The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Crazy. You break into someone's house, knowingly, and with the intention of stealing their property. You deliberately break the law. Somehow during this you get hurt. So you can sue the owner of the house - not just if they themselves hurt you in self defense, but even if you hurt yourself on an object in their house. This, to me, is stupid for the following reasons:
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Crazy. You break into someone's house, knowingly, and with the intention of stealing their property. You deliberately break the law. Somehow during this you get hurt. So you can sue the owner of the house - not just if they themselves hurt you in self defense, but even if you hurt yourself on an object in their house. This, to me, is stupid for the following reasons:
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
Page: