The story of the day is clearly the BA decision, which I’m very keen to take a flick though as neither side disputed that even if the ballot had excluded all the ineligible staff, they would have still had a strong vote in favour. My hurried post was really to comment on the media’s posturing over this story… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece
It is very simple: YES, you can use reasonable force to protect yourself and your home. NO, you cannot, once your intruders have departed, gather up the family and chase down your unwanted guests, restraining one of them as your attempt to beat them to death with a cricket bat. Whilst perhaps satisfying, that is vigilantism, and we’ve had a Police service for quite some time now with a view to preventing this. Had Mr Hussain contented himself with just one swing of his bat, or simply held the chap until the Police pootled across, all would have been well.
“The judge told them: “If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
Where is the controversy??
Trackbacks /
Pingbacks