Well done to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke

A big well done to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke regarding his announcement today (29 June, 2011) of an intention to clarify the law regarding defending yourself when you find an intruder inside your property. I particularly welcome the remarks attributed to Mr Clarke that appear to suggest that ‘Reasonable Force’ may include killing an intruder providing that they are not running away from you, and you are not chasing them down the street as they attempt to flee. Nobody wants to see anyone die before their time, but as I have mentioned in two previous postings; a person faced with an intruder whether masked or not will at that moment in time, quite rightly and probably without exception be overcome with fear.

The size, physical strength, or professional background will not deviate from that fear. No one will know why the intruder is there, and the bottom line is that a reasonable person will be expecting violence against them or other members of their family.

I also welcome the comment from Mr Ken Clarke that; “nobody should be prosecuted and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes these steps”. I for one could not have convicted a person who harmed anyone who broke into their home and which they came face to face with. It is great news that the lawmakers have recognised that doubts in the existing law require clarity, and great news that the Coalition Government are doing something worthwhile and significant for all citizens.

Anyone who wants to break into a person’s home is welcome to do so as that is their choice. But in making that choice, please remember the new rule: ‘intruders beware’. You may get stuck with a knife, bludgeoned or strangled to death. The person who does it to you will not be prosecuted because of a new law that may recognise that an intrusion brings fear, and fear causes a reaction. Norbert Elias has taught us that fear drives people to act, and it is great news that as the law is developed it will recognise this response to fear. The new law will provide legal protection for those who are unfortunate to meet face to face with an intruder, and that fleeting moment where they will believe themselves to be vulnerable.

Well done Ken Clarke, and well done to David Cameron for supporting the move.

Mr Tister

We are due to travel and visit Mr Tister in the London Metropolis tomorrow. The car is packed and the journey and hotel are planned. But should I also pack a Chess set?

Working on the premise, that a father teaches a child to play chess and the child becomes a stronger player than the father. I believe that this is because you impart your knowledge and experience as part of the social science learning explained by Norbert Elias i.e. 'the child becomes the parent'. But of course, the child also gains exposure to their own experiences and learning by studying alone, playing with others, or reading about or watching games, openings, strategy, and tactics that the teacher has never seen. Given that I'm the Grandfather, and that I played once or twice for Wales and scalped a few of the Welsh Olympiad Team; does it follow that Mr Tister may become a great chess player?

Or, will he become a Train Driver because of my love of choo choo's? Mmmmmm, that's a social science dilemma to ponder, as I twist and twirl through the Welsh countryside and whiz along the M4. Not too much whizzing though, as road safety is also an important part of my life. I wonder, will the bridge be closed with all of these high winds? If it is closed, how do you get to London? Gosh, I have a lot to think about tomorrow. But then again, not as much as the Mayor of Mandaluyong.

An Assumption

Why is there an assumption between equals whereby one may receive more than the other without any dialogue? This morning there were no boiled eggs on display and when I asked the waitress, she brought three to the table. Why was it that I was able to consume two of these eggs? We both commented on their freshness, and fine colour. They were eggs of quality and my wife probably would have enjoyed eating two of them as well.

My wife has the vote and in a democratic society can elect or reject a candidate. She works, which is more than can be said of me these days. She can certainly eat as much as me and enjoys her food on equal terms. So why was I allowed to eat two of the eggs, especially when she consumed her first one long before I started as I choose to butter bread and order some coffee. Is a figuration between husband and wife whereby for no obvious reason or purpose, a hierarchy is established?

Or, is it simply that this morning, Pauline only wanted one boiled egg?