Some Police Officers just don't get it, do they?

"You just don't get it do you? If no one can carry weapons, then it is so much easier to be able to arrest and get them off the street, making it safer for everyone - yes, everyone. Once again, how do we, as the police, tell if someone is carrying a weapon for self-defence or for nefarious purposes? Do we let women carry one because they are women?"

I have had an interesting discussion with a serving Police Constable who said the above to me as a justification for him to ignore the law and common sense. I find it interesting on several levels.

Firstly what he is suggesting should be the case is actually the complete opposite of what the law allows. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 allows any one of us to carry a weapon for self defence in a public place with lawful authority OR a reasonable excuse. Plenty of caselaw confirms to us that given a real and present threat of danger we ARE allowed to carry a truncheon for example into a public place.

The issue of lawful authority has never been ruled on in the 53 years and the comments made in Bryan v Mott were in fact obiter. That case, you may recall saw a defendant using a reasonable excuse defence for having a broken bottle so as to commit suicide. The jury decided against him and that as that.

He is also asking us to accept that by scaring a women into making sure that she is not carrying ANYTHING in public with which she is prepared to defend herself with we as a society, become instantly safer. Why? Because when the Police eventually catch her rapist, through the marvel of DNA evidence, they expect the violent criminal who has already demonstrated a contempt for the law, will obey a law that says "no one shall carry a weapon for self defence".

OK in the UK we pretty much have the situation that is described above. I can see how it helps the rapist or the mugger, and if you stretch the credibility of the Police Officer's point of view to the point where one actually believes that the criminals don't carry weapons - because it is against the law, you can see how it helps the Police.

Has anyone noticed that the only person here not helped is the women who was violently assaulted? Oh, I forgot, she is a member of society, and overall it's society that becomes safer by making women helpless.

Silly me. Is that what they tell the victims of violent crime these days? "you may have been victimised madam, but your helplessness helps the Police to feel safer in themselves and society benefits indirectly."

Does anyone else find this worrying?

The boringly-named Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is in fact a very dangerous piece of legislation. It grants any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would be able to make major changes to the law without Parliament being able to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.

So if this Bill is passed any minister who decides they 'need' a change in the law can do so from his office, his study at home or even whilst on holiday (with the wonders of modern telecommunications these days)

Well it happens that not so long ago in a country called England, the people found that the people in charge decided that amongst other things that they ought to have the power to make the Law up as they went along. There was a bit of fuss and Parliament managed to assert itself as being the best people to make new Law.

"By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;" is what they said…

and their solution to the problem was to state once and for all that

"And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."

So I am afraid to say that it is not for this Government to assume the 'right' to make laws because Parliament has had the monopoly since 1689.

Parliament represents the people and the Will of Parliament is more important than any one Minister.

Do we have the right to Self Defence or not?

Do we have the right to self defence in Great Britain or not?

Depending on who you are and what your personal experiences are you
will no doubt have an answer that addresses what should be a simple
question. Is the answer to such a question ever going to be that
simple though?

Okay I accept and would be the first to say that self defence starts
long before an actual confrontation or assault and most trouble can
be avoided without resorting to physical means. But it's not those
sorts of things that worry most people. Thankfully most people can
live a whole lifetime in this Country without ever experiencing
physical violence at the hands of a criminal, but there are still
plenty of people who WILL still have those sorts of experiences at
some point in the future.

Who is most likely to be the victim of a violent crime and how many
people know beforehand that they will suffer an assault before
stepping out of their homes?

The Home Office suggests that we should 'instantly arm' ourselves
with keys, hairspray and other things that we might carry on an
everyday basis and that we should prepare by thinking about what we
might do if ever faced with a violent criminal. But they warn you
against carrying anything made or designed to be a weapon.

Is that an example of the establishment recognising your right to
self defence or denying it?