One thing I hate about the UK: man defends himself against two burglars and is arrested for murder.

[Nye Bevan]

A man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after an alleged intruder was stabbed to death at a house in Stockport. The 39-year-old man detained by police is believed to be the householder at the home in Bramhall.

Police found the alleged intruder, who was in his late 30s, with knife injuries when they were called to the house at 7.50pm on Saturday. He was given first aid by paramedics but died a short time later. A 33-year-old man who is believed to have fled the scene in a white Citroën van, was arrested on Sunday on suspicion of aggravated burglary. The two men reportedly forced their way into the house and threatened the householder before one of the assailants suffered fatal knife injuries.

Floral tributes to the dead man – referred to as "Ray", "Raymond" and "Uncle Raymondo"– from family and friends were placed at the scene. One read: "Love you son. Going to miss you more than anything."

Police said it was understood that two men had entered the house and threatened the occupant, who was alone. His wife and 12-year-old son returned home during the incident but were unharmed. The couple who live at the address were named locally as Vincent and Karen Cooke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/18/suspected-intruder-stabbed-death-burglary?INTCMP=SRCH

I never cease to be disgusted by how the UK police treat people who defend themselves and their families against intruders. This guy (Vincent Cooke) is a hero for saving his family from these scum.

[Honeycombe8]

1. Wow. This doesn't make sense to me. nt

[Fresh_Start]

2. in the other incidents the people defending themselves

were arrested but then charges dismissed after it was found that they acted reasonably.

there is nothing wrong with investigating the incident...maybe they were all in it together and it was a falling out of thieves

[Nye Bevan]

5. I have no problem with the incident being investigated, which of course it should be.

But arresting the guy for murder? Just imagine, your home has been invaded, your family been threatened, and you have fought back, saved yourselves, but one of the burglars ended up dead. That's a traumatic enough experience to go through without being arrested as a murder suspect.

Investigate by all means, but hold off on arresting the poor guy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Try reading a bit further:

It is the third incident of its kind in Greater Manchester in recent months. In June, Peter Flanagan, 59, fatally stabbed an intruder at his home in Salford after he was confronted by masked men wielding machetes. A month later, florist Cecil Coley, 72, stabbed a burglar at his shop in Old Trafford. Both men were arrested on suspicion of murder but were later released without charge as the Crown Prosecution Service ruled they acted in reasonable self-defence.

I expect the same thing to happen in this case.

[jpgray]

4. You're supposed to leave before the jump and hold on to your outrage

:eyes:

[chrisa]

6. Still though, calling it "suspicion of murder" is ridiculous.

[Nye Bevan]

7. But why arrest them in the first place? If it was clearly self-defense?

Would you want to be labeled "was arrested on suspicion of murder" for the rest of your life?

When you are filling out a form, under "ever been arrested?" would you want to reply "yes, for murder"?

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. It's standard procedure where there's been a death by violence.

Even in the case of self-defence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

[Nye Bevan]

9. Obviously this should not be "standard procedure". (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. You may disagree; the position of the police and of UK law is that in event of a death by violence..

arrest is standard because the police have a duty to determine whether in fact the death occurred by legitimate self-defence or as a criminal action.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Masked inturders with machettes and the vicitm is suspect?

That is a mockery of justice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Arresting someone means they can have questions put to them

If you don't arrest them, they can just refuse to have anything to do with you, and you can't investigate properly.

Remember, the fact appears to be that the homeowner killed the intruder. The homeowner thus has to show evidence that it was justified self-defence. You can't just take his word for it.

Or, it you'd rather take just the word of the surviving intruder, and then that intruder says it wasn't self-defence, then you'd have to charge the owner with murder. Which seems worse, to me.

'Justice' requires finding out the whole truth. If you think that an investigation to find out the truth 'mocks' justice, then I hope you're never involved in one, because you'd screw it up.

[Nye Bevan]

13. I *fully* agree that the police have a duty to determine whether it was legitimate self-defense.

Just as the New York police would do, for example.

But in New York they would conduct their investigation first, without arresting the poor guy "on suspicion of murder", and only would arrest him if their investigation determined that it was *not* legitimate self-defense.

I see that you are in the UK; I suspect your mind on this issue would be changed fairly quickly if masked burglars wielding machetes invaded *your* home.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. The UK isn't New York.

Police and legal procedures are different even in countries with similar legal systems. (A homeowner who killed a burglar would probably be arrested pending police inquiries in most countries, not just the UK.)

Edit: searching Google for "burglar killed" in various languages reveals that arrest of homeowners or security guards who have killed burglars is apparently quite standard in, among other places, the Netherlands, Uruguay, France, and Italy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Actually where I live, the cops would still detain

as part of the investigation...

Oh and no, I am not living outside US Borders either.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Would they announce to the press that you had been "arrested on suspicion of murder"? (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Yes, they have it in the past

[ironrooster]

11. the "standard procedure" in the uk then sucks

[Logical]

15. They are a better country than us in many ways.

[BlueCheese]

17. ... and worse in others.

I don't particularly have a point, but was just feeling reflexively patriotic for a moment.

[CBGLuthier]

68. Hey, I have seen Sleuth. Those Brits are clever

Stage a fake robbery by your wife's boyfriend and then kill him as an intruder. Yep, happens all the time in the UK so they gotta be careful.

[AngryAmish]

73. The process is the punishment

Spend your life savings on a solicitor and barrister...but if you don't own anything then they are provided for free (well, not free, people who actually work and pay taxes get to pay for it).

[Spider Jerusalem]

79. Not even any need for that

Crown Prosecution Service is likely to dismiss the charges if there's a finding of self-defence, won't come to trial and will probably only have a single hearing (and it's a barrister; barristers try cases at the bar of justice, solicitors on the other hand engage in non-trial legal practice including contract law, property conveyancing, wills and deeds, and so on).

[Swede]

16. I don't see the problem.

This will be investigated and if true as stated he will not be charged.

[Nye Bevan]

18. So if you were confronted by masked, machete-wielding intruders in your home

in the middle of the night, and accidentally killed one of them in the process of defending yourself and your family, you would be completely fine with the police announcing to the world that you had been arrested "on suspicion of murder"? And having that murder arrest on your record for the rest of your life?

[Swede]

22. There's a dead guy in his house,they have to investigate.

How do they know the story is true?

[Nye Bevan]

26. Yes, they have to investigate.

But don't arrest the guy on suspicion of murder unless that's what the evidence and the investigation leads to.

The current policy is tantamount to automatically arresting parents of missing children, just in case they were responsible for their child's disappearance.

Investigate first. Then arrest later, if appropriate.

[tkmorris]

19. You missed this bit I think

"It is the third incident of its kind in Greater Manchester in recent months. In June, Peter Flanagan, 59, fatally stabbed an intruder at his home in Salford after he was confronted by masked men wielding machetes. A month later, florist Cecil Coley, 72, stabbed a burglar at his shop in Old Trafford. Both men were arrested on suspicion of murder but were later released without charge as the Crown Prosecution Service ruled they acted in reasonable self-defence."

Apparently it is SOP to make these arrests until it is determined officially that they acted in self-defense. Now it may seem obvious to us that such is the case here, but when a person is killed by another there this is just the way the procedure goes. I am sure that the charges will be dropped very quickly.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Clearly the "SOP" needs to change.

Arresting people "on suspicion of murder" for defending their families is disgusting.

And "that's just the way the procedure goes" is not much of a justification. The guy will have a murder arrest on his record for the rest of his life.

[pipi_k]

20. so many unanswered questions...

What did the intruder(s) threaten the guy with? Doesn't say what kind of weapon(s) they used.

Did they even have a weapon?

Was he holding the knife already and not have time to grab a less deadly weapon?

Where was the guy stabbed? If he was stabbed in the front, it would possibly indicate a frontal attack, and might be justified. If he was stabbed in the back, it could indicate that the guy was trying flee, and that would probably not be justified.

I definitely think this needs to be investigated.

[PavePusher]

63. WTF?

Are you suggesting that criminals need to be given a sporting chance?

Screw that. When defending your self or your property, you use overwhelming force. The defender need not be required to expose him/her-self to any additional risk.

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. IF you don't think that would ever happen in this country then you need to read or watch the news

more often. nt

[patrick t. cakes]

43. of topic a bit......

but where did you get Shagbark Hickory? It's catchy.:thumbsup:

[Shagbark Hickory]

45. It's a tree.

Thanks! :hi:

[patrick t. cakes]

51. rolls off the tounge much nicer than

Carya ovata. (Just wikied it) :)

[Shagbark Hickory]

56. As a name...

personally I think it would be catchier as Hickory Shagbark. You know, sounds more like a person's name.

[patrick t. cakes]

64. I think my street name just became shagbark

I love it.

Good looking tree too.

Got a lot of these big suckers where I'm at, very human name.... Douglas Fir

<>

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. You have douglasfir in iowa?!?

I wasn't aware that it was native to IA. Were they planted for commercial timber?

Yes Doug or Douglas would be a very human name to use. But... technically, it's not a true fir, so the name should be written as douglasfir (all as one word) or it's often written with a hyphen douglas-fir. So if you wrote it as a name, it would actually look better as a married woman's last name. For example; Kathleen Douglas-Fir.

[patrick t. cakes]

96. Lol! No, not Iowa (Lots of oaks and maples, )

I've since relocated to Oregon. I should change my personal info. Doug-firs are amazing trees, the forests here simply mesmerize me. A far cry from the rolling hills of Iowa.

I'm going to guess; you work in trees? :)

[JI7]

24. i don't understand you, people have posted about others being let go

after it was investigated and shown to be self defense and you say they shouldn't do that.

if that is the case anyone can kill someone and just claim it was self defense to avoid arrest.

it's like questioning parents and others close to a missing child in America . yeah, it may be frustrating but it has to be done to rule out things. and there ARE cases where parents and others close to the person are guilty.

[Nye Bevan]

25. So if you defend yourself against masked, machete wielding home invaders,

in the middle of the night, and acidentally kill one of them, you have no problem with being arrested "on suspicion of murder"?

[JI7]

40. there might be cases where it WAS murder

they need to investigate.i'm sure i would be annoyed and frustrated. but they aren't charging them for defending themselves .

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Hmm MOST normal countries

will arrest you if there is a dead body at home.. and investigate...

Of course if this was self defense, charges will never be filed...

Same as the US they have 72 hours.... but as I said, most normal countries do that. Avoid Canada and Mexico while you are at it... hell avoid leaving US border.

[Nye Bevan]

28. So wouldn't mind having an arrest for murder on your record

under similar circumstances?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. What part of charges are dropped, or never filed

are you missing? Most normal countries, including where I live (inside US Borders) have those sealed.

[Nye Bevan]

31. But why arrest the guy? For the rest of his life, when anyone Googles his name,

they will see that he was arrested for murder.

If he wants to apply for a visa to enter the US (for example) the form asks if he has ever been arrested. He will have to state that he was arrested for murder.

What *nobody* has answered in this thread is why do the following:

1. Arrest the guy
2. Investigate what happened
3. Drop charges (or press charges if appropriate)

when you could do the following:

1. Investigate what happened
2. If appropriate, arrest the guy and press charges;
3. Otherwise, do nothing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Sealed means no google hit

the only time it becomes an issue is if you try to get a security clearance or try to get a job as a cop (They get access to sealed records) explain yourself that is that.

Administrative detention is the technical term you are looking for, by the way... press usually confuses it with arrest.

Oh in this particular case... the nooz story lives forever on the web though.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Way too late for no Google hit....

http://www.google.com/news?hl=&q=vincent+cooke&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS387US388&ie=UTF-8

Or is someone going to remove his name from all those Internet sites?

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Forgive me, but is that the POLICE FILE?

Nope... you are confusing nooz, with police record. THE POLICE RECORD is sealed...

Which is the point I made. This procedure has been around for ever, EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Sorry, I prefer the cops go ahead with the administrative detention... sometimes, rarely, what looks like self defense is actually murder one... and you need to do this as an investigator.

[Nye Bevan]

37. You said "no Google hit" (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I was discussing the POLICE RECORD try to keep up

what should change, and good luck on first amendment... is the release TO THE MEDIA of this information.

But if I as an employer do a background check on Johnny... my background will look at POLICE RECORDS.... and unless I am doing a security clearance or a POLICE INTERViEW, that record, the POLICE RECORD, is sealed.

Is this such a hard thing to understand? Oh and I can show you records of this going as far back as the early papers... literally they have been around like forever, Go to your local UNIVERSITY library and go through the police blotter. You think this started in the age of the Internet?

[Nye Bevan]

41. Sorry, when you said "no Google hit" I thought you meant no hits on Google. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. No I meant actual cops

they have access to the google too

[Mariana]

50. They probably arrest him so he can't tamper with evidence.

A murderer who's falsely claiming self-defense might very well try to destroy evidence if he's not detained and so prevented from doing so. Also, an innocent person can foul evidence unintentionally and screw up the investigation.

I think I see why it upsets you so. In the US, lots of people (including you, it seems) tend to assume that everyone who's arrested must surely be guilty of SOMETHING. Even if the police later release them and they're never prosecuted, many Americans consider them tainted forever by the arrest itself.

Has it occurred to you that people in the UK may not jump to that same conclusion, since people are routinely arrested "on suspicion" and held while the investigations take place?

[Nye Bevan]

52. It's perfectly possible to secure a crime scene without making any arrests.

And I certainly don't believe that everyone arrested is guilty. I don't even believe that everyone *convicted* is guilty. I have seen enough cases where people have been cleared by DNA.

My problem is with the seemingly routine arrest of homeowners who have exercised their right to self-defense, no matter how obvious it is that they are innocent (for example the guy who was confronted by masked machete-wielding home invaders).

[Odin2005]

35. This is what the gun-haters want for here, They want self-defense to be illegal.

They are authoritarians that think you should only rely on the police to protect you, even if there is a burglar in your home.

[COLGATE4]

44. No - but when you are allowed to use lethal force is a question of

law, not just that you're allowed to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Nye Bevan]

47. Agreed. But why jump the gun and arrest the homeowner?

Why not conduct the investigation, figure out what happened, and then arrest him if warranted?

Even OJ Simpson was not arrested until the DNA results were in.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. Self-defence is perfectly legal in the UK

see the rest of the article; two similar cases, charges not filed because of reasonable self-defence. See also the links I provided to the Crown Prosecution Service advice on use of force against intruders.

[Nye Bevan]

48. So why place someone under arrest "on suspicion of murder"

for something that is totally legal?

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Because it hasn't been established that it was self-defence

pretty much EVERY COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE US would arrest someone in this situation, pending investigation, even if charges were later dropped. The US is in this instance the odd man out.

[Nye Bevan]

66. So you think it's a good general principle to arrest anyone who *may* have been involved in a crime,

no matter how low the probability, on the grounds that charges can always be dropped later?

Like in the aftermath of a bank robbery, arresting everyone in or nearby the bank, just in case they are involved? They can always be released later, after all, if they are innocent.

Isn't it better to investigate first, then arrest if necessary? The rush to arrest people, no matter how unlikely their guilt, smacks of nasty authoritarianism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. hmm we are talking murder here

just to be clear.

And yes, in a robbery, so you are clear, people are at times administratively detained... that is the correct term. Oh yes, in the good ol' US of A.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Actually my local PD does that

and trust me... last time I checked we were still part of the US...

This was high profile, most don't make it into the press.

[Nye Bevan]

49. dupe

[hunter]

53. Here in the USA we arrest people for breaking into their own houses.

If they're not white....

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., one of the nation's pre-eminent African-American scholars, was arrested Thursday afternoon at his home by Cambridge police investigating a possible break-in. The incident raised concerns among some Harvard faculty that Gates was a victim of racial profiling.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html

Racial Profiling??? Gee!!! You think???

If you live in a "bad" U.S. neighborhood, or nobody in the house is white, and the police come and find someone stabbed to death, pretty much everyone who looks 12 or older is going to be lying face-down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs.

I guess white suburban people in the USA get a pass. Sorry officer, I had to shoot him.

I think holding onto someone who has killed somebody is generally a good idea until the situation is sorted out. Could be anything -- a robbery, a drug deal gone bad, you never know...

My own policy is not to kill anybody who just wants to take my stuff. Shit, I can always get new stuff. But I can't bring dead people back to life.

[Nye Bevan]

54. So what if a home invader is threatening you and your family with a machete

in the middle of the night? Would you fight back?

[hunter]

55. I'd probably ask him why he was in my house with a machete.

But first he'd have had to get past the garden gnomes. Nasty foul mouthed little buggers they are, and they bite.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Gnome

[spin]

60. Yes. I would shoot him...

A machete is a very lethal weapon! Hopefully I would have time to get my 12 gauge double barrel coach gun.

[ZombieHorde]

57. All countries are stupid; they are just stupid in different ways. nt

[Nye Bevan]

59. Agreed. For example, the fact that the US still uses the death penalty

is probably a worse thing than the UK arresting innocent homeowners for murder when they defend themselves.

I hope that one day the death penalty is abolished in the USA. And that in the UK, innocent homeowners who hurt or kill home invaders are treated more leniently.

[ZombieHorde]

61. I don't like the DP either. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

70. So you've already decided the homeowner is innocent, so therefore no need for an investigation...

What if their story isn't true and there's more to it? Before announcing them innocent, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until the investigation is complete? If he's not innocent, then he'll be charged with murder, and if he is innocent, all charges will be dropped. I'm in another country that does things the same way as the UK, and don't think anything should change, as taking a life is a big deal and needs to be investigated properly before announcing that someone's innocent.

[Nye Bevan]

77. I have said in several posts that of *course* there needs to be a full investigation.

And I'm not saying they should proclaim the homeowner innocent until the investigation is complete.

But what they did was to announce to the press that he had been "arrested on suspicion of murder" before the investigation had even *begun*!

Here's what I think should happen:

1. Police say nothing. Nobody is arrested.
2. A full investigation is conducted.
3. If the homeowner is determined to have been acting in self-defense, announce that he is innocent.
4. If not, then arrest and charge the homeowner.

I don't think this approach is unreasonable.

[ikri]

81. Arresting him

Means being able to question him under caution, with a lawyer (freely provided) present if required. Any questions asked without him being under caution would be inadmissible should it ever go to court. The police could turn up at a crime scene and hear a full confession from someone there but they'd not be able to use that confession in court. I don't believe that the police were the ones to release his name either, that seems to have come from the media questioning neighbours.

If this guy didn't use unreasonable force then he'll be let off. The UK case that makes the most news when it comes to killing burglars is the Tony Martin case where the home owner shot an intruder, what saw Martin convicted was the fact that he shot the intruder in the back as he was fleeing the scene. If an intruder is escaping then the home owner has no rights to chase them down and assault or execute them but if the intruder is still set on attacking the home owner then anything is fair game. Additionally, it's OK to grab an improvised weapon en route to confront an intruder - I might grab a pool cue from my spare room if I heard someone entering my home - but going out of your way to find a lethal weapon would probably see you charged with assault at the very least.

[Nye Bevan]

82. An arrest is not necessary for an "interview under caution".

And it's certainly not necessary for the police to announce to the press that the homeowner has been "arrested on suspicion of murder".

And if anyone's family is being threatened by home invaders, they should not have to worry about being charged with assault if they grab a knife from the kitchen to defend themselves.

[Union Scribe]

67. An astute point nicely abbreviated. nt

[Iggo]

62. Goddam those Brits for investigating a killing before just lettting the guy go.

What the fuck is wrong with them?

[Nye Bevan]

65. Why not investigate the killing first, before making any arrests?

Should everyone who happens to be in a bank in the aftermath of a bank robbery be arrested on suspicion of bank robbery, just in case they are involved?

Conduct the investigation, and only arrest the homeowner if necessary. Pretty simple, really.

[Iggo]

71. Should everyone who happens to be in a bank...

...in the aftermath of a bank robbery be arrested on suspicion of bank robbery...?

Well, no. But if it looks like it could possibly be a bank robbery, the guy who actually admits to taking the money should be detained until his story checks out. 'Cause until it does, I gotta suspect him of bank robbery. I also suspect he might be telling the truth, but I'm going to err on the side of caution.

And that's just missing money. In this case we have a dead guy in the kitchen. Again, I'm erring on the side of caution, then letting him go when and if his story checks out.

Pretty simple, really.

[Nye Bevan]

75. "Donna Jackson Kills Intruder While on the Phone with 911"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/donna-jackson-kills-intru_n_383871.html

Note that this took place in the US and Ms. Jackson was not arrested. Your view is that she should have been handcuffed and arrested, just to be on the safe side. I guess some DUers are more "arrest first, ask questions later" kind of people.

[socialshockwave]

69. He defended himself. I'm all for life but if someone came at me in my house I'd do anything

to defend me and my own.

What some on the left don't realize is you can't rely on the police to come save you. Sometimes you have to do it yourself.

[WI_DEM]

74. My guess is that he'll get off

[Nye Bevan]

76. Almost certainly. So why arrest him and announce to the press that he has been arrested for murder?

Now for the rest of his life he will have a murder arrest on his record.

For example, if he ever wants a visa for foreign travel, the form will typically ask if he has ever been arrested, and he will have to reply "yes, for murder".

Anyone who Googles his name will find the murder arrest.

All for defending his wife and child against home invaders.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. I predict great things for this thread.

We're gonna get everyone from the irate "see, they're gonna take mah guns away" gungeon folks to the weepy Les Miserables crowd who thinks the proper response to a potentially violent home intruder is to not only give him all your money, but to offer him tea and cake as well. :rofl:

Long & short? Guy was defending himself, his family and his home. Let him go. Shit, give him a medal.

[Nye Bevan]

83. One interesting thing is that burglaries and home invasions are *much* more common in the UK

than in the USA. The main reason is probably that gun control is so strict in the UK that pretty much nobody owns a gun, so potential burglars don't have to worry about being shot, unlike in the USA, where there is a reasonable chance that they will be blown away.

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. While the murder rate in the UK is one-fifth that of the US...

and there are incidents of mass murder/shooting sprees about once every 20 years if that often rather than one a week or one a month as in the US. And the rate of crimes against property probably has as much to do with the fact that the UK is very much more urban than the US and much more densely populated (660 people per square mile versus 83 per square mile in the US, which are only average figures; the area of Cardiff where I lived until about 8 months ago has a higher population density than Manhattan due to a large student population and one of the highest in Western Europe, about 30K per square mile). There are significantly more factors in play than gun control, anyway.

[Nye Bevan]

87. "The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S."

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

....

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. You're using the Daily Mail as a source and expect me to take your argument seriously?

Sorry, but, no. No more than if you were citing Fox News.

[Nye Bevan]

92. They are citing reports from the EU and the UN (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

94. No, they're actually citing claims by the Conservative Party

read more closely; "The figures, compiled by the Tories.."

and meanwhile there's this:

New figures released today have thrown an incendiary into the election debate on violent crime.

Analysis of hospital data for England and Wales, by academics at Cardiff University <191KB PDF>, shows there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances in emergency departments last year than in 2001 - a fall of just over 15%.

This contrasts with Conservative claims that violent crime has increased by 44% since 2002. It also appears to contradict Liberal Democrat analysis that hospital admissions for assault are rising.

The figures from the Cardiff study neatly track the downward trend in violence identified by the British Crime Survey (BCS), adding new weight to the argument that, for most people, England and Wales are less violent places than they were a decade ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html

[Nye Bevan]

95. A few more sources confirming those numbers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2512514/UK-is-most-violent-nation-in-Europe-and-is-worse-than-US.html

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/111305/Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-Lawless-Britain-top-of-the-league-for-violent-crime-

[Spider Jerusalem]

98. You do realise you're citing right-wing newspapers with a political agenda, yes?

Independent analyses of the data including the BBC report I lined don't actually bear out those claims. Nice try though.

[Nye Bevan]

99. Wow. So 4 separate national newspapers lied about an EU report on violent crime statistics.

With no corrections, retractions, or PCC reprimands.

Quite a conspiracy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/03/tories-violent-crime-statistics

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. "Lied" is too strong a word, "gave a certain interpretation to" is more accurate. (An interpretation again not borne out by other sources.)

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I don't think it's gun control that is responsible for the difference.

That's just my hunch.

[Nye Bevan]

89. I agree that gun control probably is not the only factor.

However, a potential burglar having no idea whether a homeowner has a gun obviously must have some deterrent effect.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Could just as easily be that there tend to be bigger yards in the US

hence, more dogs.

[Nye Bevan]

93. And maybe American dogs are fiercer than English ones (nt)

[Cerridwen]

97. Oh, hell, honey. I'm a natural redhead. Can you guess why I might "hate" the

UK.

Then, of course, there's my whole Irish, Scottish, Nordic (in general) background.

The UK is the romans writ large.

Why is anyone surprised that the 21st Century romans "look" like this? <--------rhetorical question