Defending our shores against defending the self...

[Porcupine]

I'm not sure what 'non violent' self defence the BBC is aware of? "Stay back! Or I'll ask you to stay back again!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18002220

An American expert in violent self-defence has been excluded from entering the UK by the Home Office.

Tim Larkin tried to board a plane from his home in Las Vegas on Tuesday, but was given a UK Border Agency letter saying "his presence here was not conducive to the public good".

Mr Larkin, who was due to host seminars, told the BBC the move was a "gross over-reaction".

The Home Office said he was subject to an exclusion order.

A spokeswoman said: "The home secretary will seek to exclude an individual if she considers that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."

Mr Larkin - who trained as a US Navy Seal - runs a company teaching combat to military and law enforcement clients in the United States.

He teaches self-defence techniques, which according to his own website, are designed to inflict "crippling pain" to an attacker, and claims violence is "your ultimate survival tool".

Mr Larkin had been invited to be a keynote speaker at The Martial Arts Show conference in Birmingham on 12 and 13 May, and to hold a seminar in Tottenham.

Both areas were targeted by rioters last August.

Mr Larkin told BBC Radio 4 he believed he was being excluded for criticising Britain's self-defence laws.

"I am not advocating that the UK should be like the US. What am advocating is that the UK should go back to laws it had, prior to 1920."

But Mr Larkin insisted there was "nothing outrageous" about his views, and his intention in visiting the UK, was not to incite "violence".

"This is not being a vigilante. You are sitting in your house and you're being attacked, or you're attacked out in the street... There's an awful lot of martial arts and self defence being taught there right now that gives no instruction on [how to hurt] the human body.

He continued: "There are those rare, rare black swan occasions - like the riots - where law-abiding citizens are put in situations where they are facing grievous bodily harm and they hesitate because they are afraid of being prosecuted. That is a very real thing."

Mr Larkin claims he has a lot of support in the UK, and he says he may appeal to MPs.

A visit in 2009 to Slough, in Berkshire, where Mr Larkin held a class intended to teach how to "maim and kill in self-defence", provoked widespread condemnation from the community.

He has previously told the BBC that his training leads clients to become less violent.

"The more you know about lethal applications to the body, the less violent you are. You don't go out seeking it, and you certainly wouldn't misuse the tool."

[Chuck]

Larkin is a self defence 2expert", his courses are well promoted on US sites.

the ban is just bollox - we never ban terrorist and illegals i.e those who HAVE committed a crime.

On the same reasoning lots of Japanese masters would be banned..and god help anyone doing Krav Magra in the UK, pretty much what Larkins system is.

Of course our regime want you defenceless and unarmed,,,for the same sick reasons that rapists and other criminals like it.

Somuch for that windbag Cameron and his "we will allow people to defend themselves" What with.....his excess assgas.

[Christel]

I was wondering why he had been banned from entering. Seems a bit weird to me. :G

[Chuck]

Because he advocates fighting back and actually hurting or killing your assailant. Under UK law you are a victim and should know your place......

Like I said, that would apply to many martial artists.

[Porcupine]

Radio 4 interview with Tim:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18005761

[meles meles]

Under UK law you are a victim and should know your place......

I'm not sure that it is actually the law, more the result of a series of progressively more liberal interpretations of it starting in the 60s with a certain Labour (subsequently Social Democrat, then Liberal Democrat - see how weasels turn their coat colours) Home Secretary. My understanding is that the letter of the law, originating at Time Immemorial ( 6 July 1189) does actually give one quite wide leeway to defend one's self, goods and chattels - even unto the point of inflicting death upon an aggressor. All that the law requires is that one genuinely fears for one's life, or the lives of others, at the time one commits the act of defence.

In the 1960's some personage whose name shall not pass our lips started talking about the rights of the aggressor to withdraw from an assault without fear of harm and subsequently introduced the concept of only defending with reasonable force, said reasonable force having diminished in magnitude ever since... The law however, still remains as writ, no matter how it is now interpreted and unless and until re-writ, ought to be applied as it was intended.

It is this justification in law for self defence which forms the legal justification for the existence of the armed forces and which is quoted regularly prior to operations by the Army Legal Service.

[Individual]

I was wondering why he had been banned from entering. Seems a bit weird to me. :G

It is weird, if he really is just an innocent self defence teacher.

Maybe there is a clue hidden amongst these words
...A visit in 2009 to Slough, in Berkshire, where Mr Larkin held a class intended to teach how to "maim and kill in self-defence", provoked widespread condemnation from the community...

I wonder which community they refer to and the nature of their distress - they don't say, so there might be a reason.

It seems to me that he same tale about not being able to defend yourself without fear of prosecution appears on here and other 'shooting boards' with some regularity. It repeats more often than a gun-mart review (joke)

I think Meles-Meles has the right interpretaton. The law protects you if your actions are reasonable, you don't take the law into your own hands and a jury of 12 peers makes that call. T'was always the case, and still is. If in doubt ask a policeman.

stay safe out there.

[Porcupine]

If someone held a self defence class and didn't teach their students how to maim and kill I'd say they were incompetent and dangerous... You don't get out of a fight alive, unmaimed and unraped by gently exfoliating your attackers.

I do think people can be too cynical about the self-defence law in this country though. You can use, according to statute, 'reasonable force' to defend yourself, another, or to prevent a crime being committed. What is reasonable is determined in the first case by the police and CPS, and secondly by the courts. Usually, at least in self-defence/defence of another, it goes the right way. There are two problems though:

1) The prohibition or severe restriction on the ownership of weapons, and the absolute prohibition on weapons for self-defence in public - it may be legal to defend yourself but, that doesn't help you very much if two big guys with knives come at you and all you have is a pack of Kleenex.

2) While people aren't usually convicted of legitimate self defence, they are usually arrested and put through a long, damaging and traumatic period of incarceration and investigation.

Recall Vincent Cooke who stabbed to death a burglar breaking into his home. He was never charged, but he was imprisoned for 48 hours and investigated, with a possible murder charge hanging over his head, for a month. Consider how this affected him and his family emotionally, his relationship with friends, his employment (and future employment), and so on. Now I wasn't on the investigation of course so maybe they had good reason to think he was maybe dangerous and such a long investigation was necessary... But other countries seem to get by just fine - quick inspection of the scene, background checks on those involved, questioning of the suspect, and they either say 'good shoot, well done' or they think they really do need to arrest you and do so. In the UK option #1 doesn't seem to exist, they just go straight to #2 the moment the cops turn up.

[swampy]

with self defence as it lays in this country you may use reasonable force to defend yourself and your ptoperty and to protect those around you etc...

indeed maiming or killing maybe appropriatte in some circumstances. But not in all.... not in many really. It certianly should not be the default position. It is not proportionate to maim a person who is trying to steal your spanners from the garage (despite the temptation!!!)

[Individual]

with self defence as it lays in this country you may use reasonable force to defend yourself and your ptoperty and to protect those around you etc...

indeed maiming or killing maybe appropriatte in some circumstances. But not in all.... not in many really. It certianly should not be the default position. It is not proportionate to maim a person who is trying to steal your spanners from the garage (despite the temptation!!!)

Wise words swampy.

My own dear Dad - who is 79, partly deaf, diabetic and has two artifical hips - was recently woken at 3:00 am in the morning by some guy crashing about downstairs. He went down stairs to investigate, armed with nothing more than a pair of slippers and a rolled up copy of the radio times. The 'burglar' was verbally threatening and clearly confused. But with the application of some tea and a biscuit, it turns out the 'home invasion' was a drunk bloke who was in the wrong street and had thought his wife had locked him out.....the cops took him away for a talking to, a quiet night in the cells and that was that.

We shouldn't assume everyone is armed and dangerous and is out to do you harm, just because they are on your property - this is the UK and we have lots of (mostly harmless) young drunk people wandering about at night.