this is quite an issue here . if you call up AFTER the crime has taken place , for say a break in or an attack which hasn’t actually hurt you physically then you will have to wait a long long time for the police to show up , police are massively understaffed so they have to prioritise .
if you ring up while the break in is taking place or very quickly after then they will come quickly as there is a chance of getting the crinimals .
As soon as you start going " i was robbed/attacked around an 30 minutes/hour ago " your going right to the bottom of the list and they will send a detective sometime later
as one of the comments also says
Bob R says:
December 1, 2015 at 13:45
Playing devil’s advocate here, maybe they mentioned to dispatch that the perps left the scene and therefore they made it a lower priority call. Maybe if they said the perps were still in the house they would have sent officers over right away.
people like this annoy me
Aldis says:
December 1, 2015 at 15:36
Im from England – yeah that sounds about right.
Also if you dare any kind of self defence – you will be arrested for attack…
In England its ILLEGAL to defend yourself!!!
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t defend yourself – just don’t report it to police afterwards…
God i need to move away from this terrible country.
you would think if you are worried about self defence you would actually research the law and find out its perfectly legal as long as its reasonable to the situation . the exact same as it is any most countries
proportionate/reasonable force .
the issue is people are not ever taught there rights when it comes to self defence and as a result think its illegal , the same with guns a large portion of the population think guns are completely illegal to own .
extract from our law regarding "reasonable force "
“If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken …”
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force
The Law and Evidential Sufficiency
Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.
The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:
“It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.”
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.
Reasonable Force
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);
“If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken …”
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
In (R v OGrady 85 Cr App R 315), it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.
. Is there really even a difference between the two? It shows how good German tech was in world war 2 though, because they still use the same damn machine gun. 
