1949threepence

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.

Another aspect of this issue which should be considered is the "heat of the moment" one of normal human reaction to attack - and an invasion of one's property is an attack. We are not automatons able to switch on and switch off at a second's notice. As I've alluded to earlier, it's great for those in the legal profession who have quite literally, all the time in the world to think up what should and shouldn't be done in such situations. But the one overarching point is that they weren't the ones in that real life situation. I remember from years ago, the police, when criticised for their actions, saying "we are only human". Well, just so, we are only human and expecting the average bod trying to protect his property to think and behave in the middle of the night in such a traumatic event, with the cold detachment of a lawyer, is incredibly stupid. So yes, in theory, Mr. White shouldn't have chased after the intruders in his car. But we don't all think the same, and the main fact we should bear in mind is that if they hadn't tried to break in, it would never have happened. So in modern parlance, going after him and not the criminals, is a form of "victim blaming".

Thanks - very useful info.

There's 14 known on Richard's rarest pennies site, which makes it about level with the 1877 F90, narrow date, but somewhat better state of preservation. link

It should surely be in the advance auction information, rendering it pointless for the auctioneer to start the bidding on any less.

Not surprised as it's certainly one of the best, if not the best out there. Maybe, what? GVF, possibly NEF. You'd wait a lifetime to even see one better. Wonder if it has any provenance attached.

Wonder what the reserve was? Maybe there was a notional bid of £5,500, but it was not considered as an effective bid as below the reserve price.

Our prisons are overcrowded. Perhaps there's a case for non violent offenders such as serial shoplifters, benefit fraudsters and tax evaders, for example, to serve any penalty outside prison, maybe using tags and curfews, as well as community service. We might even consider "house arrest" or "house sentence" as a potential way forward, where practicable. I'd consider any housebreaker as a violent offender, even if nobody was hurt. Moreover, rather than letting them off on parole if they appear to be "rehabilitated", the criteria should surely be how much of a threat they remain to the public. The likelihood is that they do still represent a threat in many cases. The recent case of Colin Pitchfork, who was sentenced to life in 1987 after raping and strangling two young girls when he was in his 20's, then released on parole in 2020 aged 60, is notable. He was again soon pestering young girls !!! - so found himself back inside very quickly for breaching the terms of his parole. Conversely, Harry Roberts who shot dead a poilice officer in 1966, was released on parole in 2014, aged 78. In his case, despite the dreadful nature of his crime, I'd say it's highly unlikely he's going to be a threat to anybody in future - except, perhaps ironically, someone who breaks into his property.