Kung Fu vid was very funny. They both deserved a good slap though! One for being an obnoxious toe rag and the one in the red shirt for taking such a ludicrous stance in a street fight, forcing the confrontation, allowing the bloke to reach for a potentially concealed weapon, and for not kicking him in the face when he adjusted his shoelaces. Fight wasn't needed, from the amount of circling and posturing the mouthy bloke wasn't interested in taking it physical. Curious as to what the camera was doing there too.
Stuff below is a bit off topic, previous post on UK law and stuff got me feeling all warm and positive and "devil's advocatey" about the small island I live on...
Bammx2 said:
as far as the courts are concerned,you are allowed to use whatever you want to defend yourself....but then you have explain WHY you HAD what you used in the first place.
Spot on! It is illegal to use force against another person in the UK except in a limited number of circumstances. Self defence, prevention of crime or injury, and executing a citizens arrest allow a member of the public to use "reasonable force". Depending on the circumstances and the subjective state of mind of the member of the public at the time it is potentially permissable to use extreme measures or weapons.
Carrying weapons or items adapted as weapons in a public place is an offence entirely separate to any act of violence performed in self-defence.
Justifying carrying a weapon and justifying use of a weapon are two separate legal issues.
Bammx2 said:
If you get attacked by 5 guys with clubs and knives...yes,you can use a knife,but then you have to explain why you had a knife in the first place and 8,maybe 9 times out of ten....you got a minimun of 2 years for being posession.If it has a locking blade...up to 5 years.
You are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable means. Whilst it might actually be reasonable to use a razor sharp katana in self defence the law expects you to have an excellent reason for having it with you at the time. If you are walking the dog in the park with a sword in one hand you will go to jail, and rightly so, if you are on the way back from iaido training or buying one in a shop you have a legitimate reason for carrying one. As a UK citizen I am pretty happy with the law on this point.
Mandatory sentences for carrying blades
in public are a fact of life in the UK. Some agree some disagree. It limits the options available for legal self-defence. On the other hand it is a very good way of putting armed criminals in jail before they have the opportunity to leave an innocent MOP dead or crippled. It is arguably a statistics game which balances the reduced risk of encountering a knife on the street with the chance that you may have to face one unarmed...
Bammx2 said:
When all is said and done.....
the law is made by a PILE O PANSIES who know NOTHING about thier life being on the line and they never will.
They blatantly ignore any input from hospital services,victim support services or even the beat officers who actually know the truth of things at hand.
A bit of a generalisation!
In UK slang a pansy is:
1) a homosexual man.
2) someone weak or effeminate in behaviour.
The law is made by a democratically elected parliament, it is administered by the court system and primarily the police. I am positive that the sexuality and gender mannerisms of the executive, court officers or the police has no effect on public policy and enforcement of UK law with respect to self-defence or carrying of weapons.
Common sense and demographics tell us that for most of the last century, and until very recently parliament and the courts were largely filled with citizens who had survived WW2 or WW1. These were people who had in fact very personal and sustained experience of "their life being on the line". Until very recently almost all judges and most politicians would have had family or friends sacrifice their life during the 40's. Often socially very conservative this generation has been surprisingly strong and liberal in outlook when defending civil liberties against government encroachment (in particular freedom of speech/official secrets act cases). Not "pansies" just people with a powerful and very personal understanding of the colossal sacrifices made in the 40's in the name of liberty and democracy. This understanding of the price paid to secure some of our liberties is definitely changing for the worse!
Bammx2 said:
At one time (and this dates back to a time when a man could be arrested for being gay...but the was NO WAY a woman could be gay,queen victoria refused to believe that was possible), the police was portrayed as a perfect crime fighting unit and ONLY they could fight crime.
True, until comparitively recently consensual "buggery" between adult men was illegal, but there was no law specifically making lesbian acts illegal. "buggery" between consenting adults, male or female is now legal, (although the family pets remain off limits):xtrmshock !
In Victorian times the Police were not seen as the perfect "crime fighting unit", the creation of the modern Police force under Robert Peel was a radical new experiment, and faced huge problems, primarily a genuine crime problem fuelled by abject poverty, and broad and largely well founded public perception of corruption in the pre-Peel constabularies.
Bammx2 said:
The law makers have a fiiiirm grip on the word "vigilante".
The law of England & Wales does not use nor need the term "vigilante". The law is clear, there are offences of violence, and there are defences to such offences including self defence and the prevention of crime.
Bammx2 said:
Now,in the 21st century.....
Everything insight is banned, NOT because of the lame reason they spew all opver the news.."we trying to keep these out of the hands of criminals"..
but because they are trying to get assaults on the police to go down.
Either reason seems perfectly fair to me provided it is successful.
Bammx2 said:
This is the ONLY LEO comminuity on the planet that is unarmed.
Pepper spray and asp batons just ain't getting it.
and the criminal element KNOW the police can't do a damn thing about it.
A little bit of web research will show that members of the police services in the UK (with the exception of the former RUC - the Police Service of Northern Ireland who remain armed) are against the routine carrying of firearms. If someone has the guts the skill and the confidence to do the job unarmed who has any right to argue with that? I am proud that we have a police force that is prepared to shoulder extra risk in the belief that the community is better served if most officers enforce the law unarmed.
In fact all areas of the UK have mobile armed response units, and certain units and forces are routinely armed. E.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Police Service of Northern Ireland, MOD Police, Diplomatic Protection Group, SO.19, airport units etc etc.
Gun crime in the UK is very low, and whilst this remains the case the current policy makes sense. For the moment pepper spray and asp batons do seem to cut it, and criminals also know that carrying firearms isn't a smart way of having either a long criminal career or a healthy long life...
Bammx2 said:
If you get attacked on you own property,law states you must run inside your house,lock the door and call the police.
If they manage to get inside,you are supposed to lock yourself in a room and wait for the police.
Again,do nothing.
They do lie,sorry,"say" you can defend yourself in your home...but if you hit the assailant more than once..you are arrested for "no-reasonable" force.
This is simply not the way the law works! Anybody on your property without permission is trespassing, this is not a crime. Everybody has the right to use
reasonable force to remove a trespasser, this is again not a crime, although the law prefers it if you ask them to leave before thumping them. A trespassser who attacks you is committing an assault, which is a crime; just as on the street, you may use reasonable force to defend yourself, this is legally defensible. A trespasser who is stealing is a burglar, you may effect a citizens arrest, remove them from your property or defend yourself, again using
reasonable force, and still remain within the law.
The law does not expect you to run and hide under the stairs, and the law is quite happy for you to hit an intruder as many times as
you personally believe is reasonably neccessary for effective self defence. (BTW the jury has to believe that you subjectively were in a state of mind where a reasonable person would do what you did, a subjective objective test. If you acted reasonably given your personal belief, but that belief is way out of kilter with the rest of society then you might be innocent, but also sectioned as insane . So best to keep quiet about any "voices"...
)
Recent cases show that the law does not allow you to tie up and torture burglars, nor does it allow you to shoot a teenager
twice in the back as they run away from your property.
On the other hand a known gangster who stabbed and killed an
undercover police officer (trespassing in his garden on a surveillance op) was held to have acted in reasonable force, as he convinced the jury that he was in fear of his life and thought the officer to have been from a rival gang. It seems that if you have the right story and a convincing subjective state of mind you can quite literally get away with murder if you are on your own property!
Bammx2 said:
If you chase someone for stealing your property...YOU get arrested.
This is simply not true. Everyone in the UK has the right to effect a "citizen's arrest" if a crime is being committed. However, the police are not allowed to give
suspects a "good shoeing" and neither is a member of the public. Both face arrest if they do so.
Bammx2 said:
The police are so perfect...they WILL find it.
The police here act as mindreaders.
If you have a spotless record and they pick you at random and find something on you THEY don't like...they KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt...you WILL commit a crime with it!
The Police do the best they can, and their role is to enforce the law, not their personal likes and dislikes. Largely they do this very well. Anyone that breaks the law and carries a weapon should not be surprised if the Police decide that the court deserves to hear an explanation. For better or for worse it is a simple matter of action and consequences.
Bammx2 said:
If you say you carry a kubaton for DEFENSE...you done.
If you say the magic word implying self preservation,then you freely admit that you ARE INTENDING to cause bodily harm and therefore...you ARE a criminal.
If you admit to carrying an item with the intent to use it at some point as an improvised weapon you are:
1) very very stupid!
2) now a criminal!
If life is getting a bit scary simple practical solutions are either:
1) a good solid umbrella (appropriate most days of the year over here)!
2) practising some very convincing excuses for the kubotan, chainsaw, or whatever else one decides to carry. :tank:
3) alter one's attitude to risk taking, and accept that sometimes "stuff" happens that can't be controlled, and enjoy life in the meantime.
Bammx2 said:
Fortunately,the street police are getting wise and taking more things into consideration.But that isn't happening fast enough.
I have recieved 2 pieces of advice off the record here from police....
1) do NOT hang around when you are done! Leave the area immediately!
Pretty good advice - both legally and from the point of view of personal safety.
Bammx2 said:
But if you don't know the law of self defence thoroughly you will likely talk yourself into jail anyway!
Bammx2 said:
The last one may be extreme,but living here in south london,
you have middle eastern gangs,jamaican gangs(yardies) british "firms" ( look up the Kray twins and the charlie richardson gang) eastern block gangs from all countries,far east gangs(triads flourish here in london) and you have gypsies(pykies) and list goes on.
They fear nothing and nobody.
Why do you think I specialise in knife fighting?
They do.
Knife skills are great, but if someone ends up killing a member of an organised crime outfit then the legal consequences are the least of their worries.
London does have a significant amount of organised crime, anyone in a situation with a reason to fear physical harm from an organised crime element needs a lifestyle alteration/emigration/chat with your friendly local bobby would be in order.
I might be playing a bit of devils advocate here, as UK weapons controls are very strict, and some were brought in as a knee jerk response by politicians keen to look good on law and order issues. Generally it works, knife culture is relatively manageable and firearms offences are very low by any comparable international standards, however law abiding citizens have lost personal freedoms when it comes to weapons, in particular firearms training/sports.
There is nothing much wrong with our laws on self defence (apart from domestic violence - and that is being altered) that a good lawyer and a good personal understanding of law, evidence and court procedure can't fix.
Our government is democratic, and our courts and police forces are exceptionally honest and generally very competent.
Bammx2 , I sort of understand where you are coming from on a lot of this, and I can understand why a person may wish to carry a weapon illegally. It does sound as if you had had a bit of a bad day when you wrote the post.
I picked up on your post partly because some of the legal stuff was way off the mark, and partly because it is embarassing to portray the UK (even the seedier bits of London) as some sort of Dark Future crime ridden Police State. Most of the people on this forum are from the US and will rightly laugh themselves sick at the suggestion that the UK is a dangerous country with citizens under seige and law enforcement in a state of collapse.
The thing is I really feel that a thorough understanding of self defence law is crucial, especially rules of evidence and court procedure. A partial understanding is really unhelpful, and can get people into needless trouble.
I also have lived in South London (Streatham) and actually rather liked it. Some bits were dodgy some weren't.
We both know that the UK isn't all cream teas, Royal Weddings and sunny games of cricket, but it is by and large a nice place to live, it is pretty safe and the system of government is relatively honest and efficient. I have lived in a fair few places and I like it here.
There is street crime and worse, but I do not live in daily fear of it. Fear attracts trouble like "the proverbial" attracts flies. I find life here works out pretty well just by being aware and enjoying myself. London is a unique city, and there is loads of good stuff here to balance the bad.
Good luck with the training, PM me if you want any pointers on reading up on the legal side of stuff.
Cheers
Dan
