Reasonable force

Thursday 13 January 2005 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Home Secretary has announced that there will be no change in the law on the amount of force householders may use to combat burglars. The current provision for "reasonable force", he said, was "sound", and he promised an advertising campaign to ensure that people know their rights. This is a sensible conclusion to a panic whipped up around a couple of high-profile, exceptional cases. We would only ask why the Prime Minister suggested that the law needed another look. At the time, it looked as though he was trying to co-opt another Tory crowd-pleaser. It looks even more like that in the light of Charles Clarke's decision.

The Home Secretary has announced that there will be no change in the law on the amount of force householders may use to combat burglars. The current provision for "reasonable force", he said, was "sound", and he promised an advertising campaign to ensure that people know their rights. This is a sensible conclusion to a panic whipped up around a couple of high-profile, exceptional cases. We would only ask why the Prime Minister suggested that the law needed another look. At the time, it looked as though he was trying to co-opt another Tory crowd-pleaser. It looks even more like that in the light of Charles Clarke's decision.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in