Tuesday, February 06, 2007
18 months. Same sentence, different crimes?
Last night on Panorama a programme broadcast by the chief purveyor of Bolshevism the BBC, we had the subject of standing up to anti-social (which in reality means minor criminal) and criminal behaviour.
We had a tale from Sunderland, where a Mr Noble (I think it was) "challenged" a "youth" who appeared to be the ringleader of a group beating up a girl. This "youth" retreated and no doubt thinking it all over, Mr Noble turned his back and walked away. The said youth approached from behind and landed a blow to the rear of the head/neck of Mr Noble killing him. Now you have a blow struck from behind and a blow to an area of the body where a high risk of serious injury/death exists.
The killer got three years for manslaughter and was freed after 18 months. As an aside I can't help remarking on the similarity between this and Tony Martin, this is clearly worse, but we have a blow from behind, and this blow was far more deadly than the shots fired by Mr Martin. So why wasn't this youth charged with murder? He didn't have even the semblance of a self-defence defence.
Anyway I digress. On the same programme we had an example from Kent, a man having to put up with quite a strong degree of intimidation addressed both at him, his family, and racial provocation towards a shopkeeper, I need not point out that successive calls to the police have received the usual modern-English police response (nothing). One night him and the shopkeeper give chase to the youths. They find one hiding in some bushes, (no they didn't set the bushes alight) they confronted him and the youth offers to come and apologise, which he does in a halfhearted manner. The following day the youth surprisingly not a choirboy, but with a long history of minor criminality goes to the police and complains of kidnap. Our man from Kent ends up serving 18 months for kidnapping.
Of course this "kidnapping" was no crime at all so some might say our man from Kent should have approached the youth from behind and given him a vary strong blow to the back of the head. At least he'd have got good value for his 18 months.
Now let us be sure and clear about this, this isn't down to incompetence or stupidity on the part of the government and its agencies. It all forms part of deliberate actions designed to ensure the law-abiding citizen stays oppressed. If you stand up for yourself against a criminal, the government will get you. If a criminal oppresses and kills you, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and you'll be dead.
The power relationship between the government and the governed needs redefinition. The government should be our servants and it should be their role to assist us in our protection. The primary responsibility for the our protection, both of life and limb, and property should be with the citizen, the role of the police being to supplement the citizen if required. If the government want to protect the criminals then fine, but let us start to realise that the government form part of the problem and in this case, the greater part.
We had a tale from Sunderland, where a Mr Noble (I think it was) "challenged" a "youth" who appeared to be the ringleader of a group beating up a girl. This "youth" retreated and no doubt thinking it all over, Mr Noble turned his back and walked away. The said youth approached from behind and landed a blow to the rear of the head/neck of Mr Noble killing him. Now you have a blow struck from behind and a blow to an area of the body where a high risk of serious injury/death exists.
The killer got three years for manslaughter and was freed after 18 months. As an aside I can't help remarking on the similarity between this and Tony Martin, this is clearly worse, but we have a blow from behind, and this blow was far more deadly than the shots fired by Mr Martin. So why wasn't this youth charged with murder? He didn't have even the semblance of a self-defence defence.
Anyway I digress. On the same programme we had an example from Kent, a man having to put up with quite a strong degree of intimidation addressed both at him, his family, and racial provocation towards a shopkeeper, I need not point out that successive calls to the police have received the usual modern-English police response (nothing). One night him and the shopkeeper give chase to the youths. They find one hiding in some bushes, (no they didn't set the bushes alight) they confronted him and the youth offers to come and apologise, which he does in a halfhearted manner. The following day the youth surprisingly not a choirboy, but with a long history of minor criminality goes to the police and complains of kidnap. Our man from Kent ends up serving 18 months for kidnapping.
Of course this "kidnapping" was no crime at all so some might say our man from Kent should have approached the youth from behind and given him a vary strong blow to the back of the head. At least he'd have got good value for his 18 months.
Now let us be sure and clear about this, this isn't down to incompetence or stupidity on the part of the government and its agencies. It all forms part of deliberate actions designed to ensure the law-abiding citizen stays oppressed. If you stand up for yourself against a criminal, the government will get you. If a criminal oppresses and kills you, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and you'll be dead.
The power relationship between the government and the governed needs redefinition. The government should be our servants and it should be their role to assist us in our protection. The primary responsibility for the our protection, both of life and limb, and property should be with the citizen, the role of the police being to supplement the citizen if required. If the government want to protect the criminals then fine, but let us start to realise that the government form part of the problem and in this case, the greater part.
Labels: justice, self-defence
