If the police had simply been called and Salem arrested he would have got some community service and a rap on the knuckles like most burglars seem to do these days as opposed to the several years in jail he deserved soB my sympathies are with the victim not with Salem

 

I'll say to you what I said to Rob and Richard - give me a piece of paper which will get burglars a mandatory 15-year jail term, and I'll sign the petition.... But this is a very specific case with very specific circumstances... The Jury COULD have let the guy off, they didn't, so there has to be something in the body of evidence (which we are not privy to) which suggests that all was not "reasonable" with the actions here....

 

At the end of the day, I dont think that four against one is acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.... Self Defence is no offence, but this goes WAY beyond that.....

If the police had simply been called and Salem arrested he would have got some community service and a rap on the knuckles like most burglars seem to do these days as opposed to the several years in jail he deserved soB my sympathies are with the victim not with Salem

He was due to be charged with false imprisonment. If he'd been convicted, he would almost certainly have faced a jail sentence. Just ask Boy George.

well i have to conceed that his actions were breaking the letter of the law, however justifiable or should i say understandable they are.

I'll say to you what I said to Rob and Richard - give me a piece of paper which will get burglars a mandatory 15-year jail term, and I'll sign the petition.... But this is a very specific case with very specific circumstances... The Jury COULD have let the guy off, they didn't, so there has to be something in the body of evidence (which we are not privy to) which suggests that all was not "reasonable" with the actions here....

 

At the end of the day, I dont think that four against one is acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.... Self Defence is no offence, but this goes WAY beyond that.....

 

Well let's see what the ultra left wing Tony Parsons former Punk journalist for the NME makes of this story, does he side with the Liberal do-gooders who practise political correctness or does he live in the real world showing common fukkin sense.....

 

Burglary victims deserve medals, not a prison sentence

By Tony Parsons 19/12/2009

Daily Mirror.co.uk

 

As a man is jailed for defending his family from knife-wielding intruders, riddle me this - how can a burglar ever possibly be a victim?

 

The last time I was burgled, my wife was six months pregnant with our daughter.

It was perhaps an hour before dawn. I woke with that sick, sinking feeling that something wasn't right.

Leaving my pregnant wife sleeping, I went downstairs in my pants to discover a 10ft bamboo pole coming through the letterbox with my front door keys dangling from the hook at the end. And a couple of burglars on the other side of our front door.

 

Five minutes later, perhaps less, and they would have been in our home.

I grabbed their pole, threw myself at the door with all my strength and they scarpered.

 

But what if I hadn't woken until they were standing at the foot of our bed? What then?

 

Businessman Munir Hussain returned to his High Wycombe home with his wife and their three children to find three burglars in balaclavas robbing their house.

One, a piece of human flotsam and jetsam named Walid Salem, had 50 past convictions. Salem and his four cronies told the family to lie down or they would be killed.

 

But the family fought back and the burglars ended up being chased down the street by an angry group of locals, including Munir and his brother Tokeer.

 

Walid Salem was hit so hard with a cricket bat that it broke into three pieces.

Munir and Tokeer denied assault but they were jailed for GBH with intent - 30 months for Munir and 39 months for Tokeer, despite the court being told that they were both 'impeccable family men'.

 

And Walid Salem? His head injuries meant he was deemed unfit to plead and he received a two-year supervision order.

 

Judge John Reddihough said: "The attack which occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to violent revenge on a defenceless man." But how could Walid Salem be defenceless when the court heard that his gang were armed with knives?

 

That's the thing about burglars, Your Honour - you never know exactly what they have in their pockets or what they intend to do to you and the people you love.

The night the scum washed up on our doorstep, I thought we had got off lightly. But that wasn t so.

 

Woken by the ruckus, my wife developed pre-eclampsia - life-threatening pre-natal hypertension - that very day.

So she was put in real danger - as was our unborn child - as a direct result of burglars trying to break into our home.

Our daughter was born six weeks early and spent the first three weeks of her life in an ≠intensive-care unit. Now she has grown into a very healthy, happy little seven-year-old. But our lives could have changed for ever the night the burglars came to call.

 

So answer me this - how much force was I entitled to use that night? The law allows us to use 'reasonable force' to protect our families from intruders.

But I felt like ripping their throats out and feeding them to the cat. Still do, in fact. Is that reasonable force? Seems reasonable to me. Lynching them from our satellite dish would seem perfectly reasonable.

 

They nearly destroyed my family. I hate them.

The sight of two decent men being locked up for hurting a career criminal will fill most people with despair.

 

Jail sentences? For giving a burglar a taste of the terror he no doubt inflicted on many innocent people, they deserve medals.

 

 

Still Scott, no doubt you'll agree with Nu Labour's law and order policies in this instance that once again smack of political correctness and absolutely zero common sense:

 

Parents' fury as failed asylum seeker who killed 12-year-old girl in hit-and-run wins court bid to stay in Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 8:38 PM on 23rd December 2009

 

Appeal: Aso Mohammed Ibrahim has been allowed to stay in the country despite knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl while disqualified

 

A failed asylum seeker who fled after knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl has won his appeal to stay in Britain.

 

The family of Amy Houston, who was left dying under the wheels of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim's Rover car as she walked to the shops, have spoken of their disgust at the decision.

 

The Kurdish Iraqi was on bail and already disqualified from driving when he hit the schoolgirl.

 

Ibrahim, 32, who has never held a driving licence, was jailed for four months for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident; but was released on bail on appeal.

Now the father-of-two has won a court appeal against him being deported.

 

Amy's father Paul said: 'They may as well give passports out in lucky bags because that is all they are worth.

'I cannot believe the judge's decision and that he thinks it is right for him to stay here. Is he on another planet?'

 

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has pleaded to take the case to Home Secretary Alan Johnson in an attempt to force an appeal.

 

Mr Houston, 39, from Darwen in Lancashire, said: 'It was very difficult for me to go to the hearing and stand 10 feet away from the man who killed my daughter.

'If I thought he was genuinely sorry, I would have stood up in court and said I didn't want him to be taken away from his children.

'I know what it feels like to have your family broken up, but the fact that he has got to stay is an absolute travesty.

'It's the best Christmas present he could wish for and a terrible one for my family. Where is the justice in that?'

 

He added: 'I will fight this decision for the rest of my life - or until he leaves the country. I owe Amy that much.'

 

Weeks before killing Amy in November 2003, Ibrahim had been banned for nine months for driving while disqualified, without insurance and without a licence.

 

Amy Houston was outside her home when she was knocked down.

Ibrahim was approaching traffic calming measures when a boy ran across the road, and Amy followed running into the path of Ibrahim's car.

 

The youngster, who lived with her mother Joanne Cocker, had to be freed from underneath the vehicle by firefighters.

 

She was still trapped under the car when Ibrahim jumped out of the vehicle and ran off.

 

A police officer drove the ambulance to hospital so both paramedics could treat Amy but despite their efforts she died in hospital later that day.

After the accident Ibrahim confessed to a friend, who took him to a police station where he owned up.

Ibrahim, of Blackburn, had exhausted all his appeals to stay in Britain but was allowed to stay because Iraq was unsafe.

 

He has since married a British woman called Christina and now has two children.

In 2006, he was again convicted of driving while being disqualified.

 

Fourteen months ago he was taken to a deportation centre and UK Border Agency officials vowed they would try to deport him 'at the earliest opportunity'.

But he was later released on bail and an appeal against the deportation began on the grounds he had married a British woman and they had two children.

 

Mr Houston added: 'Why should he be allowed to walk free after what he has done?

'I need to carry on fighting because I don't want anyone else to find themselves in this position and I don't want anybody else's kid to get killed.

'He's just laughing at the British justice system. It is so wrong. Where is the justice for my Amy?'

 

Mr Straw said the judge's decision, who was sitting at a court in Manchester, was very disappointing.

 

'I will be speaking to the Home Secretary to see if there's any way we can appeal against this decision, and I will also be talking to the family.

'They have been through an awful time.'

 

Jo Liddy, regional director of the UK Border Agency in the North West said: 'We are extremely disappointed.

 

'We have made it clear that we will prioritise the removal of those foreign nationals who present the most risk of harm to the public.'

Speaking at the time of one appeal hearing, Ibrahim said: 'This incident when Amy died was an accident and should not stop me living in this country with my family.

'I did not expect to meet Christina or have any children when I came here seven years ago but it has happened and I cannot leave them.

'I cannot go back to Iraq. Do you not watch the news? It is far too dangerous.'

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Is it any fukkin' wonder why the vile BNP are picking up so many votes when Nu Labours "soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime" policies sees two law abiding businessmen sent to jail for defending their family & property and giving the burglar a properly deserved beating; yet let go free an illegal immigrant who drove uninsured, killed a 12 year old, run away from the vehicle, and spends less than a week in jail, and then is allowed to stay in the country. Forget overthrowing the government or monarchy, we should be over throwing the politically correct legislators and social workers who are ruining this country with laws and legislation that are at odds with decency and common fukkin sense.

Still Scott, no doubt you'll agree with Nu Labour's law and order policies in this instance that once again smack of political correctness and absolutely zero common sense:

 

Parents' fury as failed asylum seeker who killed 12-year-old girl in hit-and-run wins court bid to stay in Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 8:38 PM on 23rd December 2009

 

Appeal: Aso Mohammed Ibrahim has been allowed to stay in the country despite knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl while disqualified

 

A failed asylum seeker who fled after knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl has won his appeal to stay in Britain.

 

The family of Amy Houston, who was left dying under the wheels of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim's Rover car as she walked to the shops, have spoken of their disgust at the decision.

 

The Kurdish Iraqi was on bail and already disqualified from driving when he hit the schoolgirl.

 

Ibrahim, 32, who has never held a driving licence, was jailed for four months for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident; but was released on bail on appeal.

Now the father-of-two has won a court appeal against him being deported.

 

Amy's father Paul said: 'They may as well give passports out in lucky bags because that is all they are worth.

'I cannot believe the judge's decision and that he thinks it is right for him to stay here. Is he on another planet?'

 

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has pleaded to take the case to Home Secretary Alan Johnson in an attempt to force an appeal.

 

Mr Houston, 39, from Darwen in Lancashire, said: 'It was very difficult for me to go to the hearing and stand 10 feet away from the man who killed my daughter.

'If I thought he was genuinely sorry, I would have stood up in court and said I didn't want him to be taken away from his children.

'I know what it feels like to have your family broken up, but the fact that he has got to stay is an absolute travesty.

'It's the best Christmas present he could wish for and a terrible one for my family. Where is the justice in that?'

 

He added: 'I will fight this decision for the rest of my life - or until he leaves the country. I owe Amy that much.'

 

Weeks before killing Amy in November 2003, Ibrahim had been banned for nine months for driving while disqualified, without insurance and without a licence.

 

Amy Houston was outside her home when she was knocked down.

Ibrahim was approaching traffic calming measures when a boy ran across the road, and Amy followed running into the path of Ibrahim's car.

 

The youngster, who lived with her mother Joanne Cocker, had to be freed from underneath the vehicle by firefighters.

 

She was still trapped under the car when Ibrahim jumped out of the vehicle and ran off.

 

A police officer drove the ambulance to hospital so both paramedics could treat Amy but despite their efforts she died in hospital later that day.

After the accident Ibrahim confessed to a friend, who took him to a police station where he owned up.

Ibrahim, of Blackburn, had exhausted all his appeals to stay in Britain but was allowed to stay because Iraq was unsafe.

 

He has since married a British woman called Christina and now has two children.

In 2006, he was again convicted of driving while being disqualified.

 

Fourteen months ago he was taken to a deportation centre and UK Border Agency officials vowed they would try to deport him 'at the earliest opportunity'.

But he was later released on bail and an appeal against the deportation began on the grounds he had married a British woman and they had two children.

 

Mr Houston added: 'Why should he be allowed to walk free after what he has done?

'I need to carry on fighting because I don't want anyone else to find themselves in this position and I don't want anybody else's kid to get killed.

'He's just laughing at the British justice system. It is so wrong. Where is the justice for my Amy?'

 

Mr Straw said the judge's decision, who was sitting at a court in Manchester, was very disappointing.

 

'I will be speaking to the Home Secretary to see if there's any way we can appeal against this decision, and I will also be talking to the family.

'They have been through an awful time.'

 

Jo Liddy, regional director of the UK Border Agency in the North West said: 'We are extremely disappointed.

 

'We have made it clear that we will prioritise the removal of those foreign nationals who present the most risk of harm to the public.'

Speaking at the time of one appeal hearing, Ibrahim said: 'This incident when Amy died was an accident and should not stop me living in this country with my family.

'I did not expect to meet Christina or have any children when I came here seven years ago but it has happened and I cannot leave them.

'I cannot go back to Iraq. Do you not watch the news? It is far too dangerous.'

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Is it any fukkin' wonder why the vile BNP are picking up so many votes when Nu Labours "soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime" policies sees two law abiding businessmen sent to jail for defending their family & property and giving the burglar a properly deserved beating; yet let go free an illegal immigrant who drove uninsured, killed a 12 year old, run away from the vehicle, and spends less than a week in jail, and then is allowed to stay in the country. Forget overthrowing the government or monarchy, we should be over throwing the politically correct legislators and social workers who are ruining this country with laws and legislation that are at odds with decency and common fukkin sense.

 

Agree 100% on both counts

 

Cameron is bringing in a law that will grant immunity from prosecution anyone that injures or kills a burglar and that alone deserves a large parliamentary majority

 

 

 

Since when has Tony Parsons been left wing? He may have been once but not for many years.

 

As for the Tory promise, it's pure electioneering. The current legislation is perfectly adequate. At the risk of being repetitive, the jury could have acquitted him if they felt that he had used reasonable force. They could have acquitted him if they felt the law was wrong. The heard all the evidence and found him guilty.

 

The judge exercised a degree of leniency. The law says that in cases where the assault was as serious as this - the victim suffered serious brain damage - the starting point for sentencing should be five years. These two brothers get a good deal less than that.

 

The Tories have only promised "a review". A nice easy electioneering ploy. Their "review" will conclude that the law is OK as it stands. No party deserves to win a single vote using such populist nonsense pandering to Sun readers.

Since when has Tony Parsons been left wing? He may have been once but not for many years.

 

As for the Tory promise, it's pure electioneering. The current legislation is perfectly adequate. At the risk of being repetitive, the jury could have acquitted him if they felt that he had used reasonable force. They could have acquitted him if they felt the law was wrong. The heard all the evidence and found him guilty.

 

The judge exercised a degree of leniency. The law says that in cases where the assault was as serious as this - the victim suffered serious brain damage - the starting point for sentencing should be five years. These two brothers get a good deal less than that.

 

The Tories have only promised "a review". A nice easy electioneering ploy. Their "review" will conclude that the law is OK as it stands. No party deserves to win a single vote using such populist nonsense pandering to Sun readers.

Just to add some more info. The current law states specifically that anyone who may feel a need to defend themselves "may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary action". In plain English, that means the law allows for the fact that someone in Hussain's position may not think entirely rationally. The jury clearly decided that Hussain's actions - plus the appearance on the scene of a carful of supporters to join in the assault - did not constitute reasonable force. Of course, the Daily Mail somehow didn't find the space to report these facts.

Agree 100% on both counts

 

Cameron is bringing in a law that will grant immunity from prosecution anyone that injures or kills a burglar and that alone deserves a large parliamentary majority

 

..im not so sure i agree with that, it opens the door for legalised murder... someone COULD kill someone, drag them to their home then claim self defence.

 

...but on the other hand burglars waive their human rights once they trespass on someone elses property with mal-intent. the letter of the law did make these guys guilty of excessive force... but so what? imho it was completely understandable that they beat the $h!t out of him, he deserved it.

Well let's see what the ultra left wing Tony Parsons former Punk journalist for the NME makes of this story, does he side with the Liberal do-gooders who practise political correctness or does he live in the real world showing common fukkin sense.....

 

Tony Parsons is a sell-out.... LONG before this article..... :rolleyes:

Still Scott, no doubt you'll agree with Nu Labour's law and order policies in this instance that once again smack of political correctness and absolutely zero common sense:

 

Parents' fury as failed asylum seeker who killed 12-year-old girl in hit-and-run wins court bid to stay in Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 8:38 PM on 23rd December 2009

 

Appeal: Aso Mohammed Ibrahim has been allowed to stay in the country despite knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl while disqualified

 

A failed asylum seeker who fled after knocking down and killing a 12-year-old girl has won his appeal to stay in Britain.

 

The family of Amy Houston, who was left dying under the wheels of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim's Rover car as she walked to the shops, have spoken of their disgust at the decision.

 

The Kurdish Iraqi was on bail and already disqualified from driving when he hit the schoolgirl.

 

Ibrahim, 32, who has never held a driving licence, was jailed for four months for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident; but was released on bail on appeal.

Now the father-of-two has won a court appeal against him being deported.

 

Amy's father Paul said: 'They may as well give passports out in lucky bags because that is all they are worth.

'I cannot believe the judge's decision and that he thinks it is right for him to stay here. Is he on another planet?'

 

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has pleaded to take the case to Home Secretary Alan Johnson in an attempt to force an appeal.

 

Mr Houston, 39, from Darwen in Lancashire, said: 'It was very difficult for me to go to the hearing and stand 10 feet away from the man who killed my daughter.

'If I thought he was genuinely sorry, I would have stood up in court and said I didn't want him to be taken away from his children.

'I know what it feels like to have your family broken up, but the fact that he has got to stay is an absolute travesty.

'It's the best Christmas present he could wish for and a terrible one for my family. Where is the justice in that?'

 

He added: 'I will fight this decision for the rest of my life - or until he leaves the country. I owe Amy that much.'

 

Weeks before killing Amy in November 2003, Ibrahim had been banned for nine months for driving while disqualified, without insurance and without a licence.

 

Amy Houston was outside her home when she was knocked down.

Ibrahim was approaching traffic calming measures when a boy ran across the road, and Amy followed running into the path of Ibrahim's car.

 

The youngster, who lived with her mother Joanne Cocker, had to be freed from underneath the vehicle by firefighters.

 

She was still trapped under the car when Ibrahim jumped out of the vehicle and ran off.

 

A police officer drove the ambulance to hospital so both paramedics could treat Amy but despite their efforts she died in hospital later that day.

After the accident Ibrahim confessed to a friend, who took him to a police station where he owned up.

Ibrahim, of Blackburn, had exhausted all his appeals to stay in Britain but was allowed to stay because Iraq was unsafe.

 

He has since married a British woman called Christina and now has two children.

In 2006, he was again convicted of driving while being disqualified.

 

Fourteen months ago he was taken to a deportation centre and UK Border Agency officials vowed they would try to deport him 'at the earliest opportunity'.

But he was later released on bail and an appeal against the deportation began on the grounds he had married a British woman and they had two children.

 

Mr Houston added: 'Why should he be allowed to walk free after what he has done?

'I need to carry on fighting because I don't want anyone else to find themselves in this position and I don't want anybody else's kid to get killed.

'He's just laughing at the British justice system. It is so wrong. Where is the justice for my Amy?'

 

Mr Straw said the judge's decision, who was sitting at a court in Manchester, was very disappointing.

 

'I will be speaking to the Home Secretary to see if there's any way we can appeal against this decision, and I will also be talking to the family.

'They have been through an awful time.'

 

Jo Liddy, regional director of the UK Border Agency in the North West said: 'We are extremely disappointed.

 

'We have made it clear that we will prioritise the removal of those foreign nationals who present the most risk of harm to the public.'

Speaking at the time of one appeal hearing, Ibrahim said: 'This incident when Amy died was an accident and should not stop me living in this country with my family.

'I did not expect to meet Christina or have any children when I came here seven years ago but it has happened and I cannot leave them.

'I cannot go back to Iraq. Do you not watch the news? It is far too dangerous.'

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Is it any fukkin' wonder why the vile BNP are picking up so many votes when Nu Labours "soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime" policies sees two law abiding businessmen sent to jail for defending their family & property and giving the burglar a properly deserved beating; yet let go free an illegal immigrant who drove uninsured, killed a 12 year old, run away from the vehicle, and spends less than a week in jail, and then is allowed to stay in the country. Forget overthrowing the government or monarchy, we should be over throwing the politically correct legislators and social workers who are ruining this country with laws and legislation that are at odds with decency and common fukkin sense.

 

 

That's completely irrelevant Rich..... The two cases are totally different....

 

And you STILL cannot see the facts can you.... The "Politically Correct" establishment did NOT jail this guy, a JURY did..... WTF are you on mate.....? Is your answer "Star Chamber" justice...?? An end to "Trial By Jury"????

 

Yeah, great idea mate... Try reading your Kafka sometime.... Pillock..... <_<

..im not so sure i agree with that, it opens the door for legalised murder... someone COULD kill someone, drag them to their home then claim self defence.

 

...but on the other hand burglars waive their human rights once they trespass on someone elses property with mal-intent. the letter of the law did make these guys guilty of excessive force... but so what? imho it was completely understandable that they beat the $h!t out of him, he deserved it.

 

So, what did the mob that joined in with the kicking have to do with it Rob....??? I mean, one guy beating up a burglar and restraining him til the cops arrived in his own home, that's one thing... Taking it out on to the streets and involving people totally unconnected to the situation, is quite another..... Sorry, but he organised an aggravated assault and gathered a mob around him to act as accomplices, that is not justifiable actions by any stretch of the imagination... Nor is it "understandable"...

 

And you and Rich continue to miss the point, which is really the only relevant point in this whole affair - A JURY FOUND THE BLOKE GUILTY........ That's surely the whole point of our Justice system - a fair trial by a jury of one's peers...... Which is something that the likes of you, Rich and Craig would allow to be erroded...... Well, frankly, I think in the past seven or eight years, there's been quite enough errosion of our justice system tbh...... <_<

 

 

That's completely irrelevant Rich..... The two cases are totally different....

 

And you STILL cannot see the facts can you.... The "Politically Correct" establishment did NOT jail this guy, a JURY did..... WTF are you on mate.....? Is your answer "Star Chamber" justice...?? An end to "Trial By Jury"????

 

Yeah, great idea mate... Try reading your Kafka sometime.... Pillock..... <_<

 

You REALLY JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU!!!!!!

 

For starters the two cases were judged by the same judge in the same court. Yet to me and most decent people what the hit & run driver immigrant did was far more serious than what the businessman did. Mind you knowing how great British justice works had that hit and run driver been a successful law abiding businessman he would have probably got a five year sentence.

 

But I guess you clearly think otherwise.

So, what did the mob that joined in with the kicking have to do with it Rob....??? I mean, one guy beating up a burglar and restraining him til the cops arrived in his own home, that's one thing... Taking it out on to the streets and involving people totally unconnected to the situation, is quite another..... Sorry, but he organised an aggravated assault and gathered a mob around him to act as accomplices, that is not justifiable actions by any stretch of the imagination... Nor is it "understandable"...

 

And you and Rich continue to miss the point, which is really the only relevant point in this whole affair - A JURY FOUND THE BLOKE GUILTY........ That's surely the whole point of our Justice system - a fair trial by a jury of one's peers...... Which is something that the likes of you, Rich and Craig would allow to be erroded...... Well, frankly, I think in the past seven or eight years, there's been quite enough errosion of our justice system tbh...... <_<

 

The only person completely and utterly missing the point is you, mate.

 

For starters you can't even get your fukkin' facts correct. The (one of four) burglar(s) who was rightly badly beaten up in the back garden three houses away and 30 feet away just so happened to be the property belong to his brother Tokeer who had just received a mobile call from his obviously stressed out brother who had been the victim of the burglar & family kidnapping. Hence brotherly love and everything what the brother Tokeer (a keen club cricketeer) did with his prized bat that cost over £150 was hardly an act of premediated composure was it as it occurred less than 5 minutes after the burglar attack had gone wrong. But I guess you think otherwise.

 

Also the fact this story has been discussed on all sides of the media from the Independent & The Guardian through to the Daily Mail, The Sun, News & The World through to the Daily Mirror with most media outlets agreeing the decision to jail the brothers a wrong one; and not a right-wing act of propaganda as you seem to continue to be deluded in thinking.

 

Here is the latest couple of a long line of comments made on this subject by long established journalist and ITV newsreader; and that of a self proclaimed "anarchist communist" and feminist author and scholar:

 

The big flaw in the burglary law

By Mark Austin 27/12/2009

Sunday Mirror.co.uk

 

When I moved to South Africa in the early Nineties, crime in Johannesburg was truly dreadful, with murders, robberies, rapes and carjackings everyday events. For my young family these were tense, nervous times.

 

The police were undermanned, underpaid, corrupt and ineffective.

Along with most other relatively well-off whites, we had electric gates, walls topped with barbed wire and private security guards a button push away.

 

But I’ll always remember the alarming advice from a neighbour hardened to the ways of the most dangerous city in the world.

“If you shoot dead an intruder in your garden,” he told me, “just drag the body into your house, and the police won’t ask any questions.”

 

He added that everybody did it and there was never a problem.

It was alarming, largely because of the “matter of fact” way in which he said it.

He seemed to be saying that in South African justice was in the hands of the individual. If you don’t dish it out, no-one else will.

 

That was South Africa... this is Britain.

 

And a fortnight ago 53-year-old businessmen Munir Hussain, must have wished he’d dragged his intruder back into the house after clobbering him.

Because he has paid a high price for dispensing his own justice.

 

He was sent to prison for 30 months for attacking burglars who had tied up him and his family in his own home and subjected them to a terrifying ordeal at knifepoint.

 

The problem was that when the intruders fled Munir and other family members, including his brother Tokeer, cornered and beat one of them savagely with a cricket bat which broke in three places in his own back garden.

 

The judge at Reading crown court deemed the attack to be well beyond the “reasonable force” the law allows in cases of self defence.

 

He is quite probably right in this case. But did he really have to send Mr Hussain to prison? Wouldn’t a suspended sentence have been more appropriate?

 

And what was Mr Hussain supposed to do? Should he have let the men who attacked and punched him and threatened his family with a knife and threats of rape in such a violent way just disappear to attack again?

And this is the real point in this case.

 

Like millions of others in this country, Munir Hussain had quite simply lost faith in the criminal justice system.

 

Of course, in order to prevent vigilantism and revenge attacks the law has to draw a line somewhere.

 

But for Mr Hussain to receive a two and-a-half year sentence and the intruder to get off free, despite 50 previous convictions, there must be something deeply flawed with the system.

 

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the Government-appointed victim czar, Sara Payne now seriously ill, said the justice system was skewed in favour of the criminal.

 

The case of Munir Hussain is another example of why she is right.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Whose law is it anyway?

By Germaine Greer

Guardian.co.uk 22/12/2009

 

Munir Hussain, jailed for attacking burglars, is reported to be suicidal.

 

Meanwhile the law-abiding rest of us are merely sick to our stomachs that a burglary victim is in prison while his attackers walked free. Judge John Reddihough told the court you could not have people “taking the law into their own hands”.

 

It rather begs the question: Whose law is it anyway? Answer: It’s ours.

 

We elect politicians to put legislation on the statute books.

 

If the legal system and the police cannot or will not enforce it to protect us, is it any surprise that victims of violent burglary like Mr Hussain take cricket bats into their hands?

 

In America if Mr Hussain had shot Walid Salem dead, he’d have received a slap on the wrist, if that.

More likely a pat on the back from the local police.

The low-life scumbags would never have been in a position to carry out such crimes again.

And any like-minded toerags, considering an armed robbery, would have been given considerable pause for thought.

 

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says he feels “uncomfortable” about the jailing of Mr Hussain while the Tories, prepared to leap on any cause, vow to rewrite the law.

And the band played “believe it if you like”.

 

My thoughts over this time of the year are with the prisoner’s wife – who had a stroke during her ordeal at the hands of the intruders – and her children.

“Uncomfortable” barely covers what they must feel now.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short Scott, in all my time you and I have posted, I have never been so stunned that you feel the need to support the law and judges decision in this case, when to my mind and the vast majority of other normal people the law has clearly shown itself up to be an ass in the most appalling way.

 

But hey feel free to carry on digging and show yourself to be incapable of seeing common sense, as like most Englishmen I believe their home is their castle; so if an intruder comes in to my property and abuses the situation in such a way (such as this specific case tieing up the family and children, threatening the wife with rape and causing her to have a stroke (for fukks sake) then I should be fully entitled if I escaped to go after them and dish out justice in this way; because this case has proven that our own courts are incapable of doing it with the laws available to them at the moment hence they need changing

The only person completely and utterly missing the point is you, mate.

 

For starters you can't even get your fukkin' facts correct. The (one of four) burglar(s) who was rightly badly beaten up in the back garden three houses away and 30 feet away just so happened to be the property belong to his brother Tokeer who had just received a mobile call from his obviously stressed out brother who had been the victim of the burglar & family kidnapping. Hence brotherly love and everything what the brother Tokeer (a keen club cricketeer) did with his prized bat that cost over £150 was hardly an act of premediated composure was it as it occurred less than 5 minutes after the burglar attack had gone wrong. But I guess you think otherwise.

 

Also the fact this story has been discussed on all sides of the media from the Independent & The Guardian through to the Daily Mail, The Sun, News & The World through to the Daily Mirror with most media outlets agreeing the decision to jail the brothers a wrong one; and not a right-wing act of propaganda as you seem to continue to be deluded in thinking.

 

Here is the latest couple of a long line of comments made on this subject by long established journalist and ITV newsreader; and that of a self proclaimed "anarchist communist" and feminist author and scholar:

 

The big flaw in the burglary law

By Mark Austin 27/12/2009

Sunday Mirror.co.uk

 

When I moved to South Africa in the early Nineties, crime in Johannesburg was truly dreadful, with murders, robberies, rapes and carjackings everyday events. For my young family these were tense, nervous times.

 

The police were undermanned, underpaid, corrupt and ineffective.

Along with most other relatively well-off whites, we had electric gates, walls topped with barbed wire and private security guards a button push away.

 

But I’ll always remember the alarming advice from a neighbour hardened to the ways of the most dangerous city in the world.

“If you shoot dead an intruder in your garden,” he told me, “just drag the body into your house, and the police won’t ask any questions.”

 

He added that everybody did it and there was never a problem.

It was alarming, largely because of the “matter of fact” way in which he said it.

He seemed to be saying that in South African justice was in the hands of the individual. If you don’t dish it out, no-one else will.

 

That was South Africa... this is Britain.

 

And a fortnight ago 53-year-old businessmen Munir Hussain, must have wished he’d dragged his intruder back into the house after clobbering him.

Because he has paid a high price for dispensing his own justice.

 

He was sent to prison for 30 months for attacking burglars who had tied up him and his family in his own home and subjected them to a terrifying ordeal at knifepoint.

 

The problem was that when the intruders fled Munir and other family members, including his brother Tokeer, cornered and beat one of them savagely with a cricket bat which broke in three places in his own back garden.

 

The judge at Reading crown court deemed the attack to be well beyond the “reasonable force” the law allows in cases of self defence.

 

He is quite probably right in this case. But did he really have to send Mr Hussain to prison? Wouldn’t a suspended sentence have been more appropriate?

 

And what was Mr Hussain supposed to do? Should he have let the men who attacked and punched him and threatened his family with a knife and threats of rape in such a violent way just disappear to attack again?

And this is the real point in this case.

 

Like millions of others in this country, Munir Hussain had quite simply lost faith in the criminal justice system.

 

Of course, in order to prevent vigilantism and revenge attacks the law has to draw a line somewhere.

 

But for Mr Hussain to receive a two and-a-half year sentence and the intruder to get off free, despite 50 previous convictions, there must be something deeply flawed with the system.

 

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the Government-appointed victim czar, Sara Payne now seriously ill, said the justice system was skewed in favour of the criminal.

 

The case of Munir Hussain is another example of why she is right.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Whose law is it anyway?

By Germaine Greer

Guardian.co.uk 22/12/2009

 

Munir Hussain, jailed for attacking burglars, is reported to be suicidal.

 

Meanwhile the law-abiding rest of us are merely sick to our stomachs that a burglary victim is in prison while his attackers walked free. Judge John Reddihough told the court you could not have people “taking the law into their own hands”.

 

It rather begs the question: Whose law is it anyway? Answer: It’s ours.

 

We elect politicians to put legislation on the statute books.

 

If the legal system and the police cannot or will not enforce it to protect us, is it any surprise that victims of violent burglary like Mr Hussain take cricket bats into their hands?

 

In America if Mr Hussain had shot Walid Salem dead, he’d have received a slap on the wrist, if that.

More likely a pat on the back from the local police.

The low-life scumbags would never have been in a position to carry out such crimes again.

And any like-minded toerags, considering an armed robbery, would have been given considerable pause for thought.

 

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says he feels “uncomfortable” about the jailing of Mr Hussain while the Tories, prepared to leap on any cause, vow to rewrite the law.

And the band played “believe it if you like”.

 

My thoughts over this time of the year are with the prisoner’s wife – who had a stroke during her ordeal at the hands of the intruders – and her children.

“Uncomfortable” barely covers what they must feel now.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short Scott, in all my time you and I have posted, I have never been so stunned that you feel the need to support the law and judges decision in this case, when to my mind and the vast majority of other normal people the law has clearly shown itself up to be an ass in the most appalling way.

 

But hey feel free to carry on digging and show yourself to be incapable of seeing common sense, as like most Englishmen I believe their home is their castle; so if an intruder comes in to my property and abuses the situation in such a way (such as this specific case tieing up the family and children, threatening the wife with rape and causing her to have a stroke (for fukks sake) then I should be fully entitled if I escaped to go after them and dish out justice in this way; because this case has proven that our own courts are incapable of doing it with the laws available to them at the moment hence they need changing

No, you are the one who is still missing the point - unless you were actually in court and heard ALL the facts. Twelve jurors did hear all the evidence and convicted the two brothers. The starting point for sentencing someone guilty of such a vicious assault is five years. Only in exceptional circumstances will a judge give a lesser sentence. This judge did take the circumstances into account and gave - compared with other people convicted of an assault leaving their victim brain damaged - a lenient sentence. The judge made it perfectly clear that the victim would have faced a very lengthy sentence if he hadn't been so severely beaten. Does that make you proud or do you think that mob rule should be able to supersede the verdict of the courts?

 

As for Germaine Greer's statement about what would have happened in the US, that's another reason for being thankful I don't live there.

actually after consideration, im with scott and suedehead. the law as it stands means that they were in the wrong taking the law into their own hands and dishing out punishment.

 

the thing is richard, you were the one pointing to the law to support jacko, citing the courts had found jacko not guilty of child molestation... but now you are IGNORING what a court of law concluded ..... isnt that contradictory?

actually after consideration, im with scott and suedehead. the law as it stands means that they were in the wrong taking the law into their own hands and dishing out punishment.

 

the thing is richard, you were the one pointing to the law to support jacko, citing the courts had found jacko not guilty of child molestation... but now you are IGNORING what a court of law concluded ..... isnt that contradictory?

 

Heat of the moment is strong mitigation in this case though, if this incident had happened a week later I would have a totally different point of view but the guy was in the most high pressure and high stress situation imaginable having been beaten, having seen his wife with a knife at her throat, thinking his son had been murdered by them so in the most extreme heat of the moment imaginable I can understand why he reacted the way he did

 

 

Heat of the moment is strong mitigation in this case though, if this incident had happened a week later I would have a totally different point of view but the guy was in the most high pressure and high stress situation imaginable having been beaten, having seen his wife with a knife at her throat, thinking his son had been murdered by them so in the most extreme heat of the moment imaginable I can understand why he reacted the way he did

 

which is why i said it was 'understandable' that this action was taken. however the court decided otherwise... as the law stands the decision was correct, they DID break the law.

 

im not into lynch mobs, or violence, i do think its understandable that the scummy theif got what he deserved in exactly the same way tony martin dispatched that pikey .... would i have resorted to violence in that situation?... possibly.

Heat of the moment is strong mitigation in this case though, if this incident had happened a week later I would have a totally different point of view but the guy was in the most high pressure and high stress situation imaginable having been beaten, having seen his wife with a knife at her throat, thinking his son had been murdered by them so in the most extreme heat of the moment imaginable I can understand why he reacted the way he did

The law states explicitly that "heat of the moment" can be used as a defence. The jury in this case decided that that was not sufficient reason to acquit.

The law states explicitly that "heat of the moment" can be used as a defence. The jury in this case decided that that was not sufficient reason to acquit.

 

Sadly that says more about the decline in the quality of jurors than anything else

 

Maybe it is time to change the jury system in this country from the great unwashed who in many cases are not intelligent or worldly enough to pass judgement to a national panel of professional jurors who have passed stringent tests