A serving of humble pie for Chris Grayling?
Dear Chris Grayling,
Sometimes when I get things right or make an accurate prediction on this blog, I admit to feeling a small sense of smugness – just like every other armchair politico. Today, however, is not a day for smugness. When I wrote to you only a matter of weeks ago about Munir Hussain, who was jailed for 30 months after pursuing and beating a member of a gang who had tied up his family at knife-point in their home, I ended my letter with a rather sombre comment: ”If you want to pursue such a drastic change in the law then so be it, but don’t come running to me when a homeowner gets killed after starting a fight with a burglar.” How chilling that something similar has now come to pass.
Police are hunting the murderers of ‘have-a-go hero’ Sukhwinder Singh, who was attacked near Barking station in east London while pursuing two men who had robbed a 28-year-old woman. Mr Singh, a committed Sikh and father of one who was originally from India, worked as a builder and had lived in the UK with relatives for around 10 years. Nirmal Singh Gill, from Barking and Dagenham Council, sai d: “He would help anybody so it doesn’t surprise me that he was trying to help a lady. He didn’t deserve this – nobody deserves it – but he was a special young man. He was very well-known in the Sikh community. Everyone is very shocked.” Mr Singh chased the robbers along Victoria Road into Uphall Road before he was attacked just before 7pm on Friday last week. He was taken to the Royal London Hospital but later died. Detective Inspector John Sandlin said: “This is a tragic death of a man who was killed for attempting to stop others committing crime, and our thoughts are with Sukhwinder’s family. Speaking near the scene in a residential area, the detective said: “What Mr Singh did was obviously very brave but I would not encourage that members of the public do that. What I would encourage members of the public to do is tell police what they have seen, to contact us immediately.”
Well, well, well. I wonder what emotions went through your mind when you read this. Anger? Disgust? Guilt? You see, it’s all very well cuddling up to the Daily Fail with an overt ‘call to arms’ for homeowners across the country, but I hope that understand your actions may have consequences. Mr Singh was not killed near his home, nor was his case identical to that of Munir Hussain, nor are you to blame for what happened to Mr Singh. However, should you go through with your proposed change in the law that would allow disproportionate force to be used by homeowners, I can foresee countless examples of people dying while trying to ‘do the right thing’. Letting people know that they will be safe if they defend themselves, their family and their property is one thing, but getting it into people’s heads that it is ok to hunt down criminals is a recipe for disaster. I don’t know what went through Mr Singh’s head – I suspect it was nothing more than a wonderful sense of community spirit that tragically led to his death – but let this be a salient warning to you and any other politician who wades into this legal issue.
Amazingly, there was yet another incident over the weekend that offers you more hope in helping to protect homeowners. Myleene Klass, the broadcaster and model, brandished a knife at youths who broke into her garden, but has since been warned by police that she may have acted illegally. Klass, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, with her two-year-old daughter called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal. Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass’s agent, said: “Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off. She is not looking to be a vigilante, and has the utmost respect for the law, but when the police explained to her that even if you’re at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself, she was bemused.” I can see why.
In response to this incident, you told the media: “This incident just shows why things are still very confused on this issue and why we need a change in the law.” To an extent, yes, although there are several key differences between this and what happened to Munir Hussain. Miss Klass was not doing anything other than protecting her family and indeed herself by brandishing a weapon and presumably had no intention of using it unless she was personally in serious danger. In this instance, the law should most certainly be on her side and it should not be illegal to brandish weapons in self-defence while on your own property. Even so, your willingness to jump on any Daily Fail bandwagon these days is leaving the Conservative Party vulnerable and I suggest you do your legal homework next time before launching head first into these incredibly complicated issues.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Christ. If a woman were being mugged within my purview I hope that, all things being equal, I would intervene as readily as Sukhwinder Singh. And, I suspect, that many are in fact intervening in all sorts of circumstances, after witnesing low-level disorder to muggings, thefts and assaults.
I still believe that there are many interventions, the vast majority of which pass without further incident or tragic outcome, and that rowdy youths, bullies, criminals and anti-social elements are daily prevented from carrying out/continuing their actions.
Long may they continue; politicians and cops notwithstanding.
So – we all sit on our backsides and let the criminals get away with it, do we??
Strange you know that when a community takes a stand against criminals – as a community – crime actually drops. They brave heros go and find an easier target – like you for instance.
The last hero that tried to grab my handbag got a fist in the throat and a knee in the nuts. But then I’m particularly fond of that handbag.
You sound smug and self-satisfied and I am disappointed with you. You might say the same thing less offensively.
LFAT, it is unusual for you to confuse two issues so totally and arrive at such a perverse conclusion.
Grayling was absolutely right, there is too much restraint placed upon the homeowner in the situation where somebody threatens them in their own property. Similarly, the self defence laws, (which includes the immediate defence of others), still hold a real fear of prosecution to the initially innocent party.
This terrible case was not encouraged by Mr Grayling’s words, and it is naive for you to suggest that any homeowner will be influenced by thiem either. People act from instinct and upbringing. One of the first principles of the Sikh religion is the protection of the weak, Mr Singh I am sure, acted as his instincts and concience commanded him.
This morning I salute his brave and pricipled actions, and send my deepest condolences to his friends and family.
Talwin, statistically you might be right, but I guess those sorts of incidents tend not to get reported.
Junius, how do I sound self-satisfied about this? At what point in the letter did I gloat or sound proud of what has happened?
Tony, as I said towards the end I think Grayling might have a case in a limited set of circumstances but I strongly disagree with your assertion that homeowners are not influenced by politicians on these sorts of matters. The public are not well versed in the intricacies of the legal system – they interpret whatever politicians say in their own way, assisted (often not very helpfully) by the media. If a politician says that ‘disproportionate force’ is now allowed, which is exactly what Grayling wants to introduce, I fear the worst.
@Tony E – Seconded.
I’m predicting, when (if) they ever catch these two, a contrast between the lives, upbringing, immigration status, etc of Mr Singh and the two black muggers…
That is what Grayling should be concentrating on.
@LFAT – “…I strongly disagree with your assertion that homeowners are not influenced by politicians on these sorts of matters.”
In the heat of the moment, when your blood is up and the adrenaline’s pumping, I doubt you are thinking about anything, much less what some politician said somewhere…
Julia, I suppose I would break it down into two issues: whether homeowners begin to stock weapons knowing that disproportionate force had been legalised, and whether homeowners become more aggressive due to a change in mindset which, tragically, may put their own lives at greater risk. Protection from prosecution when defending one’s home is good thing, but letting the British public off the leash opens up very, very, very dangerous scenarios.
‘Letting the British public off the leash opens up very dangerous scenarios’
Can’t agree with that LFAT. If a burglar comes into my home, he should expect to leave on a stretcher while I make the coppers a cup of tea and have a fairly good laugh about his predicament.
No criminal should have any rights whatsoever during the commission of a crime. The only uncertainty should be in the mind of the criminal. Also, the law should be changed so that if one criminal commits a further offence by being armed or inflicting injury during a robbery, all involved are implicitly guilty of the most serious offence as was once the case. Raise sentences for burglary/B&E to a minimum of 5 years, armed burglary 15.
I don’t think encouraging homeowners to use violence against violence is a particularly good idea, but I also wouldn’t give the Government – and especially not the words of members of the Shadow Cabinet – anywhere near as much credit in changing peoples attitudes as you do . Time and time again it has been proven that people do not change because of Governments, Governments change because of people. If homeowners up and down the country decide they’re going to use force to defend themselves, it’s because they feel it’s their best/only option, not because some politician said it’s OK.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful idea if we had a body of men whose job it was to track down and bring to justice the bastards that killed brave Mr. Singh? A couple of pence on income tax should be more than enough to pay for such a force.
I know from personal experience that the police warn all victims of violence that they could be prosecuted, it just seems to be some box checking nonsense. Thank God I live in a civilised country.
Isn’t it a question of balance? Myleene was bound to be criticised for wielding a knife as she is a role model. There is no likelihood of her facing prosecution. Sukhwinder Singh laid down his life but the police do not want people taking the law into their own hands (and wish to avoid criticism of themselves) so they were bound to say that they should have been called.
Why? Because letting people take the law into their own hands would open up issues even more difficult to reconcile. Letting people loose to do as they please wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests as it would escalate as the market responds to demands: IEDs up the garden path, demands for gun ownership and the disproportionate ruining of the lives of others. Of course, one can protect property but passive means are those to be encouraged in the way our developed society operates. Grayling and the Conservatives just have to think whether the slide indicator on the scale needs to be nudged along to balance up the increasing violence of intruders (if there is evidence that this is occurring).
Isn’t the real story here about how, once again, knife-wielding muggers stab and kill someone while making off with their loot?
Yes, a have-a-go hero died which is regrettable but that’s not his fault, nor Grayling’s nor anyone else who advocates getting involved or protecting yourself. It is solely the fault of the two thugs who chose to carry a knife in order to rob women.
@Shaun Pilkington – “Isn’t the real story here about how, once again, knife-wielding muggers stab and kill someone while making off with their loot?”
Yes. And also, about what sort of sentences they can expect when (if) caught.
@LFAT – I may be out of touch on this one but I thought the LAW on the use of reasonable force has remained pretty much the same for some time, most recently reiterated in the Criminal Law Acts of 1967 and 1977.(If there has been a later Act, my guess is it would say much the same about reasonabale force). If the principles have been generally satisfactory so far, what has changed?
It seems to me that in common with so many other areas in PC Britain nowadays, what’s changing are working practises, mind-sets. Importantly, there has also arisen a propensity to arse-covering which leads to a less frequent application of sensible discretion, on the ground or at executive level.
If it takes such as the Mail or the Express to highlight (however shrilly!) cases of such as homeowners who are being taken to task for upsetting the sensitivities of burglars (assuming that the upset sensitivities do not include a disproportionately executed fractured skull), that is fine by me.
@measured – “Of course, one can protect property but passive means are those to be encouraged in the way our developed society operates.”
Problem being, it clearly isn’t working. Most crims (those not drug-crazed or mentally ill) weigh up the odds and decide they are in their favour.
Until the consequences of their misdeeds outweigh the benefits, we can look forward to more and more crime, not less.
I would take issue with you in calling the Daily Mail the Daily Fail.
It’s a bit infantile to tamper with names and it cheapens the argument.
It’s also silly to villify an influential newspaper and the large readership which it enjoys, amongst whose number I am not to be found.
@JuliaMUntil the consequences of their misdeeds outweigh the benefits, we can look forward to more and more crime, not less.
I agree. Labour widening the gap between the rich and the poor, together with the credit crunch, means crime is going to rise. Everyone has to adjust to a lower standard of living; doing so is not comfortable. No wonder meat is now security tagged in supermarkets.
Tax is a price we have to pay to live securely and it postpones the day when I decide it is worth investing in security bars on the windows. I do not resent paying a reasonable level of tax if it is properly used. While the extreme case like the murder of Sukhwinder Singh does not in itself prove much, if burglary, assaults and theft are rising, perhaps the police should be given greater direct powers and the administration of justice streamlined.
I suggest that shorter pre-sentencing reports are prepared before conviction, so sentencing can take place at the same hearing and that there is zero tolerance on persistent offenders if when put on the spot, they cannot reasonably explain why they did what they did.
@measured,
Just as a quick aside, if you look at the academic literature, there is only a minimal correlation between economic circumstances and crime (e.g. Radowicz). This is one of the old canards of the liberal-left to justify crime (“it’s not their fault, they’re deprived”)
Most crime occurs WITHIN lower economic status groups and is driven by opportunity/the desire for a quick and easy source of cash (often linked to drugs) rather than a strategic attempt to build personal wealth by targetting those better off.
@Charles – I think you’re right and I think it’s also the case that the lower economic groups are more likely to be victims of crime, even acquisitive crime, when said group may not have much materially at the outset.
@Charles
Although not a criminologist, I suspect you are right and this needs to tackled. On the other hand, it is not material how wealthy you are or are not if you have property taken and some petty criminals mature into professionals prepared to take risks so, as I see it, it is in everyone’s interest petty criminals, who clog up police time and the courts, are dealt with robustly. The police have a job to do and society will suffer if this work is not done effectively.
It does not necessarily need to cost money either; one approach would be to make the lives of petty criminals a bureaucratic paperwork nightmare filling in forms (improves their writing and makes them seek help), jumping through tedious hoops with long wait times. This would be a great deterrent and it is what Labour is so effective at too.
On reflection, I do think Mylene was wrong to tip her hand and wave a knife at what could have been potential intruders.
Should I ever find mself in the same situation, be sure that said intruders will find the knife in my hand to be a huge surprise…
More evidence that “A Tory” is in fact a paid up member of the NuLab statist lunacy. Self reliance? Courage? No thanks! The state will provide….
“Self reliance? Courage?”
Vigilantes show self-reliance and courage too, you know. A little context goes a long way….
Lets see if I understand you correctly:
Mr Singh would not have pursued those assailants if Grayling had said nothing?
The story about Myleene Klass’s incident may be incorrect. Hertfordshire Police have strongly denied what was being reported. I believe that Myleene has made no mention of it herself. The person who gave the story to the press was her ex-agent. And she is about to front a new TV show isnt she? Fantastic publicity then.