My earlier thread on this guy caused a right old stink up so this time stick to the subject pleasssse.
What are your views on the lout thats sued him for 15k, should he be allowed to do that, now Mr Martin is a free man do you think the gypsy family who's member he killed will be looking for him.
Should Mr Martin be free or serve his time.

Mr Fearon should NOT be able to sue Tony Martin, Mr Martin should be suing him for ruining his life.

I think the gypsies will probably try and get revenge, no doubt they wont realise that they have already destroyed Tony Martin.

Mr Martin should definatly be free, he should never have been locked up in the first place.

All I can say is that it's a shame he didn't manage to kill them both.

Whilst I can sympathise with Tony Martin to a certain extent, for as human beings we are all by nature very protective of our domains, I believe it was right for him to be punished. Society would simply not operate if we got to pick and choose which laws we obeyed and when we want to obey them. If everyone just acted on basic human instinct all the time the world would be a very different and unpleasant place. To see this look at countires where law and order have broken down (Liberia being the most pressing example).
Should he be sued? Probably not, he has already received his punishment.
Should he be freed? If he has served his time and is not deemed to be a threat then yes.

Oh no! Not this old chestnut again :D

If Mr Martin hadn't shot Mr Fearon with an illegal firearm, then I suspect his case may have been a bit stronger. Since he did, I think Mr Fearon is well within his rights.

Tony Martin is a murderer, no matter in what manner he was provoked and I believe that he should serve his time.

IMO its all bravado..even in the "real" criminal underworld (gangsters etc) most grasses are surprisingly fortunate when it comes to not being "hit". With the eyes of the nation on this case a few petty criminals arent gonna do too much and i doubt many professional hitmen would touch this with a bargepole.

How can Mr Fearon be well with in his rights to sue for loss of earnings when he's never worked a day in his blo0dy life!!!

All he's done is rob from people and sell heroin! It's utterly ridiculous.

Perhaps he was about to get a job.

Tony Martin is going to be released on Monday anyway, so whether he serves any more time is now irrelevant.

Originally posted by Mike
Oh no! Not this old chestnut again :D

If Mr Martin hadn't shot Mr Fearon with an illegal firearm, then I suspect his case may have been a bit stronger. Since he did, I think Mr Fearon is well within his rights.

Tony Martin is a murderer, no matter in what manner he was provoked and I believe that he should serve his time.

His conviction was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, so he is a killer, in the eyes of the law, but not a murderer as such. Small point but worth making.

Fearon is bringing a civil suit - anyone in this country is free to do so. My belief is that any judge will throw it out in pretty short order.

There are other people who have shot burglars and been acquitted of all charges - the devil is in the detail here and TM was deemed to be acting with malice aforethought.

He has served his time and should be released as normal. Now all he has to do is avoid shooting anyone else if possible.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
His conviction was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, so he is a killer, in the eyes of the law, but not a murderer as such. Small point but worth making.
You're right, I forgot that.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Fearon is bringing a civil suit - anyone in this country is free to do so. My belief is that any judge will throw it out in pretty short order.
I don't think it'll get very far either.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
There are other people who have shot burglars and been acquitted of all charges - the devil is in the detail here and TM was deemed to be acting with malice aforethought.
Exactly - it wasn't self defence or "reasonable force". Also, if he had walked free it would have sent out a message that it is ok to hold an un-licenced firearm.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
He has served his time and should be released as normal. Now all he has to do is avoid shooting anyone else if possible.
Apparantly he has left prison and is at a safe house and will be completely free on Monday.

Nice one Cycle for ressurecting this one. But my view is that Fearon or (P***y Sc******r) as he has been reffered to in the original post is taking the P*** and the whole thing is a joke. How can someone who breaks into your home can be allowed to sue you.

I think the whole episode was a disgrace. Whether he shot the dude with an illegal fire arm or not. The same point remains! He was trespassing on someone elses property! Fair play to him! Id b**dy shoot the F**k*r if he came and tried to gain access to my house! lol! I know a bit harsh but it always seems to be the good people of society making up for the dipsticks within it. 8)

Yes, but there are other cases where burglars have been shot dead and the people have not been convicted of manslaughter because it has been deemed that they did use reasonable force.
Why was Tony Martin different? Ask the jury, but bear in mind
He began an appeal immediately. In court he argued he had suffered from a paranoid personality disorder which diminished his responsibility.

His barrister told the court Martin had suffered sexual abuse as a child and "considered himself a boy of about ten".


Appeal judges accepted this plea. Now tell me if you think that anyone with a paranoid personality disorder should even own a gun. He should be in sheltered accomodation.

But I understand that he is going to write a book, which may be edited by John 'The Hat' McVicar. Presumably Ronnie Biggs and 'Mad' Frankie Fraser will be consultant ghostwriters, with Dr Harold Shipman checking the medical information for accuracy.

Put in the same position, I'm sure any of us would have acted the same way as Tony Martin. I know for a fact I would have and the fact that this has been handled so badly with regards to the likely victory of Fearon in the courts means that we are losing the battle. The recent trail of the murder of the football hooligan / drug gangster shows just how much out of control the entire country is, despite Blair and Pews comments to the contrary.

Originally posted by Internetowl
Put in the same position, I'm sure any of us would have acted the same way as Tony Martin. I know for a fact I would have and the fact that this has been handled so badly with regards to the likely victory of Fearon in the courts means that we are losing the battle. The recent trail of the murder of the football hooligan / drug gangster shows just how much out of control the entire country is, despite Blair and Pews comments to the contrary.

Fearon's putative court case (civil case for damages) has nothing to do with Tony Martin's court case (High court case, for manslaughter). Fearon hasn't even brought a court case yet.

You say "I'm sure any of us would have acted the same way as Tony Martin" - but we don't know precisely how he did act - All I have bothered to read of the available court transcripts (reprinted Criminology gobbets) indicate that the Jury believed that Martin planned to kill any burglars, judging by the welcoming environment he'd arranged for them.

And that they also believed he had succeeded in scaring the burglars off before he came down the stairs, still chasing them, and discharged his third shot into the fleeing Fred Barras' back.

This led them to conclude that "... Martin was not defending his property on 20 August but taking the law into his own hands"

It is possible to defend yourself from burglars using a firearm, even an illegal one and not be charged (except for possession of an unlicenced firearm) - this continues to happen every year in the UK. What Martin did was different.

Barras was a young common thief, Fearon had burgled bleak house before, Martin was a paranoid delusional gun nut with a revoked licence for a history of gun related crime.

No-one in this case gets my sympathy, only my pity (barras) and contempt (fearon, martin).

I don't believe that this country is out of control as far as crime is concerned - probably due to our differing defintions of 'out of control'. Compared to 100 years ago things have improved considerably.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


This led them to conclude that "... Martin was not defending his property on 20 August but taking the law into his own hands"



You have a young son Phanerothyme (thank god for copy and paste), I have read your posts with interest.
If a burglar entered your house what would be the first thing on your mind and I am talking about you , not Tony Martin.
No police, no judge, nothing but you , the burglar and your son. Difficult one eh?
I think not.
How far would you go to protect your child?
Would you take the law into your own hands?
I think you would and 99% of the people in this country would also.
To me this is what this whole issue is about.
Protecting what is yours be it property or familly should be sacrosanct.
Sorry to be so aggressive, I've had a bad day.

Originally posted by upholder
You have a young son Phanerothyme (thank god for copy and paste), I have read your posts with interest.
If a burglar entered your house what would be the first thing on your mind and I am talking about you , not Tony Martin.
No police, no judge, nothing but you , the burglar and your son. Difficult one eh?
I think not.
How far would you go to protect your child?
Would you take the law into your own hands?
I think you would and 99% of the people in this country would also.
To me this is what this whole issue is about.
Protecting what is yours be it property or familly should be sacrosanct.
Sorry to be so aggressive, I've had a bad day.
Burglars have entered my house.
Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It is possible to defend yourself from burglars using a firearm, even an illegal one and not be charged (except for possession of an unlicenced firearm) - this continues to happen every year in the UK. What Martin did was different.

On radio Sheffield this morning they had a phone in and referendum on the Tony Martin issue.
The result of the referendum was that 90% agreed with what TM did.

Did you have to confront the burglars Phanerothyme?

Originally posted by upholder
On radio Sheffield this morning they had a phone in and referendum on the Tony Martin issue.
The result of the referendum was that 90% agreed with what TM did.

Did you have to confront the burglars Phanerothyme?
No but I did.

Result? 14 dead, 36 injured, one helicopter in flames. But I was using unreasonable force, so it's ok.

I have another great anti-burglar device, I can flood the ground floor with cyanide.

And for anyone who wasn't watching Dead Ringers on BBC2 -

Why was Brendon Fearon released 2 day before Martin?




















To give him a decent head start.

Any so-called 'revenge attack' carried out by or on behalf of the travellers is only going to cause further violence by vigilantes.

Travellers (or gypsies if you will) are only just tolerated by people as it is - you don't get a reputation like that without there being some truth to it.

If anyone touches Tony Martin, travellers are going to get blamed and harassed endlessly.

Although with any criminal i disagree that he is about to make a large sum of money to tell his story.
No one should make money from crime and although i believe Mr Martin did the right thing protecting his property he should not make a dime out of it.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Travellers (or gypsies if you will) are only just tolerated by people as it is - you don't get a reputation like that without there being some truth to it.


So it's true, Jews do eat babies.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phanerothyme
But I understand that he is going to write a book, which may be edited by John 'The Hat' McVicar.

This must be some weird composite of Jack 'the Hat' McVitie (killed by the Krays in 1967)and John McVicar (ex armed robber and now respected crime writer and criminologist)!

Originally posted by gloworm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phanerothyme
But I understand that he is going to write a book, which may be edited by John 'The Hat' McVicar.

This must be some weird composite of Jack 'the Hat' McVitie (killed by the Krays in 1967)and John McVicar (ex armed robber and now respected crime writer and criminologist)!
Clearly it is their born-into-crime love child.

ahem

Oh no, not this again

In a nutshell the bleeding heart liberal view (mine) went something like this...

1. Tony Martin had an illegal gun in his house
2. He used it to murder a 16 year old boy who had been breaking in to his house to nick a few baubles to feed his drugs habit
3. He shot the 16 year old boy in the back as he ran away, scared
4. The 16 year old boy had a mate who was also shot but lived


Now, there is no proof that the two burglars intended him any harm, they ran off when challenged, they had no weapons, that they used anyway (I dont know if they actually DID have any weapons but doubt it.)

TM did not shoot to warn or out of self-defence, he shot a fleeing man in the back and another in the legs, because he was in a temper. He was in no danger, only of having to fill in an insurance form maybe.

He was a nasty bad tempered sort of a man who kept a gun handy so that he could have the chance to shoot anyone that struck him as being good target practice.

He shot dead one man and seriously injured another because they fancied nicking his telly

Are we to start shooting dead pickpockets too?

Or shoplifters?

Or 12 year old boys daft enough to go scrumping in Tony Martin's orchard (that would be theft from his property, right?)

Or doesnt those crimes count as capital punishment in your eyes?

Should we shoot people dead who have unlicensed illegal weapons in their house (and who admit to the intent to use them to shoot others dead under certain pre-ordained conditions)?

We dont have the death penalty in this country, certainly not for 16 year olds and not for burglars

And if it is true that 99% of the population think he is wonderful, I am afraid I am in the minority
- and I have been burgled several times.
I would be horrified, really totally horrified if any of my burglars had ever been put to death for their crime

Louise

I don't think Tony Martin is 'wonderful', but I do believe he's been punished enough

He didn't start it. The criminals did - and they had over 200 crimes between them on their records. Highly unlikely they were just hardened apple scrumpers. They shouldn't have been burgling his house in the first place.

When the Tony Martin case broke in the first place, I immediately wrote to the British Prime Minister to say that he should not be jailed.

This man is a victim of criminals who regard anyone of us as fair game, to pursue their illegal activities. The one who was killed by T.M. got his just deserts.

He was a threat and did not break in to ask if T.M. was coming out for a drink, no he was willing to destroy, kill, maim, rape, steal, in order to satisfy his own selfish desires.

People such as him have got to be stopped, either by physical force or lethal force, he knew what he was doing when he set out from his home to break in to someone elses property.

He was willing to take any risk on his mission and so, got more than he bargained for. Tony Martin is innocent of any crime and should receive compensation, both from the british legal system and from Fearson and barrases famillies.

Any talk of a criminal being given permission to claim from their victim is both ludicrous and outrageous and any sane and reasonable person must agree.

Originally posted by halevan
He was a threat and did not break in to ask if T.M. was coming out for a drink, no he was willing to destroy, kill, maim, rape, steal, in order to satisfy his own selfish desires.

People such as him have got to be stopped, either by physical force or lethal force, he knew what he was doing when he set out from his home to break in to someone elses property.

Who says he was willing to do any of those things?
He was willing to burgle, that is all we know
It was your mate the illegal gun owner who was willing to destroy, kill and maim .............as it happens

I say that if you are prepared to break into someone's home and steal things that they have worked hard for, then you face the consequences, if that means death then so be it.

It doesn't matter what these people are intending to steal, it isn't the quality or quantity of goods that matters, it is the principal.

As I have always and will always say, Tony Martin was not a killer, if those people had not been in his house, he would never have killed anyone.

The way I see it is the only mistake he made was to not kill that other piece of scum.

Look at this case from a different point of view, lets imagine Tony Martin was a Miss not a Mr. Would people think differently?

So if any of you have 16 year old children who ever take up burglary, you will not blame their victims for shooting them to death. You will say "That is only what my son deserved, he should not have been in your house. I entirely understand, you did the right thing"

Probably not Steelblade, most people are bloodthirsty on here , so you will be pleased to hear that would only reinforce their views.
..........but never mine
Women should know better than to go round murdering 16 year old burglars in my view

Louise how many 16 year old burglars do you think come from "good" parents?

I'm sorry to be so un PC but with kids like this, the parents are usually to blame.

If my 16 year old son became a burglar then I would be seriously questioning my parenting skills.

Well let's shoot the parents instead then, we could get a whole row of them lined up and shoot them all, let's get the teachers in there too.......(heavy irony in case anyone is unsure)

The case for shooting some parents isn't a bad one Louise! :D

Originally posted by LouiseB
So if any of you have 16 year old children who ever take up burglary, you will not blame their victims for shooting them to death. You will say "That is only what my son deserved, he should not have been in your house. I entirely understand, you did the right thing"

No of course the parents wouldn't say that. But only because the mentality of the criminal underclass is, believe it or not, quite different from that of right-thinking citizens.

Probably a good reason for that too!

Originally posted by LouiseB
So if any of you have 16 year old children who ever take up burglary, you will not blame their victims for shooting them to death. You will say "That is only what my son deserved, he should not have been in your house. I entirely understand, you did the right thing" That is a fair point, i guess not but some Children get into burglary because of the bad influance from there mates or if there on drugs, but as a parent I would know if my 16 year old boy was out there doing wrong or on drugs.
They had travelled from Newark to Norfolk which in my estimates is over 100 miles so why did his parents do nothing, because more than likely they encouraged them to do it, a bit like a full time job which with a record they had it was only a matter of time someone got hurt.

Mr Martin is on Radio 2 now - in case anyone's interested.

(PS. Found this old thread using search (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php) - hint, hint)

I am not sure whether this topic is of interest still, but am writing because the thread comes up on a search.
The book, A Right to Kill?, Tony Martin as told to John McVicar, has just come out.
I'd be interested to hear what people make of it.
John McVicar, incidentally, in one of the best contemporary writers - better writer, I suspect than he was a banl robber.

What a ridiculous suggestion to say that Fearson should be able to claim compensation from Mr Martin, the one who was killed asked for all he got!!! End of argument. RIGHT!!!

Fearon Never sued, presumably becasue his lawyer told him he didn't have a cats chance in hell of winning his case.

yawn.

So far this case has yielded one conviction - that of manslaughter for Tony Martin. That has not yet been overturned.

Originally posted by steelblade
I say that if you are prepared to break into someone's home and steal things that they have worked hard for, then you face the consequences, if that means death then so be it.


Jesus christ...we're in trouble if you ever get to make any important decisions in this country.

Might as well chop the hands off shoplifters while we're at it. After all, material goods are clearly more important than human life or wellbeing.

Originally posted by ellie

John McVicar, incidentally, in one of the best contemporary writers - better writer, I suspect than he was a banl robber.

Right up there with Amis and McEwan, I'm sure.

Well, have you read anything readable by Amis?
McVicar is finny and quick to the punch.

i haven't said material things are more important then human life. I said if you break into property that doesn't belong to you, then you should face the consequences whatever they might be.

If you don't want to be shot, don't rob people's home's, it's quite simple really.

Originally posted by ellie
Well, have you read anything readable by Amis?
McVicar is finny and quick to the punch.

Which Amis? Martin or Kingsley - both are good, Father better than Son IMO.

My favourite Martin Amis book has to be 'Dead Babies'

Kingsley....well 'The Green Man' is good.

As for McVicar being a good novelist, well that as maybe, but how is he as a Biographer? I'm too busy to find out...

Martin Amis is pretentious. Especially his latest, Yellow Dog.
McVicar is an investigative writer. Banging on about his past is focusing on the superficial.
My initial posting was in reference to the Tony Martin book, anyway.
I HAVE had the time to read it - and have a lot of time for McVicar as a writer in general.
McVicar by Himself is a classic.
The Martin book ditto. In that it explodes a few misconceptions and cocks a snoop at Middle England, it is vintage McVicar and not for the narrow-minded.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Which Amis? Martin or Kingsley - both are good, Father better than Son IMO.
.

Well, we were talking about contemporary writers Phan, so there was no ambiguity really.

I'm not a massive fan or anything (even less so of McEwan - those were just the names that sprang to mind), but my favourite M. Amis is probably Other People.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
...I don't believe that this country is out of control as far as crime is concerned - probably due to our differing defintions of 'out of control'. Compared to 100 years ago things have improved considerably.

So Phan, in 1904, regarding crime in Britain, things were worse?

Statistics please.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
... Compared to 100 years ago things have improved considerably.

I was quite surprised that you would make such a sweeping statement – and one that is so ‘wildly’ off the mark.

According to a research paper from the House of Commons (link below): ‘The number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1…’ – an increase of over 3,700%. It does go on to say that the British Crime Survey estimates that in 1997, 56% of crimes were not reported. It further states that in earlier years this figure was probably higher and accounts for some of the increase.

The second link gives numbers of ‘Murder Related Crime 1898 – 1997’.
In 1904 there were a total of 408 murder related crimes.
In 1997 a total of 10,736.
This is over a 2,600% increase

In 1904 the population of the UK was about 40 millions and in 2001 about 59 millions, which when adjusted for population increase still gives over 1,780% increase in murder related crimes.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

http://www.police999.com/stats/figures10.html

I'll freely admit that my original comment was an inutitive one. But having done a little digging, I'm happy to stand by it.

The evidence you quoted relates only to murder and threats of murder, as the number of indictable offences known to the police.

But to break them down in a little more detail:

That the number of indictable murder offences know to the police has gone up from 316 to 739

That the number of indictable threats or conspiracies to murder known to the police have gone up from 9 to 9340

Over the last 100 years detection methods have improved, communications have improved, and the number of police officers has risen from less than 40,000 to over 120,000.

And crimes of murder do not constitute a picture of crime overall, much less a picture quantified by incident.

I took the opportunity to consult an historian of the period on the subject.

I asked her of it would be fair to assert that as far as crime was concerned, things had improved considerably compared to one hundred years ago.

Her first answer was, "very difficult to say", but when pressed suggested that crimes against the person (theft, assault, murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment etc) were common in urban areas and often unreported to the police.

Also soliciting and prostitution was rife, alcohol aggravated crime and domestic violence was very common from contemporary accounts.

These social phenomena were coming under control slowly, by the beginning of the 19th century, thanks to rafts of legislation and the gradual rise in numbers and importance of the police forces of Great Britain.

Her second comment was that there were far fewer traffic crimes and other crimes of that nature (i.e historically precluded crime).

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The evidence you quoted relates only to murder and threats of murder, as the number of indictable offences known to the police.

Not true - You seem to have conveniently ignored the main empirical evidence that I ‘dug-up’, i.e. ‘A Century of Change; trends in UK statistics since 1900’,

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

and, instead, have given have an argument based mainly on socio-economics and opinion based on intuition – it’s also interesting that your historian’s initial comment was one of uncertainty.

These social phenomena were coming under control slowly, by the beginning of the 19th century, thanks to rafts of legislation and the gradual rise in numbers and importance of the police forces of Great Britain.

Yup – But our reference frame is the beginning of the 20th century.

… alcohol aggravated crime and domestic violence was very common from contemporary accounts.

Has anything really changed?

That the number of indictable threats or conspiracies to murder known to the police have gone up from 9 to 9340

That, by the way, is over a 70,000% increase, taking population increase into account.

And crimes of murder do not constitute a picture of crime overall, much less a picture quantified by incident.

Again, read the research paper. It covers ‘indictable offences known to the police per thousand of population’ – so, in this study, the population increase is accounted for.

Her second comment was that there were far fewer traffic crimes and other crimes of that nature (i.e. historically precluded crime).

And far fewer gun-related crimes too!

I too, used my intuition, but, I believe, that part of one’s intuition is based on one’s cumulative experience and knowledge. Having being born in Crookes, Sheffield, in 1938 and having lived in ‘council housing’ since 1945 till 1966 (when I emigrated to Canada), returning to a council estate in 1998, I know that UK society is far more violent and crime-ridden then it was when I grew up. Quite frankly, anyone who denies that is living with their head in the sand (or in some middle to upper-class environment).

I admit that this ‘experience’ only covers 65+% of the period in question, but, add to that my mother’s opinion (she died in 1996 aged 77) and that of her older contemporaries, then the ‘perceived wisdom’ of any of the older people – and they are the ones with first-hand experience of the changes in a society - that I regularly speak with is the same – that the UK is a far more violent society than it used to be. In other words, during their life-times – which almost covers the period in question.

By the way, I too am a historian – allbeit in the History of World Religions.

A further note: Burgess’s ‘Clockwork Orange’ was not just a work of fiction…

Originally posted by Carlwarker
You seem to have conveniently ignored the main empirical evidence that I ‘dug-up’, i.e. ‘A Century of Change; trends in UK statistics since 1900’,

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
[b]

Firstly, that isn't empirical evidence, that is selected correlated and adjusted, quantitative data. It tells you more about trends in keeping records than it does about trends in crime.

Those figures are for indictable offences known to the police- i,e the police being in possession of prima facie evidence of a crime being committed.

That is totally different to the amount of crime.

What we need here (after further historical consultation) is a rigidly defined meaning of the word crime for the purposes of our discussion.

We also need to balance out those crimes that have no equivalent.

Hundreds of thousands of people broke the law daily in 1904 because off-course betting was completely illegal, for example.

Recorded crimes where prima facie evidence is in the possession of the police has increased dramatically with the advent of technological surveillance.

Drunkenness was a crime and was rife in 1904.

So you see, we cant usefully take this further with your figures or my socio-economic intuition.

[b]
and, instead, have given have an argument based mainly on socio-economics and opinion based on intuition – it’s also interesting that your historian’s initial comment was one of uncertainty.


Well when faced with the question - "would it be fair to assert that as far as crime was concerned, things had improved considerably compared to one hundred years ago" there isn't an historian anywhere worth their salt who would give any other answer - as you well know. :)

I too, used my intuition, but, I believe, that part of one’s intuition is based on one’s cumulative experience and knowledge. Having being born in Crookes, Sheffield, in 1938 and having lived in ‘council housing’ since 1945 till 1966 (when I emigrated to Canada), returning to a council estate in 1998, I know that UK society is far more violent and crime-ridden then it was when I grew up. Quite frankly, anyone who denies that is living with their head in the sand (or in some middle to upper-class environment).

I'm not denying that has been your experience. But I will say, that historically speaking your experience is interesting and useful as part of a mass anecdotal study.


I admit that this ‘experience’ only covers 65+% of the period in question, but, add to that my mother’s opinion (she died in 1996 aged 77) and that of her older contemporaries, then the ‘perceived wisdom’ of any of the older people – and they are the ones with first-hand experience of the changes in a society - that I regularly speak with is the same – that the UK is a far more violent society than it used to be. In other words, during their life-times – which almost covers the period in question.

What happened to the empirical evidence thing?
Family perceptions are, as you know, interesting but largely irrelevant.

So to take this further. What are we calling crime here? In terms of crimes against the person, i.e enforced prostitution, child labour, mugging, murdering, (including poisoning - a favourite budget method of murder without detection at the turn of the century), rape, domestic violence, assault, battery, etc. I stand by my statement that the picture now is an improvement on 100 years ago.

Apologies for the post qualification, but we are talking about completely different things.

Well, ive read the thread from start to finish and there are good and bad arguments on both sides,the question is.....

What would YOU do if you caught someone burgling your house?

1 cower upstairs till theyd gone?

2.give them a hand so they dont chip the paintwork on the way out?

3. sit them down and ask why they need to steal your belongings?

4. Defend your property?


you can be sure they will employ any method they choose to avoid capture or identification,some will run for it,others will have your stuff whatever the cost.

if you have been in such a situation you will know that adrenilin kicks in and rational thought goes out the door with your VCR.

this can result in tragic consequences for either you or them,but the question remains,what would you do.

i dont in anyway advocate blowing them away with a shotgun,but human instinct is to defend your space your property your family.

ive been burgled 3 times(3rd time was two weeks before christmas) and had one car stolen(i forgot to let them have the log book as well)

im all for individuals defending themselves and their property,though yes i agree TM was silly to shoot someone dead.

i dont care what makes people break into houses or steal cars,because they dont care about the pain and misery they are inflicting on the victim