https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/premier-speaks-out-after-ontario-resident-charged-with-assault-following-home-invasion/
A man in Lindsay, Ontario awoke the other night to find an intruder in
his house. The man defended himself, injuring the intruder to the point
where his injuries were deemed life-threatening. BOTH men were charged.
The intruder turned out to have a record of previous offences. Our
premier, Doug Ford, heard about this and spontaneously reacted to it at
a news conference, expressing his frustration that the homeowner would
be charged in this event. He literally talked about a man's home being
his castle so that defending oneself should be an inalienable right.
I want to give CTV credit for reporting the premier's words accurately
but also for tempering it with additional information, including a conversation with the former commissioner of the OPP, who explained that
we *do* have a right to self-defence in this province but that
self-defence has to be tempered with proportionality: you can't use
excessive force. If the intruder has dropped his weapon and is running
away, you can't shoot him in the back.
They also present an interview with a defence attorney who makes
essentially the same points.
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People
really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually
every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that
Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US
states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly
be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of
people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to
make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/premier-speaks-out-after-ontario-resident-charged-with-assault-following-home-invasion/
A man in Lindsay, Ontario awoke the other night to find an intruder in
his house. The man defended himself, injuring the intruder to the point
where his injuries were deemed life-threatening. BOTH men were charged.
The intruder turned out to have a record of previous offences. Our
premier, Doug Ford, heard about this and spontaneously reacted to it at
a news conference, expressing his frustration that the homeowner would
be charged in this event. He literally talked about a man's home being
his castle so that defending oneself should be an inalienable right.
I want to give CTV credit for reporting the premier's words accurately
but also for tempering it with additional information, including a >conversation with the former commissioner of the OPP, who explained that
we *do* have a right to self-defence in this province but that
self-defence has to be tempered with proportionality: you can't use
excessive force. If the intruder has dropped his weapon and is running
away, you can't shoot him in the back.
They also present an interview with a defence attorney who makes
essentially the same points.
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People
really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets >offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually
every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that
Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US
states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly
be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of
people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to
make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting
bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/premier-speaks-out-after-ontario-resident-charged-with-assault-following-home-invasion/
A man in Lindsay, Ontario awoke the other night to find an intruder in
his house. The man defended himself, injuring the intruder to the point
where his injuries were deemed life-threatening. BOTH men were charged.
The intruder turned out to have a record of previous offences. Our
premier, Doug Ford, heard about this and spontaneously reacted to it at
a news conference, expressing his frustration that the homeowner would
be charged in this event. He literally talked about a man's home being
his castle so that defending oneself should be an inalienable right.
I want to give CTV credit for reporting the premier's words accurately
but also for tempering it with additional information, including a
conversation with the former commissioner of the OPP, who explained that
we *do* have a right to self-defence in this province but that
self-defence has to be tempered with proportionality: you can't use
excessive force. If the intruder has dropped his weapon and is running
away, you can't shoot him in the back.
These two sentences are different. If one has been attacked, then a proportionate response might require the defending combatant to temper
his response so it's short of serious trauma, disabling injury, or
death. Crap like this comes up in bar fights in which the attacker winds
up dead and there is serious consideration of charging the defender with manslaughter.
In the last sentence, if an unarmed person is running away, then he's
not a threat and the shooter has no claim of self defense.
Everything is affected by facts and circumstances. What if, while
running away, the intruder threatens to return or threatens one's loved
one? If the homeowner is armed, he may damn well shoot and kill him
given that it's a credible threat. It's not self defense, but damn, that asshole needed to be stopped.
They also present an interview with a defence attorney who makes
essentially the same points.
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People
really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets
offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually
every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that
Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US
states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly
be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of
people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to
make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting
bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when
someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.
No, that doesn't address the underlying problem.
A few states in the United States have no bail bond requirements.
Those
laws are subject to criticism about whether the defendent should have
been let out on bond in the immediate instance of that arrest and
charge.
But bond always comes with conditions such as Do Not Commit Another
Retail Theft and Do Not Return To the Store You Burgled or Stay Away
From the Woman You Battered or Do not drink alchohol or take drugs not prescribed to you.
The underlying problem is that the person on bond, taken into custody on suspicion of committing a subsequent crime, is not held in custody to be taken back to the judge who set bond for a new hearing about whether his
is complying with the bond.
Similarly, if someone is on probation or parole, both still under
sentence for a felony conviction, if they get arrested, then serious consideration should be given to whether they should be sent to the
state prison to serve out the remainder of their sentence, with either propation or parole revoked.
This is a long standing issue, that the same defendent picks up caseOne thing I've never seen in this country is ads for bail bondsmen. They
after case after case in violation of bond, probation, and parole
conditions but doing nothing about the violation.
It's simply not a new issue with no bail bond laws.
My YouTube feed videos of court hearings; I watch a few. In one, I
didn't bother watching, but the bail bondsman came to court seeking to
revoke bond because the defendant picked up another case.
On Aug 21, 2025 at 9:10:37 AM PDT, "Rhino" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/premier-speaks-out-after-ontario-resident-charged-with-assault-following-home-invasion/
A man in Lindsay, Ontario awoke the other night to find an intruder in
his house. The man defended himself, injuring the intruder to the point
where his injuries were deemed life-threatening. BOTH men were charged.
The intruder turned out to have a record of previous offences. Our
premier, Doug Ford, heard about this and spontaneously reacted to it at
a news conference, expressing his frustration that the homeowner would
be charged in this event. He literally talked about a man's home being
his castle so that defending oneself should be an inalienable right.
I want to give CTV credit for reporting the premier's words accurately
but also for tempering it with additional information, including a
conversation with the former commissioner of the OPP, who explained that
we *do* have a right to self-defence in this province but that
self-defence has to be tempered with proportionality: you can't use
excessive force. If the intruder has dropped his weapon and is running
away, you can't shoot him in the back.
They also present an interview with a defence attorney who makes
essentially the same points.
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People
really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets
offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually
every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that
Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US
states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly
be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of
people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to
make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from one of those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a home invasion of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister happened to be there and
ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any weapons or force, just screamed and yelled at him until he left. She called the police, who took him back to the hotel and promptly released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion in Britain isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent crowd of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes earlier in the day. The cops declared the area around the hotel a "protected no free speech zone" and disbursed the crowd under threat of arrest. After everyone was gone and they thought themselves reasonably free from prying eyes and cameras (they were wrong), they went back and arrested the homeowner's sister for driving the illegal alien out of the home because it "stoked anti-migrant sentiment" and added to impression of a two-tier system of justice in Britain.
It was *her* fault, you see, for complaining about an illegal African in her home menacing her and her blind sister. Apparently in Britain now, when this psychopath (actual photo of the sub-Saharan):
https://ibb.co/KpKdW5yz
...pushes his way into your home, you're required to sit him down on the sofa,
bring him a Coke, and turn on the Netflix for him. Anything else and you're embarrassing the government who let him, no questions asked, and is using tax money to put him up in a 5-star hotel and feed him on your dime. And if he has
some raping or murder on his mind, well, British citizen, you should just take
one for the team. Better that than Kier Starmer be put in an uncomfortable political position.
On 2025-08-21 1:22 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
Everything is affected by facts and circumstances. What if, while
running away, the intruder threatens to return or threatens one's loved >>one? If the homeowner is armed, he may damn well shoot and kill him
given that it's a credible threat. It's not self defense, but damn, that >>asshole needed to be stopped.
Now you're sounding like a vigilante in a TV drama ;-)
It would be interesting to know what happened in real life to people who >maimed or killed a fleeing attacker after they threatened to return and
have revenge. Ditto for people that admitted that the fleeing home
invader didn't threaten revenge but where the homeowner feared for it
anyway and injured or killed the fleeing invader just the same....
. . .`
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People >>>really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets >>>offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually >>>every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that >>>Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US >>>states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly >>>be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of >>>people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to >>>make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting >>>bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >>>someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should >>>be refused automatically.
No, that doesn't address the underlying problem.
A few states in the United States have no bail bond requirements.
Am I safe in assuming that the preceding sentence means that people
charged with crimes are immediately let go without bail or bond on a
promise to appear for their trial? Is there a difference between "bail"
and "bail bond"? If so, what is it? I'm assuming that "bail" is just a >shorter way of saying "bail bond" so that it's the same process.
From what I've seen on Law and Order and other such shows, a judge
decides at a bail hearing how much, if anything, a defendant has to put
up in order to be freed until his trial starts. The judge may remand the
perp into custody if no amount of bail would be sufficient to reasonably >ensure that he shows up for his trial or he may charge millions if the
perp is rich and might well be tempted to flee, forfeiting the money. Or
he can let someone go on their own recognizance - i.e. without any bail
at all - if he deems that sufficient.
Those laws are subject to criticism about whether the defendent should
have been let out on bond in the immediate instance of that arrest
and charge.
But bond always comes with conditions such as Do Not Commit Another
Retail Theft and Do Not Return To the Store You Burgled or Stay Away
From the Woman You Battered or Do not drink alchohol or take drugs not >>prescribed to you.
Yes, we have bail conditions here too. In a large percentage of the
crime cases I've read about in local media, the individual charged with
a recent crime is frequently charged not just with the current offence
but also with failing to follow bail conditions, which is how I know
they were out on bail when they were charged for the latest offence.
That's why we're so frustrated: each crime simply gets the perpetrator
more bail conditions which he promptly violates.
. . .
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from one of >those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a home invasion >of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister happened to be there and >ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any weapons or force, just screamed and >yelled at him until he left. She called the police, who took him back to the >hotel and promptly released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion >in Britain isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent >crowd of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that >the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes earlier in >the day. The cops declared the area around the hotel a "protected no free >speech zone" and disbursed the crowd under threat of arrest. After everyone >was gone and they thought themselves reasonably free from prying eyes and >cameras (they were wrong), they went back and arrested the homeowner's sister >for driving the illegal alien out of the home because it "stoked anti-migrant >sentiment" and added to impression of a two-tier system of justice in >Britain.
It was *her* fault, you see, for complaining about an illegal African in her >home menacing her and her blind sister. Apparently in Britain now, when this >psychopath (actual photo of the sub-Saharan):
https://ibb.co/KpKdW5yz
...pushes his way into your home, you're required to sit him down on the sofa, >bring him a Coke, and turn on the Netflix for him. Anything else and you're >embarrassing the government who let him, no questions asked, and is using tax >money to put him up in a 5-star hotel and feed him on your dime. And if he has >some raping or murder on his mind, well, British citizen, you should just take >one for the team. Better that than Kier Starmer be put in an uncomfortable >political position.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-08-21 1:22 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
Everything is affected by facts and circumstances. What if, while
running away, the intruder threatens to return or threatens one's loved
one? If the homeowner is armed, he may damn well shoot and kill him
given that it's a credible threat. It's not self defense, but damn, that >>> asshole needed to be stopped.
Now you're sounding like a vigilante in a TV drama ;-)
Bryan Mills has a very particular set of skills.
It would be interesting to know what happened in real life to people who
maimed or killed a fleeing attacker after they threatened to return and
have revenge. Ditto for people that admitted that the fleeing home
invader didn't threaten revenge but where the homeowner feared for it
anyway and injured or killed the fleeing invader just the same....
If they admit to police that they killed someone pre-crime, that's second degree murder. Plenty of people have been prosecuted for that, even
though the defendant is sympathetic and the victim was dangerous.
It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. People
really ARE massively frustrated by the current bail system which lets
offenders out on bail immediately after their bail hearing in virtually >>>> every case, only to offend again within hours. It's gotten so bad that >>>> Doug Ford has talked about changing the way judges get their jobs and
now musing aloud about imitating the Castle Doctrine found in some US
states. He's got a majority in the legislature and there would certainly >>>> be strong public sentiment on his side if he beefed up the ability of
people to defend themselves in their own homes and/or did his part to
make it a LOT harder for offenders to get easy bail.
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting >>>> bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >>>> someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should >>>> be refused automatically.
No, that doesn't address the underlying problem.
A few states in the United States have no bail bond requirements.
Am I safe in assuming that the preceding sentence means that people
charged with crimes are immediately let go without bail or bond on a
promise to appear for their trial? Is there a difference between "bail"
and "bail bond"? If so, what is it? I'm assuming that "bail" is just a
shorter way of saying "bail bond" so that it's the same process.
If I understand the terminology, "bail" is the surety, which may be cash
or property, that is put up to bond the defendant out of pretrial
confinement in county jail. "Bond" is the judge's order, including conditions. If the defendant is in violation of bond, he's violated bond conditions, will be held in custody, and bail may be forfeit. I guess
"bail bond" is the surety specific to a particulr bond, but I'm not
sure.
From what I've seen on Law and Order and other such shows, a judge
decides at a bail hearing how much, if anything, a defendant has to put
up in order to be freed until his trial starts. The judge may remand the
perp into custody if no amount of bail would be sufficient to reasonably
ensure that he shows up for his trial or he may charge millions if the
perp is rich and might well be tempted to flee, forfeiting the money. Or
he can let someone go on their own recognizance - i.e. without any bail
at all - if he deems that sufficient.
In states with no bail bond, the judge no longer has an option to
require a surety for bond. The burden is on the prosecution to
demonstrate that the defendant is a flight risk or so dangerous to the
public that he should be held in pre-trial detention.
But again, THAT applies to the current charge and bond hearing. It does
not apply to bond conditions from earlier cases that the defendant may
have violated. So, if he did violate bond conditions, then he should be detained till trial for those charges, not the most recent charges.
Repeat violator of bond conditions is certainly evidence the judge may consider in whether he should be bonded out or detained on the mostjust seem to get out on bail for repeat offences even if they've
recent charges.
Those laws are subject to criticism about whether the defendent should
have been let out on bond in the immediate instance of that arrest
and charge.
But bond always comes with conditions such as Do Not Commit Another
Retail Theft and Do Not Return To the Store You Burgled or Stay Away
From the Woman You Battered or Do not drink alchohol or take drugs not
prescribed to you.
Yes, we have bail conditions here too. In a large percentage of the
crime cases I've read about in local media, the individual charged with
a recent crime is frequently charged not just with the current offence
but also with failing to follow bail conditions, which is how I know
they were out on bail when they were charged for the latest offence.
That's why we're so frustrated: each crime simply gets the perpetrator
more bail conditions which he promptly violates.
That's not how it's supposed to work!
Judge Jones: I see the defendant is in violation of conditions set in
Judge Smith's bond hearing. Bailiff, take the defendant into custody.
Inform Judge Smith to schedule a hearing on whether bond conditions were violated.
The point I keep making is that the issue for repeat offenders is NOT no
bail bond laws, but that the violation of bond conditions set in
previous cases are ignored. This could certainly happen before there
were no bail bond laws because neither the police nor prosecutors
checked all arrest records.
. . .I think we're agreed on how things *should* work but I have a strong impression that things DON'T actually work that way here. The crooks
2025-08-21 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from
one of those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a
home invasion of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister >>happened to be there and ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any
weapons or force, just screamed and yelled at him until he left. She
called the police, who took him back to the hotel and promptly
released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion in Britain
isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent crowd
of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that
the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes
earlier in the day. . . .
I know about the case you're describing and saw a BlackBeltBarrister
video about it last week. His video must have been made before the
sister was charged because he didn't mention that part!
Anyway, in his video, he pointed out that simply entering a home and not >taking anything is not a crime in and of itself: it is simple trespass
which is a civil matter. If he had taken something or hurt anyone, that
would have been an entirely different situation. Also, he said that the >sisters had left the door open for ventilation - it was a hot day - so
he hadn't actually broken in.
Now that they've arrested the sister, tempers are surely going to flare
in the UK! Ordinary Brits are already mad as hell about their Migrant
Crisis and they're not going to take it much longer. Several
commentators have said things are on the verge of serious violence and
no one is ruling out a potential civil war.
Starmer may be his own worst enemy by doubling down on the woke. He and
his party are very low in the polls and the Conservatives, who had
promised to get the Migrant Crisis in hand but only made it worse, are
also very low. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, Britain's answer to Trump, is
doing really well and his Reform party has been leading in the polls for >months despite being a brand new party with only a handful of MPs.
Reform also did quite well at the recent local elections, increasing the >likelihood that they can get a good track record in local government
prior to the next UK wide elections.
I think we're agreed on how things *should* work but I have a strong >impression that things DON'T actually work that way here. The crooks
just seem to get out on bail for repeat offences even if they've
violated previous bail conditions.
. . .
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from one of
those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a home invasion >> of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister happened to be there and
ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any weapons or force, just screamed and >> yelled at him until he left. She called the police, who took him back to the >> hotel and promptly released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion >> in Britain isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent >> crowd of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that >> the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes earlier in
the day. The cops declared the area around the hotel a "protected no free
speech zone" and disbursed the crowd under threat of arrest. After everyone >> was gone and they thought themselves reasonably free from prying eyes and
cameras (they were wrong), they went back and arrested the homeowner's sister
for driving the illegal alien out of the home because it "stoked anti-migrant
sentiment" and added to impression of a two-tier system of justice in
Britain.
It was *her* fault, you see, for complaining about an illegal African in her >> home menacing her and her blind sister. Apparently in Britain now, when this >> psychopath (actual photo of the sub-Saharan):
https://ibb.co/KpKdW5yz
...pushes his way into your home, you're required to sit him down on the sofa,
bring him a Coke, and turn on the Netflix for him. Anything else and you're >> embarrassing the government who let him, no questions asked, and is using tax
money to put him up in a 5-star hotel and feed him on your dime. And if he has
some raping or murder on his mind, well, British citizen, you should just take
one for the team. Better that than Kier Starmer be put in an uncomfortable >> political position.
Um
Didn't the police violate the law by aiding and abetting? Are there
still private prosecutions? (I forgot what British tv show I saw that
on.) The station commander gave the order to protect the home invader.
Make an example of him and the problem ends.
Were the police lying about anti-migrant sentiment, or were the
protestors objected to police protecting the criminal and making the
problem for the victim worse.
If there were true anti-migrant sentiment, then the protests would have occurred immediately when they were placed in the hotel and not in
response to the series of crimes.
But police never lie.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-08-21 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from
one of those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a
home invasion of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister
happened to be there and ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any
weapons or force, just screamed and yelled at him until he left. She
called the police, who took him back to the hotel and promptly
released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion in Britain
isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent crowd
of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that
the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes
earlier in the day. . . .
I know about the case you're describing and saw a BlackBeltBarrister
video about it last week. His video must have been made before the
sister was charged because he didn't mention that part!
Anyway, in his video, he pointed out that simply entering a home and not
taking anything is not a crime in and of itself: it is simple trespass
which is a civil matter. If he had taken something or hurt anyone, that
would have been an entirely different situation. Also, he said that the
sisters had left the door open for ventilation - it was a hot day - so
he hadn't actually broken in.
Isn't burglary the crime of entering without permission with intent to
commit a crime? To commit the crime of burglary, that the criminal
entered the premisis to commit a theft is sufficient, even if the theft
were thwarted. It's no longer required to prove that "breaking" occurred
to gain access. That makes it possible to prosecute an attempt to commit retail theft as a burglary with the criminal present during open hours.
One never has permission to be on site with intent to commit a crime.
I'm not sure he's correct. I'm guessing that there was no crime of
burglary to charge him with because the police were too busy aiding and abetting him and couldn't be bothered to even ask why he had entered the woman's home.
Now that they've arrested the sister, tempers are surely going to flare
in the UK! Ordinary Brits are already mad as hell about their Migrant
Crisis and they're not going to take it much longer. Several
commentators have said things are on the verge of serious violence and
no one is ruling out a potential civil war.
It's not a migrant issue per se, is it. It's a justice issue. If the
police aren't prejudice, then they'll enforce the law without prejudice.
In no way does that discriminate against migrants.
The police are prejudice against UK citizens who are not criminals
themselves but victims of crimes committed by classes of people the
police are refusing to enforce laws against.
Starmer may be his own worst enemy by doubling down on the woke. He and
his party are very low in the polls and the Conservatives, who had
promised to get the Migrant Crisis in hand but only made it worse, are
also very low. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, Britain's answer to Trump, is
doing really well and his Reform party has been leading in the polls for
months despite being a brand new party with only a handful of MPs.
Reform also did quite well at the recent local elections, increasing the
likelihood that they can get a good track record in local government
prior to the next UK wide elections.
I'll point out that similar crap has been going on for years, including
under Conservative governments. I'm not even sure that enforcement of existing laws is worse.
Brits lost their rights because they voted in governments that took them away. It's been happening over several decades. They allow this.
They have certain statutory laws in an unwritten constitution that can
be amended by any future parliament. Magna Carta cannot be amended but
its protections are quite limited. They need a real constitution as if
it were writtten in the Age of Enlightenment like ours.
Otherwise they are fucked.
On 2025-08-21 11:13 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The police are prejudice against UK citizens who are not criminalsYes, that's right. I think that is a widely-held perception in the UK.
themselves but victims of crimes committed by classes of people the
police are refusing to enforce laws against.
It's slightly surreal that a country which successfully stopped Hitler's armed forces - and those of previous invaders like the Spanish Armada -
from invading their country, is helpless when it comes to stopping
rubber boats.
Apparently, one group of migrants was located in a hotel in Epping (part
of London I believe) but aroused considerably hostility from the locals
when one of them was seen scoping out local girls. Protesters began
peaceful protests. I believe these were the migrants that were relocated
to a posh Canary Wharf hotel where rooms run 495 pounds a day on the
theory that since it's a commercial area, there are fewer private
homeowners to object.
2025-08-21 11:13 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-08-21 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from >>>>one of those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a >>>>home invasion of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister >>>>happened to be there and ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any >>>>weapons or force, just screamed and yelled at him until he left. She >>>>called the police, who took him back to the hotel and promptly
released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion in Britain >>>>isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent crowd >>>>of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that >>>>the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes >>>>earlier in the day. . . .
I know about the case you're describing and saw a BlackBeltBarrister >>>video about it last week. His video must have been made before the
sister was charged because he didn't mention that part!
Anyway, in his video, he pointed out that simply entering a home and not >>>taking anything is not a crime in and of itself: it is simple trespass >>>which is a civil matter. If he had taken something or hurt anyone, that >>>would have been an entirely different situation. Also, he said that the >>>sisters had left the door open for ventilation - it was a hot day - so
he hadn't actually broken in.
Isn't burglary the crime of entering without permission with intent to >>commit a crime? To commit the crime of burglary, that the criminal
entered the premisis to commit a theft is sufficient, even if the theft >>were thwarted. It's no longer required to prove that "breaking" occurred
to gain access. That makes it possible to prosecute an attempt to commit >>retail theft as a burglary with the criminal present during open hours.
One never has permission to be on site with intent to commit a crime.
I'm not sure he's correct. I'm guessing that there was no crime of
burglary to charge him with because the police were too busy aiding and >>abetting him and couldn't be bothered to even ask why he had entered the >>woman's home.
BBB may be mistaken - anyone can make a mistake - but the other
possibility is that the term "burglary" has evolved a different meaning
over the years since the two countries went their separate ways.
Now that they've arrested the sister, tempers are surely going to flare >>>in the UK! Ordinary Brits are already mad as hell about their Migrant >>>Crisis and they're not going to take it much longer. Several
commentators have said things are on the verge of serious violence and
no one is ruling out a potential civil war.
It's not a migrant issue per se, is it. It's a justice issue. If the
police aren't prejudice, then they'll enforce the law without prejudice.
In no way does that discriminate against migrants.
I actually meant the opposite, that the prejudice is IN FAVOUR of the >migrants.
. . .
Starmer may be his own worst enemy by doubling down on the woke. He and >>>his party are very low in the polls and the Conservatives, who had >>>promised to get the Migrant Crisis in hand but only made it worse, are >>>also very low. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, Britain's answer to Trump, is >>>doing really well and his Reform party has been leading in the polls for >>>months despite being a brand new party with only a handful of MPs.
Reform also did quite well at the recent local elections, increasing the >>>likelihood that they can get a good track record in local government >>>prior to the next UK wide elections.
I'll point out that similar crap has been going on for years, including >>under Conservative governments. I'm not even sure that enforcement of >>existing laws is worse.
Exactly right. BOTH parties have consistently promised to lessen ILLEGAL >immigration for many years and both parties have consistently allowed
the exact opposite. That's why Farage's party, Reform, has been so >successful. Observers are consistently sounding alarm on behalf of the
future of BOTH the Conservative and Labour Parties. And nobody takes the >Liberal-Democrats terribly seriously as a party that might actually
govern, even though they got the third highest vote total in the last >election.
. . .
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-08-21 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
Over in Britain last week, there was an illegal alien sub-Saharan from
one of those nearby "migrant hotels" in Canary Wharf that committed a
home invasion of an elderly blind woman. Luckily the woman's sister
happened to be there and ran the sub-Saharan off. Didn't use any
weapons or force, just screamed and yelled at him until he left. She
called the police, who took him back to the hotel and promptly
released him with no charges, claiming that home invasion in Britain
isn't actually a criminal offense. This outraged the omnipresent crowd
of protesters around the hotel, especially after it was revealed that
the sub-Saharan had been attempting to invade other people's homes
earlier in the day. . . .
I know about the case you're describing and saw a BlackBeltBarrister
video about it last week. His video must have been made before the
sister was charged because he didn't mention that part!
Anyway, in his video, he pointed out that simply entering a home and not
taking anything is not a crime in and of itself: it is simple trespass
which is a civil matter. If he had taken something or hurt anyone, that
would have been an entirely different situation. Also, he said that the
sisters had left the door open for ventilation - it was a hot day - so
he hadn't actually broken in.
Isn't burglary the crime of entering without permission with intent to
commit a crime? To commit the crime of burglary, that the criminal
entered the premisis to commit a theft is sufficient, even if the theft
were thwarted. It's no longer required to prove that "breaking" occurred
to gain access. That makes it possible to prosecute an attempt to commit retail theft as a burglary with the criminal present during open hours.
. . .
Apparently burglary is still a crime in the UK but only for native Brits.
Here we have a guy who took advantage of the fact that he looks like an >African migrant and walked into one of the migrant hotels. No one stopped
him because they're apparently using racial profiling as a security
measure. If you look like a native Brit, no entry, but if you're a brown >military-aged male with a beard, in you come.
Anyway, he spent a few hours documenting how the British taxpayer is
being thoroughly fucked over by this whole mess and ate one of the free
meals they have on offer all day long. Then he went home and posted the >videos on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZGDRtmUK_U
For his actual crime of embarrassing the government and exposing the
raping of the British taxpayer, his home was raided by a SWAT team,
all of his electronics were seized, and he was charged with burglary
for eating that plate of pasta.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
Apparently burglary is still a crime in the UK but only for native Brits.
Here we have a guy who took advantage of the fact that he looks like an
African migrant and walked into one of the migrant hotels. No one stopped
him because they're apparently using racial profiling as a security
measure. If you look like a native Brit, no entry, but if you're a brown
military-aged male with a beard, in you come.
Anyway, he spent a few hours documenting how the British taxpayer is
being thoroughly fucked over by this whole mess and ate one of the free
meals they have on offer all day long. Then he went home and posted the
videos on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZGDRtmUK_U
For his actual crime of embarrassing the government and exposing the
raping of the British taxpayer, his home was raided by a SWAT team,
all of his electronics were seized, and he was charged with burglary
for eating that plate of pasta.
I'm having some difficulty distringuishing with Putin's Russia. What's
next? Poisoning prominent pro-liberty activists with KGB-developed nerve agent?
Just to point out the obvious, burglary in this instance requires
proving intent to commit the underlying crime of theft by deception.
1) A free meal cannot be stolen.
2) He demonstrated that the enforced criteria isn't actually having
migrated from Africa but assumptions those running the program make
based on what someone looks like. As long as he made no false claims
verbally or on an application, he committed no deception.
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting
bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.
I could be wrong though. I wish I knew someone more familiar with the
day to day workings of the legal system that I could approach for
reliable information on this. I don't want to find that I've been
bringing the legal system into disrepute when it's actually working
properly.
Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized
state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.
I actually meant the opposite, that the prejudice is IN FAVOUR of the >migrants. That, at least, is the strong opinion of a great many Brits.
For instance, in the wake of the Southport riots - the ones that
followed the murder of those three little girls at the dancing class -
gangs of Muslims carrying machetes were wandering the streets. When the >police approached them, they begged the Muslims to put their machetes in
the nearest mosque and that was all. Whites that were out and lashing
out at migrant hotels - the offender was initially thought to be living
in a migrant hotel - were rounded up, arrested, charged, tried, and in >prison, literally within hours as Starmer launched a series of immediate >trials for the whites. I believe that was the initial act that got him >labelled "two-tier Keir".
Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized >>state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >>thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.
With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering"
doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.
If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"
Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:10:37 -0400, Rhino <[email protected]>:
Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting
bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >>someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.
I don't agree at all.
There was a 2024 case in Vancouver where a Dad with a 3 year old at
the outdoor patio at Macdonalds asked a guy at the next table who was
vaping and blowing towards the 3 year old to vape in a different
direction - and the vape-er immediately fatally buried his concealed
knife in the Dad's neck. The vape-er was definitely a first time
offender and was believed to have acted immediately and without >premeditation.
By your definition ('clearly and intentionally used violence') the
killer doesn't meet your definition and therefore should get bail.
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>> to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized
state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is
thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>> charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.
With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering"
doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.
If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"
You are not correct. Breaking required that a secured barrier to entry
be broken. Entering without permission through an unlocked door is not "breaking".
To prove burglary, then, withint breaking, the cops had to prove intent, which is done through ordinary police work like investigating and
questioning to the suspect to see if he'll admit that he intended to
steal.
Aug 26, 2025 at 11:58:49 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>>>to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized >>>>state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >>>>thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass >>>>without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>>>charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no >>>>idea.
With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering" >>>doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.
If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"
You are not correct. Breaking required that a secured barrier to entry
be broken. Entering without permission through an unlocked door is not >>"breaking".
Not true. Common law recognizes, as a constructive burglarious breaking, >entries obtained by fraud, threats, trickery, artifice, or pretense.
Also, many a thief has been convicted of burglary by coming down a chimney, >despite there being no secure barrier or lock or any other device that was >'broken'. As have thieves who have knocked on a resident's door, then pushed >in, once the resident opened it for them.
"The law will not suffer itself to be trifled with by such evasions, >especially under the cloak of legal process."
--In Cooley Blackstone, Book IV, ch 16, p 226-227
Also, many states have amended their penal codes to eliminate the need for >actual breaking of a door or barrier. For example, Oregon's statute reads:
"Every unlawful entry of any building, booth, tent, railroad car, vessel,
boat, or other structure or erection mentioned in ORS 164.240, with
intent to steal or commit any felony therein, is a breaking and
entering of the same within the meaning of ORS 164.240."
The legislature added "every unlawful entry" to the definition, making an >actual breaking of a lock or barrier unnecessary.
To prove burglary, then, withint breaking, the cops had to prove intent, >>which is done through ordinary police work like investigating and >>questioning to the suspect to see if he'll admit that he intended to
steal.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:08:42 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,518,006 |