What’s the world coming to?

OR...its coming up to an election and grinning git is a bit worried !

Nigel wrote: OR...its coming up to an election and grinning git is a bit worried !

LOL...Cynic!

Edited by Peter Fenwick

if you want to murder someone, just invite them into your house, kill them and then just make up some cock and bull story to the police how that they were trying to rob you and you feared for your life

notice how guns and knives were mentioned.. i thought people were banned from keeping handguns after Hungerford/Dunblane etc. ?

Edited by stephenperry

Can I refer you all to the topic about windscreen wash fluid, think I'll buy a super soaker and a few gallons of BMW windscreen wash......"But officer, I was on my way to wash my windscreen when he attacked me with a lighted cigarette" (sorry Nigel)     Can but hope for a "result" come election time, maybe talk about starting another war with Iran and smear campaigns will tip the balance.  Having talked to several NHS footsoldiers don't think he'll be getting their vote and I doubt if muslim community will either! IanT

Edited by rubberknees50

We'll all get a chance at the general elections, not many people still seem to have any faith in Blair's promises, only problem opposition - all parties - seem to be to be disorganised and virtually unknown on the streets. From what US penpals tell me that was mostly why Bush got back in, lack of credible opposition. IanT

at least this clarification of the law should make the ratbags think twice before ransacking someones house or mugging a poor old lady, lest they get a perfectly legal and justified "cap in their ass" - you step outside the law, you face the consequences, and don't expect the pigs or the beak to be on your side.

if carlsberg made laws.... lol

Coasting wrote: Stephen Tony Martin would still have been jailed.  The law still takes into account the threat posed to the individual by the "intruder" or "orginating offender". Mr Martins' case has been used in many white papers prior to any changes and he would still have gone to prison - the reason being that he chased, and shot in the back, an unarmed and retreating intruder.  His intention, given in statements to the police, was to kill the intruder, regardless. These aren't changes in law either - they're merely the re-emphasis of guidelines. If the intruder had been, say, running at Mr Martin (armed or not as it happens) then it would have been a different outcome altogether.

Exactly, the line between reasonable and unreasonable is when it stops being acting out of fear and becomes revenge

Tony Martin was in the second camp.

I don't know what all the fuss about this is for. I've always understood the situation. I think the confusion was started by politicians looking to score points and the media looking for sensationalism.

If politicians/news papers tell us that if a burgler breaks in we will be sued or sent to prison if we try to defend ourselves the people believe them even if it isn't true.

Heres one for you, in South Africa if you shoot someone you then drag them into your house and fire a shot into the ceiling. Coppers pay a visit, you tell them it was a warning shot, but didnt work so you shot the intruder. Hey presto you are in the clear and the local bobbies are happy. (think it only works over there though as most poeple have guns, and if they draw them, they have a definite intention of useing them)

Prefer hole in celing to hole in head, the SA's don't mess around!

Saw an ad for an SA car alarm once, when triggered a flamethrower fired down and out from both sills for the full lentgh. Impressive! Wendy

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/