Home Office releases "self defence against intruders" guidance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although, what Osborn thought Martin said* was what influenced his decision.

*As well as the policy of banning as effectively as they can (not that it stops criminals) the ownership of the most effective means of self defense, the private ownership of firearms.

And there is the case of Mr. Godfrey-Brown:

Pointless prescution, or trying to make a point?

"I was exceedingly angry about that," he said. "I went through that drama of nine and a half months. Why couldn't the CPS have dropped it earlier?"

They didn't drop the case earlier because they were fishing for a plea bargain, because it is effectively the policy, nevermind the useless document Agricola brings to us, for the British government to treat people who defend themselves as harshly as possible, subject only to the government prosecutors feelings about what they can get away with.

Yours, TDP
 
In response to my statement:

If this section were operative in fact, Mr. Osborn would not have been charged.
Click to expand...

sparks quoted the null document Agricola brought to our attention and wrote

In other words, there will be an investigation and there may be a hearing in court. That does not imply that there is any infringement on the right to self defence - in fact, that right implies the outcome of such cases where it was actually self-defence, as opposed to cases like Martins.
Click to expand...

Osborn wasn't merely investigated, he plead guilty to a lesser charge to ensure he could not be subject to prosecution for a crime with a greater penalty. This is hallmark of opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense.

In that vein, I wrote:

I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.
Click to expand...

To which he once replied:

Codswallop
Click to expand...

and now

Horse hockey
Click to expand...

Your colorful assertions are not evidence, Sparks.

Yours, TDP
 
Leaving aside the banter in recent posts - and being ''non-Martin'' :)p) ... (sigh of relief allowed Ag!!) ... this does sound like a very good step forward - and long overdue.


BTW Ag - since your post in the 'what might we look like thread' - I am fixated on a hairless pate!! You're not that shiny surely!? :D
 
ag,

I still find this scary:

"What if the intruder dies?
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted."


They make it sound like the exception to the rule, as opposed to common practice. Other than that I find this note encouraging.

Just me however.

S-
 
Osborn wasn't merely investigated, he plead guilty to a lesser charge
Click to expand...
The investigation and the court hearing are seperate matters in the UK as in the US. They are conducted by different, independent agencies under different rules. The CPS decided that there was sufficent uncertainty in the circumstances to bring a prosecution forward; this does not mean he had been found guilty. Faced with the prospect of such a hearing, Osborn chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge. That was his decision, as I've said before. It may have been in error, it may have been ill-advised, but it was not forced.

This is hallmark of opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense.
Click to expand...
Which is an indication that the problem lies not with the system, but a minority of people within a part of it, who do not have the power to eliminate rights.

In that vein, I wrote:
I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.
Click to expand...
To which he once replied:
Codswallop
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
On that occasion, you were saying that a conviction for possession of an unlicenced firearm was a ban on self-defence. It isn't. In fact, it's not illegal in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm you have no licence for. It's just illegal to possess one without a licence. That's a wholly seperate charge, based on a wholly seperate area of law.

and now
Horse hockey
Click to expand...
Your colorful assertions are not evidence, Sparks.
Click to expand...
Nope. The facts of the UK judicial system and legislation are, however. And the facts are that the right to self-defence is untouched in the UK. The fact that there are controls on some of the tools which can be used for self-defence - note that that is definitely not a ban on all such tools, by the way - is not in any way a ban on the right to self-defence. And representing it as such is not only incorrect, it is precisely that action which Osborn cites as being the reason for his decision to plead guilty. Assuming he's innocent (which seems very, very likely), your continued insistence in the face of facts to the contrary that it is illegal to defend yourself in the UK is in fact potentially harmful.

And there is the case of Mr. Godfrey-Brown:
Click to expand...
Investigated, not charged. For those interested, you'll note that the period of time involved (nine and a half months) isn't that unusual for preparation of a hearing in the UK. Which is a bad thing, yes, but is not a discriminatory act against those who defend themselves because it affects everyone in the system.

They didn't drop the case earlier because they were fishing for a plea bargain, because it is effectively the policy, nevermind the useless document Agricola brings to us, for the British government to treat people who defend themselves as harshly as possible
Click to expand...
That's pure paranoia, exacerbated by a lack of knowlege of the realities of the UK legal system.
 
They make it sound like the exception to the rule, as opposed to common practice.
Click to expand...
It is the exception to the rule, because it means that the police and CPS have in effect acted as the judge in the case and decided whether it was self defence, or whether (as in Martin's case), it wasn't. Normally, that would be a judicial decision, and it's only bypassed in cases where it's very obvious what's happened. In cases like, say, Osborns (where the assailant was stabbed in the back), it's not immediately obvious and a hearing has to be held. That's where the law comes into effect.
 
TDPerk,

Thats funny, because you seem to abandon other threads when challenged:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115684
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=120406&page=3

As is clear, this document is not a change in emphasis, but rather a reemphasis of what has been the case in the UK ever since the one "bad case" (R v Shannon) which caused the interpretation of the law to be changed so that it would not happen again.

I also note that you demand we disprove you on the issue of Osborn. That is quite simple - Osborn pled guilty to the offence, so we are right and you are wrong. I repeat myself, but we do not know the full extent of the evidence against him (nor do we know the full extent of the evidence against Godfrey-Brown), and one thing we do know is that elements of the media have for the past ten years been wilfully misrepresenting the facts in order to make points. Sadly, the media has been believed, both by citizens of the UK and everyone else.

Sparks has also pointed out to you the wrongheadedness of your contentions about "opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense" - such things did not exist at the time of Osborn, and only exist to a very limited extent now.
 
Excert from the linked page:

So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence.

This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
Click to expand...

There may some difference of interpretation between us on "the continent" and our UK friends. But, to me this sentance indicates that one could use some convenient object that you HAPPEN to have around in your own defense. To me this would mean that actually setting aside an object specifically for use AS a weapon would be a different story? What do you think?
 
C_yeager,

As I have said before, none of the offensive weapon, and most of the firearms legislation (as long as you have a licence for that weapon) apply in your own home (which is what the whole article is talking about); so you could have all manner of weapons - swords, crossbows, polearms, handaxes, battleaxes etc with which to defend yourself, and the use of these weapons would not be illegal.
 
Hey, ag, how easy is it for a one-armed person to get a handgun license?

Somehow, browsing through this thread reminded me of the Texas law about switch-blade knives. They're illegal. The exception, written into the law, is for a one-armed person. :)

As one looks at weapons, then, it strikes me that it should be recognized that a one-armed person has--shall we say--special needs.

:), Art
 
In response to Art Eatman:

Hey, ag, how easy is it for a one-armed person to get a handgun license?
Click to expand...

Sparks wrote:

To answer for ag : as easy as it is for two-armed people.
Click to expand...

Translation, there is definitely no practical right of self defense in Britain if you are more aged, young, small, weak, disabled, or otherwise less able to physically combat your attacker than they are able to attack you.

And no matter how good you are, there's always someone out there better than you are.

Handguns are great "equalizers." It is evidently British policy for the evil but more strong to rule over the good but weak at least until the armed police officers arrive.

There is no practical right of self defense in Britain.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Last edited:
How soul-satisfying it is to receive an illuminating answer! Makes my little old heart palpitate in a near-hysterical manner! :D:D:D

Okay, how difficult is it for a two-handed person to get a handgun license?

Art
 
Art,

Its very difficult. You know this already. However, since we have spent the last two years pretending that the UK had no self defence - and indeed TDPerk remains bleating that false mantra - could we please have some kind of acceptance that what you have all been told was a pack of lies all along.

Maybe then we can discuss the real problems of Firearms legislation in this country, but of course, as ever, I shall not be holding my breath.
 
the real problems of Firearms legislation in this country
Click to expand...

Ok, I have another question. You guys have said that the way the current rules were put into effect, they could be swept away without much work. Could you go into detail on that?

When I think "legislation" I'm thinking of things like our Brady Bill, which had enough support behind it to prevent it being just "swept away", it actually had to be allowed to sunset.

So is it black-letter "law" or "executive actions" that form the current British firearm codes?

I think I don't know enough about the actual Parlimentary process involved and the history of the reg's themselves, if you could explain it.
 
Maybe our UK friends could explain how individuals do not have an affirmative right to self defense against violent attack, and why the laws of the land should not conform to support that right.
 
If I, the decent law-abiding citizen, am down to mere cricket bats or kitchen knives against an fully-armed criminal, even within my home, I'm still at an unjust disadvantage.
Click to expand...
Don't forget you have the 'rugby tackle' available to you! The most potent of all self-defense implements! Intruders quake in fear of the homeowner who possesses such a weapon! How those Brits can complain they are denied the ability to defend themselves when they know perfectly well that they have the rugby tackle is just beyond me.

Ungrateful snobs.

It's patently obvious you have the full and secure right to defend yourself, after all, it says so right there on the page! Maybe you could print out that document, roll it up and try poking the bad guys in the eye with it.

- Gabe
 
Rhetorical-question tease: If it's so difficult to get a license for a handgun as compared to a two-handed firearm, is this not discrimination against a handicapped person?

:), Art
 
GRD, RileyMC and TDPerk's argument has been made before:

melch120.jpg


"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
 
Always worked for me :)

- Gabe

PS: "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" This argument eventually ends up at a strange semantic injunction...it's almost like, we speak the same language (Brits and Americans), but it really only sounds the same. Some words just don't compute. Like 'self-defense' 'freedom' 'liberty' 'rights' etc...
 
Sparks and agricola, you are splitting frog hairs in a most anal retentive fashion. The Godfrey-Brown case is indicative of the view the law takes on self defense. Charge, with or without sufficient evidence to convict, and intimidate into a plea bargain if possible. Send the message to the rest of the subjects that self defense, in any form (even with a big stick) is frowned upon.

No thanks, and good luck with that.
 
Art,

It was pointed out to me in the other current Limey ( :D ) thread that the right of self-defense is considered distinct from any particular means to exercise it.

Thus banning or making it more difficult to get firearms isn't discriminatory since the right itself still exists.

My (and yours I'm sure) problem with that is that in a practical sense some means are the only realistic method to actually exercise the right for some people.

But the law over there doesn't recognize what I/we would consider a self-evident fact. And given the way the law is formed, to provide a one-handed man or grandma exemption would in fact create a discriminatory class the other way. It'd be a big can of worms that could only reasonably be legally solved by something resembling the 2nd, which it seems ain't likely soon.
 
that the right of self-defense is considered distinct from any particular means to exercise it.

Thus banning or making it more difficult to get firearms isn't discriminatory since the right itself still exists.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the biscuit, when you get right down to it.

- Gabe
 
carebear,

You might have a point if the vast bulk of the threads about UK self defence that appear here hadnt focused around prosecuting people who the media report (wrongfully in many cases) have defended themselves against attack. These threads are distinct from "Stupid Gun Laws in UK" ones, which at least make a pretence at debate. The self defence ones also seem to feature an awful lot more people running off when their lies are exposed.

Here are a few, there are an awful lot more:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113779
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=107977
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=100280
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=57231

Now, because the majority view expressed there has been exposed as the fib it always was, we switch to this and then pretend it has been our argument all along. I guess the aim is to throw enough BS into the air and hope it clouds the fact that one of this board's most cherished fallacies has been shown to be rubbish.

Frankly, there is an issue of firearms legislation and whether or not its justified, and then there is this - which some of you have separated in your posts on those threads.

RileyMC,

You are making the same mistake as TDPerk - you do not know all the facts of the case. The reason you know what facts you do is because the papers have reported it. The papers have been demonstrated to have deliberately misinformed the public as to the state of self defence in the UK, which is why this document was released.

Thats demonstrated by a whole load of threads, but none better than these two:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=104632&highlight=sun
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=72967&highlight=manchester

Dont believe everything you read.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top