| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| 164 muggings a day in London |
| 2003-07-28 |
| Edited for brevity. The extent of street crime in London is revealed in new figures showing there are 164 muggings in the capital every day. A report by independent watchdogs shows that, although street crime has come down from its record high levels of early 2002, it is still higher than at any other time in recent history. It will say that the massive effort to reduce muggings and robberies, involving hundreds of thousands of hours of police time, has produced only a 15 per cent reduction in London. Scotland Yard figures show that Lambeth is the worst of the 32 boroughs for street crime and that, per head of population, Richmond-is the least dangerous. The full report - published tomorrow by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary, Probation and Prisons - is the first independent evaluation of the street crime initiative announced by Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunthem a valuable asset they can easily sell. It is expected to show that the first six months of the police campaign against street crime - when officers got out of their cars and went on the beat in mugging hotspots - produced a steady fall to an average of 163 muggings a day. But there was a rise in the next six months, leading to the average for the year being 164. The report will also warn that the clear-up rate for street crime is still too low. In London only 9.04 per cent of all street crimes were classified as "cleared-up" last year, far lower than the 14 per cent average for all crimes, but a rise from the 2001-2 figure of 8.7 per cent. Fewer than one in 10 street robberies in London end with someone being charged or cautioned, the worst figure in the country. And, despite the rise in the clearup rate, the fall in numbers of street crimes meant fewer crimes were classifiedas cleared up and fewer muggers went to prison in 2002-3 than in 2001-2. I don’t want to be Britain-bashing--they’re a great ally and I have a world of respect for them--yet I can’t believe that such a great nation is so poor at protecting its citizens and condemns and convicts those who defend themselves (e.g. Tony Martin). Can any of our British readers clarify what legal self-defense options a citizen has? Is pepper spray/mace even legal? |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #7 Rafael: I wouldn't call it an obession with guns--we're obsessed with protecting ourselves and our loved ones, and guns are the best means of doing so. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-7-28 11:13:31 PM |
| #6 You know, generally I don't think joe blow owning a gun is a good thing. But anytime I find a good enough reason to ridicule the US and their obsession with guns, a story like Tony Martin's pops up and I just shut up. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-28 5:47:21 PM |
| #5 Check over at Samizdata.(sorry I dont know how to link.) Tony Martin has been released from prison today. |
| Posted by: debbie 2003-7-28 4:37:22 PM |
| #4 Bulldog: I understand "reasonable force" as a concept, but find it difficult to see where it is applied consistently in British law. Per the anecdote above, even pepper spray/mace is illegal to use, and the use of a non-lethal and non-persistent irritant against a violent attacker screams "reasonable force" to me. I can also understand "excessive force" and am familiar with the three requisites (Means, Opportunity, Intent) in the US without which lethal force is considered excessive. However, it seems even when you are threatened with lethal force in the UK, you can not use lethal force in your own defense, and I would love to have a clear definition of "reasonable force" for such a scenario. That scenario takes place several times a year (over 700 times a year, from the stats I've seen), and British citizens deserve the right to defend themselves appropriately. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-7-28 1:29:07 PM |
| #3 There is a reason why "Make my day, punk" can't be translated into proper German. Our laws are rather similar I'm afraid, although I have never heard of a case like the British one. Courts seem to rule in favor of the victims. If you are mugged you may beat the shit out of the mugger. But once the mugger is "defenseless" you can't just go on to "teach him a lesson". There is a fine line. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-7-28 1:24:53 PM |
| #2 "...initiative announced by Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunthem a valuable asset they can easily sell." Shurely shome mishtake (Ed.). It's David Blunkett, and I don't think the government have any plans to make a huge profit by flogging the man on the used ministers market anytime soon. Seriously though, there have been a few cases which have come to light of muggers and their "victims" becoming confused, and many more cases of the police arresting victims who have defended themselves even long after their assailant has scarpered. Defend yourself in the UK at your peril. Too many streets are safe only for police and muggers. That said, I spent three years as a student in London from '94 to '97. I've only ever felt uneasy about engaging in the sort of pub crawls Lucky mentions, in smaller towns and cities of the UK. London's a remarkably safe city for its size, in my personal experience. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-7-28 12:34:01 PM |
| #1 Forgot to give credit: Hat tip to Drudge. B-a-r: Judging from previous reads, you'd likely be charged with assault. I'll have to dig up case references, which I'll post. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-7-28 12:02:16 PM |