[rrader]

No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


A British Times Literary Supplement reviewer recently took a shot at tracing the "providential themes" present in George Bush's political rhetoric. Indeed, the interminable war on "tyrants and terrorists" is laced with evangelical zeal. The American president, however, is not alone "in the redemption business."

Tony Blair fancies himself every bit the redeemer of mankind. Etched all over Blair's address to Congress was the crazed devotion to the "mystic [and, might I add, malevolent] idea of national destiny."

One particularly chilling dictate was this: "I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me? And why us? And why America?' And the only answer is, 'Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.'"

The tyranny implied in Blair's maudlin grandiosity should be obvious.

First, the little guy back home ought to be the one calling the shots, not Messrs. Messiah and Company.

Second, before Blair joins Bush in rousing the "visionless" middle-class American from his uninspired slumber – The Great Redeemer thinks it's below contempt to harbor a civilized desire to mind one's own business and live in peace – he ought to take a look at the little guy back in England.

Tony Martin, for one, is not having a terribly tranquil time.

He was only just released from jail for the crime of defending his English liberties. Blair blathered to Congress about "the spread of freedom" being "the best security for the free," but this poor, benighted Norfolk farmer, doubtless would no more advocate the spread of British-style freedom than he would the bubonic plague.

Martin killed a career criminal by the name of Fred Barras and injured his accomplice Brendon Fearon when the two broke into the elderly man's homestead. However, Martin, who was initially convicted of murder and jailed for life, had no freedom to defend his property or his life.

The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details, have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against the protected criminal class at their own peril.

A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property.

In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected. The charge was commuted to manslaughter, however, once Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid personality disorder.

According to a recent U.N. study, writes Historian Joyce L. Malcolm, author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," "England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious' offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed." While violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, British violence has been rising.

Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13 percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.

How far has British barbarism gone? Malcolm's evidently garden-variety accounts include the story of an elderly lady who fought off a gang of thugs "by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm."

When Eric Butler was brutally assaulted in a subway, "he unsheathed a sword blade in his walking stick and slashed" at one of his assailants. Butler was added to the lineup – he "was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."

Tony Martin was almost denied parole. You see, Martin was not contrite for killing the creature that invaded what was supposed to be his castle. I kid you not, but apparently, in the words of a probation officer, Martin continues to be "a danger to burglars."

Having been robbed of three years and five months of his life for the crime of self-defense, Martin's ordeal is not over. The surviving ruffian, who has more than 30 convictions to his name, has been granted permission to sue his victim, even given legal aid to so do, for the injury he suffered on the "job."

The criminal protection and reinforcement program that is British justice also entails honoring Brendon Fearon's "right" to know where the old farmer will reside now that he's been released.

For this "Train of Abuses and Usurpations," Tony Blair is beneath contempt and beyond redemption.

***********************************************************

Beneath contempt and beyond redemption, apt description of the UK's criminal justice system.

[agricola]

The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details, have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against the protected criminal class at their own peril.

that should be the sovereign and her elites.

In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected. The charge was commuted to manslaughter, however, once Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid personality disorder.

the plea was rejected by the low and retrograde method (copyright cant-evidence-my-claims.com) of twelve of Martin's peers viewing all the evidence and finding the man guilty.

Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone from bad to worse.

The ban was introduced by the Conservative Party under John Major. There has been issuing of firearms for self defence for fifty years. No matter how many times you repeat a lie rrader, it never becomes the truth.

The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13 percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.

the most dangerous form of burglaries are those whereby the homeowners are attacked in the home by the perp (the so-called "Home Invasions"- which are much more common in the US than the UK.

[GSB]

the most dangerous form of burglaries are those whereby the homeowners are attacked in the home by the perp (the so-called "Home Invasions"- which are much more common in the US than the UK.

Numbers per capita and sources please. If the US does have a higher per capita number, it indicates that homeowners in the US are a) insufficiently armed and b) not killing enough violent thugs.

[Kharn]

There has been issuing of firearms for self defence for fifty years.
But thats only for people on terrorist hit-lists, and is less then 0.1% of the entire population. 'Normal' criminals have almost nothing to fear.

Kharn

[MicroBalrog]

But thats only for people on terrorist hit-lists, and is less then 0.1% of the entire population. 'Normal' criminals have almost nothing to fear.


And according to Steven Kendrick, an international firearms law expert - this is only done in NI.

[agricola]

apologies, that was an unfortunate typo - there has been no issuing of firearms for self defence for fifty years, aside from those that Kharn mentions.

GSB,

a direct comparison is difficult, but possible to make. In England and Wales we have an offence of aggravated burglary whereby during the commission of the offence the suspect(s) is in possession of a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence, incapacitant or explosive. These offences by their nature can only come to light where the suspect is identfied at the scene with the item - a confrontation which would amount to a robbery, but which is usually classified and charged as an aggravated burglary.

for 2002-3 the statistics were (dwelling) 3475 (nondwelling) 613

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf (page 55)

The UCR records offences differently, and classifies what would be aggravated burglaries in the UK as residential robberies. This creates a difficulty in a comparison, so I have excluded the overall percentage of strong-arm robberies (which it would be possible to argue are much more likely to be on the street than in homes) so that only "armed" home invasions are listed; similarly the "other" offences have not been included. The UCR also raises problems in that the 2002 report has still not been released, and so 2001 data must suffice (a direct comparison can be made with the 2000-1 and 2001-2 data from the home office if required).

There is no pure numbers breakdown of residential robberies in the UCR. The total number of robberies was 422921 during the recording period, of which 12.0% were classified as "residential", which i work out to be 50750.52 offences. Of the total robbery stats, 42% were committed with firearms, 8.7% with knives, 10.4% were committed with other weapons. This would suggest that roughly 31008 "aggravated burglaries" were committed in the US during the measured period.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

[Art Eatman]

Ag: Using "burglary" as a sneaking, non-confrontational theft, and "robbery" as a face-to-face theft, we have relatively few home robberies in the U.S. I am omitting the (not all that common) armed invasions in the world of drug dealings, as these seem less to be robbery than they are violent business disagreements or revenge.

From the various news sources from your country, and from U.S. data such as the FBI info, et al, home robbery is far more prevalent in England.

Various interviews with criminals, here, show beyond doubt that they fear the armed homeowner.

One of the funnier (to me) stories about guns, burglaries and citizens is that of the Santa Fe, New Mexico, "Blue Flu" event, back around 1980. The police can't go on strike, but the rank and file there, in protest of pay scales, called in sick with the flu. Citizens, all over town, then patrolled or observed their own neighborhoods. The burglary rate went to zero. A newspaper reporter got a cop friend to arrange an interview with a known burglar. The burglar's comment: "The police just arrest you. These people will kill you!"

:), Art

[Iain]

Nice biased article, ''Martin shoots a burglar''. All of us who don't blindly think that ''Britain is bad mmkay'' know that it was a little more complicated than that.

Swordsticks - illegal. He didn't get charged for defending himself, he was in trouble because, probably for years, he was walking around with an offensive, illegal weapon. You may argue that that is his right, but in the UK it is illegal. Thus as an example of the non-existance of self-defence it is invalid, because I don't think anywhere would let you get away with defending yourself with a weapon that it is illegal to possess.

You carry out an act of self-defence in the UK it is more than likely you will go to trial. The law claims to be objective - there are clear and defined ideas about what is a proportionate response. I shoot a burglar as he is running out, that is not a proportionate response. I hit a burglar, with a bottle, who is running at me then initially that can be regarded as proportionate.

However, should I smash his skull in and he dies then the objective part of British law no longer regards my action as proportionate. Don't leap into a bewildered and angry reply - bear with me. However, British law is also subjective, we have juries and judges can dismiss on lack of evidence and not sentence jail time etc.

So this happens, guy is in my house tonight, he threatens me, I hit him with a full wine bottle. He dies. I go to court, it is unlikely that unless I had previously threatened violence and the forensics failed to match my story, that I would be convicted. There is a need for the case to go to court though. I could have hit him in the back of the head after sneaking up on him because I was so livid he had dared to break into my house. It wouldn't then be right that I walked away scot-free.

Not all that long ago in Britain a man confronted a burglar whilst carrying a shotgun. He told the burglar not to move, the burglar tried to call his bluff and ran at him. He got shot. The homeowner was acquitted.

There are more stories out there that are more clear-cut and better examples of British self-defence than Martin's. The incessant claim that ''Martin is a martyr to the lack of self-defense laws in Britain'' ignores the fact that he had an illegal weapon, he had made threats to kill, he was anti-social and borderline mad, he shot a 16 yr old in the back. That case is not clear-cut despite the constant carping that I read here.

[Kharn]

St Johns
he was anti-social and borderline mad
Please provide evidence to support that claim.

Kharn

[Iain]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0%2C2763%2C876197%2C00.html

''In October 2001, however, three appeal court judges accepted fresh evidence that he had been suffering from a paranoid personality disorder''

[Zedicus]

I learned Long ago to treat a vast majority of reports by various media groups like the rieking heap of dung it is.

the problem is the media Judge, Convict and Exicute without realy researching into the "Indevidual" or there Circumstances, all they care about is BIG Raitings and following the popular Openions to further there Raitings, they couldnt care less about Truth or Accurate facts and information.
''In October 2001, however, three appeal court judges accepted fresh evidence that he had been suffering from a paranoid personality disorder''
as do around 99.99% of the world Population in one way or another....:rolleyes:

The fact remains that the Powers in charge Obviously did everything they could to Make an EXAMPLE of Martin.

[Iain]

So my media example is invalid but the one at the top of the page isn't?

Now quite confused.

To further knock your claim back, this acceptance by the High Court got Martin a reduced sentence.

[MicroBalrog]

Swordsticks - illegal. He didn't get charged for defending himself, he was in trouble because, probably for years, he was walking around with an offensive, illegal weapon. You may argue that that is his right, but in the UK it is illegal. Thus as an example of the non-existance of self-defence it is invalid, because I don't think anywhere would let you get away with defending yourself with a weapon that it is illegal to possess.


Wrong, several times:

1. The point of the article was criticising Britain for having such dumb laws.

2.As far as I understand, there is a EU legal standard, under which a person defending themselves legally with an illegally possessed weapon is not charged for it's possession.

3.OK, so in the UK you have the right to self-defense, even though it's regulated to near-nothing by the proportionate response (repealed in every ex-USSR country as soon as they got democracy, recently destroyed by court precedent here in Israel, BTW). But carrying anything that could be used as a tool of self-defense is illegal, and most tools of self-defense (pepper spray, tasers) are Section 5 weapons, together with .22 handguns and 20mm Vulcan cannons. So what are you supposed to defend yourself with?

4.Luckily, Israel's High Court of Justice has acquitted at least one person in circumstances similar to Martin's, shooting the entire "proportionate response" deal in the head. Just so you know.


4.

[seeker_two]

...Thus as an example of the non-existance of self-defence it is invalid, because I don't think anywhere would let you get away with defending yourself with a weapon that it is illegal to possess....

Thus Britain's push to make ALL weapons illegal for the average citizen to possess...:rolleyes:

In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected. The charge was commuted to manslaughter, however, once Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid personality disorder.

Thus "normal" people will consider self-defense as sane an act as suicidal gestures or pretending that you're Napoleon...:scrutiny:

The fact remains that the Powers in charge Obviously did everything they could to Make an EXAMPLE of Martin.

Thus people will bend over & take it so that they can't get it from the government as well... :what:

Just quit trying to defend Great Britain's socialist government. They haven't done anything worth the effort... :banghead:

[Iain]

I'm thinking about that post MicroBalrog, but quickly I would say this. I have a boccan in the house, no problem there. I am 22 and have never been broken into, nor attacked. I have lived in some pretty rough areas and gone to some pretty rough schools. Up until late last year my next door neighbour was a known drug dealer. Of my friends, nothing more than a bit of non-aggravated burglary and some affray's. I don't live in a parallel universe and I do not live in fear of crime, despite the fact that Britain's overall crime rate is statistically higher than the US's.

[agricola]

art,

Ag: Using "burglary" as a sneaking, non-confrontational theft, and "robbery" as a face-to-face theft, we have relatively few home robberies in the U.S. I am omitting the (not all that common) armed invasions in the world of drug dealings, as these seem less to be robbery than they are violent business disagreements or revenge.

You have about 50000 home robberies in the US p.a based on the last available set of statistics, of which a low estimate of "aggravated burglaries" can be guessed at around 30000. We have about 3475.

From the various news sources from your country, and from U.S. data such as the FBI info, et al, home robbery is far more prevalent in England.

I love the way that you can make statements like that with precisely no evidence to back them up. An aggravated burglary can only be classified as such where the victim or a witness identifies the perp with the object at hand during the commission of the offence. If the same happened on the street, the charge and classification would be a robbery (theft through putting someone in fear of force), and I did state that this was an overlap between two offence groups. Of course, if you have data that supports your conclusion I am sure it would add weight to the discussion.

Where you may be getting confused is the so-called "hot" burglaries, which are higher in the UK - but the data shows that relatively few of these result in confrontations between the homeowner and the perp.

kharn,

Please provide evidence to support that claim.

just once i would hope that pro-gun people would practice what they preach and correct their own sides mistakes - some people here from that side are starting to make stuff up, and should be spoken to about that.

On the subject of Tony Martin, that was his clinical diagnosis and it was stated in mitigation by his defence team and accepted by the Appeal Court. This makes it a fact, and St Johns is entirely correct to make that statement.

[MicroBalrog]

You have about 50000 home robberies in the US p.a based on the last available set of statistics, of which a low estimate of "aggravated burglaries" can be guessed at around 30000. We have about 3475.

Link please?:D

[agricola]

Microbalrog,

Again, St Johns is correct.

The man was found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon not of the assault; we have a legal principle whereby if someone arms themselves to defend against an immediate attack ("Instant Arming") then they cannot be found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon. This has been held to include grabbing a knife off the kitchen table to run outside to defend a family member. In this case, the man had been carrying the swordstick on the off-chance, which is why he was found guilty. The mere existance of the story and the conviction means that it is a fact, so one cannot see how you can cite him as wrong for using it as such.

With regards to Martin, Tamara came as close to the truth as any commentator has, ever, on this subject. It would be wise for y'all to read what she said.

[MicroBalrog]

agricola - I was talking not of British law, but of a Continental concept, which I seriously do not know if applies to the UK, wherein, had the man been tried in some other country, the charges for "offensive weapon" would have dropped.

Sorry for the sloppy grammar.

[MicroBalrog]

With regards to Martin, Tamara came as close to the truth as any commentator has, ever, on this subject. It would be wise for y'all to read what she said.

Where? On which thread? Link!:confused:

[agricola]

micro: np, tho your link please statement did result in cursing ;)

an alternative perspective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm

[agricola]

Since we live in the free U.S. of by Gawd A., what do you think would happen if you:

1) Bragged loudly to your neighbours about how you'd shoot any punk you caught breaking in.
2) Used an illegally obtained, restricted weapon (say, an open bolt Uzi that has somehow "wound up" full auto) to shoot an intruder.
3) Fled the scene of the shooting and didn't notify the cops until 24hrs later.

Given those three items, how far under the American jail do you think they'd bury your American self?


__________________


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6209&highlight=tony+martin

[JohnBT]

"Barbaric Britain"

I thought we were going to discuss what the English did to Scotland and Ireland.

John

[MicroBalrog]

You have about 50000 home robberies in the US p.a based on the last available set of statistics, of which a low estimate of "aggravated burglaries" can be guessed at around 30000. We have about 3475.

Again:

Link please!:D :D

[agricola]

micro,

the links are on this very page man

[MicroBalrog]

Well, here's the problem, that BCS paper doesn't give me a per 100,000 burglary rate.:( Where can I find it?

[agricola]

its not a BCS paper, it contains the recorded crime stats also, on the page indicated.

if you want per 100000 inhabitants, you'll have to do that yourself, unless its buried in an appendix somewhere.

[MicroBalrog]

2001

Breaking and Entering (burglary, right), rates per 100,000

UK

England and Wales: 1,605.14 - http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/UKEnglandWales2001.pdf

Northern Ireland: 647.17
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/UKNorthernIreland2001.pdf

Scotland: 1,652.93
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/UKScotland2001.pdf


USA:
740.80
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/usa2001.pdf
So the USA has less burglaries than any part of the UK, except Northern Ireland. Want to try calculate the average burglary rate for the entire UK (Inerpol doesn't give it)

[agricola]

micro,

nice - bit burglary was not the issue here - rather "home invasions", which are higher in the US.

[MicroBalrog]

Is a home invasion the same as a "hot burglary"?

[agricola]

micro,

This was all explained in the notes to the post with the links above. In short, no it isnt - all "hot burglary" means is that a person was on premises when the offence occured, whether or not they were disturbed is another matter.

[Kharn]

Agricola:
What does being disturbed have to do with distinguishing a "hot burglary" from a "home invasion"?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines a "Home Invasion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=home%20invasion)" as a "Burglary of a dwelling while the residents are at home". That sounds an awful lot like a "hot burglary" to me.

Kharn

[MicroBalrog]

I'll re-read it. Didn't the Home Office say that 10% of all burglaries ended in a violent encounter?

[agricola]

Kharn,

One means "home invasion" in the legal sense - an armed robbery on the home.

[Kharn]

So a 'home invasion' is a 'hot burglary', but a 'hot burglary' is not always a 'home invasion'?

Kharn

[agricola]

kharn,

exactly.

[HBK]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Burgulars are criminals. If they break into your home, it should be legal to shoot them. Let's stop all the legal mumbo-jumbo and subjective arguments and treat it as good vs evil. Someone defending their home=good. Someone breaking into the house=evil. You should be able to defend your life AND your property.

[Sean Smith]

That's some pretty impressive semantic masturbation. :rolleyes:

[clange]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Burgulars are criminals. If they break into your home, it should be legal to shoot them. Let's stop all the legal mumbo-jumbo and subjective arguments and treat it as good vs evil. Someone defending their home=good. Someone breaking into the house=evil. You should be able to defend your life AND your property.
You my friend, are a threat to burglars. I'm informing the authorities immediately.

[HBK]

Why thank you! (except for that part about informing the authorities.)

[MicroBalrog]

Wasn't that your common law duty to be a danger to burglars?:D :evil:

[T.Stahl]

Thus as an example of the non-existance of self-defence it is invalid, because I don't think anywhere would let you get away with defending yourself with a weapon that it is illegal to possess.
Just across the channel, here in Germany, you would not be charged for the possession of an illegal weapon IF you used it to defend yourself. Of course, you would not be allowed to keep it.

[rrader]

T.Stahl:

Just across the channel, here in Germany, you would not be charged for the possession of an illegal weapon IF you used it to defend yourself. Of course, you would not be allowed to keep it.

Sounds like Germany is a much more civilized and progressive country than Britain nowadays. I think many older Germans would recognize the character of the current British government, especially its low and retrograde "justice system," and be very disturbed by it.

[Iain]

Britain = nazism now does it?

rrader you need to distinguish facts from your ''socialism, always a toilet'' mentality.

[MicroBalrog]

Britain = nazism now does it?


First of all, you should use "is", not does.:D

And frankly, based sheerly on that aspect of policy, Germany is currently far more progressive than the UK.

[rrader]

St. Johns:

Britain = nazism now does it?

You need to distinguish your hard-left socialist government, so very similar in outlook to Hitler's hard-left socialist government, from the whole of Britain.

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, rrader, the correct wrong is not "socialist". It is "statist". Remembery, quite a few right-wing politicos contributed to the UK's present unhappy state.

[agricola]

st johns,

actually, if you stay here that long, you'll find that you have a hard time getting rrader to accept any facts at all aside from those he creates himself. Its just a pity the rest of us mortals, especially those of us who are in the embarassing position of actually living in the country that he knows so much better than us. :rolleyes:

micro,

I disagree with you, but its nice to see someone else correct him.

[Zedicus]

Its just a pity the rest of us mortals, especially those of us who are in the embarassing position of actually living in the country that he knows so much better than us.:rolleyes:
Yes, It is quite an embarrasing experance to live in a country that is but a mere Shadow of what it once was and stood for....:rolleyes:

[rrader]

To paraphrase Will Rodgers: "All I know is what I read in the British papers." :D

[agricola]

zedicus,

do you have links for the stories about the "non-suspicious deaths" that you posted elsewhere? for the life of me i cannot find any.

[Art Eatman]

Ag, I got out my magnifying glass and fought my way through your link to the FBI about the residence robberies. :)

The problem is that (naturally; difficult to do) there is no breakdown between what I pointed out early on about the difference between the drug-stuff vs. honest homeowners watching the telly and being assaulted.

Per newspaper reports on a regular basis, the former is rather common, and is indeed, technically, a "home robbery". The latter is quite uncommon, although it does happen. For a comparative relationship in this, the only available sources are major-city newspapers. They devote large amounts of space to crime reports and are descriptive of the circumstances, where the FBI data are not.

Art

[saddenedcitizen]

Everytime and every place it's been tried -
The do-gooders with the purest intentions and
goodness in their hearts (if you want to believe that)
start out with clay, mold it over time, glaze and fire
it and wind up with a toilet.
It has never worked, doesn't work, and will NOT work
until the 'human nature factor' (power/avarice/selfishness etc)
is removed (a pretty tall order).

[T.Stahl]

Sounds like Germany is a much more civilized and progressive country than Britain nowadays.
Don't forget that in Germany self-defense is not only legal, it's also legal to own and carry some defensive tools that would cost you a large fine in the UK or might even send you to jail!