US self defence expert banned from UK by Home Secretary

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-barred-from-uk-by-theresa-may-7727854.html

Amazing, seems we'll let anyone from Al-Queda or the Taliban enter the country and stay indefinitely and give them benefits and legal aid, but anyone who might make the life of the criminal underclass a bit uncomfortable is persona non grata.

I was hoping for a BBC article as it should be less biased than the Indy, they interviewed Mr Larkin on Radio 4 this morning and I thought he made some very salient points.
 
You can see the Mail headline..

American 'Fight Club' instructor thwarted as he attempts to enter the UK.

It seems a bit of an overreaction to be honest...
 
So we got some Muslim preacher filled with hatred and inciting terrorism which we cant get rid of cus some EU BS and we don't allow this man in??? Its just unbelievable!
 
Does he not promote vigilantism and proactive violent intervention though?

Not the sort of thing you want being preached in the riot prone areas our cities.
 
scorza said:
Amazing, seems we'll let anyone from Al-Queda or the Taliban enter the country and stay indefinitely and give them benefits and legal aid, but anyone who might make the life of the criminal underclass a bit uncomfortable is persona non grata.
Click to expand...

But that was once upon a time and we don't any more. So there is nothing amazing.
 
scorza said:
If you saw an elderly couple being attacked by a knife-wielding man, why shouldn't you intervene pro-actively and violently?
Click to expand...

I agree with that - however I think what as implied is people taking the law into their own hands, and actively looking for justice without a proper investigation or using the full legal process.
 
Castiel said:
Does he not promote vigilantism and proactive violent intervention though?

Not the sort of thing you want being preached in the riot prone areas our cities.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with using violence in self defence, otherwise you may as well ban every martial art other than Aikido.

Kickboxing, shotokan and wado ryu already teach you to beat the **** out of your attackers, as long as you stop when they cease attacking, so ban them all?
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
I see nothing wrong with using violence in self defence, otherwise you may as well ban every martial art other than Aikido.

Kickboxing, shotokan and wado ryu already teach you to beat the **** out of your attackers, as long as you stop when they cease attacking, so ban them all?
Click to expand...

Do they really?
Or do they teach you to defend yourself until you're not threatened any more? (hint if you beat your attackers after they are no longer a threat, or when they are on the ground unconscious, you're likely to get quite seriously done by the CPS/judge).

I can't imagine they've stopped the guy from entering the UK just because he teachers self defence, it's more likely because he espouses vigilantism which is not allowed at all.

In regards to the ban, IIRC they've also stopped all sorts of people in the past, including known hate preachers and those who are likely to create a disturbance by their presence.
Unfortunately it's a little harder to ban someone after they have entered the country, and even harder still when they are claiming asylum and you're trying to send them back to a country where torture is both used to gather "evidence" and as a matter of course.
 
scorza said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-barred-from-uk-by-theresa-may-7727854.html

Amazing, seems we'll let anyone from Al-Queda or the Taliban enter the country and stay indefinitely and give them benefits and legal aid, but anyone who might make the life of the criminal underclass a bit uncomfortable is persona non grata.

I was hoping for a BBC article as it should be less biased than the Indy, they interviewed Mr Larkin on Radio 4 this morning and I thought he made some very salient points.
Click to expand...

BBC and bias go hand in hand, they are probably the worst out for political correctness and left wing bias.
 
Freefaller said:
I agree with that - however I think what as implied is people taking the law into their own hands, and actively looking for justice without a proper investigation or using the full legal process.
Click to expand...

I don't know, IMO people resort to vigilantism when they feel scared about being victims of crime e.g. during the riots we saw gangs of vigilantes patrolling the streets of Stoke Newington, Birmingham, Enfield etc. If people are scared about intervening because of the threat of prosecution then imo it makes the fear of crime grow. Equipping ordinary people with the tools to combat violence will not make them look for violence I think.

BTW, the case I mentioned was one Mr Larkin referred to this morning on the radio. Sadly I don't have the details, but if he's right then the chap who intervened between the elderly couple and the knifeman was arrested, prosecuted and only freed months later by a judge who said the case should never have come to court.
 
I agree - people should be able to help others, or defend themselves without fear of recrimination. However, pro-actively trying to do law enforcement and going off hunches, and actively patrolling give crooks a good shoeing isn't the right way to go. I don't feel sympathy for those getting the shoeing if they are indeed guilty, but whilst I understand the ideas behind vigilante-ism I think it's a slippery slope to anarchy.

I think the riots and the gangs were disgusting - and it's a shame if people didn't stand up to them because of fear of being prosecuted, however I think most people were worried about the repercussions of the non legal kind (i.e. revenge etc...).
 
scorza said:
I don't know, IMO people resort to vigilantism when they feel scared about being victims of crime e.g. during the riots we saw gangs of vigilantes patrolling the streets of Stoke Newington, Birmingham, Enfield etc. If people are scared about intervening because of the threat of prosecution then imo it makes the fear of crime grow. Equipping ordinary people with the tools to combat violence will not make them look for violence I think.
Click to expand...

The cases of Vigilantes during the riots was more down to the fact that it was evident initially that the Police just weren't in control. If you looked at the Vigilante groups they were all immigrants (or generational immigrants) protecting their shops and small businesses, their livelihood. How many white people did we see rallying to defend their Carphone Warehouse or Tesco Metro? Nope... leave it to the insurance companies to sort it out.

BTW, the case I mentioned was one Mr Larkin referred to this morning on the radio. Sadly I don't have the details, but if he's right then the chap who intervened between the elderly couple and the knifeman was arrested, prosecuted and only freed months later by a judge who said the case should never have come to court.
Click to expand...

Even if you know martial arts, there are a number of reasons why people often won't intervene these days and will leave it to the Police.

- The fear of knives - It doesn't matter whether you can defend yourself or not, it doesn't stop some scrote from stabbing you to death, which in recent years many have shown they can do without even thinking about it.

- Fear of repercussion - Although it's on a case by case basis, many people worry about the consequences that they themselves will face for getting involved and injuring the guilty party, thus ending up with legal proceedings themselves.
 
Nexus said:
The cases of Vigilantes during the riots was more down to the fact that it was evident initially that the Police just weren't in control. If you looked at the Vigilante groups they were all immigrants (or generational immigrants) protecting their shops and small businesses, their livelihood. How many white people did we see rallying to defend their Carphone Warehouse or Tesco Metro? Nope... leave it to the insurance companies to sort it out.
Click to expand...

Enfield and Eltham. Of course the immigrant vigilante gangs were portrayed positively as the community coming together and taking a stand against the riots. When white people did it in the above locations it was racist gangs terrorising the neighbourhood :p
 
Werewolf said:
Do they really?
Or do they teach you to defend yourself until you're not threatened any more? (hint if you beat your attackers after they are no longer a threat, or when they are on the ground unconscious, you're likely to get quite seriously done by the CPS/judge).
Click to expand...

Exactly what I meant by 'stop when they cease attacking'. If the attacker is still a threat, you are allowed to use the techniques until they no longer are.

And the techniques under those three martial arts are block, punch, kick, rinse repeat until the other person is down and no longer a threat.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
If you saw an elderly couple being attacked by a knife-wielding man, why shouldn't you intervene pro-actively and violently?
Click to expand...
Because you'd turn an armed mugging into your own murder? Unless you're talking about a lunatic on a stabbing rampage who is going to kill the old couple, being 'pro-active' against someone with a knife is madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom