About time! Just pray they don't water it down or add other stupid things to the law.
And to John of Nice - Straw isn't requiring you to defend yourself, he's allowing you to. There's an important difference.

Rowan, Oxford,

It will take more than a few words at the party conference to restore the public's faith in the judiciary.
A few well publicised cases where victims push the boundaries of "reasonable force" and get the support of the courts would be a step in the right direction.
And, Mr Straw himself could start the ball rolling himself with a full pardon for Tony Martin.

jasper, chelmsford,

In a country obsessed with human rights I have never been able to comprehend that a thief or burglar who self evidently is not observing my rights should have any protection from those rights. I would always assume that my life was in danger if I found a burglar in my house and would act accordingly. To pursue and apprehend a thief is a personal decision but should never be the subject of prosecution if the apprehension requires a degree of violence. The prevention of theft and apprehension of felons is a public service and the prosecution of those who carry out this service has been a national disgrace.

mike gee, bopurnemouth, uk

I propose that the new powers to defend yourself be called THE TONY MARTIN LAW.
The right to defend yourself should be not only allowed but encouraged.
When a 'low life' enters your house he should realise that he has surrendered all civil liberties. Householders should also be allowed to have proactive deterents around their property like electric fences.
In France, hunting is very popular. Whilst on a househunting visit recently I noticed that nearly every house had a rifle over the fireplace.
It would be interesting to know if burglaries figures are lower in France. Or whether French burglars are a DYING BREED - literally.

G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE

Times article 12 January 2005 - "Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, risked the wrath of anti-crime campaigners today when he announced that homeowners will not be given extra rights to use force to repel burglars." - Tony Blair promised a review and this was the result. What has changed apart from an impending election and an even more cynical opinion of the electorate than they had last time. Oh how short are our memories.

David, Bournemouth, Dorset

This really just reinforces a public view that certain consumate student politicians (there are many in the New Labour camp) were never very capable of much as lawyers.

They do not even seem to understand the complicated and delicate tripartite relationship between consent, self defence (including that of the Iraqi regime when invaded illegally) and the varying degrees of assault starting very low on the scale and commensurate with the degree of injury and likelyhood of forseeability of that injury.

Pete Balchin, Solicitor , Bristol, UK

One reason that police charge, and CPS prosecute people involved in private defence situations is simply that those defending themselves/others typically admit what they have done. These cases are therefore relatively simple to prosecute. Remove the need to hit targets in both police and prosecution, and the cases will fall away as the authorities exercise their discretion.

JS, Cambridge,

About time that this was clarified for all. I know of prison Officers who get suspended for acting in self defence, even when the prisoner was not injured in anyway. Surely if they are protecting the public, and having to deal with this type of person daily, then they should receive the backing of their managers, by ensuring that measures are in place, so that if they act they are not then in threat of losing their job. Something I believe the Police already have.

Graham Ealey, Perth, Perthshire

It's quite correct to say the police don't show up when needed, especially when they might have to face violence.

Some years ago I leapt out of my car to intervene in a teenage fight (one girl was battering the head of another on the pavement, observed and cheered on by a 100-strong crowd of adolescents).

Despite an immediate call by mobile, I was left facing the mob for 1 hour 40 minutes before a policeman arrived. I was surrounded and obstructed, & felt under threat of violence myself, but staved it off by a mixture of humour and apparent calm (I didn't feel at all calm).

The ambulance I asked for never arrived at all. The stunned victim was finally got to her feet & helped away by friends.

The implicit contract always used to be: the police will protect you. Delegate your right of self-defence to the community and the police. Nowadays, the police are too busy with other things. To whom, then, should we look for defence?

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

Depressing familiar - heard it all before - a decade of tough on crime and no action. Someone should remind Straw that it was his shower that bought in the human rights act and prosecuted and jailed countless victims for fighting back.
Its funny that they all start sounding sensible in the run up to an election.

philip, Ipswich,

The best advice that anyone could take would be - don't have a go. Mr Straw is probably an exception, and a foolish one at that, to most politicians, whose expertise is most often avoidance and denial.

Judy , Liverpool, england

So Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary will promise 'zero tolerance' today.

So what happens to the current £2000 allowance extended to fraudsters by the police because of lack of resources?

Brian Gilbert, HAMPTON, Middx

Finally New Labour are coming to their senses. This change is long overdue. I can only hope that he actually puts through a clear and uncomplicated change in the law.

I suspect that the ordinary citizen's experiance under the current regime is somewhat different from Jack's experiance of "having a go". I suspect many have a go heroes find themselves being arrested possibly because they are easy fodder for "solving recorded crime" targets

John Goh, Welwyn Garden City, UK

Andrew Milner hits the nail on the head. The thugs and crimminals arm themselves with guns, kniives, crowbars, baseball bats, etc , to carry out their crimes, but the victims (law abiding citizens) are unable to do likewise in order to protect themselves and others. Should they face attack the law abiding citizen doesn't even have the reassurance that the police will be quickly on the scene... they are too busy filling in paper work or arresting people for offences against political correctness.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

Asthmatic pensioner ,vs armed fit young burgler. please advise

john, nice, france

The law as it stands states you can use reasonable force but this is far to vague. I hope that the new laws will be better drafted but it is almost certain there will still be an element of debate and so people will still go to court for protecting themselves.

It is known that a burglar who is disturbed and does not run away is very likely to cause serious harm and death. In this scenario then you have to believe your life is in danger and that of your family and so reasonable force here would in my opinion include the death of the burglar. A few days after the event the same circumstances viewed with hindsight might mean that you would decide that you should lock yourself into a room and call the police. What the judiciary do not appreciate is that you have to make these decisions in a split second and the wrong one means you could lose your life and family.

Any individual that is hurt during a crime has only their self to blame and they should not be seen as a victim ever.

joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

This populist agenda will soon be forgotten once an election is over and it will be back to business as usual with the government stamping down on ordinary people and curbing their rights while protecting criminals and empowering the state over us.

Simon, Maidstone, Kent

About time too. Now how about the means? I fancy a Glock G19. "Gun control means hitting your target."

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan