1949threepence

I am sure you know as well as I do the extreme furore which would follow such an old lady being sent to trial for killing an intruder. The "reasonable force" argument would be treated as the farce that it would be in such an event. Did the 8 stone, 5' odd 85 year old lady use reasonable force against the 22 year old, hooded 15 stone 6' 2" intruder? I mean c'mon, get real.

Bias towards the criminal and away from the victim. That's self evident from the entire thread topic and posts. Sorry you're still having issues getting your head round it.

It's far from the only case of this type, as you know, and the principle will wrangle on as long as cases like this continue - where the judiciary makes it abundantly clear that it favours the criminal and comes down like a ton of bricks on the guy who hasn't thought like a lawyer in the middle of the night, but has protected his property the best way he knows how. The majority of the public, quite rightly in my view, hold the strong perception that the entire legal system favours the attacker criminal rather than the innocent defender of his or her own property. Incidentally, what makes you believe the programme was produced for "entertainment"? Moreover, defending oneself from direct attack as with a break in, is not "vigilantism". I think you're getting "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.", confused with self defence.

Again you've missed the point, which is that bias exists in the judiciary. The fact that this report happens to be about race bias is incidental. There are other biases as well.

I think you've completely missed the point with that. It could easily be a knife or an iron bar. Either way, the CPS is not going to send an 85 year old woman to trial for killing an intruder in her own house.

Here's a very recent report on race bias within the judiciary - that's just one aspect of course - link

You must be incredibly naive if you don't believe the judiciary are biased at best. With regard to the crowdfunding I think the public are fed up with seeing the criminals get away with it, and the essentially innocent party get nailed. It's topsy turvey, and I'm astounded that a man of your intelligence can't see that, Chris.

One thing you can be utterly certain of. If you called the police and said there was an intruder in the house, they'd probably get there about an hour later. Regardless of how much you or your family were in potential danger. Conversely, if you said there's a guy/s broken in, I've got a gun and I'm going to possibly blow them away by shooting randomly in the dark, they'd be round with several squad cars, and possibly a police chopper overhead in a matter of a few minutes. That's the way to get police attention.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the judiciary wrapped up the legal niceties so that White was stitched up like a kipper. He probably didn't have quality defence, and is a fairly young guy who no doubt lacks sophistication and experience. Of course he was going to lose.

You do that. I do the same. You're the one who took issue with me don't forget - so expect to be x examined/criticised on your personal philosophy. I re-iterate, I'd lay odds your sentiments on this case are not reflected by the majority. I would reflect on that and consider that you may be wrong.

Yes, which I suppose explains why Mr White got 2 years for perhaps trying hamfistedly to perform a citizen's arrest, or track the criminals to where they were going. Justice in your book perhaps, but not in mine, and I would strongly suggest not in the majority.

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years.

Don't make the mistake of assuming an intruder's sole motivation is always or solely burglary. It could easily be something more sinister like abduction, rape, beatings, murder or arson. The householder has no idea why the intruder is there, which is why my sympathies are very strongly with them.

Tell that to the police who've knocked down and killed innocent passers by in hot pursuit of a criminal.

Well precisely. That's what happens when people's lives and property are threatened - they get an adrenaline rush. It's a physiological imperative and the judiciary should take account of it as a strongly mitigating factor.

Yes, the perception/reality is that the criminal has full rein to do exactly as they choose, including holding the element of surprise, whilst the householder can only fight back with one hand tied behind his back, and having to think through every move as a courtroom would.

In December 2021, I got my 1806 KP31 gilt proof penny for exactly the £800 I bid. But I wasn't complaining as KB coins were (and still are) asking £2,250 for the same coin in not really any better shape. Certainly not £1550's worth better, or whatever the exact difference after juice added.

Sadly Richard there are too many criminal loving bleeding heart liberals, who will invariably be against the householder in almost every case. Which possibly explains the police enthusiasm to prosecute White. Whilst I think it was a mistake for him to chase after them, he is, as I've already said, only human, and there is no handbook for householders on this matter.

It'll probably all go to those two little scrotes who broke into his garage, as damages.

He says he lost control on a bend - that is not a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm. There is no handbook, as you full well know. I certainly think there are degrees of "reasonable force" which, of necessity, will vary from individual to indivdual. For example, as I said earlier, if a frail old lady in her 80's owned a gun and used it against an intruder, believing - quite reasonably - that her life was in danger, then I'm sure the CPS would not pursue the case as there would be hell to pay. No judge would want to rule on such a case.

thank goodness for crowdfunding.

definition of anarchy: "1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems." No, I'm not advocating that, and you seem to have arrived at such a conclusion without properly reading what I've written. There has to be legal sanction if an individual deliberately goes too far in the defence of their property. But currently - and certainly in this case - we have a situation where the householder has been sucked into a very nasty situation, which in every sense was not of his making. We should always have uppermost in our minds the fact that if Benford and Paul had not committed a crime in the first place, there would have been absolutely no incident. We then surely have to realise that White is a human being with normal emotions, that everybody reacts differently under threat and that there is no useful little handbook for householders on what to do in such situations. He was jailed for 22 months and now faces being sued by the criminals, whilst they got off very lightly. Sorry, but the balance is not right. Also, you're jumping to unproven conclusions by assuming that he went after them to deliberately knock them down, as opposed to just giving chase and maybe trapping them, or following them to wherever they were going. This is what he actually said: "Mr White, who told police at the accident scene that he had lost control of the vehicle when going around a bend, was arrested on the spot on suspicion of GBH." SOURCE. When you say this: "but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.", I think you're falsely conflating two totally separate issues. The two are so wide apart that I doubt you can truly be serious. The incident in question is totally unprovoked by the victim, whereas attacks based on lifestyle, race or philosophy have an aggressor and a victim. Both White and your hypothetical target of racism etc, are BOTH victims. The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

As far as I'm concerned he's the victim, and he's been jailed and got a criminal record for a completely human and understandable reaction - there's the blame. While the two thieving toerags who started the entire incident get away with a slap on the wrist, and are now able to sue him - further blame.

Thanks Bruce. LCA do seem inconsistent, with many items going at exactly the bid price, and a few going well under.

I've not done too badly this time, with a £500 bid going for £190 hammer, and a £600 bid going for £440. Looking through the sales, one of the highlights has to be the slabbed MS66 1934 crown fetching £14,500 hammer.