The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, is an intelligent man and usually pretty adept politically. Yet, he briefed the Daily Mail yesterday suggesting, under Tory rule, homeowners tackling burglars should escape conviction unless they use 'grossly disproportionate' force.
His remarks were obviously forced upon him by Andy Coulson, head of Comms at Conservative HQ in an attempt to grab the vigilante vote. He denied, like a good little politician, his comments were not meant to coincide with the jailing of businessman Munir Hussain for beating an intruder into a pulp.
There is no doubt the burglar in this case, Walid Salem, was due a bit of a spanking after he had tied up Hussain’s family and threatened them with a knife. The law, which was reviewed again last year, allows for that. But the judge in this case was quite right to jail Hussain and his brother Tokeer for continuing an almost murderous assault on the dismal Salem with a cricket bat and an iron bar.
The press have slanted the coverage of this case massively to the extent that Hussain 'the innocent', is the only one jailed while the burglar walks free. What better example could there be of the inverted values of 21st Century Britain of human rights, political correctness and healthy and safety lunacy?
The reason Salem could not be sentenced to a long stretch was because his injuries left him so brain-damaged there was no point. His Honour, Judge Reddihough, put it succinctly, "It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him."
The Daily Mail has opened an on-line poll on whether it was acceptable for home owners to use self-defence against intruders. No doubt the colossal majority in favour will be held as conclusive proof of how out of touch the politicians and judges are with the man in the street. Self-defence is well…self-defence and does not equate to beating an unconscious man round the head with sporting equipment until he can never tie his shoes again.
Each article attacking the sentences all conveniently omitted mention of the jury confirming the Hussains’ guilt. Most of the rabid columnists held up that other brutal con, Tony Martin, as a hero of the people. One wonders why even the most populist programme makers have not thought to invite Mr Martin to divulge his views on the Criminal Justice system. I understand all one could expect from Martin would be a barely coherent racist tirade of such venom, it would make Richard Littlejohn sound like the Dalai Lama.
These brave polemicists, now including Chris Grayling, who advocate a disproportionate response, are unlikely to have had much experience of very violent encounters. Meting out retribution, nearly to the point of death, is only satisfying to thugs and sadists; to the rest of us it would be a highly traumatic psychological experience in itself and not one to relish.
His remarks were obviously forced upon him by Andy Coulson, head of Comms at Conservative HQ in an attempt to grab the vigilante vote. He denied, like a good little politician, his comments were not meant to coincide with the jailing of businessman Munir Hussain for beating an intruder into a pulp.
There is no doubt the burglar in this case, Walid Salem, was due a bit of a spanking after he had tied up Hussain’s family and threatened them with a knife. The law, which was reviewed again last year, allows for that. But the judge in this case was quite right to jail Hussain and his brother Tokeer for continuing an almost murderous assault on the dismal Salem with a cricket bat and an iron bar.
The press have slanted the coverage of this case massively to the extent that Hussain 'the innocent', is the only one jailed while the burglar walks free. What better example could there be of the inverted values of 21st Century Britain of human rights, political correctness and healthy and safety lunacy?
The reason Salem could not be sentenced to a long stretch was because his injuries left him so brain-damaged there was no point. His Honour, Judge Reddihough, put it succinctly, "It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him."
The Daily Mail has opened an on-line poll on whether it was acceptable for home owners to use self-defence against intruders. No doubt the colossal majority in favour will be held as conclusive proof of how out of touch the politicians and judges are with the man in the street. Self-defence is well…self-defence and does not equate to beating an unconscious man round the head with sporting equipment until he can never tie his shoes again.
Each article attacking the sentences all conveniently omitted mention of the jury confirming the Hussains’ guilt. Most of the rabid columnists held up that other brutal con, Tony Martin, as a hero of the people. One wonders why even the most populist programme makers have not thought to invite Mr Martin to divulge his views on the Criminal Justice system. I understand all one could expect from Martin would be a barely coherent racist tirade of such venom, it would make Richard Littlejohn sound like the Dalai Lama.
These brave polemicists, now including Chris Grayling, who advocate a disproportionate response, are unlikely to have had much experience of very violent encounters. Meting out retribution, nearly to the point of death, is only satisfying to thugs and sadists; to the rest of us it would be a highly traumatic psychological experience in itself and not one to relish.
No comments:
Post a Comment