselves?
No court in the land should award compensation to a criminal if the injuries they received were sustained in the pursuance of a criminal act.
Surely it would be in the interest of the insurance companies to jointly get together and fight to get the law changed, after all it is mainly them who have to pick up the bill.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
/// Crime reduction officer for Tandridge PC John Lee commented: 'We are constantly advising homeowners to protect their property and the contents of their shed or garage, however, a commonsense approach needs to be taken.
'To properly secure your sheds, Surrey Police strongly advises people to invest in items such as good-quality locks and bolts, and not to resort to homemade devices, as this could cause injury.' ///
Where in there does it say that you as a home owner should not protect your property ?
'To properly secure your sheds, Surrey Police strongly advises people to invest in items such as good-quality locks and bolts, and not to resort to homemade devices, as this could cause injury.' ///
Where in there does it say that you as a home owner should not protect your property ?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
As Huderon says, this is typical Mail spin.
Th police are stating you could be liable, not that you can't do it. They're stating fact, for the home-owners' legal protection.
As to your post - I whole-heartedly agree with every word. (You can mark this day in your diary!)
In fact the laws here in Ireland match the UK ones and we're told the next govt is due to change this to allow a homeowner protect property and life/limb without the need to retreat and without fear of legal repercussion
Th police are stating you could be liable, not that you can't do it. They're stating fact, for the home-owners' legal protection.
As to your post - I whole-heartedly agree with every word. (You can mark this day in your diary!)
In fact the laws here in Ireland match the UK ones and we're told the next govt is due to change this to allow a homeowner protect property and life/limb without the need to retreat and without fear of legal repercussion
Huderon
/// Where in there does it say that you as a home owner should not protect your property ? ///
Perhaps here?
/// Locals had reinforced their windows with wire mesh after a series of shed thefts but were told by community police officers that the wire was 'dangerous' and could lead to criminals claiming compensation if they 'hurt themselves'.///
/// Where in there does it say that you as a home owner should not protect your property ? ///
Perhaps here?
/// Locals had reinforced their windows with wire mesh after a series of shed thefts but were told by community police officers that the wire was 'dangerous' and could lead to criminals claiming compensation if they 'hurt themselves'.///
It gets worse.
The prison service in Scotland had to apologise to a prisoner when they searched his cell and found drugs in it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12443096
The prison service in Scotland had to apologise to a prisoner when they searched his cell and found drugs in it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12443096
A homeowner should have the right to protect his property by whatever means necessary, if a burglar is injured trying to break in then that's their own lookout, they shouldn't have been trying to enter without being invited in should they?
This country is health and safety crazy, we can see things which may cause us injury so we proceed at our own risk
This country is health and safety crazy, we can see things which may cause us injury so we proceed at our own risk
VHG, Your link's as crazy as the one in the heading. The Law is and undoubted ass when it caters to and puts the rights of the wrongdoer before those of victims and/or those simply doing their duty to the best of their ability.
We have our misguided liberal society to thank for this cretinous state of affairs where we effectively have the tail wagging the dog and in which the miscreant is rewarded to the detriment of the innocent.
And to think we used to be known as "Great" Britain? Not any more.
We have our misguided liberal society to thank for this cretinous state of affairs where we effectively have the tail wagging the dog and in which the miscreant is rewarded to the detriment of the innocent.
And to think we used to be known as "Great" Britain? Not any more.
-- answer removed --
squarebear - there is a difference between protecting your property and shooting an intruder in the back.
Yes, it can be argued that an intruder should not be an intruder, but in a civilised society, that cannot condone shooting someone - otherwise we go down the oft-quoted 'Dirty Harry' line about executing your neighbour because his dog wees on your lawn.
If I was at risk of my shed being raided, i would place necessary protection, and if i was sued, i would cross that bridge as and when.
Yes, it can be argued that an intruder should not be an intruder, but in a civilised society, that cannot condone shooting someone - otherwise we go down the oft-quoted 'Dirty Harry' line about executing your neighbour because his dog wees on your lawn.
If I was at risk of my shed being raided, i would place necessary protection, and if i was sued, i would cross that bridge as and when.
-- answer removed --
Squarebear, please don't be taken in by Tony Martin. He is still very much involved in rather dubiuous activities - always has been. He is known quite well in these parts (well in fenland) and I wouldn't go near him under any circumstances. Opinion from those who have any knowledge of him differs from what we were all led to believe was an innocent man protecting his home.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.