Gordon Brown really is pulling out all the stops to keep himself in office, these issues are someting that should have been dealt with a long time ago, labour have had eleven years to tackle issues such as this. Its amazing that they come into fruition when the public conception of labour is at an all time low, aswell as the fact we are almost sat on top of a general election.

Over ten years in power and all of a sudden we have all this spin about nothing new just a re-jigged old laws? reasonable force? Weve always had this law .nothing new there,While we still have the PC brigade and the Human Rights Acts we will neverv truely be able to protect ourselves.The human Right Act over rules anything this country does....It protects the guilty.

Rather than spin an old story - how about making the jail sentence that loooooooong that no one tries to intrude?

ace; you're spot on with the human rights act. It makes a joke of the law and of the innocent people it works against.

We need to remove the human rights act from our way of life and stamp down on criminals.

What a shame Ace, you did yourself proud by making a very sensible comment about the law already allowing the use of reasonable force, then you went and spoiled it by making irrelevant comments about the Human Rights Act.

It's about time we are able to teach burglars a lesson without being arrested ourselves.

More desperate calls for support from a government so idiotic that even a dog could do better.

same old spin & no substance.
bring in 1 more bill - to make the government tell th eloctorate the truth - oops sorry that wont sit well with bottler brown.

in the event of an intruder, i would use sufficient force to ensure that no way would the intruder be able to retain enough
conciousness to do any thing while he was
tied up to await the arrival of the police.
if they were too late to save his circulation
he could sue them! i am old enough not to worry about any consequencies to me.

Coming across a burglar in your own home is one of the most frightening and disconcerting things that can happen to you in your own "haven". People should be excused for beating the living daylights out of them, or similar. They've already broken in using violence against property. They're quite happy to use it on you. Why should they be protected by the law?

Oh very nice of them to allow us to use reasonable force to protect ourselves and our families in our own homes.
I for one still believe an englishmans home is his castle and he or she should be allowed to use whatever level of force they see fit.

I just have to comment on the title of this report 'New Laws Offer Protection'.

The 'defending one's own castle' aspect is all well and good. However, i think you will find that the majority of the speech is to enable protection of the privileged elite.

Hello, hello, hello, now here's a message from your Queen. As figurehead of the status quo, i set the social scene. I'm most concerned about my people, i want to give them peace. So, i'm making sure they stay in line with my army and police. My prisons and my mental homes have ever open doors, for those amongst my subject who dare to ask for more. Unrulyness and disrespect are things i can't allow, so i'll see the peasants grovel if they refuse to bow.

Then there's the prime sinister, armies and police, who at times of threatened crisis are certain to be there. Guarding national heritage, no matter what or where. Palaces for Kings and Queens, mansions for the rich. Protection for the wealthy, defence of privilege. Protection for the privileged at any length. The government protecting their profit from the poor. The rich and the fortunate chaining up the door. Afraid that the poor might ask for a little more.

Black Flag; The problem with the human rights act, is that it's open to abuse. we can see that every day, the guilty can hide behind it.

Now of course, some people who say 'it's against my human rights' are just making it up and are just trying to waste time.

What is so good about the human rights act that you want to protect?

Go to my web site in my name below and tell me!

Clearly you are all comfortably wallowing in the ignorance of your materialistic worlds, quite oblivious to one of the most chilling statements i've seen for years. "The government pledged to concentrate on the priorities of hardworking families who `play by the rules'". On the face of it, that would seem to be a laudable statement. However, i fear the reality will prove far more sinister. 'Play by the rules' brrr... shiver rippling down my spine.

Have a little think, how long did it take for the police to abuse CS gas etc. They said 'our' police here in Britain are not like America and 'our' police will not misuse the weapon if given it. Since then there has been a small fortune paid out to victims of misuse of the gas. The Terrorist Act - as was widely predicted - is routinely used against peace activists. Despite several cases of misuse of the act having successfully been proven in a court of law, the abuses continue daily. It is now often used to assist day-to-day policing (i.e. make life/investigations easier) .

At the moment you can live with the Government overriding the majority of the nation's wishes with their bombing of people in far off lands. However, as with each and every edition of the Queen's speech, there is a vast potential for abuses.You think if you toe the line, there is nothing to affect you. Turn up the volume on the tv when they're kicking in your neighbours door, look the other way. But, what happens when it comes to your turn?.

Pacified ?, Classified ?, you're already dead. Keep in line, you're doing fine. Lost your voice, there ain't no choice, Play the game, silent and tame. Be the passive observer sit back and look. Ask no questions, hear no lies. You're living in the comfort of a fool's paradise. I don't take any notice of what the public think, they're so hyped up with t.v. they just don't want to think. They used to call me sweet thing, but i'm nobody's plaything. Now they don't want me anymore, because i threw it on the floor. Now that i'm different, they'd love to bust my head. They'd love to see me cop out, love to see me dead.

There's people at this moment sitting with fingers on the trigger. There's loyalty and royalty to make their violence figure. Allegiance to the flag they say as they lock the prison door, allegiance to normality, that's what it's for. Propaganda on the airwaves, the way to live. It's not for you or me, the alternative.

What will you do when it's your turn?. Where will you be as the local body count rises?. Will you just watch as the hearses roll by?. Pretend it isn't happening, turn a blind eye. Have you seen the army convoys quitely passing by?. Heard the helicopters in your little bit of sky.? Have you seen the squad cars packed with boys in blue.? Have you ever wondered what they're there to do?.They use photo's of the victim's of gas, of gun, of bomb. But - the guardians of the state are (also) trained to search, destroy and kill (you). Don't wait for it to come to you, 'cos come it surely will.

They'll keep us all in line, they'll keep us on our toes. But if we stand against their power, we'll see how violence grows. Read it in the paper about rebellious youth. But it's them that are so violent, it's them that hide the truth. Stay in line or pay the cost, do you think they care when another life is lost?. Democracy's a con job, they've got you fooled. If you step out of line they'll have you pulled. You can't go against them, it ain't allowed. So watch your step, hide in the crowd. Don't think they won't do it, 'cos they already do. This time round the pawns are me and you.

I shout in the street and you take my voice. This SHAM of DEMOCRACY leaves NO CHOICE.

WOW! How exciting, Now all that is needed is for all the judges to get it clear and let us know what "reasonable force actually is'.

Well we see all these criminals suing for damages.

There is a need for another law that says "anyone breaking and entering has no right of legal redress". Now that would define reasonable force to me.

"Oh where did I put my old baseball bat".

I'm not a violent man by any means, but I am still young and fit. Last night while I was out a group of around thirty lads took it upon themselves to criminally damage my property, to the tune of several thousand pounds. For no reason whatsoever. My wife and kids were at home and were clearly very distressed by all this. The Police were called and they've arrested a couple of them. What concerns me is that if I'd have been home I'd have confronted them. In all probablity I'd have been given some cheek and a measure of violence would have ensued. Now, ok against thirty I wouldn't have much chance, but if I caught one of them in the act I honestly don't know if i'd use 'reasonable' force or if I'd go town and seriously hurt the vandals. I was so angry last night that if I had caught up with these idiots I just don't know what i'd have done. That actually scares me and concerns me. Not for the yobs, but for my family. The authorities really do need to crack down on these scumbags. And before any do-gooders tell me I sound like a yobbo myself, i'm not. I've never been in trouble with the Police, I'm an honest hard working husband and father who just wants his family to be safe and will not let anyone get in the way of that.

tangled up in blue, manchester;

That sounds like a horrible ordeal for you and your family to go through.

These gangs do need dealing with, I don't know why the government and police don't / won't do anything about it. Although I know the police have their hands tied by the government anyway.

I would say I live in a nice area, but I still see some of these youths, ganged up together and they concern me. And as you say, it's for my family I am concerned as well as myself.

I think you'd have had every right to 'use reasonable force' on whoever was doing this to you and I wouldn't blame you if you had.

This government needs to know that people just don't feel safe on the streets and do something about it.

mybritain, the whole purpose of defined human rights is to limit state powers, as they too are open to abuse. Would you wish to abolish the police and courts because they are open to abuse?

Just like any law, the HRA can sometimes produce results which might be contrary to the original intention. Do you think that means we should repeal all laws?

The HRA itself is broadly irrelevant. The UK, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights already had to adhere to these rules before the HRA. The Act just means that a case can be heard in a UK court, rather than having to go straight to the European court.

The ECHR was drafted following World War II to prevent a state like Nazi Germany rising again. Unfortunately, as time passes, people start to lose sight of what can happen when governments have no limits on their powers.

Black Flag;

It's a bit of a mouthful but here we go :

www.clsdirect.org.uk/documents/leaflet07e.pdf

It's interesting to read (kinda) and does show what the law can and cannot do and what our law already covers as opposed to this act.

It's just annoying when you read about some criminal using the human right act to sue someone when they tripped and broke their hip whilst breaking into someone's house.

The newspapers shouldn't print that stuff, or at least make it clear that actually, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as that is not a human right violation.

I wish the media wouldn't sensationalise these things, but that appears to be in fashion these days.

The big problem, is that people see criminals getting more support than victims, or at least that's how it can be perceived. And when we hear about criminal A wanting to sue hose owner B for injury.

The law should just be clear. If you break into someone's property, you should lose all your rights to such claims. Would this lead to many violent beatings of intruders? Probably; but if they've been warned and still break into your house then what's the problem?

mybritain, I'm in agreement about the problem of certain sections of the media sensationalising human rights issues.

The key issue for me, as you rightly point out, is that in many cases, the HRA is blamed for things it has absolutely no influence over. The HRA only limits the actions of public sector organisations, so it is impossible for an individual to be charged with breaching another person's rights under the HRA.

I think the law on the use of reasonable force is just about right as it is. I know a lot of fuss is made about burglars trying to sue after being attacked, but I'd be fairly confident that, if a case made it to court, a jury would apply the law sensibly.

If they break into your home, you should be able to use whatever means to stop them. If they get killed in the process, then it is thier own fault. I hope that I would have the strength and nerve to sort out anybody that tried to burgle me. I would imagine that in such a situation, you do not have the luxury of pondering what is reasonable force.

mybritain, beleive it or not I thought I lived in a decent area too. I paid over 200k to live here anyway!
Re 'reasonable force' who can say what that is in the heat of the moment? Normally I'm a rational, decent man. The other night however I was like a man posessed, the adrenalin was running and it was all through fear that my family and I were under attack. It's a natural instinct and clearly in that situation one cannot be said to be thinking straight so this idea of 'reasonable force' is a false one in my opinion.

tangled up in blue, thats a horrible situation to be in and i know how you feel. about a year ago i had to protect my girlfriend's house from a scally armed with a snooker ball in a sock (he clearly thought he was Carlin from Scum). i broke the guy's nose and then the police turned up, assessed the situation and arrested him. it could easily have gone against me though.

This is just a sinking Government looking for extra votes. The fact is there is already sufficient legal protection.