Its amazing how the press can twist things by how they word headlines. I was watching Fox News this morning. When the Amercians have adverts we get a bit that pops up from Sky News listing the latest headlines (I'd rather have the Amercian adverts, the ones by the drugs companies are hilarious when the voice comes on at the end quickly listing all the terrible sounding side effects). The headline that caught my eye was something along the lines of "Tories to legalise killing burglars.
Now, anyone who knows me can tell you I am the most politically incorrect person you could want to meet, I hate all that tripe; & they'd also tell you that my political views are somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan! If it was up to me shoplifters would hve a fair trial, & then lose their right hand, car thieves would be kneecapped, & burglars would just get marched around the back of the court & stoned to death by their victims! I HATE THIEVES!
Now the trouble with this touchy feely politically correct socialist government we've been unlucky enough to be saddled with for what feels like an eternity, is that they've let the human rights brigade & the folks who think that all criminals are simply misguided souls who need a cuddle & a bit of education mess things up for the rest of us. We now have a society where repeat offenders get a slap on the wrist for offences that make your skin crawl. The thing is that the majority of politicians come from nice upper-middle class backgrounds, & they simply don't understand the reality of life outside of the nice places they live. They get advised by senior policemen, who at their level of seniority are often very much removed from the reality on the street, & at that level are political animals too; so I suspect they very often feed the politicians exactly what they think will move their agendas on a bit further.
I spent many years working around the scum of the earth, & I got to know some of the folks who are repeat offenders, & who burglarise houses & businesses. The truth is that they are for the most part armed when they go on their little escapades. They might not be carrying something specifically AS a weapon, but they wouldn't think twice about stabbing you with the screwdriver they brought to help gain entry to your house, or smash your face in with the crow bar they brought to 'encourage' your door or window to open! A case that comes to mind is a few years back I'd been invited to do a seminar for an instructor in England. This chap is a bit politically correct, & was telling me how he didn't teach knife defence & he told his students that if they needed those skills they were going to the wrong places! The next day the front page of the local paper carried the headline about a homeowner in his town having been found dead with his throat slit after he disturbed a burglar. The burglar had even used a knife from the guys own garage! The first thing I did was stick that right under his nose!
When I teach seminars the questions I get hit most with are usually ones about the law on self defence. People these days are scared stiff that should they lift their hand to stop some poor deprived unemployed smack addicted toerag from stabbing them in the throat THEY'LL be the ones who end up getting nailed for it. They have a point. You just have to look at all the instances of people getting hauled through the courts for defending themselves. We have a problem in this country that the minority of people can make the most noise. The minority of people in the pressure groups that have the ear of the media & the politicians are the ones who bend the way policy is made, & the judicial system works. The majority of folks in the UK are sick to death of the scum getting away with anything. I wrote an article a while back for a different website where I pointed to two separate court cases; in one of them a guy had gotten 12 years for VAT evasion (& had been threatened by the judge with another 10 if he didn't allow his house & all his assets to be sold off), yet in another where someone had been robbed by a gang member in a horrific attack the scumbag had been let off as the judge dismissed the case because the victim was 'too believable' in the witness stand! In the UK the government has allowed the law to go all to hell & money is more valuable to them than your life. If you don't pay them tax they'll crucify you, but go out & rob & cause misery to people & you'll get off pretty lightly.
The problems are multiple. Firstly the young police seem to be very quick to make poor decisions & not use common sense & 'discression'. The older police I remember from when I started working doors were great; they used common sense for things & their discression when dealing with incidents. Now the police very often just charge everyone & let the PF (in Scotland) & courts sort things out. The British police have historically been given a great deal of leeway & encouraged to use 'discression' when charging people with offenses. This doesn't seem to happen so often these days. I found this out myself when I got charged with assault after what was a clear cut case of assault on me by one of the biggest druggie scumbags in the area. Another instructor I know was charged with assault after stopping two local well known troublemakers from attacking his wife! In that instance he was lucky, & the local sherrif who heard the case castigated the police & PF telling them "this man should never have been brought before me, he defended his wife like any real man would do". Next problem is that the government listens to the wrong people & is scared that some pressure group will make loads of noise in the media if it decides to start getting tough on the right people. It's quite simple, the politicians need to stop listening to the human rights/prisoners rights (insert your politically correct warm & fuzzy pressure group here) & listen to the majority of the population. One thing someone said to me once was along the lines of "the advice given to people by the police & government these days is to just hand over their valuables if they're robbed, & not to physically resist if they're attacked. Could you imagine what would have been said if the government of the time had said this just after WW2? Could you imagine what the servicemen who had fought the Nazis would have said if they'd been told to hand their belongings over to some little thug?". This has stuck with me, we need to stop trying to make people into a population of sheep!
Most politicians have never experienced a true violent attack. Most politicians have no knowledge of the realities of defensive combat; you can't expect them to they're politicians not defensive tactics instructors. This means that they are swayed by perception V's reality. This is one reason why we're a country where a decent law abiding person cannot carry anything to defend themselves with. In the UK there are no provisions for defensive weapons- all weapons are offensive. The truth is that these laws only affect the decent law abiding people; the people who are the problem (ie the criminals) don't care that something is illegal to do- they're criminals & crime is what they do! The truth of it is that for many people being able to lawfully carry a canister of pepper spray, an impact tool of some sort, or an ASP baton, would be very welcome. As soon as I say something like that I always get some nice politically correct person telling me "ah but if you carry a weapon you're more likely to have it taken off you & used against you". Lets get it straight- this is a load of rubbish! There IS NO EVIDENCE that this is true. This old chesnut was originally perpetuated by the anti-gun lobby in the USA as a scare tactic, & was totally shredded by the NRA. It is a myth. A recent bit of research into rape showed that "forceful physical resistance is an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape fell to 14% when the rapist was met with violent phsyical force. Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling". "Women who used guns or knives in self defence were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance". Its a fact that armed self defence beats unarmed self defence every day of the week. I'm not advocating that if someone is gobbing off at you or gives you a little shove you should be able to pull a Rambo Knife on them, but if you truely believe that you are in real physical danger (especially if the bad guy is armed) is it not reasonable that you be allowed to realistically have a chance of stopping the attacker from being able to harm you?
Politicians & the judicial system have got to get it into their heads that a victim DID NOT CHOOSE to be attacked or burgled. If a burglar gets killed in someones house it SHOULD be viewed as "tough luck Joe", as if the burglar HAD NOT chosen to break into the persons home they would not have placed themselves in the situation that got them killed. The person who gets set upon by a gang of chavs who want to kick him or her senseless for amusement, or who want to rob them SHOULD NOT have to worry about the ramifications of saving themselves from injury. This country needs to be less 'progressive' & more realistic about dealing with the criminal underbelly that we have allowed to grow unchecked. Many places in the USA have a 'Castle Doctrine' where you are lawfully allowed to use lethal force if you are confronted by an intruder in your home. Now, some do-gooder will claim that this sort of thing will ake it more likely that burglars will go out armed & will be quicker to harm people who disturb them. Here's my answer to any airheads who say this THE BURGLARS ARE ALREADY MORE OFTEN THAN NOT ARMED & ARE ALREADY DOING THIS YOU IDIOT!.
Any political party which TRUELY looks like they're going to do away with the namby-pamby cotton gloves treatment of chavs & thugs, & make the law protect those who stand up to the bullies & sociopaths of society, will be onto a winner. I'll certainly vote for them!