Story
Future Legislation?
We asked you to suggest a law that you would like to see put onto the statue books. We received 10,000 nominations and five were shortlisted. You then voted to select your preferred choice...
Stephen Pound MP agreed to put forward whichever idea eventually won the final vote. It's been interesting. Huge numbers of ideas were sent in - some 10,000, in fact. Almost all were serious, heart-felt propositions. Some were tongue-in-cheek. One correspondent suggested banning the broadcast of antagonistic discussions before nine o'clock.
On Christmas Eve a panel chose a shortlist of five ideas. Their decision was based largely on popularity but they also threw out ideas which were patently unreasonable - the beheading of people caught towing caravans during daylight hours, for example.
Those five shortlisted ideas were put to a ballot in which well over 25,000 people took part. There's clearly no voter apathy in Today-land. Two "laws" - a revision of the donor system and a bill to allow homeowners to deal with intruders in whatever way they see fit - were way ahead of all the others. The final result: a homeowner's defence bill. It's a controversial choice but, nonetheless, it's the choice of the majority of our listeners. So we'll look forward to pursuing it in the Commons later in the year. We'll let you know how we get on.
Number Crunching
We had a total of 26,007 votes.
There were 17,829 telephone votes, 8160 secure email votes and the rest were other emails and faxes.
* 1st place:
Law 5: The proposal to authorise homeowners to use any means to defend their home from intruders :
37% of the vote.
* 2nd place:
Law 3: A Bill to allow the use of all organs for transplant after death unless the individual has "opted out" and recorded that opt out on an organ transplant register :
30% of the vote.
* 3rd place:
Law 1: A Bill to ban smoking in all workplaces, to include bars and restaurants :
20% of the vote.
4th place:
Law 2: Double-headed Bill which would have limited the number of terms a Prime Minister can serve to two and would have made voting in General Elections compulsory for all of voting age, subject to the provision of a "No Vote" box on the ballot paper :
9% of the vote.
5th place:
Law 4: Ban all Christmas advertising and the erection of municipal street decorations before 1st December :
5% of the vote.
OVERALL BREAKDOWN:
TELEPHONE VOTES
LAW 1: 18%
LAW 2: 8%
LAW 3: 28%
LAW 4: 4%
LAW 5: 42%
EMAIL SECURE VOTES
LAW 1 25%
LAW 2 10%
LAW 3 35%
LAW 4 5%
LAW 5 25%
CONTROVERSY
The emails have been flooding in. Many of you believe protecting your family in your own home is a fundamental right - which should be addressed by the courts. Other listeners are shocked and outraged that the bill was taken seriously, and was voted as the ultimate winner...
I am horrified at the winning "Listeners' Law" That Today listeners could endorse vigilantism is incredible. I notice that both proposers mention Tony Martin as if he were some sort of hero, he shot a 16 year old boy, in the back - how can that be reasonable force? Please don't repeat this exercise next year or no doubt somone will suggest bringing back hanging or the birch.
From: Deborah Stux
Was I the only listener standing open-mouthed with impotent fury in my kitchen this morning listening to Stephen Pound's disappointment because the result of the listeners' law poll did not go the way he had wanted? That he wasn't the least bit embarrassed to say so, or admit that he had already been discussing organ donor legislation with Dr John Reid displayed precisely the kind of contempt for voters which exemplifies contemporary political behaviour. The moment the desires of the electorate conflict with their personal intents or ambitions, they choose to forget they actually represent anyone except themselves.
From: Joe Nutt
Has the Today programme been taken over by the frothing mouthed? Let's hope that Mr Pound is unable to find any MP foolish enough to put forward the "Kill Bill".
From: Adam Rose
I was astonished at Steven Pound's comments on the result of your poll. He attempted to dismiss the result in favour of the runner up. Is it surprising that the public is disenchanted with politicians when they patronisingly treat clearly expressed majority democratic wishes like this. Obviously the proposal would have to be refined before going forward (any of them would) but his attempt to say it is inappropriate because of its simplicity was a feeble attempt to discredit a good idea. The Today programme has broken new ground with this vote, well done, lets have some more.
From: Tony Wright
Mr Pound's reaction to your result highlights exactly what is wrong with the UK system of government and law making. The politicians are disconnected and ignore the electorate. The listeners voted for the law to use any force against intruders, yet Mr Pound suggests they got it wrong. He and his fellow law makers don't like the sound of it so it will be difficult to present to Parliament. Lets look at the one that came second, he suggests!!. Why? Because he likes it. Ignore the will of the people. It is only when Mr Pound and his ilk recognise that this is the problem that he will understand why politicians are distrusted and voter turn out continues to fall.
From: Ian McCord
Today listeners are in their sympathy with Tony Martin. Why did I just lie in bed listening instead of getting up and voting?
From: Margaret Squires
Listen to Mr. Pound's reaction. Some key sentences:
"The people have spoken--the bastards!"
"This is an uncomfortable result."
"Well, sure, but to allow the slaughter of 16-year-old children with pump-action shotguns. . . ."
"Something has got to be done. Whether that something is to allow you to SLAUGHTER anyone who comes into. . . ."
Let's not forget that this 16 year old 'child' already had a rap sheet longer than my arm and was accompanied by an adult career criminal.
Martin did exactly what I would have done in that situation except that my shotgun (Winchester 1300 riot gun) would have been loaded with #4 buckshot and I would have emptied all 8 rounds at them.
Strangely enough, a homeowner has more rights to use lethal force on the Continent.
Story
In many countries in Europe and the US the law appears to give householders more rights.
Olivia Luhrmann, public prosecutor in Dusseldorf, told BBC News Online: "In Germany the law is that you are allowed to shoot burglars, you are allowed to use lethal force, if you are defending your property."
She recalled one case in Germany where a burglar was shot dead running away from a house with property he had stolen.
"At the first trial the householder was convicted of manslaughter, but the appeal court said what he did was OK because it was justified to protect his property," said Ms Luhrmann.
She said the court will also consider how much property the burglar was taking and the age of the burglar.
If a householder shot someone who was taking items worth less than £50 or was a child then the defence is almost certain to fail.
Adrienne McFarland, assistant attorney general in Texas in the USA, said that in her state it was likely that Martin would not have been prosecuted.
No warning needed
"Here in Texas you do have a right to defend your house," she said.
"There is a specific provision which says you are allowed to use deadly force against a person committing an unlawful entry."
She said that the householder did not first have to warn the burglar for the self-defence argument to operate.
"If he is in the house this would meet the definition," she said.
This law can also, in certain circumstances, be used to defend the shooting of burglars outside the property.
God Bless Texas!
Given the differences in the US and British 'hot' burglary rates, I'll stick with laws like Texas's and Colorado's.
