WHEN will Government finally acknowledge that the British people are deeply unhappy with laws that seem to take away householders' rights and give them to criminals?

A Radio 4 poll asking which single change in the UK law people would like to see on the statute book brought a landslide for allowing homeowners to defend their property "by any means".

This is probably no surprise to you and me. The nation seemed united in disgust at some of the details in the Tony Martin case -- the Norfolk farmer jailed in 1999 for killing a 16 year-old intruder.

There have been regular incidents since when householders have found themselves on the wrong side of the law, simply for defending family and property.

Now, Tory leader Michael Howard has taken up the cause, suggesting that homeowners who injure intruders should be presumed innocent, unless there is actual evidence that they had used "excessive" force. This was always going to become a political hot potato, of course, but I still do not understand the perceived enthusiasm of the prosecuting authorities against homeowners in such cases.

It only seems a short time ago that it was accepted that anyone breaking into your home took his chance with irate residents.

In other words, you try to take what's mine, pal, and I'm going to stop you with the best means available.

A completely new dimension now applies to this in 2004. The soaring burglary rate is coupled with a drug abuse epidemic that adds more violence to even the simplest of burglaries or muggings. And, shamingly, the criminals themselves know that, when push comes to shove, the law will be on their side.

I sincerely hope that there is now a groundswell towards a change in dealing with burglars. Otherwise, Tony Blair may well regret it when he finds intruders in the house of Commons, stealing his position of power.