"Kill-or-be-killed" Self-Defense Guru Banned from U.K.

[c.d.]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11616723-kill-or-be-killed-self-defense-guru-tim-larkin-banned-from-uk?lite

c.d.

[Chris Scott]

Considering some of the illegal undesirables whom we let in - and then cannot get rid of! - I personally would have no problem with this guy coming here on a limited stay to present his seminars.

[Tom_Wescott]

Why is self-defense banned in the UK? First guns, now self-defense? Man, I'm moving there and starting a life of crime. Sounds like easy pickings!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

That reminds me of the great Robin Williams line about police in England yelling "stop or I'll yell stop again."

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Why is self-defense banned in the UK? First guns, now self-defense? Man, I'm moving there and starting a life of crime. Sounds like easy pickings!

That's fine Tom...but like all laws in the UK it depends upon compliance...I just happen to have an incredibly sharp (but perfectly legally purchased - forty years ago) Royal Navy officers sword hanging above my kitchen door...it's very sharp...razor sharp...I honed it only last month...

Personally I don't give a damn...my view is that if you're in my house you're mine...by the time the police query it, either you're dead or I am...so who cares...want to dispute it with me?

Honestly? Really? Private Mail me and I'll give you my address...I'd love someone to break in....

Lots of love

Dave

[TomTomKent]

Self defence is not "banned" in the UK. The law recognises that reasonable force can be used to defend yourself. What is less kosher is the advocating of killing intentionally. Apart from anything else if you want to prevent "hate preachers" from incititng terrorism and murder by ranting about when it is okay to snuff out human life then you can't afford to be picky about who else can be allowed to actively encourage you to "kill or be killed".

On the other hand, if you advocate truly free speech, and are willing to let anyone speak no matter how tasteful or tasteless you consider their views, then allowing this chap to visit is the only way to engage him in debate and change his views.

[Chris Scott]

Tom Tom
My comment about "undesirables" applied specifically to persons who entered the UK illegally and who have already been deemed by a British court to be not conducive to the public good and who, in some cases, have been the subject of extradition requests by other governments.
I am very much in favour of real free speech - not the muted timid version we have of it in the UK today. And even people whose opinions I loathe should, of course, be allowed their say. And it has nothing to do with any particular religion. I consider the morons of the Westboro church just as vile and misguided as Islamic hate preachers.
I am specifically supporting exclusion and/or deportation for people who are either
a) Here illegally (for example Qatada achieved entry and sought refuge on a forged passport) or
b) have already been judged by a British court to be a danger to the public or whose extradition as a result of request from a foreign Government would be justified
Personally, and I know many will not agree with this, I would like to see two measures:-
1) Withdrawal of the UK (unilaterally if necessary) from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), repeal of the Human Rights Act as passed by Labour in 1998 and its replacement by a British Bill of Rights and, if necessary, a written constitution.
2) A streamlining of the appeals process for immigration and asylum cases. It is utterly ridiculous that a man like Qatada can play the system for over a decade at public expense and still be here.

[Cogidubnus]

Chris if you ever decide on politics as a second (third?) career, you get my vote!

Dave

[TomTomKent]

Well, the announced defamation bill may have a considerable F.O.S content by the time it has hammered out, though this would have to be stitched onto the much needed libel reformation.

Oh and Robin Williams was funny, but Bill Hicks was funnier (to my taste anyway): "England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns - whoo! I'm gettin' a stiffy! - 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a comunist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. . . . OK, though admittedly last year in England they had 23,000 deaths per soccer game. . . ."

[Chris Scott]

The text of the Defamation Bill 2012-13 has been published on the official Parliament website.

"Following the announcement of the legislation in this year's Queen's Speech, the bill adds a "requirement of serious harm" for defamation to have taken place.

"A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant," the bill reads.

The defences outlined in the bill include truth, honest opinion and responsible publication on matter of public interest.

It also notes that operators of websites have a defence in regard to statements posted on their websites by third parties, should certain conditions be met."

I just hope that this and similar legislation can introduce some measure of control into the litigiousness that now besets us. Of course, I have no problem whatever with anyone who has been the subject of genuine negligence or malpractice from seeking redress. But the seeking of "compensation" has now become in the UK a full scale industry. So called "ambulance chasers" seek to drum up business for claims for accidents, negligence, Payment protection or whatever the latest trend is. This is supposed to be tightly controlled by the FSA (Financial Services Authority) but they fall far short. Only yesterday I was walking through the town centre, going about my business, when I passed two stalls set up as part of the Friday market. One was drumming up business for the AA, the other was a firm that specialises in accident claims. As I walk with with a stick I was approached by one of the bright young things with a clipboard who were manning the latter stand and I was asked: "Have you had an accident recently?" to which I replied in the negative. I was amazed when the sales rep came back with: "Are you sure?" I repeated that my use of a stick had nothing whatever to do with an accident. I was then told that, even so, they could go through the details of my medical history and see if there was any basis for a claim. I made it clear in no uncertain terms that I was not prepared to discuss my medical history on a busy street with complete strangers. And thus I left!
The "compensation culture" has given rise to one of the most exquisitely hypocritical phrases in recent times. "Of course, it is not about the money." I saw a lovely example of someone's bluff being called when a man who was suing for a six figure compensation sum (on very dubious grounds) who insisted that it was "not about the money." The interviewer suggested that, if the company in question was fined heavily, they would have been punished so the man, if he were not interested in the money, could donate it to charity. The panic flitting across his face was a joy to behold. All he could think to say - using one of the most overused of words recently - is that for him not to accept the compensation personally would be "inappropriate" but he did not explain how...

[Tom_Wescott]

I guess I'm confused with the comparison of 'kill or be killed' and hate speech. There is no comparison. Hate speech is someone who is under no immediate threat attempting to cajole OTHERS in to going out and commit crimes. On the other hand, 'killed or be killed' means preparing YOURSELF in the event someone else is going to attack you. Isn't that what the rest of you are getting, or is it just me? Does England advocate 'Don't Kill, Be Killed'? I'm shock to see someone trying to help people defend themselves..not OFFEND others...getting banned like he's some kind of unwanted criminal.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[TomTomKent]

What diferene can be afforded? Somebody is telling somebody else that under one set of circumstances or another it is appropriate to take a human life. In hate speech or "ignore the law on reasonabvle force and kill the guy" it is still telling somebody other that an illegal act can be justified.

It is that simple. A binary problem. Either people who incite and justify violent acts upto and including the taking of one or more lives are not allowed into the county, or they are. There is a popular movement to have "hate preaches" deported in the media, so as a consequence somebody saying "kill or be killed" to justify the "kill" bit is going to fall under the same checks and balances.

If a law is fair, it has to be universal.

[Ally]

Uh..under some circumstances taking a human life is absolutely justified. That's not hate speech that's common sense. So if a guy pulls out a gun and is going to shoot your child, you'd allow him to shoot your child rather than shooting him yourself because it's never right to take a human life?

What kind of effed up logic is that?

[TomTomKent]

Uh..under some circumstances taking a human life is absolutely justified. That's not hate speech that's common sense. So if a guy pulls out a gun and is going to shoot your child, you'd allow him to shoot your child rather than shooting him yourself because it's never right to take a human life?

What kind of effed up logic is that?

Well, for a start it is not the logic being discussed.

I know this sounds like a weird thing to say, and please don't read it as though I am trying to be patronising, but I am NOT discussing if you should or should not be allowed to shoot somebody who is attacking your kid. Or, more to the point (from my reading of the link in the OP) if you should be allowed to shoot somebody you think might be going to put your family in danger with the specific intention not of stopping them, but of killing them.

It is a discussion about if somebody should be allowed to tell you that stopping an intruder is not enough and you should be going for a kill to begin with.

Thats ignoring that the overwhelming majority of the population of the UK shouldn't, legally, be in the position to shoot anybody or anything. But lets assume for a second I am in the situation you describe and have a gun to hand. Nothing I have said so far has stated I shouldn't pull the trigger. It is a reasonable response and reasonable force given the situation. I would have to convince a jury of that, but personally it would be justified.

Of course, as stupid as it sounds "shoot" does not automatically mean "kill". It is probable that will be the result. But to get there a number of stages would have been passed, at any time the attacker could have backed off. Shouting a warning, raising the gun, telling him or her to stop. Then firing a shot.

But my reading of the link in the OP (and if I'm wrong here, feel free to correct me as I don't want to be a total numpty) was that the guy preached that you should actively intend to kill, not stop, the attacker and to do it before they become a danger.

Now regardless of your personal feelings if, say, Trevor Martin was right to set booby traps in his farm, obtain an illegal pump action shotgun designed for the single use of killing other humans, and trying to shoot two robbers in an ambush, that was not legally speaking (to my understanding at least) "reasonable" force. It was however an example of the kind of thing the chap in question seems to be encouraging in his speeches, but with the added caveat that the death of the intruder is the correct and proper outcome.

Everybody will have a different opinion of when it is right and proper for them to take a life. Most of those opinions will fall with-in a certain bandwidth. Unfortunately that is not justification for telling people that they SHOULD kill. Side stepping legallity, and looking at the political side, if you want to draw a hard line against those who encourage violence, you don't want to set a precedent. If it is ok for one guy to say "hey it's fine when your family is directly threatened", then why not when your belief is threatened, or your culture, or your sexuality, or any number of other excuses?

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

See what I mean. We tend to agree on about 90% of things. Just kills ya, don't it.

TomTom,

Yes, it's perfectly justified to say 'Kill or be Killed', as opposed to 'Stop or be killed', because if the other person has the intent to kill you, you don't aim for the leg or the arm, or they will have another chance to get at you. And to be honest, I don't think any government authority is in any position to try to dictate to someone if they can or can't protect themselves or their family. Protecting yourself and your family should be priority number one, and the government has no say in the matter. At least that's how it should be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott