Well, shucks.

Police said the stabbed man was found on Hospital Road and died a short time later.


Ch Supt Kevin Mulligan, who heads Greater Manchester Police's Salford division, said the man suffered "at least one stab wound" during an altercation in the house involving at least one person from the address and four people breaking in.


He said he could not comment further on the injuries or the cause of death until a post-mortem examination had been carried out.

Jesus, so four people break into someone's house and the householder gets stabbed to death?

Well, no, not exactly.

A burglar has been stabbed to death and the householder arrested on suspicion of murder after an attempted break-in at his house in Salford.

Four masked men attempted to get into a house in Ethel Avenue before midnight on Wednesday.

So, four masked men broke into someone's house and one of the intruders got stabbed and died. Well, them's the breaks, the stabber was probably scared out of his wits. The fact that there was only one stabee and that he only got stuck once would suggest that this was not a frenzied, rage fuelled attack of revenge. Preditcably:

Peter Flanagan, 57, son Neil, 29, and his son's girlfriend are being held.


The men and the 21-year-old woman are being questioned on suspicion of murder.

I cannot and do not support the death penalty, but if you and three mates mask up and break into someone's house, all bets are off. This, from the evidence at hand, seems to be a clear case of defense of property and life. In my opinion, a murder charge is not appropriate.

It is possible that the CPS will go for manslaughter, but even though the defender may end up escaping a jail term, he or she will still be stuck with a criminal record that could effect their life for the rest of their days. It seems unfair in the extreme to me.

Meanwhile over the pond:



No problem for law enforcement over there, and quite right too, you cannot cross someone's threshold and expect to be protected. IF the homeowner is lying in wait with the plan to kill the intruder, that is different, but in my opinion in a heat of the moment reaction there should be only one outcome. No charge.

Just to show there's no honour amongst thieves:

The stabbed man, 26, is believed to have been carried away by the other intruders as they fled, before being dumped in a street in Pendlebury.

Classy.

The One That Fails To See The Logic. . .

Welcome to the UK.

Now give us your money.

You'll already be taxed for landing at or taking off from a UK airport, one can only wonder how long it will be before the same is extended to British sea-ports and the Eurostar stations. People coming to the UK for tourism and business already pay the government for the privilege of landing here.

So people that are coming here to spend money have their wallets prised open before they even make it to the baggage reclaim area. Nice.

Now those who come here to pay through the nose for our services, or to work and pay tax are to be relieved of £50 at the stage where they apply for their visas (any non-EU national must have a visa to enter the UK for a period longer than 6 months).

Pravda reports that:

People from outside the EU moving to the UK to work or study will have to pay £50 extra for visas to help areas struggling to cope with immigration.

The £70m raised by the two-year scheme, announced by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, will help fund more police support and translators.

Right let us set aside that this has been announced by Hazel Blears, a creature who is living on borrowed time as far as I'm concerned.

Let us set aside the fact that we don't need more police, we just need them to be left alone to get on with their jobs rather than filling in forms and attending endless political indoctrination courses. Let us set aside the fact that people who come here to study and work are unlikely to need translators as they'll probably speak English anyway.

Let us concentrate instead on the fact that these people who are coming here to make something of themselves, and through the money they pay for their studies and the tax they pay on their earnings, are being pickpocketed to pay for those who arrive on false passports, in the backs of lorries or in the boots of cars.

Labour have fallen into the BNP trap again. They've decided that all immigrants are bad, and must be punished. So much for social justice.

Make no mistake about it, the clandestine entrants to the UK are economic migrants (believe me, I know more than the average bear on the subject of immigration), they queue up outside the ports of Calais, Dunkerque and Coquelles and cast envious glances at the departing trains and ferries. For the (admittedly falling) number who make it across the water without being discovered by the French Police, private security firms and British immigration who now work in France, the first question they ask is 'When do I get my house?' this is normally followed up by 'When do you give me money?'

You see international law states that those seeking political asylum (and that's the only sort) must claim their rights under the 1951 UN Convention in the first safe country they arrive in. If you're coming from Iran, I'll accept Iraq isn't safe. Ditto for Afghans going into Pakistan or Eritreans going into Ethiopia, but when you are in France, and many of the countries en route, you're safe. The EU and UN agree and have certified it as a safe country. The Taliban and Iranian extremists are a rare sight on the beaches of Cannes and the vineyards of Burgundy.

So I'm not going to entertain the idea that those in Calais are fleeing for their life. Persecution in Calais doesn't seem to go much beyond punchups between different ethnic groups. Hardly the state sponsored persecution you must prove to qualify for refugee status.

These people have made a lifestyle choice to get to the UK and live on the freebies from the public purse. Those coming here to contribute will have to foot the bill for them, even though they've nothing to do with them.

Don't worry Japanese students, Indian chemists, American lecturers, South African geologists and Pakistani doctors - you've just been assimilated. You are just like us.

You see, I have nothing to do with the British who choose not to work, who choose to squeeze out kids like a queen bee spits out eggs and who choose to sit back and let the State support them. I've nothing to do with them or their lifestyle at all, and yet I still have to foot the bill, to the detriment of my lifestyle.

Doesn't really seem fair, does it?

The One That Wonders What The Phrase Means. . .

I encountered a new phrase yesterday; 'summary conviction.'

I'll contextualise it, in the fair city of Canterbury it is now an offence to let your dog walk off the lead. I'm a responsible dog owner, I always pick up after my dog and I do not let her walk off the lead except in places where I know she will be safe doing so. I'm not concerned about her savaging people, because I know it won't happen. (And yes, I do know, dogs are entirely predictible, read up on amichien bonding, it is surprisingly Libertarian and the results are startling, even in older dogs).

However the attitude is that dogs off the lead could alarm or attack people, therefore, anyone walking their dog off the lead is subject to a £60 fine. The logic is impeccable, and I await the next initiatives; fining people £60 for going into a pub because they may get pissed up and attack a passer-by, or fining people £60 for driving their car because they may run someone down.

I put myself in the hypothetical position of being confronted by one of the City's wardens, trying to give me a fine.

'Name?'
'Not telling.'
'Address?'
'Get stuffed.'

I'd refuse to pay it, take me to court, it will be my word against yours. I'll tell the Magistrate that these people are on performance related pay and have ticketed me to meet targets. My dog was on the lead. Actually, it wouldn't even get that far in court, I'll guarantee they don't meet their statutory disclosure requirements under Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act, it'd be thrown out through abuse of process.

Anyhow, the by-law refers to 'summary conviction', it has no definition in the PDF files provided on the council's website, I can only assume that it means 'you are guilty because we say you are, no caution, no representation.' Fuck that, that isn't what 2000 years of history and common law in this country says, and I'm not about to accept that with these arseclowns.

It all sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? But it cannot and must not stand, because once we accept one little bit of it, we are screwed, the police, bad enough at present, would be turned into Judge Dredd characters.

Let's look at another example, Obo hits the nail squarely on the head when commenting on this article. Harman has passed summary conviction on Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin;

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

Whoa! The law and process mean nothing. 'We have dediced this must be so, therefore it shall be.' Fred is a revolting little fucktard, but a contract is a contract is a contract. It is not up to the law to be popular, or to change with the direction of the wind, it is the law's job to be fair and to be applied consistently without fear or favour.

The rule of law is the glue that binds our society together, once that is washed away we find ourselves getting closer to Mugabe step-by-step. I'm waiting for the PM to remark on the next General Election by saying 'it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.'

Only YOU can stop this from happening.