Why do we bail and not remand? Options

[Bloggo]

The system of law in this Country is effectively breaking down because of the rights of the criminal taking precedent over the rights of the victims.
Until this is addressed the public is at risk of assault , robbery or worse.
You need to ask yourself which Political party has the b**ls to address this and overturn the crazy EU directives that propergate this position and vote for them.

[JeffG]

Which EU directives are those? (Just looking for some facts.)

[Bloggo]

Which EU directives are those?

The crazy ones!
For example, the one that won't allow us to deport rapists, murderers etc back to their own EU Country of origin.

[Iommi]

The system of law in this Country is effectively breaking down because of the rights of the criminal taking precedent over the rights of the victims.

As far as I am aware, the perpetrator and the victim have equal rights under law. A convicted perpetrator, however, can lose his freedom if so sentenced. I can't say I know that criminals take precedent over law abiding people. What do you mean?

[Bloggo]

As far as I am aware, the perpetrator and the victim have equal rights under law. A convicted perpetrator, however, can lose his freedom if so sentenced. I can't say I know that criminals take precedent over law abiding people. What do you mean?

I'm sure you know this.
For example, a man who has had his home broken into and retaliates out of frustration and anger can, and has, been convicted by the CPS of a crime against the perpetrator of the break-in.

[Iommi]

I'm sure you know this. For example, a man who has had his home broken into and retaliates out of frustration and anger can, and has, been convicted by the CPS of a crime against the perpetrator of the break-in.

I know of people who have shown 'disproportionate force' get convicted , but this is not common and indeed, not proof that a criminal has more rights than the law abiding. A far as I know, that is not the case. In law, we are meant to be all treated equal.

[Bloggo]

I know of people who have shown 'disproportionate force' get convicted , but this is not common and indeed, not proof that a criminal has more rights than the law abiding. A far as I know, that is not the case. In law, we are meant to be all treated equal.

OK, have it your way.

[Iommi]

OK, have it your way.

To draw on your example, if a person was to break into your home and assault you, they could find themselves in court for this offence.

I don't see any precedence in law, in favour of the criminal.

Perhaps what you should argue, is that criminals should 'lose rights' over the law abiding. You might find more takers for that.

[JeffG]

The crazy ones!
For example, the one that won't allow us to deport rapists, murderers etc back to their own EU Country of origin.

Still looking for facts, other than something you just made up. I refer my honourable friend to this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7079709.stm

in particular:

Do they have a right to live in other EU states?

Yes, but there are two exceptions.

Firstly, the host country can deport them to their country of origin after 90 days if they do not have a job, sickness insurance or the means to support themselves (and if they have no family member in the host country capable of supporting them). This is to prevent people becoming a burden on the host country's social safety net.

Secondly, they can be deported if they present a threat to public order, public security or public health.

They must, however, have an opportunity to appeal, and must be given a month to leave, except in emergencies.

[Bloggo]

Still looking for facts, other than something you just made up. I refer my honourable friend to this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7079709.stm

in particular:

Yep, I have read it already. The problem is that this Country has difficulty in expelling non EU criminals in a timely fashion before they go underground let alone EU member citizens who are able to use the mass of EU legislation, regulation and human rights law to avoid deportation.

[Iommi]

I'm sure you know this. For example, a man who has had his home broken into and retaliates out of frustration and anger can, and has, been convicted by the CPS of a crime against the perpetrator of the break-in.

I would also support you in the idea that sometimes, the police can appear to 'side' with crooks, rather than deal with them appropriately.

[Bloggo]

I would also support you in the idea that sometimes, the police can appear to 'side' with crooks, rather than deal with them appropriately.

Thank you, I'm gratified that you appreciate what I am trying to say. But it is also the CPS and justice system who seem to be so willing to come down on the side of the criminal in some of these instances.

[Jeven]

I'm sure you know this.
For example, a man who has had his home broken into and retaliates out of frustration and anger can, and has, been convicted by the CPS of a crime against the perpetrator of the break-in.

If the home owner punched the guy in the face and knocked him out (or hit him with some house hold object) that should be fine. On the other-hand if the home owner ran after the criminal and kicked him in for several minutes it wouldn't. There's a big difference between a reasonable action such as knocking someone out or restraining them when they're in your house and an unreasonable action such as kicking the crap out of them after you have them restrained.

Remember innocent until proven guilty, and even then the punishment is up to an impartial peer (judge) not the victim.



(I'm not saying I agree with the system as it is, I'm just stating that it does allow the home owner to use reasonable force (and you can justify quite a lot in the heat of the moment). Sadly the press seem to be trying to imply that it doesn't. Having said that any smart person would get their family into a room, lock themselves in and call the Police rather than confront the potentially armed burglar)

[Bloggo]

If the home owner punched the guy in the face and knocked him out (or hit him with some house hold object) that should be fine. On the other-hand if the home owner ran after the criminal and kicked him in for several minutes it wouldn't. There's a big difference between a reasonable action such as knocking someone out or restraining them when they're in your house and an unreasonable action such as kicking the crap out of them after you have them restrained.

How about kicking the crap out of them whilst they are in your house?

Having said that any smart person would get their family into a room, lock themselves in and call the Police rather than confront the potentially armed burglar)

That is always assuming that you have the time to do this.

[Jeven]

How about kicking the crap out of them whilst they are in your house?


That is always assuming that you have the time to do this.

As I say, if you're kicking the crap out of them when they are no longer a threat to you or your family then you're dealing out a punishment on a innocent (in the eyes of the law) person. That's (at the moment) the judges job, not the home owners. Not saying I agree with that, but that's how it is.

And yeah of course. If someone broke into my house and I didn't have time to get everyone safely into the room I'd be looking to hit the burglar with someone hard to stop him being a threat, as is my right.



(Of course this is just my interpretation of the law based on precedent from cases where this has been tested in court and how it has been explained by the Police and CPS.)

[user23]

As I say, if you're kicking the crap out of them when they are no longer a threat to you or your family then you're dealing out a punishment on a innocent (in the eyes of the law) person. That's (at the moment) the judges job, not the home owners. Not saying I agree with that, but that's how it is.

And yeah of course. If someone broke into my house and I didn't have time to get everyone safely into the room I'd be looking to hit the burglar with someone hard to stop him being a threat, as is my right.



(Of course this is just my interpretation of the law based on precedent from cases where this has been tested in court and how it has been explained by the Police and CPS.)

True, it's all well and good restraining them or defending yourself but if you decide to attack them what if you end up killing them?

[Bloggo]

True, it's all well and good restraining them or defending yourself but if you decide to attack them what if you end up killing them?

If someone breaks into my home with the intention of stealing from me or causing me and my family harm then then as far as I am concerned they give up any rights to be treated as civilised people will be subject to my justice which will be tempered by how outraged and scared I am at that moment.
Fear can make one extremely violent.

[Biker1]

If someone breaks into my home with the intention of stealing from me or causing me and my family harm then then as far as I am concerned they give up any rights to be treated as civilised people will be subject to my justice which will be tempered by how outraged and scared I am at that moment.
Fear can make one extremely violent.

Many, if not most, feel this way so why does common sense never prevail any more?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Many, if not most, feel this way so why does common sense never prevail any more?

Because 'justice' is in favour of the criminal now and not the home owner. If I broke into your home Biker1 and you hit me. I could sue you.

On a more sinister note I was walking down Station Road yesterday and two 15 to 17 year old youngsters asked me if I have had any credit on my phone as they 'needed' to ring their dad. I suggested to them that I did not have a phone on me (which was true as it was at home on charge) only to be met with a volley of abuse and F words. If I had 'lent' them my phone I would not have seen it again as I'm 99% certain they would have legged it. Be aware!

[Bloggo]

Because 'justice' is in favour of the criminal now and not the home owner. If I broke into your home Biker1 and you hit me. I could sue you.

On a more sinister note I was walking down Station Road yesterday and two 15 to 17 year old youngsters asked me if I have had any credit on my phone as they 'needed' to ring their dad. I suggested to them that I did not have a phone on me (which was true as it was at home on charge) only to be met with a volley of abuse and F words. If I had 'lent' them my phone I would not have seen it again as I'm 99% certain they would have legged it. Be aware!

Because they think they can get away with it these yobs are becoming bolder. To be accosted like this is very worrying as it suggests that they are roaming the streets looking for targets.