BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON

[KennyR]

mdma wrote:
1. I do not have a motor control issue, I have a very strong punch. Especially when provoked. This comes from years of martial arts in two completly differing styles.

There's a simple way around that. Never hit anyone closed-fisted, unless you really want to do some harm. An open hand* itself can't do that much damage to a child, no matter how how hard the blow is - at worst you break your hand. And anyone who hits someone hard enough to break their hand needs serious anger management, but at least you aren't going to cause any major damage to anyone. And getting your hand broken is a pretty quick way to lose that anger...

(* Of course chops and palm strikes are also out, especially if you are an experienced martial artist. But I wouldn't go to the extreme of never chastising the children - that's how chavs are born.)

[KennyR]

mdma wrote:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!

Yeah, what a stupid, idiotic law. Not because of what it does, but because of it's ambiguity. So if I can work around laws and assault or murder an intruder, there's nothing here to say can't I work around other laws and use firearms, explosives, or chemical and biological agents if I deem them necessary? Can I throw acid at intruders if I feel my property under threat? Can I fire ricin-coated darts at them?

The Labour government is the greatest at making these new laws but leaving them so vague that they're totally useless.

[KennyR]

mdma wrote:
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.

I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.

That's not my point. My point is, the government will screw it up so badly that the intruder will still be able to sue you. Or justify themselves killing householders as self-defence! And people will find loopholes to commit other crimes under the pretence of protecting property. Like my chemical weapons example.

Their law just isn't solid enough. It has no foundation and nothing to back it up in other laws. And they can never make it solid without going straight up against the court of human rights. It'll be a complete mess, mark my words.