Slashdot Mirror


UK Home Secretary Bans US Martial Arts Expert

Big Hairy Ian writes "An American expert in violent self-defense has been excluded from entering the UK by the Home Office. From the article: 'Tim Larkin tried to board a plane from his home in Las Vegas on Tuesday, but was given a UK Border Agency letter saying "his presence here was not conducive to the public good." Mr Larkin, who was due to host seminars, told the BBC the move was a "gross over-reaction." The Home Office said he was subject to an exclusion order. A spokeswoman said: "The home secretary will seek to exclude an individual if she considers that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good." Mr Larkin — who trained as a US Navy Seal — runs a company teaching combat to military and law enforcement clients in the United States.'"

440 comments

  1. UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember, this is the country where being "anti-social" is a crime. Yes, for real.

    1. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also the country where the punishment for a crime can be forcing you to be anti-social. (see urbex group anti-socializing order)

    2. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US banned Cat Stevens, so you don't even need to be anti-social to be banned.

    3. Re:UK by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      No useful Google results on this - can you elaborate? Might be relevant to me as I love wandering round old disused places.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    4. Re:UK by Robadob · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what i remember a small group of guys were doing urbex in the unused london undeground tunnels around the time of something big happening in London. They got caught and under the guise of terrorism or something (due to the event) they got banned from communicating with each other for a decade or something. (I'm not the guy who you replied to)

    5. Re:UK by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US banned Cat Stevens, so you don't even need to be anti-social to be banned.

      He was suspected of having ties to terrorists, this was the right decision. Do you propose that because he's famous they should have ignored this and just rolled the dice?

    6. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in actual fact they were wrong with the most likely reason he was on the no-fly list being that he has a relatively common islamic name shared with a bunch of other dudes who spell it different ways. It's a bit like Jon Smith being banned from flying 'cos a bloke called John Smyth may or may not be a terrorist.

    7. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I'd rather a decision be reached if he's convicted, not merely because he's suspected.

    8. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was suspected of having ties to terrorists, this was the right decision. Do you propose that because he's famous they should have ignored this and just rolled the dice?

      I suspect you might have child pornography on your computer, sir. I don't have any proof, but this is child pornography we're talking about. Somebody lock him up.

    9. Re:UK by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Suspected by idiots... important distinction.

    10. Re:UK by demachina · · Score: 1

      An urbex group in London was exploring subways in the early morning a few days before the royal wedding when security was high, to put it mildly, and were arrested when they were seen on a security camera. Info here They are not allowed to speak to one another for the duration of the anti social order which is 10 years.

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:UK by julesh · · Score: 1

      Suspected by idiots... important distinction.

      When you only have idiots available to make the decisions, it's an irrelevant distinction.

    12. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can be suspected of anything for any reason. That's a problem.

    13. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he may be a peace advocate and people made a stink about it but he did seem to have ties to extremist groups and even publicly voiced support for fatwa on Rushdie. Perhaps not too dissimilar to me supporting the pope for putting an assassination contract on python team for making the life of brian.

  2. Turn about is fair play. by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not the first time someone has been prevented from entering a country. While the US refuses people all the time, we're supposed to get indignant that this person is refused entry to GB?

    I'm sure the mental train wreck in some peoples' minds regarding this is epic.

    However, this is not news.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not the first time someone has been prevented from entering a country.

      I think the story here isn't that someone got knocked back from entering the UK, but rather the reasons behind it. TFA doesn't mention that he has a criminal record, it doesn't mention anything about hate speech or promoting violence. The guy teaches martial arts and speaks his mind on it. He doesn't come across as someone who will run down the street attacking everyone in sight, he isn't radical and (apart from knowing a lot of martial arts) doesn't seem to be anyone out of the ordinary.

      Having said that, I do sort of agree that this isn't all that newsworthy for /. even though I generally do froth at the mouth at personal freedom abuses - which I do think that this falls into.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding. This is a guy who was going to go to the UK to teach people how to KILL PEOPLE. (Really, read the article.)

      The US, on the other hand, blocks people from entering the US for planning on having a good time as tourists in the US.

      Bit of a difference between the two, yes?

    3. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Turn about is fair play

      I'll see you one aphorism and raise you another.
      "Two wrongs don't make a right."

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Turnabout isn't only fair play, in this particular case the UK was much nicer than the US needs to be:

      The US rules for foreigners, like me, means that in order to legally enter the country I have to accept that the border control can force me to return, without having to site any reason whatsoever. I get to accept all the costs, and there is no appeal process.

      This ex-SEAL actually got the courtesy of a denial well before entering his plane, and he even got a reason for it and enough time to appeal the process if he wanted.

      T.
      PS. It is a sad fact that I am posting (for the first time on /.) anonymously, because I'm afraid that even writing this could cause problems for me on future trips to the US.

    5. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many wrongs does it take to make a right then, huh?

    6. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      No kidding. This is a guy who was going to go to the UK to teach people how to KILL PEOPLE. (Really, read the article.)

      Are you sure you're not Kent Brockman?

      "Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory ."

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    7. Re:Turn about is fair play. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

      As most US cities are built on a grid system, three. Less clear in europe, where our cities can be thousands of years old and so havn't been planned for the automotive age so well.

    8. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but it helps. ;)
      Surprise surprise American free speach means less than zero in Europe.
      Holocaust deniers can be arrested in Europe, not so in the US for instance.
      Not all of us live and die by american laws. It's shocking isn't ? America is not the navel of the world.

    9. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only interesting part of this will be how much money he makes when he starts advertising with, "My kung-fu is so lethal they wont even let me into certain countries."

      The nationalistic, "We just dont like violent people" line is, of course, nonsense. The UK is known for being very liberal about letting hateful, violent Imams and such into the country.

    10. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a guy who was going to go to the UK to teach people how to kill people IN SELF-DEFENSE. (Really, read the article.)

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

    11. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Could you translate this from Gobbledygook to English, please?

    12. Re:Turn about is fair play. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Informative

      He teaches not self defence but how to attack and injure people deliberately... he was going to talk to areas hit by riots last year to promote his methods

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    13. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Planning to kill someone in self-defense isn't accepted in the countries of Western Europe that I know of. It is a use of inappropriate means and might get you in prison for murder.

    14. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Alranor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the concept in UK law is "reasonable" force, which isn't the same thing at all.

    15. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tories want civil unrest as it promotes a kneejerk reaction by the unwashed and cowardly masses. "Protect us!" Someone with a disciplined approach to self defence is dangerous whichever side listens to him.

      Think of the government like Apple with its App Store. Sometimes its actions demonstrate little more than fear of a competitor.

    16. Re:Turn about is fair play. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Well if they ARE killbots, then we have nothing to fear. All we have to do to defeat them is keep sending human waves until they reach their pre-programmed kill limit and shut down.

    17. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a guy who was going to go to the UK to teach people how to kill people IN SELF-DEFENSE. (Really, read the article.)

      ... [T]he UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      Absolutely. If you do, there are consequences that happen as a result of your choice.

      As distinct from what seems to be happening here: if you think he may be causing trouble, you are not allowed to know how to stop him with fatal force should it become necessary. And to make sure you will be unable to, a government will pre-emptively stop a man from entering the country for attempting to provide you with that knowledge.

      As similar approach would be terminating a life in the second trimester, on the grounds that it may grow up to commit a violent crime several decades later. That is a lack of minimum force of law, also termed "overreaching" or just plain "usurpation" [of political authorities by the agents of government]. Then again I'm not sure from where the political authority is considered to derive within the UK; perhaps whatever the PM or monarch says, goes.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    18. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      He doesn't come across as someone who will run down the street attacking everyone in sight, he isn't radical and (apart from knowing a lot of martial arts) doesn't seem to be anyone out of the ordinary.

      No, but the sort of people who attend his conferences might be.

      (or so they think)

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What idiot modded this up? "Planning to kill" will not "get you in prison for murder" in any country of the developed world.

    20. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      The UK can jail you just for being around with the wrong sort of people. If you're with a known criminal person and they commit a crime you can get the exact same sentence as they do just for being there. The idea is to stop you from hanging out with the wrong sort of people.

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:Turn about is fair play. by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      A terrorist plot is not more than a "plan to kill", and it might not get you to prison but easily to Guantanamo (which is probably worse than prison).

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    22. Re:Turn about is fair play. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The US banned Cat Stevens, apparently because he changed his name to Yusuf Islam and Muslim people of questionable practices are fans of his.

    23. Re:Turn about is fair play. by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      "I think the story here isn't that someone got knocked back from entering the UK, but rather the reasons behind it. "...

      "Having said that, I do sort of agree that this isn't all that newsworthy for /. even though I generally do froth at the mouth at personal freedom abuses - which I do think that this falls into."

      Yes but this happens all the time when its the other way around. I agree that its just a non-story of a fairly common practice; Only instead of being denied over misunderstood slang that's real meaning is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain on comments made on social networking, it was instead a guy teaching how to maximise injury on someone as a form of self defence. I don't think either denial was entirely justified, but then its not my career to make these decisions.

    24. Re:Turn about is fair play. by MachDelta · · Score: 2

      I think the concept behind these kinds of laws (and i'm only familiar with Canada's system, not the UK's, but I suspect they're very similar) is that lethal force is almost never ever necessary. The capability of lethal force almost always implies the capability of non-lethal (but still disabling) force, which should always be the preference if it comes to that. Furthermore, the capability of lethal force (eg: gun) can almost always be used as a non-lethal threat to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first). Barring some sort of weird super-villain "wife suspended over a vat of acid" setup, actual lethal force is, ideally, never required. The idea is that you're no worse than Bruce Wayne, and never John Wayne. Thus, it may seem reasonable (if not a whit practical) to place "lethal self-defense" in the big folder of 'stuff citizens don't need to know'.

      All that said, I don't agree with the UK's decision. It's stupid. But, as a sovereign nation, it is their ball and they can take it home if they want to.

    25. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck it, I'll undo my mod points.

      Zimmerman did not shoot the punk because he was black, he called the police and said there was a suspicious person, they told him not to follow him, he was walking back to his car and got jumped from behind, then after being pinned to the ground having his head bashed into the pavement while he called for help and received none , he shot him to keep from being murdered.

      Any reasonable person would qualify attempted murder when a person is pinned to the ground as a valid reason to shoot your assailant. Sadly, anti-gun people keep claiming that he just shot him for being black - the police have released plenty of evidence and he shot him because his life was in danger, proving that they're just lying bastards trying to pressure society to change to fit their views, despite the fact that the facts don't support their story.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    26. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any western european country I know of has the concept of 'reasonable force' for self defence,
      basically you can use the same amount of force to defend yourself, as the person attacking you is using.

      that means that if somebody attacks you with a lethal weapon, say a gun or a knife, you're perfectly within your rights to reply in kind and kill the bastard.

    27. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We had a 17 year old kid banned for life from the US for sending a drunken e-mail to Obama. We've had people turned away from the US for making jokes that weren't to the taste of TSA agents.

      As reasons go, this guy teaching people specifically to kill using hand to hand combat isn't any worse an excuse than those of people being turned away from the US.

      People get turned away all the time, even when I went to Canada once I was threatened with being turned away seemingly for no reason other than the customers officers in question were just complete cocks - I'd done absolutely nothing wrong, no criminal history, not there for work, just there for nothing more than a holiday and they felt like interrogating someone for 3 hours. They eventually just let me through but the fact is customs officers seem to be able to just weild this power randomly and at will whenever they want and for seemingly no valid reason at all.

      This needs to be seen in context, the UK's border agency is under attack right now, it's being used as a political pawn in the run up to the olympics in a battle over whether the government's management of it is competent enough to support the influx we'll see at the Olympics. Had this happened at any other time I doubt very much it would have even made the news. People get this sort of treatment all the time in all countries, it really isn't newsworthy full stop - not even the reason they used.

    28. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you're not from the UK are you? Ok, then stop spreading FUD.

      Aiding and abetting a criminal is not the same as simply knowing them or being there when they commit a crime.

    29. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The problem with this eye for an eye approach is that it will be the little guy on both sides to suffer.

    30. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Pieroxy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmm. Only Zimmerman himself can assert to that version, so I'd call it dubious at best.

      The facts that can be verified by other parties are the following: Zimmerman called the cops saying "there's a suspicious looking dude". The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways. Now the "suspicious dude" is dead. He shot him.

      That's pretty much all we know. I won't take a word of Zimmerman at face value if it cannot be verified by a trusted third party, such as the police.

      If I was in his place, I'd lie through my teeth to try to get away as a free citizen. So I strongly suspect he does the same.

    31. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I think the story here isn't that someone got knocked back from entering the UK, but rather the reasons behind it. TFA doesn't mention that he has a criminal record, it doesn't mention anything about hate speech or promoting violence. The guy teaches martial arts and speaks his mind on it

      There is nothing that says he was denied because of being a martial arts "expert" either, like the title indicates.

      If I were to guess, he was blocked because he trains and recruits mercenaries, or has a past of being one, and the nature of what he trained has nothing to do with it. But we'll never know for sure, unless the home office changes policy and talks.

    32. Re:Turn about is fair play. by QQBoss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the late '80s, I was threatened with being turned away from Canada, and having the RCMP and FBI take turns performing full body cavity searches because, while applying for my 4th work visa in a span of 6 months (at that time, I was required to apply each time I traveled up there for the type of work I did), I was asked if there was anyone who would like me to not enter Canada and I responded "just a frat brother back in the USA who knows I am going to take his ex-GF to dinner when I hop over to the GTA."

      Lessons learned:
      A) don't crack jokes with Canadian immigration officials.
      B) Clear customs and immigration in Toronto (which I mostly did for the next 15 years) and then drive to Ottawa, because Ottawa officials have much bigger sticks up their butts (and the Korean food not far from the Toronto airport is really good).
      C) After calming the situation down, when asked by said immigration official if, because I work at Motorola, I could get her 1950's vintage Motorola console TV repaired at a discount, do not respond with "Are you asking me for a bribe?" nor the 3 or 4 other responses that went across my mind.

      Looking back, I am still kind of surprised I made it to work the next day.

    33. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Mannfred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vulnerable people who live in less safe areas are the most obvious candidates for self-defence courses, no? I don't see the Queen of England signing up for one of these.

    34. Re:Turn about is fair play. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      well I can agree with all the arguments about this guy having right to teach people whatever fight techniques he and they chose but stating that vulnerable people in less safe areas that are rushing in is a bit of a joke - there are possibly some exceptions but majority of the vulnerable cannot afford the course anyway.

    35. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xest · · Score: 2

      "The idea is to stop you from hanging out with the wrong sort of people."

      No the idea is to:

      1) Prevent people acting as lookouts assisting a criminal

      2) To punish people who had the power to report or prevent a crime from not doing so and hence implicitly supporting the crime

      Despite this we still jail less people than America does.

    36. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xest · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "Fuck it, I'll undo my mod points."

      Thank you. The less people we have moderating who insist they know the absolute truth of what happened when in reality all they have is some likely 5th hand account from an unobjective press source the better.

      Really, if you're going to show that level of inability to pursue rational discussion then could you kindly do Slashdot a favour and always not use or undo your mod points?

      The fact is you don't know what happened, the fact you feel the need to insist you know exactly what happened in response to something that IMO was intended somewhat sarcastically implies you have a strong political bias on the subject and political bias is like a fucking terminal disease on this site.

    37. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is first step in right direction.

      If EU citizens (from couple of countries) have to apply for visa in advance ...
      can be detained on US border and deported on the whim ...

      Why not to do the same to US citizens.

      You want to go to Europe ? Fine, first apply for visa. Pay for it. Let's say in one of 5 cities in the US so it is not easy for you.
      Leave digital photo and fingerprints. We will store your data forever.
      roll 1d6 - if it is six - you do not pass...

      Purchase ticket, board plane and after 9-10h you are in EU
      roll 1d6 - if it is six - you are not admitted, go back (does not matter that your return ticket is from opposite end of continent)
                                    if it is one - roll again - if it is six - you are detained, after 2 days in "smelly condition" deported to US. Do not show here again.
                                                                                                        - if it is one - your laptop is confiscated for undetermined period.

      How do you like such scenario?
      It is right time to "go Brazilian way" - US travellers treated exactly as our travellers in US.

    38. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From why a heard from Zimmerman case, it looks can looks like a paradox if you follow Zimmerman declaration:

      -A think B is suspicious.
      -A start following or tailing B.
      -B notices A following very suspiciously him. .....?
      -A kills B in self defense.

      We only have A declaration of what happened then we can't compare it to B's declaration to verify what really happened. And if we complete the missing part like:

      -A think B is suspicious.
      -A start following or tailing B.
      -B notices A following very suspiciously him.
      -B initiates incorrect and misguided action thinking that A is going to assault him.
      -A kills B in self defense.

      In this situation, A was correct to suspect B or as really a situation induced by A acts?

    39. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      any western european country I know of has the concept of 'reasonable force' for self defence,
      basically you can use the same amount of force to defend yourself, as the person attacking you is using.

      No... that is not what it means at all. That's proportionate force, which is not the same at all.
      Reasonable force is the least force available to you that can reasonably expect to stop the assailant. The point being the least amount of damage to both you and the assailant afterwards is what's reasonable.
      What "reasonable force" is depends on a lot of circumstances. An old or infirm person might be justified on calling his dogs to attack unarmed assailants, or grab a kitchen knife, despite either being disproportionate force.
      A weapons expert might be justified in firing a warning shot, but if stronger than the assailant might be expected to follow up a continued attack with wresting the person to the ground, not shooting him.

    40. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways.

      Wait, what? How can you claim to know that?

    41. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA doesn't mention [...] anything about [...] promoting violence

      Ahem. 'A visit in 2009 to Slough, in Berkshire, where Mr Larkin held a class intended to teach how to "maim and kill in self-defence"'

    42. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, non-lethal force is never acceptable when lethal force is justified, and lethal force is never justified when non-lethal force is sufficient.

      Lethal force is acceptable when your life (or sometimes, the life of another) is in immediate danger. When that happens, it's a case of You or Them -- if your life is in danger, the use of non-lethal force is a gamble *with your own life*, a gamble that the aggressor *IS NOT MAKING*. You're tying your hand behind your back to be 'nice' in a fight with someone trying to kill you? That's moronic.

      My life is worth more than the life of someone who would be attacking me and posing an immediate threat and danger to my life. Period.

      As far as firearms are concerned, a gun should never, ever, be used as anything less than a lethal response. Shooting to wound is the dumbest thing ever -- you're escalating things to, well, shooting.. but toying with them? No, if you shoot, it's because lethal force is justified -- you use it. Shooting to wound is Hollywood bullshit, it's unrealistic even for good marksmen, and odds are it either will do nothing or kill them as opposed to making them just sit down and stop being a threat to your life.

    43. Re:Turn about is fair play. by quadrox · · Score: 2

      This is no worse (but also no better) than everyone who thinks they KNOW that he shot him because he was black. Which was probably the point of GPs post.

    44. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      Zero would be the correct amount.

    45. Re:Turn about is fair play. by quadrox · · Score: 1

      That's circular reasoning. You're saying because it was murder he was lying, and his lying is evidence of it having been murder. Does not compute.

      And if you trust anything the police say in this day and age you certainly are naive and haven't had the "pleasure" to be in contact with the police yet. They are sloppy lying bastards as far as I am concerned, and I can say that from more personal experience than I would like.

    46. Re:Turn about is fair play. by dr.g · · Score: 2

      "...political bias is like a fucking terminal disease on this site."

      Sadly, no it isn't, or there would be a lot less of it. Nor is it like fucking, or there would be a lot more of it.

      --
      "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
    47. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Informative

      The U.S. refused entry to Yusuf Islam (the name that Cat Stevens has gone by since 1977) on one occasion for reasons that are unclear (he has since been admitted to the U.S.). The Department of Homeland Security said that he was denied entry because "concerns of ties he may have to potential terrorist-related activities." This could be a result of two things (and is likely the result of these two things coming together). The first, and the one that he subscribes to, is that his name in Arabic is the same as another man with ties to terrorist organizations. The second is that a number of the charitable organizations he has worked with have been found to have ties to terrorist organizations.*


      *Yusuf Islam denies working with any organization that he knows has ties with terrorist organizations and has ceased working with organizations when their ties to terrorist organizations become public knowledge (he may, also, do so if he becomes aware of such ties before it becomes public knowledge, but we have no way to know if such is actually the case),

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    48. Re:Turn about is fair play. by muckracer · · Score: 0

      > > TFA doesn't mention [...] anything about [...] promoting violence

      > Ahem. 'A visit in 2009 to Slough, in Berkshire, where Mr Larkin held
      > a class intended to teach how to "maim and kill in self-defence"'

      Dude, get out of your Disneyland-Mindset and acknowledge reality. Self-Defense, by definition, is gonna be ugly. If it isn't, then YOU are gonna look and feel ugly after an unprovoked and unavoidable attack...or your loved one's respectively, as they stand around on your wake because you had nothing other than cotton-balls to deal with the situation!
      To teach inflicting harm in the course of self-defense is absolutely reasonable, and has nothing to do whatsoever with "promoting violence"! In fact, anybody claiming to teach 'self-defense' or 'martial arts' without teaching violent ways to disable the (attacker's) human body is a scam!

    49. Re:Turn about is fair play. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      It's appalling grammar, but it's roughly right. The UK has two main charges for killing a person, murder and manslaughter. The difference is pre-meditation. If I get into a fight with somebody and kill them in the process it's manslaughter. If I go out looking for them and intentionally start the fight hoping to kill them then it's murder. If the killing happens then whether it's been planned or not is an absolutely vital element.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    50. Re:Turn about is fair play. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      You're allowed to use the minimal force needed to protect yourself. If they pull a knife and you knock them unconscious then you're not allowed to keep going until they're dead, however tempting it might be.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    51. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Self defence" covers a wide spectrum, from running away shrieking like a little girl, through to crippling your attacker using potentially lethal techniques. Larkin is at the throat-punch-for-great-justice end of the spectrum. That doesn't sit well with a Nanny State which (despite occasional noises to the contrary) de facto wants victims to blubber for help rather than take responsibility for their own safety.

      As to preaching this message in riot hit areas, those very riots demonstrated how inadequate the Nanny Will Protect You plan is when it kicks off big style, and it comes down to decent householders and business owners versus a pack of ferals. In case you're unclear on it, Larkin wasn't planning to teach the ferals, who simply pick up a knife or brick anyway.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    52. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a matter of public record, it's in the 911 call and there's no controversy about that aspect of the incident. And ultimately, it's why it's likely that he'll be going to prison for at least manslaughter.

    53. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, it's like that in pretty much any country you want to go to. I know when I applied for my visa that the Chinese embassy could turn my application down for any reason or no reason. In my case I wasn't terribly worried as I hadn't done anything wrong and I'm a much needed foreign expert, but they have the right to refuse for no reason if they so choose.

    54. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's the Queen of the United Kingdom actually. There's not been a Queen of England since Elizabeth I died in 1603.

    55. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xest · · Score: 2

      Funnily enough it was Ottawa where I had the problems too and I agree, the officers are Toronto are much friendlier and much more welcoming so I like you do exactly the same now - fly into Toronto, and just drive to Ottawa.

    56. Re:Turn about is fair play. by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Funny

      'terorist thread'

      Cop: You are under arrest!
      Man: What for?
      Cop, pointing at the man's collar: Do you see this stitching right here?
      Man: Yes?
      Cop: This is a terrorist thread!

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    57. Re:Turn about is fair play. by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      With stories like this the title "News for nerds, stuff that matters" should be removed.

    58. Re:Turn about is fair play. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I think the concept behind these kinds of laws (and i'm only familiar with Canada's system, not the UK's, but I suspect they're very similar) is that lethal force is almost never ever necessary.

      A friend of many of my friends was just stabbed to death by a repeat criminal on the street for really no reason, no, I mean really no reason. The guy was in the process of fleeing from the law and she happened to be standing in his way on the sidewalk, stabstabstab. And this shit is only happening MORE as the economy continues to collapse (don't believe any shit about a rebound; the very wealthy are getting some money and some other people in this country who would be considered outright rich in most of the world are seeing a very little trickle-down) and so on.

      All that said, I don't agree with the UK's decision. It's stupid. But, as a sovereign nation, it is their ball and they can take it home if they want to.

      Agreed. I hope they get what they deserve -- conquered. Because they're become a nation of pansy asses.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:Turn about is fair play. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      PS. It is a sad fact that I am posting (for the first time on /.) anonymously, because I'm afraid that even writing this could cause problems for me on future trips to the US.

      You are obviously living in fear of the US government. Why would you want to return there?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    60. Re:Turn about is fair play. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Reasonable force is the least force available to you that can reasonably expect to stop the assailant.

      Yes, and if someone is shooting at you, then it is only reasonable that you should shoot back, so that you are not at a massive disadvantage. When someone has signalled their intent to cause you harm, they have given up their right to not be attacked by you. Anything else is a violation of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- not just words on paper, but inherent human rights as we know them. I'm not willing to be harmed simply because you (or anyone) doesn't like it if I harm the person who's trying to harm me. They abdicated their rights when they attacked me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Turn about is fair play. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      It's still not newsworthy period. We deny people all the time. If you're a canadian they may ask you if you have ever smoked pot. Not if you're ever convicted, simply if you've ever done it. If you answer yes, not only will they deny you, but they will sometimes put you on a list barring future entry. This happens all the time. It's not /. new, but it's not even news, really. It's American-centric biased reporting by only talking about it when it happens in another country.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    62. Re:Turn about is fair play. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're posting anonymously because you're an idiot. ANY country can do that to you. If their laws don't permit doing it to average people, they can always charge you with some bullshit crime (all nations have some on the books for situations just like these) and deport your ass at your expense. Your visa for entry into the USA can be pre-applied for and pre-denied just like any other nation; the fact that we offer time-of-entry visas to residents of some nations is a convenience, and if you don't like the possibility of being turned back after arriving here, perhaps you should apply for the visa before making your trip.

      Maybe when you have something worth saying you'll log in.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But England is part of the UK. The Queen of the UK would also be the Queen of England.

    64. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      Unless you're a cop and the black guy is running to catch a subway train.

    65. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      PS. It is a sad fact that I am posting (for the first time on /.) anonymously, because I'm afraid that even writing this could cause problems for me on future trips to the US.

      I agree.

      Do you not understand that a government cannot stop all of its people all of the time, or even most of it? However, it can cause them to be so concerned individually, that most will quasi-voluntarily opt to restrict their behavior. The result is that those who do not, encounter the brunt of the government retaliation. I understand that sheepdog employ the same tactic when they herd.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    66. Re:Turn about is fair play. by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Actually in the USA its 3 rights make a left. (Since turning right you (often) don't have to give way.
      In the UK they drive on the left side of the road and the left turn would be the one that doesn't cross oncoming traffic, so there, 3 lefts make a right.

    67. Re:Turn about is fair play. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Self-defence can involve damaging the attacker to take him out of the fight.

      Why shouldn't an attacker be destroyed? If an innocent person is attacked, why are they of no value and their attacker to be delicately handled instead of stopped hard?

      In riot situations, should someone who is attacked be coerced to do nothing except get beaten? Why are rioters more valuable than those they attack?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    68. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Separated by a common language. The poster's idea of self-defense is probably close to George Zimmermann's idea of self-defense, and wouldn't pass as such in the UK.

    69. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying his word cannot be trusted, because should he be guilty he'd certainly claim not to be, so how do we know?

    70. Re:Turn about is fair play. by mark-t · · Score: 2

      " You're tying your hand behind your back to be 'nice' in a fight with someone trying to kill you?"

      If somebody is trying to kill you, or somebody else's safety is mortal jeopardy, then lethal force is actually justified. It's when it is clear that nobody's life is actually in any danger (which, although I know that people on slashdot just love to point out the rare exceptions to a general rule, is actually the case a *VAST* majority of the time) that there is no justification for lethal force.

    71. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Which sentence are you questioning?

      What the cops told him is on tape and both the cops and himself agree that it was what was said.

      The fact that he did, well, we only know by his own account, I agree. But it doesn't really help his case on the contrary, so he's most likely not lying about it. True, I don't know, but it's likely.

    72. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      What "reasonable force" is depends on a lot of circumstances. An old or infirm person might be justified on calling his dogs to attack unarmed assailants, or grab a kitchen knife, despite either being disproportionate force.
      A weapons expert might be justified in firing a warning shot, but if stronger than the assailant might be expected to follow up a continued attack with wresting the person to the ground, not shooting him.

      So the more effectively someone has learned to deal with physical threats, the less potential for harm there is for both the victim and the assailant.

      This seems to indicate that someone training the public in self-defense methods is clearly in the public's interest.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    73. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      So the more effectively someone has learned to deal with physical threats, the less potential for harm there is for both the victim and the assailant.

      This seems to indicate that someone training the public in self-defense methods is clearly in the public's interest.

      Indeed. Self-defense, as in having learned how to stop attackers with the least amount of harm, not as in learned how to most efficiently kill someone.

    74. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      Brazilians, on the other hand, are apparently fair game in the U.K.

    75. Re:Turn about is fair play. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Where did you get such a twisted and biased version of the events? Freerepublic.com?

      --
      Eat the rich.
    76. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      When someone has signalled their intent to cause you harm, they have given up their right to not be attacked by you.

      Why do you think that?
      In most civilized countries, the right to not be harmed is an inalienable right, meaning you cannot give it away. Just like the right to vote and the right to privacy, these are considered inalienable rights in some countries, even if they aren't in USA.

      Anything else is a violation of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- not just words on paper, but inherent human rights as we know them.

      What's inherent about them? And how are your government-given rights violated by you wrestling an assailant to the ground instead of shooting him? It would make you less happy?

    77. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      So the more effectively someone has learned to deal with physical threats, the less potential for harm there is for both the victim and the assailant.

      This seems to indicate that someone training the public in self-defense methods is clearly in the public's interest.

      Indeed. Self-defense, as in having learned how to stop attackers with the least amount of harm, not as in learned how to most efficiently kill someone.

      If I were to begin removing your knowledge of each of the 26 letters of the alphabet one by one, your ability to form the most appropriate word to complete a sentence would drop, not increase.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    78. Re:Turn about is fair play. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 0

      And by "ferals" you mean "blacks" and "muslims", right?

      Go back to freerepublic.com with your thinly-veiled racist slurs, bigot.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    79. Re:Turn about is fair play. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      ... to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first).

      Safety is my first priority always. Running away until you're too tired to inflict lethal force and then getting stabbed is not a good plan.

    80. Re:Turn about is fair play. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      ... but if stronger than the assailant might be expected to follow up a continued attack with wresting the person to the ground, not shooting him.

      Without hindsight how are you reasonably expected to know you're stronger and/or more skilled to succeed at wrestling the assailant to the ground? That's taking a mighty big chance when your life (or someone else's life) is on the line. Even if you are 100% sure you can prevail in the wrestling match are you certain that his mate is not about to arrive on the scene?
      IMO, given the uncertainties of any situation and the inability to have complete situational awareness, disabling the assailant in the quickest most efficient manner is the only reasonable option. If you erroneously choose to attempt a less lethal approach first you may never get the chance to follow up with a more lethal approach.

    81. Re:Turn about is fair play. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      How many wrongs does it take to make a right then, huh?

      As most US cities are built on a grid system, three. Less clear in europe, where our cities can be thousands of years old and so havn't been planned for the automotive age so well.

      He said wrongs not lefts. However, as this is indeed a story about the UK, I can easily see where you became confused...

    82. Re:Turn about is fair play. by twocows · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh...? I think he meant people that would attack business owners and householders under the ruse of "protesting." If you take that to mean blacks and Muslims, I don't think that makes him a racist.

    83. Re:Turn about is fair play. by berashith · · Score: 1

      or as Bobby Hill screams " thats my purse, I dont know you" . and a swift kick to the nuts

    84. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable has nothing to do with least, as such. *Necessary* and *proportionate* are the two tests involved. If they're using lethal force, or you can convince a jury that you honestly believe that they were going to, then you're allowed to kill someone, no problem. Nothing about least in there.

    85. Re:Turn about is fair play. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My right to not be harmed is infringed when I have to wrestle an assailant to the ground, because people die as a result of trying to accomplish things like that all the time. They don't have the right to subject me to a dangerous situation on their whim. And where their rights and mine collide, I assert my rights over theirs when they have deliberately infringed upon mine. In exchange, I recognize their rights... right up until the point where they threaten mine.

      Luckily, I don't consider myself to have the right to tell people what god to worship or anything like that, so this is a rational and consistent stance to have. I'm not shooting people for taxing me, or for being another color, or any of that shit. In fact, so far I have not found it necessary to shoot anyone at all, and I hope that situation continues eternally.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    86. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you have the police to do it for you at subway stations.

    87. Re:Turn about is fair play. by anom · · Score: 2

      Except that self-defense is frowned upon in general in the UK and you are likely to be prosecuted for it.

    88. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the concept in UK law is "reasonable" force, which isn't the same thing at all.

      Actually, the reasonable part only applies to England & Wales. Up here in Scotland, we can use "force" for self-defence (that includes protecting a 3rd party) or to defend our property.

      I dont think that allows for killing, but it doesnt have the "oh, my attacker only has a baseball bat so I cant use a knife" nonsense south of the border.

    89. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I hope they get what they deserve -- conquered. Because they're become a nation of pansy asses.

      Look behind you, yankee boy - a terrorist! Argh. Better remove more of those civil liberties and screen more bus passengers!

    90. Re:Turn about is fair play. by operagost · · Score: 1

      By making such an absurd interpretation of his post, I think you proved just what kind of bigotry rules your own thoughts.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    91. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the right to not be harmed is inalienable, then I am within my rights to do whatever I must to protect that right, regardless of *anything else* (including, I might add, that very right as possessed by someone else).

      Perhaps the right to not be harmed cannot be given away, but others can take it.

      By their actions, they have already shown that is the intent.

      You will end up getting yourself killed if you think that your opponent has the same hangups about killing you.

      By attempting something stupid, such as wresting someone to the ground who broke into your house, YOU are giving up your right not to be harmed.

      As I do not want to do so, I will be shooting anyone who breaks in, thanks.

    92. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry.

      Self defense is DEFENDING YOURSELF.

      There are no other caveats.

      I'm sorry that you do not see that.

      To restrict it to this or that, or some "ideal" that is untenable in the real world is simply stupid.

    93. Re:Turn about is fair play. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Unlike the USA

      False.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    94. Re:Turn about is fair play. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I go across at the Peace Bridge, in Fort Erie. Last time through, it went like this:

      Him: "Where ya going?"
      Me: "Six Nations, for a lacrosse game."
      Him: "Staying overnight?"
      Me: "Nope."
      HIm: "Ok"
      Me: "Thanks."

      It would've been better if we'd won the game, but at least Customs didn't give me any crap.

    95. Re:Turn about is fair play. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Nobody really cares about your sick fascination with that site.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    96. Re:Turn about is fair play. by chrb · · Score: 1

      But England is part of the UK. The Queen of the UK would also be the Queen of England.

      No, "Queen of the UK" it is a distinct official title. Your argument is like saying that Obama is the "President of Texas", because Texas is part of the United States.

    97. Re:Turn about is fair play. by chrb · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't an attacker be destroyed?

      Because we live in a democratic state, and most people agree that you can't arbitrarily kill someone just because they attack you. For example, a woman grabbing your ass in a nightclub is technically sexual assault, but this does not give you the right to kill her. A teenage "happy slapper" may be annoying, but you can't kill them.

      should someone who is attacked be coerced to do nothing except get beaten?

      The law allows you to use proportionate violence in self-defence. If you are attacked then you can defend yourself. Claiming that you have to allow youself to get beaten is an ignorant strawman argument.

    98. Re:Turn about is fair play. by bmo · · Score: 1

      But it's not eye-for-an-eye

      As pointed out earlier, here in the US, they don't even have to give you a reason at customs and immigration. With no notice. They just refuse and send you back.

      Here, he was notified even before getting on a plane, with a reason. I think that is fair.

      --
      BMO

    99. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulnerable people who live in less safe areas are the most obvious candidates for self-defence courses, no? I don't see the Queen of England signing up for one of these.

      His website doesn't look like he teaches self-defense, it looks like he teaches how to cause pain and maim people.

      If you are attacked by a criminal your first thought should be getting out of the situation and hurting the guy if you have to. It should not be 'Wow! Goodie! Now I have a legal excuse to cause this guy as much pain and injury as possible!'

    100. Re:Turn about is fair play. by chrb · · Score: 1

      As distinct from what seems to be happening here: if you think he may be causing trouble, you are not allowed to know how to stop him with fatal force should it become necessary.

      This man is advocating stopping people with fatal force when it is not necessary. He advocates that, when someone is in your face, you should take preemptive action and kill them. That's the difference.

    101. Re:Turn about is fair play. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      The Tories want civil unrest as it promotes a kneejerk reaction by the unwashed and cowardly masses. "Protect us!" Someone with a disciplined approach to self defence is dangerous whichever side listens to him.

      There are thousands of self defense schools in the UK and thousands of fighting sport schools that teach stuff like boxing. They are not banned.

      This guy was banned not because he promotes self-defense but because he promotes causing people crippling pain and maiming them. There is a world of difference between dealing with an attacker and hurting him if you need to and maiming him for a laugh and because you think you can legally get away with it.

      Frankly this guy sounds like an animal looking for some excuse to rip apart weaker animals. The UK government did the right thing.

    102. Re:Turn about is fair play. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      The law allows you to use proportionate violence in self-defence. If you are attacked then you can defend yourself. Claiming that you have to allow youself to get beaten is an ignorant strawman argument.

      UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later. If a mugger walks into a police station bloody and beaten and you are not hurt worse the police will come for you. If you don't have reliable witnesses or video evidence they might just jail you. Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.

      The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.

    103. Re:Turn about is fair play. by whoop · · Score: 1

      But you won't get in trouble for getting yourself killed. That's the important thing to remember here. The other person? Boy, he (or she) is in a world of trouble!

    104. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Well, "not conducive to the public good" is not really a reason, and not being as bad as the US is not the definition of fair.

    105. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. cannot be verified by a trusted third party, such as the police...

      'trusted third party'
      'the police'

      choose one..

    106. Re:Turn about is fair play. by gedeco · · Score: 1

      There is a real irony in here.
      Suppose you followed a Martial Arts course where they teaching you specificly defend you with lethal force.
      You kill someone, claims selfdefence. No go, because you followed such a course it will be murder, because you have already planned to do so.
      The legal defence of the dealy victim will claim this was a provoked setup.

      At least you're legal position will be very questionable.

      There are always a minority of martial arts students who try to provoke a fight. Personaly I know some karateka's who sought trouble and have been beaten op by a group of former para's on their anual reunion.

    107. Re:Turn about is fair play. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I believe the eye witnesses the police questioned at the time the incident occurred and it was determined it to be self defense and the bloody photos of his head lend a bit more credence to his side of the story than you are suggesting..

    108. Re:Turn about is fair play. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      There's nothing illegal about self defence in the UK. But it has to be reasonable. Proportional to the threat. Not vigilante justice.

      Larkin goes way beyond reasonable. He advocates ignoring what the actual threat is, and just "splintering" joints or destroying (killing) people. Just in case. And that's not reasonable in UK law.

    109. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If the right to not be harmed is inalienable, then I am within my rights to do whatever I must to protect that right

      No, that doesn't follow. In most societies, that would be the job of the police.
      Otherwise, you have vigilante justice.

      You normally have a right to defend yourself, which is not the same as a carte blanche.

      In fact, the crown has stated in rulings "It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action." I.e. running away is one way of defending yourself.

      Yes, this is a completely different concept than the US castle doctrine and "stand your ground" rules.

    110. Re:Turn about is fair play. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      you're not from the UK are you? Ok, then stop spreading FUD.

      Aiding and abetting a criminal is not the same as simply knowing them or being there when they commit a crime.

      Actually there is such a law. If you are in a group and someone in that group committed a murder every single member of the group is guilty of murder and can be tried and convicted for it even if you didn't know of, or approve of the murder you are still guilty of it.

      It's called 'joint enterprise' or something like that. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/joint-enterprise-am-i-a-murderer-pt-3-3/9434.html

    111. Re:Turn about is fair play. by modecx · · Score: 1

      Funny, I seem to remember from the pictures that the vast majority of the London looters, arsonists, muggers, etc. were disproportionately in the young white male category. The 'feral' description fails to apply people who act thus how, exactly?

      To play the Socratic Devil's Advocate: Let's say they were mostly black and Muslim; when you make the conscious decision to not apply an adjective to a group of people on the sole basis that it might be taken as a racist remark, even when that adjective fits their behavior perfectly, who is the bigot then?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    112. Re:Turn about is fair play. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later.

      No. In all UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is not on you to prove that your self defence was reasonable, but on the prosecution to show that it was not.

      Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.

      The UK police don't prosecute, judge nor sentence people.

      The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.

      You're welcome to your opinion. But it is only your opinion. It's not a right in any real sense.

    113. Re:Turn about is fair play. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      Unless you're a cop and the black guy is running to catch a subway train.

      You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes ?

      He wasn't black but the rest of your story is right. The kind of police who are allowed to carry guns in the UK ( which isn't too many ) effectively have a license to kill without the risk of being brought to justice. The IPCC whitewashes all police killings. How you justify several police holding down an innocent, unarmed, and non-threatening man, and shooting him 7 times in the head is a mystery to me but that's what the IPCC does.

      The same happened with Ian Tomlinson who the police beat to death just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      I think there were some other cases of unprovoked police killings but I don't remember them right now.

    114. Re:Turn about is fair play. by digitac · · Score: 1

      Three lefts do though. Also, two Wrights make an airplane.

    115. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Um, outside of blocking, dodging, and conflict avoidance... attacking and injuring people deliberately is a pretty goddamned important component of self-defense. Probably the most important one. You can't block and evade forever, eventually you're going to have to pop them back.

    116. Re:Turn about is fair play. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've volunteered for the Red Cross. The Res Cross has ties to terrorist organizations (They have provided aid in areas with terrorists where it's almost certain they provided direct aid to terrorists in the course of their general duties). So I should be on the terrorist watch list as well. Most international aid organizations that don't focus on children-only (and even some that do) operate in areas where terrorists live and train, making it nearly impossible to be sure you haven't aided a terrorist.

      At this point, it'd be easier and more accurate to list everyone on the terrorist watch list, and form exceptions upon complaint.

    117. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the contents of his 911 call to the police are available?

    118. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      In the case of Yusuf Islam, he has worked with organizations which use their charitable activities as a cover for terrorist activities. In his defense, at the point where anyone can prove that he is aware of it, he has broken all ties with such organizations. While it is possible that he has only done so to avoid the appearance of supporting terrorism when in fact he does support it, the evidence of his statements and his actions combined suggest that such is not the case.
      So to sum up, Yusuf Islam has worked with organizations which were little more than front groups for terrorist organizations. However, whenever he has become aware of this connection between these organizations (at least as far as anyone can prove) and terrorist activity, he has broken his association with said organizations.
      The evidence suggests that he ended up on the no-fly list in a manner that makes perfectly good sense and that when it was brought to the appropriate people's attention, he was removed. This does not mean that there are not problems with these lists (there are). It just means that Yusuf Islam is not an example of the problems.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    119. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A weapons expert does not fire a "warning shot". He fires a sufficient number of times to eliminate the threat. If you are in possession of a firearm and are being threatened, you don't want to waste time, because all that does is increase your risk. If you have a weapon and you choose to wrestle someone, you run the risk of losing control of your weapon and having it used against you.

      Bottom line, if you're a weapons expert, and your life is being threatened, you shoot the jerk. Period.

    120. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy was banned not because he promotes self-defense but because he promotes causing people crippling pain and maiming them. There is a world of difference between dealing with an attacker and hurting him if you need to and maiming him for a laugh and because you think you can legally get away with it.

      So, like AC said, competition for the government.

    121. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your near constant mentions of Muslims in these types of discussions prove what kind of bigotry rules yours.

    122. Re:Turn about is fair play. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Which is a shame, as there ideals at least should be the model for many countries. Especially Europe.

      Arresting people for holocaust denial, for an idea, is atrocious.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    123. Re:Turn about is fair play. by jheath314 · · Score: 1

      Because people can make mistakes, especially when they get into high-adrenaline situations like fights for survival (see Zimmerman, George, for a recent example). Someone who thinks his life is in danger isn't going to be the best judge of how well armed his opponent is, or whether he's even attacking the right guy... I can easily see someone picking the wrong target for their zealous self-defense and harming a perfectly innocent by-stander. Police do it all the time, and they've got the benefit of training and experience.

      Mind you, I'm all for robust self-defense, especially in situations where your attacker has entered your home or if they have you cornered. Where you step over the line is in advocating "destroying" your attacker, instead of merely doing what is necessary to protect yourself. No man should have the power to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner... there's a reason civilized countries have different people for each of those roles.

      --
      Procrastination Man strikes again!
    124. Re:Turn about is fair play. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Look behind you, yankee boy - a terrorist! Argh. Better remove more of those civil liberties and screen more bus passengers!

      False dichotomy. I'm against the TSA's very existence, and I want to replace it with what we had before — nothing. And I mean that. Let the airlines handle their own security, now that they understand the concept of armored cockpit doors.

      I'm also against the disarmament of the peoples of a nation. You know, me and Gandhi.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    125. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you tards fail to see that on the whole of the planet, people should be able to kill each other and use lethal force and governments should not be dictating this behavior.

      Because an honest man (or woman) is not going to respect any bullshit laws not to fuck your shit up, and people would be allot more respectful if there was the actual threat of real violence for trivial truly anti-social behavior (telling others how they should handle their problems). kthxbye, with love, your friendly neighborehood anarchist.

    126. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xandrax · · Score: 1

      The issue is that, in Britain, "reasonable" does not include bringing a bat out after hoodlums throwing rocks through your windows with your family home (not using it, just bringing it out and brandishing it). It doesn't include a woman using a pen knife to defend herself from three men on a London subway. It doesn't include a man shooting a burglar as he was being robbed for the seventh time, a man who was then denied parole years later due to his being a threat to burglars (and no, that's not a joke). It doesn't include a man attacked by a knife-wielding robber who, during the struggle, got the knife away from the robber and fatally stabbed him.

      I could list many more, but the point should be made by now. While self-defense is not "illegal", it is prosecuted to such an extent that defending yourself can be more dangerous to your own liberty than committing the crime itself is to the liberty of the criminal.

    127. Re:Turn about is fair play. by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Of the ones you list, the reference that's instantly clear to me is Tony Martin. He laid in wait with a shotgun to kill burglars. And then shot and killed one in the back as he was trying to escape through a window.

      Waiting there with a shotgun might be reasonable. Shooting intruders that are advancing might be reasonable. Killing them as they are leaving is not.

      I looked up the penknife one. It seems it was a bit of a story in the US, but not in the UK. In the UK, no one wants people carrying knives as weapons. This dumb American disregarded UK law, and was rightly prosecuted for it. There is no evidence she was attacked.

      The UK is not America, thankfully. Just because Americans think all the world should be like their country doesn't mean it should be.

    128. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      Give her a year or two as the political situation deteriorates. She might reconsider.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    129. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways.

      False. He was in the process of following him when he called the police, they told him they didn't need him to, he said "OK" and went back to his car. We have eyewitnesses stating that he was pinned to the ground with Martin bashing his head into the pavement. Tell me, if he went up to him intended to shoot him, how the hell did he end up on the ground having his head bashed in calling for help? Why not just shoot him in the first place?

      But your version of it doesn't allow for someone who owns one of those "evil" guns to come out in a positive light, so any other one must be a lie.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    130. Re:Turn about is fair play. by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      +1, Informative.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    131. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.

      In the United States there are "shoot first" laws which allows people (usually white middle class people) to kill blacks and other visible "minorities" without cause. This has always been the case, even without formal legislation backing up the concept. Juries don't generally convict people who "shoot first". Remember Hattori Yoshihiro?

      And yes, the United States will not let you into the country if you are known to have smoked marijuana. Strange how Americans defend the use of violence and yet they have a fanatical obsession with punishing marijuana users. I remember even the (Liberal government) once told Canadians traveling to the U.S. to lie to customs agents if asked about marijuana convictions. They won't ban guns, but they will put you in jail if you smoke marijuana. Pretty bizarre isn't it?

      references:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattori_Yoshihiro

    132. Re:Turn about is fair play. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in this case a self defence training would not help that much. From your description your friend was taken by surprise and was, as you have written, in the way.

      Also best self defence against a knife-armed person is running away. Knife against knife - or even worse, unarmed against knife - is far too dangerous, even for well-trained people.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    133. Re:Turn about is fair play. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      lethal force is almost never ever necessary. The capability of lethal force almost always implies the capability of non-lethal (but still disabling) force, which should always be the preference if it comes to that. Furthermore, the capability of lethal force (eg: gun) can almost always be used as a non-lethal threat to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first).

      The problem with this line of reasoning is that it only makes sense when you're sitting in a comfy chair reading Slashdot. In practice, self-defense happens in highly stressful, life-or-death situations (or at least those where the defending person reasonably perceives as such), where the capacity for cool-headed rational thinking is highly diminished.

      Simply put, suppose a guy is charging you with a knife, and you have a holstered gun. Experiments have shown that, at 21 feet, you can draw the gun, aim and fire once before he sticks the knife in you (under 21 feet, you may not have a chance to fire at all!). So you have, at best, a single shot, and less than a second to aim it. Aiming for center of mass - basically, chest - gives you the highest likelihood of a hit under the circumstances, and will most likely stop the attacker if he's hit, but has a relatively high chance of being lethal. Aiming to disable - e.g. for the legs - you're unlikely to pull off a shot at all, and if you do, you will likely miss anyway; and if you do hit, there are some areas in the legs which can also lead to rapid blood loss and death if hit.

      And no, it's not always feasible to run away. Even if there is a retreat path, are you sure that you want to find out if you run faster than the guy with the knife, if the penalty for guessing wrong is your limb and/or life?

      Simply put, the point of laws justifying lethal self defense is not to have everyone headshot any criminal that happens to run into them. It's to let people use the most efficient and likely to succeed means of stopping the assailant, even if those means are lethal, without worrying about being charged with murder.

    134. Re:Turn about is fair play. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The irony is that Castle Doctrine originates from a saying "the man's home is his castle", which was originally promulgated by an English court of justice, long before US became an independent country.

    135. Re:Turn about is fair play. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The point of self-defense is to stop the attacked with the least amount of combined harm. Which is to say, if some method is less violent towards the attacker, but is highly inefficient, or highly unlikely to be executed right, resulting in the attacker harming the defender, then that method is not optimal.

    136. Re:Turn about is fair play. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I think the sick fucks who frequent that site need to be called out so people will at least be aware of just how insane they really are before they listen to anything they have to say.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    137. Re:Turn about is fair play. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      In every single online discussion I've been part of, the people who use the word "feral" to refer to other people always turn out to be racist dickbags.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    138. Re:Turn about is fair play. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later.

      No. In all UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is not on you to prove that your self defence was reasonable, but on the prosecution to show that it was not.

      It's just semantics. The prosecution has a statement from a guy saying you attacked him, he has clearly been beaten, you have his blood on your clothes and some minor bruising. For all practical purposes you have to prove your innocence. If you don't have witnesses you are going to find that hard.

      Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.

      The UK police don't prosecute, judge nor sentence people.

      They don't prosecute. They do judge in some sense of the word and certainly sentence some people to punishment from being tasered, to a beating, to sometimes death. It's highly unlikely they will get punished when they step outside the letter of the law.

      The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.

      You're welcome to your opinion. But it is only your opinion. It's not a right in any real sense.

      It's a law of nature, not of old men who sit in cosy chairs and pass judgement on the rest of humanity. You are entitled to preserve your own life and the lives of your loved ones.

    139. Re:Turn about is fair play. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The point of self-defense is to stop the attacked with the least amount of combined harm. Which is to say, if some method is less violent towards the attacker, but is highly inefficient, or highly unlikely to be executed right, resulting in the attacker harming the defender, then that method is not optimal.

      True. But it also mean that my risk of getting a bloody nose doesn't trump the risk to his life.

      And, the best defence can be avoiding damage altogether. If someone walks up your driveway looking malicious, do you
      (a) close the door and/or run away
      (b) prepare to grapple
      (c) grab a baseball bat
      (d) shoot him
      ?

      One would have to be a seriously self-centered chicken-shit to go for option d.

    140. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Xandrax · · Score: 1

      My bad on replying to your post. I read a later comment you made, "Oh right, you're a Zionist. Even more of a fucktard then.". Had I read it before I posted, I would have realized that you're not the kind of person that one spends time replying to. Now that I know, no worries about me replying to any further posts by you on /.

    141. Re:Turn about is fair play. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If someone walks up your driveway looking malicious, he can be heading anywhere, and looking malicious is not a crime. At this point you should be alert just in case, but it's certainly too early to do something.

      If, however, someone is walking straight up to you, holding a knife in their hand in a clearly threatening way, and does not respond to any questions, well... if (a) is an option I'd definitely do that first, but when that's unavailable, I'm going straight to (d). I'm not going to experimentally test if I can swing a baseball bat faster than he can swing a knife, and grapple? forget it, I'm not Chuck Norris.

    142. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THE FUCKING ASSHOLE doesn't deserve to live in or be admitted to ANY country. teaching OTHER ASSHOLES TO KILL for very little reason other than paranoia is FUCKED!!

    143. Re:Turn about is fair play. by Fned · · Score: 1

      Frankly this guy sounds like an animal looking for some excuse to rip apart weaker animals.

      Ignoramus.

  3. Different kind of anti-social by SnappyCrunch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The UK has a different connotation for anti-social than does the US, and in UK law, the term has very specific meanings.

    1. Re:Different kind of anti-social by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are you saying that the US or any other developed country for that matter does not have laws regarding begging, drinking alcohol in the streets, making noise, driving for fun (by which I assume you mean in a manner which is unsafe or without regard to other road users), lighting fireworks? Not even a blanket catch-all law akin to disturbing the peace that a law enforcement officer could use at their discretion?

      The UK just so happens to have codified what common practices it considers to be anti-social and to have laws in place to give police and the courts specific powers to deal with them.

    2. Re:Different kind of anti-social by ommerson · · Score: 2

      I'd imagine that under the zero-tolerance policing strategy in many US cities, people engaged in almost all of these activities would simply get arrested for petty criminal offences and cleared off the streets.

      The point of anti-social behaviour orders is that they are executed under civil - rather than criminal - law. The idea being that a lower burden of proof is required in court to obtain the order in the first place. In practice, the evidence usually consists of a long record of low-level criminality - a possible example being an individual who is clearly dealing drugs, but who the police have never managed to catch with any.

      Of course things on in the realm of the criminal law once the order is breached.

    3. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with that is you know have an activity that's legal for everybody except the person to who the asbo applies, for him/her it is punishable by I think it was 5 years of jail.
      in other words the UK has explicitly abandonded the principle that everyone is equal before the law.
      I really hope I don't need to explain why that's a Bad Thing?

    4. Re:Different kind of anti-social by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      He could have flown to France and board the train through the Chunnel, nobody would have known.
      You can still buy those tickets with cash.

    5. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that UK immigration checks your passport in France before you get on the train. However, you could get on in Brussels and pretend you are going to Paris (no passport checks), and then hide in the toilet.

    6. Re:Different kind of anti-social by tubs · · Score: 1

      Driving for Fun : I think that means Joy Riding. Which is a very different thing to "driving for fun".

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    7. Re:Different kind of anti-social by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      the problem with that is you know have an activity that's legal for everybody except the person to who the asbo applies, for him/her it is punishable by I think it was 5 years of jail.
      in other words the UK has explicitly abandonded the principle that everyone is equal before the law.

      That's the same in the US; they just don't call it an ASBO, and it isn't restricted to anti-social behavior.

      But there are plenty of people here who have special restrictions forced upon them that the general population doesn't have.
      Whether it be to not use a computer, not ever be within X feet of Y, not speak about something, having to report any travel they do, or not be allowed to vote.
      It's all up to the discretion of the judges. Or, in the case of not speaking about something, not even subject to going through a court - the federal police serves around 60,000 gag orders a year.

    8. Re:Different kind of anti-social by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sucessive UK governments have become addicted to legislating increasingly petty levels of people's behaviour. Rather than looking at and tackling the root causes of mass levels of anti-social behaviour they have been focussing on the headline-grabbing band-aid solutions of making each and every specific incident illegal. The net effect of this is a web of at times contradictory laws. For example - if an emergency services vehicle is behind you with its sirens on you have a duty to move ot the way if at all possible. Last year a man was taken to court because his only safe option to do so involved driving through a red light. He was quite literally faced with a situation not of his own making where there was no legal option - he either "ran" the red light, drove across the pavement or obstructed and emergency services vehicle in its duty.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    9. Re:Different kind of anti-social by horza · · Score: 4

      Driving for fun means not pootling along at 30mph, paranoidly watching your speedo more than the road due to the vast network of cameras that will flash you at 33mph, worrying about the cost of your over-priced fuel the car is running on, avoiding the areas of London that will trigger a congestion charge fine, then being able to stop off for a quick pint somewhere hoping you didn't miss them reducing the alcohol limits to zero and you go to jail, before worriedly returning to your car hoping it hasn't been clamped or towed away because it was on a single yellow line.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The UK seems to be some kind of heaven for a lower middleclass mindset, restricting everyone to only the most bland activities. They really must hate creativity there, which tends to go with a certain amount of chaos.

      "We sent our criminals to Australia, our religious nuts to America and our adventurers to our colonies - only the square people remained in Britain." - an anonymous Englishman I once met during my travels.

    11. Re:Different kind of anti-social by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No you don't, you're over-simplifying. I can walk up to somebody in the street and talk to them. If I do this often enough to make the person uncomfortable then they can apply for a restraining order, and if it's granted then approaching them again will make me liable to prosecution, not for approaching the person but for breaching a court order. Everybody is entitled to approach somebody in the street, nobody is allowed to breach a court order.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    12. Re:Different kind of anti-social by berberine · · Score: 1

      Sure, he could have done that, except he'd still be subject to an immigration check. I've done the Chunnel several times and, as an American, my passport gets checked before I leave.

    13. Re:Different kind of anti-social by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never understood this need of US/UK people to drink and drive. Here in Norway, there is a zero-tolerance for alcohol when driving (technically, the limit is 0.02 % BAC), and it's been that way since I was about 9 years old. No one complains about this, and there is a pretty big social stigmatization of people who drink even "just one pint" before driving. Our lives are not impaired in any meaningful way, but we have less road accidents, fatalities and injuries per capita.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    14. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I notice in media, public transportation seems to be very popular.
      I figured it was just over population on an island that causes one not to drive.
      The beer thing clears it up for me.
      Now I wonder why there isn't more public transport going on here as the "Driving Under the Influence" laws get worse and worse.
      Also, one must note that it is actually the Laws involved that are anti-social by definition. Not people.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    15. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is the same Norway where Beer factory workers went on strike because the company wouldn't let them drink on the line and drivers could only take two beers on the road for all day? My mistake, it must be the other Norway.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:Different kind of anti-social by UnoriginalBoringNick · · Score: 1

      If they want some legal excitement they can step off the pavement (sidewalk) and walk on the street

    17. Re:Different kind of anti-social by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, you do have a significantly smaller population, and a larger country than the UK, so population density is much reduced, I think when this happens a per capita death rate for the roads is expected to be less, as every day on the roads there are less opportunities for a crash per capita.

      Furthermore in 2010 Norway's per capita road deaths were higher than the UK
      "In 2010 there were 210 road deaths in Norway (source: DfT). This equates to 4.3 road deaths per 100,000 of population and compares to the UK average of 3.1 road deaths per 100,000 of population in 2010."
      http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/europe/norway

      I only chose this measure because the statistics are easy to pull up, and due to a driver re-education course I recently had to go on I found out that the UK actually has pretty good road safety statistics.

    18. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Serpents · · Score: 1

      Last time I took the train they checked the passports in Folkstone, UK. It was quite a few years ago thoush so things might have changed...

    19. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Okay. How about a plane to France and pay some Frenchman to carry you to England in a boat?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    20. Re:Different kind of anti-social by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Last time I took the train they checked the passports in Folkstone, UK. It was quite a few years ago thoush so things might have changed...

      They check them as you depart, so they don't have to check them when you arrive. You must have been travelling to France.

    21. Re:Different kind of anti-social by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the UK has explicitly abandonded the principle that everyone is equal before the law.

      Everyone is equal before the law. After the law, everyone not wealthy and connected is fucked..

      Here in the USA we have the biggest and most offensive example of not everyone being equal before the law — Disenfranchisement of Felons. If the state declares you to be a criminal, you lose your right to vote. Therefore, all the state has to do to prevent you from voting is pass a law criminalizing your behavior. It will probably take longer to get your voting rights back than it will to repeal the fucking law. The same is true of every other right we hold dear; it can be trivially denied you and it is most likely to be denied you if you oppose the corrupt status quo.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was Denmark...A whole different outlook on things like beer.

    23. Re:Different kind of anti-social by dbet · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why drinking and driving is punished more harshly than similarly risky behaviors, such as using a cell phone while driving.

    24. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Pax681 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, very specific, come to think of it, what other country, maybe except of China, could you think of intervening in case of loud discussions in the streets with your neighbour. Begging, drinking alcohol in the streets, making noise, driving for fun, lighting fireworks might sometimes be an annoyance, but making them punishable?

      The UK seems to be some kind of heaven for a lower middleclass mindset, restricting everyone to only the most bland activities. They really must hate creativity there, which tends to go with a certain amount of chaos.

      well try having to put up with a pair of noisy bastards that play UBER loud music at all hours of the day and night when you want to get your baby daughter to sleep.
      that is anti-social behaviour here in Edinburgh and all i had to do after trying to reason with the morons was phone the Sound Enforcement Officers here at Edinburgh Council... they came out , checked the sound levels and then gave them a warning... of course the morons didn't heed the warning and kept going anyway.
      then the sound enforcement officers issued them with a fine.... and even that didn't work to then they went in and used the full force of the legislation against them and confiscated all "amplified sound equipment" in the apartment they were in (directly above mine) and thus no more computers,hi-fi, tv.. etc anything with a speaker.. BOOM gone..... after that my little girl could actually get some sleep. she was barely even 6 months old at the time.....

    25. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Biotech_is_Godzilla · · Score: 2

      I come from the UK and have relatives in America. The UK is much more like Norway than it is like the US. There is a huge social stigma associated with drink driving here - generally people don't do it. Okay, so we're allowed one drink before we drive, and many people have their one drink before moving on to soda; but in the US it seems like people are happy to get totally blasted and crawl behind the wheel of a car... And then even talk about it with their friends afterwards instead of being suitably ashamed, which is bizarre to me. There are reasons for this - one of the more compelling ones being that despite them all driving around pissed as newts, not that many people end up dead; but I'd never do it, and neither would most British people. The UK and US are world's apart on this one nowadays. Please don't tar us with the same brush.

    26. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      The net effect of this is a web of at times contradictory laws. For example - if an emergency services vehicle is behind you with its sirens on you have a duty to move ot the way if at all possible. Last year a man was taken to court because his only safe option to do so involved driving through a red light.

      There is nothing contradictory in UK law here, as far as I know.

      You should try to allow emergency vehicles to get through, within the rules of the law. However, you are not allowed to proceed over the line at a red light, unless directed to do so by a uniformed police officer (or IIRC a uniformed PCSO these days, if they have been given the relevant authorisation in their area). If you do, you could be prosecuted.

      Deliberately obstructing an emergency worker would be an offence, but failing to allow an emergency vehicle through when you cannot legally do so is not; you have a "reasonable excuse" for being in the way.

      Emergency service representatives have very consistently supported this position in their advice to the public and on occasion in court, because red lights are there for a reason. There is obviously concern that you might be holding up an important call by staying behind a red light, but equally the ambulance driver doesn't want you -- or someone coming from another direction who goes through on green and then finds you in their path -- to be their next customer.

      (None of this negates your general point that we have lots of laws about specific little things these days and this is probably not a good trend. But for the benefit of any UK drivers reading, I think it's important to clear up any misconceptions about this area of traffic law.)

      (And yes, I suppose I might or might not choose to obey the law in the kind of situation we're talking about. But I have never yet found myself in a situation where I couldn't let an emergency responder through legally, because these guys are well trained and very good at anticipating this kind of problem and avoiding it. In any case, I'd have to be very sure that anything I did was safe even it wasn't legal.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    27. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a UK citizen, so does mine. We still do border checks between us and France (in both directions). On the continent they don't bother because the land borders are too hard to police, but it's very easy to do so at airports, docks and on the channel tunnel.

    28. Re:Different kind of anti-social by ToadProphet · · Score: 1

      Very powerful lobby groups (MADD, for one)

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    29. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Yes, the UK definition is even worse than you'd think. Anti-social to me means anti-society. In the UK, it means "acting in a manner that has "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".

      If that were the case in the US, I'd bring the entire US congress to court for antisocial behavior.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:Different kind of anti-social by hackula · · Score: 2

      Begging, drinking alcohol in the streets, making noise, driving for fun, lighting fireworks might sometimes be an annoyance, but making them punishable?

      China??? We have laws against every one of the things on your list where I live, and I happen to live in South Carolina, the only state in the US that still does not require motorcycle helmets! The list you picked is not really helping your case.

    31. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same Norway where Beer factory workers went on strike because the company wouldn't let them drink on the line and drivers could only take two beers on the road for all day? My mistake, it must be the other Norway.

      Maybe you ment Denmark? If there has been such fuzz in Norway, I must have missed it.

    32. Re:Different kind of anti-social by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Well, you do have a significantly smaller population, and a larger country than the UK, so population density is much reduced, I think when this happens a per capita death rate for the roads is expected to be less, as every day on the roads there are less opportunities for a crash per capita.

      That assumes that the population is evenly distributed throughout the whole country, rather than being largely concentrated in cities.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    33. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Serpents · · Score: 1

      Nope, I was travelling to the UK. No one bothered to check my passport when I was leaving to see if I didn't stay longer than I was allowed to at that time. Now I there are no limits on how long I can stay in the UK, but I last used the tunnel in summer 2001... ;)

    34. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If by "the other Norway" you mean "Denmark" then yes.

    35. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      red lights are there for a reason

      And sirens and lights are on emergency vehicles for a reason: to make everyone stop at green traffic lights so the the vehicle can pass quickly through the intersection and reach the emergency. Moving out of the way of the emergency vehicle is the primary responsibility and the law should be updated so that driving through a red light to prevent forcing an emergency vehicle to wait (when the traffic has stopped) is not just legal, but required.

    36. Re:Different kind of anti-social by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Minnesota does not require motorcycle helmets after you get your license, only while on your permit.

    37. Re:Different kind of anti-social by colinnwn · · Score: 4, Informative

      But research indicates people don't hang up a phone, or put down the burger, or turn down the radio. They crash while they are distracted by those things in approximately the same frequency as being intoxicated over .08 BAC. So the results are ths same, and there is nothing idiotic about pointing that fact out, in fact it is idiotic not to.

    38. Re:Different kind of anti-social by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      As the ACs have already said: that was Denmark.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    39. Re:Different kind of anti-social by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      and your suicide rate is higher. better hit that bottle & drive, you walking time bomb

    40. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is highly unlikely that anyone actually needs to proceed past a red light to let an emergency vehicle through.

      Emergency responders are well trained, have well established procedures for dealing with hazards, including exemptions so they can do things like taking paths through junctions that are not normally legal, and have vehicles equipped with high profile warnings to alert other road users that they may be doing this.

      The average driver has none of those advantages, and is almost certainly better off moving as far to the side of the road as they can and letting the emergency driver do the rest. There is no need to try to be a hero; they drive the vehicles with the pretty blue lights, and if you want to do that, you should go and undertake the same training and qualifications as they do first.

      No doubt there are isolated exceptions, but the thing about these policies is that they are based on a vast amount of real world experience that gets updated every day. Given the kind of person who chooses to work for the emergency services in the first place, if they are saying don't run the light, they probably know that on balance running the light does more harm than good.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    41. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at the map of Folkestone station, you can see there are no passport controls for cars/lorries leaving it. Vehicles travel along the yellow road south of all the platforms, straight onto the M20 motorway.

      There seems to be the possibility to take vehicles aside for extra checks (or something like that), but if that's done it's not normal.

      http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=folkestone,+uk&hl=en&ll=51.096407,1.137643&spn=0.010861,0.027595&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=10.468658,28.256836&hnear=Folkestone,+Kent,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=15

    42. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean like 'felony resisting arrest' (or some similiar law. resisting is a misdemeanor correct?) for perhaps being part of a public sit-in or other protest that isn't approved of by whoever currently has 'pull'.

      Cynical but that's why I never went out and protested.

    43. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer if we in the states had that as well, only expand to cover drug use as well, not just recreational.

      1st offense, lifetime loss of license and vehicle crushed into a cube and placed in your front yard as an ornament.

      2nd offense - firing squad - I'm not paying to host you in the local garden-club-prison.

      If by chance you are caught due to an accident, then all your assets are seized and given to the victims.

    44. Re:Different kind of anti-social by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      I wonder why there isn't more public transport going on here as the "Driving Under the Influence" laws get worse and worse.

      there is plenty of public transport here (if by here you mean the US) it is just that here is a MUCH larger land mass (than the UK) and we're spread out all over the place. The US has a nationwide railway system similar to Europes for transcontinental travel but it isn't used much for passenger transport anymore which might be partially explained by this article

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    45. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? They didn't rip out their vocal cords? Take their arms and legs as well (Since they could stomp or thump the floor)???

      What a rip-off...

    46. Re:Different kind of anti-social by operagost · · Score: 1

      So has Larkin sniffed glue or used fireworks "inappropriately"? The UK is a country that allows Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews in, but keeps martial artists and talk radio hosts who have committed no crime out.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    47. Re:Different kind of anti-social by horza · · Score: 2

      UK is very different to France also. I am the only person I know here that doesn't drink and drive, having been brainwashed by the stigma whilst in the UK. The police did a check down the end of my road here in Nice and over 80% of drivers were found to be well over the limit. On a Monday. Just yesterday some drunk driver drove his Ferrari right into the sea, and this is just a normal occurrence. The girls are worse than the guys, as they will quite happily finish most of a bottle of vodka and not be able to walk to their car without falling over several times before driving home.

      Phillip.

    48. Re:Different kind of anti-social by chrb · · Score: 1

      population density is much reduced, I think when this happens a per capita death rate for the roads is expected to be less, as every day on the roads there are less opportunities for a crash per capita.

      It's more complicated than that. You need to consider fatalities per vehicle instead of per capita (per capita might include many non-car travellers), and traffic density rather than population density.

      For a death rate, you also need to consider the relation between traffic density and speed. Faster crashes are deadlier. Smeed's Law states that the accident rate per mile driven varies inversely with traffic density. That is, the denser the traffic the lower the accident rate per car. "increasing traffic volume leads to an increase in fatalities per capita, but a decrease in fatalities per vehicle." "regions of China with the lowest population density had the highest overall death rates per 100 000 motor vehicles"

      If you check the statistics for fatalities per motor vehicle or per km driven, then UK and Norway are much closer.

      Furthermore in 2010 Norway's per capita road deaths were higher than the UK

      Probably England's per capita road deaths were higher than London's per capita road deaths; however, this says nothing about the increased fatalities of drink driving, and it certainly does not imply that drink driving in London is safe. You need to control the other factors in order to extract the relevant data.

    49. Re:Different kind of anti-social by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our lives are not impaired in any meaningful way

      At BAC 0.02%, your driving is not impaired in any meaningful way. Being mildly tired from a long day at work would have more of an impact. It's nice to see that the prohibitionist ladies that ruined the USA's liquor industry and emboldened organized crime in the 1920s are right at home in Norway.

      Our lives are not impaired in any meaningful way, but we have less road accidents, fatalities and injuries per capita.

      Post hoc.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re:Different kind of anti-social by operagost · · Score: 3, Informative

      The creator of MADD quit the group because she felt it had achieved its purpose of creating awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. It's too bad she didn't disband it first, because it turned into a temperance lobby.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:Different kind of anti-social by operagost · · Score: 1

      Okay, so we're allowed one drink before we drive, and many people have their one drink before moving on to soda; but in the US it seems like people are happy to get totally blasted and crawl behind the wheel of a car... And then even talk about it with their friends afterwards instead of being suitably ashamed, which is bizarre to me

      You know some real assholes. Our drunk-driving incidents would be much higher if this were actually the case.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:Different kind of anti-social by David_Hart · · Score: 0

      The reason why most drivers do poorly on distraction tests is because most drivers do not know how to drive in the first place, they just know how to point the car and make it go. In this case, "knowing how to drive" means knowing the capabilities of your car, how it handles in various weather, how to read the traffic in front of you, how and when to be aggressive vs defensive, etc. On top of that is learning how to do stuff without taking your eyes off the road.

      The solution to most distracted driving is to implement hands-free features such as bluetooth, voice control, collision sensors, backup cameras, etc. The problem is that these features add to the cost of a car and, as such, are slow to filter down to the more basic models.

      However, distracted driving has always been with us in one form or another (i.e. make-up, cute girls, spilled coffee, dogs, etc...). No matter what you do, there will always be that one idiot who does something stupid while driving.... There is no way to legislate away stupidity...

    53. Re:Different kind of anti-social by operagost · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania used to require helmets, but STOPPED several years ago.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    54. Re:Different kind of anti-social by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Every developed country has speed limits and means to enforce them. Every developed country has no parking zones and will clamp / tow your car if you choose to ignore it. Every developed country has strict drink driving limits and the courts and police take an extremely dim view of people violating those limits. It doesn't stop you driving for fun assuming you obey the law and are heedful of traffic and conditions as you do so.

      Why single out Britain in this regard?

    55. Re:Different kind of anti-social by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Brilliant. Required to proceed through a red light into moving cross traffic which may or may not have noticed the emergency vehicle.

    56. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing. I am the only person who ever puts down a burger, hangs up a phone or turns down the radio?

      I had no idea I was that unusual.

      Research indicates that people don't stop engaging in risky behavior at any point? Honestly, I think you meant that research indicates that the reactive time of people engaging in risky behavior is roughly parallel with the reactive times of people who are at the minimum BAC to be considered intoxicated.

      I'd love to be proven wrong, but in order for your absurd statement to be accurate, you'll have to show a study of a large number of drivers whose BAC and risk behaviors were monitored with a result showing that people who engaged in risky behaviors at any point have as high an incidence of accidents as do people while they are legally intoxicated. I emphasize 'any' because if they don't have exactly the same indidence of accidents as intoxicated drivers, then they must have abstained from risky behavior at some point... which you assert they don't.

      Really, I know it hurts to loose your favorite ranting point, but the fact is that people who engage in risky behaviors like eating, using a phone or listening to the radio don't do it all the time they are driving. They do hang up phones, put down (or finish food) or otherwise stop the behavior normally. If the number of people I see on mobile phones on the road was matched by an equal number of legally drunk drivers, I'd see hundreds of accidents every day. I don't. Nobody does.

      If you want to rant, stick to actual facts. Research shows that people engaging in cell phone use while driving have similar reaction times to people who meet the legal minimum BAC to be driving illegally. It is a strong point and it can stand scrutiny and doesn't make the speaker sound like an idiot. Saying that they are exactly the same is obviously wrong and makes your point seem invalid.

      What I suspect you really want to say is that people shouldn't be allowed to text and drive because it makes the roads less safe. (Also a valid point that doesn't make the speaker sound like an idiot.) There is room for rational disagreement. Rational disagreement isn't a bad thing unless you're actually an idiot incapable of defending a point.

      Did I call you an idiot enough times? I shall taunt you a second time if you like. I kinda enjoyed it. I don't normally do that sort of thing because I care about my reputation, but sometimes someone acting like an idiot needs to be called an idiot.

    57. Re:Different kind of anti-social by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      We got the criminals too. Why do you think they started shipping them to Australia?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony#British_Empire

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    58. Re:Different kind of anti-social by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In the UK, it means "acting in a manner that has "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".

      Read on in Wikipedia. Thats the out of date 1998 act. The 2003 act is more specific and sets out the particular activities that are classed as anti-social under the law.

    59. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he's from south carolina, which means he's uneducated and knows nothing from things outside of his state. You can add Florida to the list too.

    60. Re:Different kind of anti-social by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      He's not been banned under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. He's been refused entry because "his presence here was not conducive to the public good".

      The UK is a country that allows Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews in, but keeps martial artists and talk radio hosts who have committed no crime out.

      There's a huge difference between refusing entry and deporting. A "Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews" from outside the EU would undoubtably also be refused entry.

      Michael Savage (the talk show host) was denied entry because he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence".

      The US also has strong restrictions on entry, so this isn't unprecedented. Indeed recently the US denied entry to a couple of British teens on the basis of a humorous tweet.
      http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Twitter-Department-Homeland-Security-British-Couple-Denied-Entry-tweets,news-14043.html

    61. Re:Different kind of anti-social by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the US or any other developed country for that matter does not have laws regarding begging, drinking alcohol in the streets, making noise...

      Err, sure...we call it New Orleans down here....

      :)

      It sure is nice to be able to order a drink 'to go' and carry it around with you here in the city....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    62. Re:Different kind of anti-social by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You'd need more than just frequency. You'd need some reasonable objection to what they were saying, or reasonable fear of harm. Sadly you can't stick a restraining order on a chugger for example.

      (Charity mugger - the ones that try to get you to sign up for a regular donation to their charity.)

    63. Re:Different kind of anti-social by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I've never understood this need of US/UK people to drink and drive.

      Well, they have these things here called bars. They have parking lots to accomodate all their patrons that drive there.

      You have drinks...and well, you have to get home, and you have to get your car home (often after going directly there after work before going home).

      Most people live miles away from work and said bar...and there really is no such thing as viable public transportation in most cities.

      I'm guessing Norway is set up a bit differently.

      The N.E. part of the US seems to be a bit more piggish on drinking and driving, but its a normal way of life largely in the south. It isn't unheard of to grab a beer to go when leaving home.

      I don't know any one of my friends that has never had drinks and driven.......and it isn't a rare thing either.

      Those parking lots at bars aren't full during business hours, and empty at closing time without sending the majority of people out there that would likely not pass the fairly recently passed, ridiculously low BAC of 0.08%....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re:Different kind of anti-social by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      So, Denmark is like Scandinavia's Louisiana?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    65. Re:Different kind of anti-social by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      There are reasons for this - one of the more compelling ones being that despite them all driving around pissed as newts, not that many people end up dead

      Hey...practice makes perfect....

      That's why the one time I refuse to drive, is on New Years Eve. I call it amateur night.....

      It is the one night of the year where people that have no experience driving after drinks, go out, try it...and the cops are out lined up on that night looking for them.

      I'll hang at home that night....and enjoy the 364 other nights when the rest of us with experience are out.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    66. Re:Different kind of anti-social by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      the only state in the US that still does not require motorcycle helmets!

      Arkansas doesn't have a helmet law, and I think TX doesn't either?

      I know in LA, we're trying to reverse what former gov. Blank-stare...err....Blanco did in re-instating the helmet law. But no, SC isn't the only state with no helmet laws....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    67. Re:Different kind of anti-social by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      What? 14 is legal in Denmark?

    68. Re:Different kind of anti-social by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > That assumes that the population is evenly distributed throughout the whole country

      Americans in general tend to make that assumption, on account of the fact that it's that way here. It's not completely even, of course, but the population is spread out to a MUCH greater extent than in Europe. For example, about 13% of the population of Ohio lives in one of the three largest cities, and the rest of us don't. If you expand the cities to their respective greater metropolitan areas (which encompass a rather larger geographical area, perhaps up to a quarter of the state's land area, depending on exactly where you draw the edges; Greater Cleveland is particularly difficult to define precisely: you can drive from Youngstown to Toledo on city streets pretty much the whole way, if you plan your route to do that on purpose -- admittedly, that's not the usual way to go), it's still only about half the population of the state (maybe up to 60%, again, depending on exactly where you draw the edges). Meanwhile there are hundreds of small-to-medium cities containing a few thousand people each, many smaller communities, and a substantial rural population.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    69. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Crag · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a happy ending to the story for you, but I wonder why you couldn't deal with this through your property manager? Surely a loud tenant is something they should deal with? Back in '92 my upstairs neighbor complained about my guitar playing to the apartment office. They asked me to use headphones or stop playing. I did just that because I didn't want to get kicked out.

      Or are you in some sort of condo arrangement where everyone "owns" their portion of the building? In which place there must be some kind of condo union or something for managing these issues?

      Seems like it shouldn't be a city issue unless the noise is loud enough to be disruptive to activity outside the building.

    70. Re:Different kind of anti-social by firewrought · · Score: 1

      That's the same in the US; they just don't call it an ASBO, and it isn't restricted to anti-social behavior.

      You're focusing on the fact that judges have the power to issue orders (a power that is sometime used too flippantly if not outright abused).

      ASBO's go one step further... if I'm reading Wikipedia right, anyone who has the right influence (or nagging skills) can get their local council or police chief to apply for an ASBO. It still has to be approved by a judge (to certain standards, in theory), but now your local neighborhood busybody can initiate and help formulate the order. Annoyed by the kid next door playing football in the street? Maybe you can criminalize it for just that one kid. Irritated by the couple in the upstairs apartment having loud sex? You can criminalize that too. Want to shut down the feed-the-homeless operation that occasionally serves soup in the town square? Sure.

      While ordinary judicial orders can put you at the mercy of the powerful, ASBO's sound like they can put you at the mercy of the petty.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    71. Re:Different kind of anti-social by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      I think the problem you are making is lumping the whole United States into one stereotype. It is completely the opposite where I am from.

    72. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      well maybe that how it works in America, this is not America, however we are talking about a bunch of places where people own their homes.. not rented from the same landlord.
      The flats (apartments to you) if not occupied by their owners may be rented out and thus many different landlords.
      As for condo union.. erm no....., i state again This is Scotland NOT America. there is a tenants Association maybe if that's what you mean however they are generally toothless wee groups of people
      However it seems to you bud, this IS a matter, due to the law here, for the city council sound enforcement guys as it's precisely what they were set up to sort out.
      As for the noisy people.. i did ask them.. repeatedly and then went down the official route with the sound enforcement people because that's how it's done here...... and point to note it was VERY loud and could be easily heard outside the premises.. why is it you presume it should be how it is there? HERE isn't THERE and we have out own rules and laws.. and in this case it's not a crap one.

    73. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to consider you a troll since you obviously read my post, including the part about stopped traffic. If the traffic is stopped, it's not much different than a right on red with no traffic.

    74. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It is highly unlikely that anyone actually needs to proceed past a red light to let an emergency vehicle through.

      Highly unlikely, but imagine a tight two lane road with curbs, traffic backed up on the other lane (to the intersection, with one dude with his rear in the intersection), only you at the traffic light. Ambulances will normally drive in the wrong lane to get past stopped traffic, but they can't here. Are you saying you wouldn't make a right on red after checking to see that it's safe to proceed (even if you were originally going straight)? You'd wait for the light to turn green while someone whose life might be measured in seconds needs that ambulance? The general rule is "get the hell out of the ambulance's way when it's safe to do so" otherwise you're being an antisocial prick.

    75. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it worth living in a world where people have decided you aren't allowed to drive with a radio on in your car? i think i'm ok with risking it.

    76. Re:Different kind of anti-social by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      and when to be aggressive vs defensive

      I can't think of a single situation where driving agressively isn't dangerous. You just fiailed your "I'm a good driver" test.

      The solution to most distracted driving is to implement hands-free features such as bluetooth, voice control, collision sensors, backup cameras, etc.

      The problem with talking on the phone is that most people (not everyone, but most) don't concentrate on anything but the phone call. You haven't been walking down the sidewalk and had to get out of the way of some idiot jabbering on his phone not watching where he was walking? Or on his phone standing still, oblivious to the fact that he's blocking the doorway? You've never been run off the road by some nitwit jabbering on his phone and paying no attention whatever to his driving?

      I won't even anser my phone when driving except in rare circumstances. I'll call them back when I can do so safely.

      However, distracted driving has always been with us in one form or another (i.e. make-up, cute girls, spilled coffee, dogs, etc...)

      True, but you can't minimize those distractions, and those distractions don't last as long as a typical phone call.

      No matter what you do, there will always be that one idiot who does something stupid while driving.... There is no way to legislate away stupidity

      True, idiots still drive 55 in a 30 during a pouring raiunstorm, they still drive drunk, but at least they can be punished for their stupidity if they don't kill themselves along with innocent people first.

    77. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Biotech_is_Godzilla · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't mean that everyone in the US has that attitude to drink driving; just that it's much more common than it is in the UK... In certain states of the federation.

    78. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      As I hinted in both my previous posts, there are always going to be exceptions where common sense dictates that breaking the law, but safely, is better than delaying an ambulance that really can't get through otherwise. If that happened and a court felt that I had to be punished for not being a prick, so be it.

      I just think you have to be very careful with road traffic laws not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In an ideal world, I would have only a handful of driving laws -- don't be dangerous, don't be antisocial, have appropriate documentation/qualifications, that kind of thing -- and leave it to the courts to judge each case on its merits. However, after a long time being annoyed at artificial technical rules like fixed speed limits, I came to realise that these laws are there because a significant proportion of drivers don't actually think sensibly while they are behind the wheel, and if it's not right there in black and white that they shouldn't do something then they assume it's OK. On balance, I would rather a driver like that be taught to wait at the red than be a hero (and then cause another emergency by getting run over by a truck coming across the junction on green because he was too busy watching the blue lights in his mirror).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    79. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Norway has a higher fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles (8) than the UK (7). You were saying?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

      Admittedly, the USA has around double the fataly rate. But my personal observation, after having driven in a few dozen countries, is that the average level of driving skill in the USA is abysmal. I suspect that training and cultural issues are significant contributors.

    80. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      oh.
      Well Denmark is just a happening place!
      I'll have to spend far too much time there.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    81. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Apologies and sympathies to Norway.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    82. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you haven't passed the cyclic redundancy check.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    83. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      But if you all say it together, I can book you as a barbershop quartet.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    84. Re:Different kind of anti-social by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Here in the midwest U.S. barhopping in cities involves driving.
      Buses don't run that late.
      Cabs eat most of your alcohol money.
      Walking is farther than you want to crawl home.
      We have a convenience store on every corner but bars average every couple of lights and not all are desireable. Biker bars, old man bars,yuppie bars,ethnic bars, gay bars, it's just getting harder to find a plain old bar for J.Q. Public to go and just have a nice Draught without pretense. But don't worry we can drive there.
      Driving drunk is a sport supported by the local urban developers and city councils and their blue law mentalities.
      On the bright side, I ,like many others just drink at home.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    85. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this situation, I would think that it's the fault of the emergency vehicle's driver. Those drivers should have enough intelligence to for see at least 20 seconds ahead of themselves. Every which way I think about how he got stuck behind a guy sitting at red light, I come up w/ his fault.

      At least, here in US the emergency vehicles can go on the wrong side of the road.

      Now back to your main topic of over governance, it's means to an end to only one thing, oppression.

    86. Re:Different kind of anti-social by julesh · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in the US the orders are, I'm led to believe, almost always very specific. They identify a particular person you can't approach, or a very small area you aren't allowed to enter. ASBOs in the UK quite frequently relate to very large areas, may prevent activities such as approaching anybody on the street, or wearing specific types of clothes in public (yes, this has happened). They are granted by magistrates (== justices of the peace in US terminology) rather than proper judges, for the purposes of preventing behaviour that the general public may find distasteful or annoying. US restraining orders are to protect a specific individual, and AFAIK require a proper judge to issue them.

    87. Re:Different kind of anti-social by julesh · · Score: 1

      Here in the USA we have the biggest and most offensive example of not everyone being equal before the law — Disenfranchisement of Felons.

      We have that in the UK, too. Even though the European Court of Human Rights has instructed us that it is a breach of the criminals' right to regular free and fair elections, and that we must allow them to vote, they still are not allowed to.

    88. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is a city design issue. Where I live (smallish suburb "city"), I could not possibly walk to a pub, as there are none close.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    89. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In general, as I don't live in a very dense city, in this situation, you can generally watch for the cross traffic to stop, then scoot out and to the right (we drive on the right) of the cross side of the intersection to move out of the way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    90. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I have personally done so.

      The light had just turned red, and from long experience (and having timed it) I knew that this light can take as long as 7 MINUTES to cycle, and never cycles in less than 2 minutes. A couple blocks behind it is the fire station. And no sooner did traffic halt at the red light than here comes a fire truck, obviously in a hellacious hurry, with no way to get past the stopped cars.

      I was the only car in the left-turn-only lane; the other three lanes were stacked up. The median barrier is substantial and not "jumpable" nor is there curb room on the other side. Traffic had halted on the "green" sides of the light, apparently able to see/hear the firetruck coming.

      It was obvious that either someone had to move or the firetruck would have to wait several minutes for the light to change (and there's no other route past this area without going miles out of your way). And I was the logical choice, as the single vehicle in my lane. So -- I ran the red light. The firetruck (he was still half a block back when I made the decision) immediately hightailed it for the space I'd vacated, and went ripping on up the street as fast as a 6-ton vehicle can go.

      Seven minutes is enough time for a house fire to go from minor to disaster. Judged against the possibility of being written a ticket and having to dredge up the fire captain as a witness in my defense (I was doing my primary duty to get the hell out of an emergency vehicle's way), it seemed a small risk. Tho if cross-traffic had not sensibly stopped, I could not have done this -- in full spate it's a 50mph intersection.

      So, yeah, the basic rule is good, but sometimes it needs to be followed in spirit rather than to the letter. The whole point is to let the emergency vehicle have the right of way as efficiently as possible.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    91. Re:Different kind of anti-social by kbx911 · · Score: 0

      lulz

    92. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway has a higher fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles (8) than the UK (7).

      I'd guess it's the weather, darkness and lack of congestion compared to the UK.

      Admittedly, the USA has around double the fataly rate. But my personal observation, after having driven in a few dozen countries, is that the average level of driving skill in the USA is abysmal.

      Probably it is something to do with the younger age the drivers get their licenses. Younger drivers represent one of the peaks of the accident statistics and in the US the there are two more years to worsen the statistics.

    93. Re:Different kind of anti-social by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      For example, about 13% of the population of Ohio lives in one of the three largest cities, and the rest of us don't.

      But going to the national level, almost one third of the population of the United States lives within a hundred miles of New York City. I'd be willing to bet that Ohio is below the national average in terms of traffic accidents per capita, which tends to prove SteveFoerster's point.

      Virg

    94. Re:Different kind of anti-social by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I'd be willing to bet that Ohio is below the national average in terms of traffic accidents per capita

      That's because ODOT knows what the heck they're doing. I've yet to find another state where the department of transportation does a similarly good job. Indiana uses sand in the winter, instead of salt. Yeah, that'll work. Not. Pennsylvania twists and winds the roads up and down and around and around and around the mountains so you're always on a steep, narrow curve with poor visibility, and half the time there's no shoulder. New York has traffic circles up the royal wazootie and does not appear to hand out speeding tickets at all, near as I can tell. Kentucky and West Virginia just plain don't bother to maintain most of the roads (in fairness, that's probably because they can't afford to). Michigan doesn't bother to put up deer crossing signs, even where the road passes between a bend in the river and a woods with more deer per acre than a petting zoo. (You think I am exaggerating. I am not. I lived up there for three years. Also, if you hit a deer in Michigan, standard automobile insurance does not cover it; you have to specifically pay extra for a "deer clause". I highly recommend that you do so.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  4. Political prudence by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

    According to non-mainstream news sources including Benjamin Fulford (a former correspondent for Forbes Magazine) and a U.S. military official known as The Drake, both the U.S. and the U.K. are encountering a co-ordinated effort to remove, forcibly if necessary, corrupt political officials from power in compliance with the law. This effort has a lot of backing from significant numbers of U.S. military personnel, Interpol, the Pentagon, the Agencies, U.S. Marshals... and underground Asian societies.

    Interesting that this piece is coming out at this juncture.

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  5. They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      The UK has already gone to hell. It's a fine lesson for western countries exactly what can happen when the state run's amok over everything. Anyone who's left simply likes being ground into the dirt by the state. I now work with nearly 150 expats from the UK who've all moved to Canada in the last 3-5 years. The smart ones got out early.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Sollord · · Score: 1

      That is nothing compared to this fine upstanding example of how much the UK is screwed by it's worthless government and police

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141740/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Police-fears-branded-racist-left-grooming-gang-free-abuse-teenage-girls-years-says-Labour-MP.html?ITO=1490

    3. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Well, the Jews are certainly looking at leaving.

    4. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Gross. However, I'm not sure I trust a politician's take.

    5. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 0

      Of course, I don't trust a journalist's take either, especially if that journalist works for the BBC. Talk about an undeserved reputation. The BBC is vile garbage much of the time.

    6. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Sollord · · Score: 2

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253267/Rochdale-grooming-trial-how-the-case-unfolded.html There lots of stories online that was just the first result. It comes down to the Police feared being called racist and basically ignored it since 2002...

    7. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so the UK which changes its laws to welcome war criminals is going to hell because it allows people whom even Israel itself has no issues with speaking publicly...

    8. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by iserlohn · · Score: 2

      Hahaha.. You keep thinking that...

      I tell you what it is - selection bias..

      Coming from a Canadian that eventually moved to the UK.. At least over here the salaries and rates are commensurate with the property prices.. try living in Vancouver nowadays..

    9. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also let in Zionists

    10. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How ironic that the criticism of the Police being too soft and fearing labels of racism comes from a Labour MP, given that it was Labour who systematically politicised the Police since the mid-nineties in an attempt to turn them into nothing more than social workers in uniforms.

      If the Police were worried about being seen as racist, that's because after decades of insidious touchy-feely changes within the Police they've been softened to the point of uselessness. A Labour politician complaining that the Police are too focused on political correctness: they reap what they sow.

    11. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      Coming from a Canadian that eventually moved to the UK.. At least over here the salaries and rates are commensurate with the property prices.. try living in Vancouver nowadays..

      Hate to break it to you, but the UK is also in the grip of a real estate bubble. It slipped a bit during the GFC, but housing there hasn't really been affordable (median multiplier under 3) since the late '90s.

      Vancouver, like Australia, is insanely overpriced. But that doesn't make the UK affordable.

    12. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Where on earth are you living? The last thing I'd say about the UK is that the salaries/rates are commensurate with property prices. More like being completely off the chart.... In fact that is the main reason I'm thinking of leaving (Despite earning almost twice more than average people my age, I can't even buy a tiny flat with my salary, everyone I know is still living with parents, and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future).

      I guess if you're living up north, or out of a city. That is the only way the above makes any sense, in the same vein though, surely living out in the sticks in Canada would be more commensurate with your salary?

    13. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      There is no way to work in Canada if you live outside the big cities because everything is so far away and all of the lucrative work is in the cities (or Alberta if you like to live in a colder version of Texas (where I also live for a while, Texas, not Alberta)). However, I live within 1 hour of London and the property prices is quite reasonable, and the commute is fine.

      London property prices are high in zones 1 and 2, but drop off quite quickly after zone 3, depending on where you go. As a consultant, however, there is plenty of work in The City (finance/startups) and the M3/M4 (government/enterprise) corridor and the common market (ie. the EU) also looks to the UK for a lot of services work in the tech sector.

      For the next few years, the only place I would consider moving to is the Bay area, and not because of a better standard of living - SF and the surrounding towns are extremely expensive and there are a lot of minuses, like healthcare that factor in as well. The only reason is because that's where the things are happening in the tech field.

      I mean, I love Toronto and I love Vancouver for the lifestyle but in terms of work, there is nothing interesting going on in those parts and for Vancouver, the price of property is insane (due to rampant foreign property speculation mainly).

      The UK is not as bad a people make it out to be (well, it can do with more sunshine) - its just that the English and the Scots love moaning - I think some take it too far.

    14. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Well you hit the nail on the head, there is nowhere semi-desirable in the English speaking world that is affordable right now...

      If I had to choose again - Vancouver, Toronto or London, it would be London, no contest, at least until I start thinking about retirement.

    15. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again!? Is it this time with their property not confiscated by the Queen?

    16. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Mind telling me where you live? I really could do with my own place :) Reasonable prices and a commute that only takes 1hour? Sounds too good to be true! In the UK it seems that all the lucrative tech work is in London, so I have to live here and put up with London prices.

      I'm currently renting on the outskirts of zone2/bordering zone 3, and this area is still too expensive for me. The affordable places I looked at were further out, and I was really worried about commute times and cost. I don't want to spend most of my time stuck in the tube.

      I've heard lovely things about Vancouver, and I know people who moved there permanently and have settled down (who keep going on about how wonderful it and Canada are), but alas, it is a bit too far for me. My family and friends are in Europe, and UK is far enough from them as is :)

      My main beefs are the prices, the thousands of little laws, the tend for the government to want to micromanage every bit of your life, and the weather. Apart from that London is a cool place to live, you get to meet people from all around the world here, which I think is awesome. Haven't seen much of the rest of England, but I've heard it is very nice, if a bit racist in some ares.

    17. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Hint: most bits of North Hampshire is about 40-50 mins into central London (Waterloo) via train, and you should be able to drive for work on the M3/M4 corridor. Cost of the commute is a bit more than the normal London season fares, but is manageable. For those starting off on their career, it is probably better to work outside London. If you are experienced and can command high rates, then both M3/M4 and London would be attractive. Berkshire or Buckinghamshire are also options, but they are a bit more expensive. I need to be close to Heathrow due to frequent travelling so for me I need to be to the west of London, but there are places in Essex and Kent as well that may be even better in terms of value.

      Vancouver is a lovely place, great summer, relatively mild winters (only snows for about a week per annum) - I am keen snowboarder - and it is boarding/skiing heaven during the winter because once you go up to the mountains (30 mins from the city), it dumps. However, to get a flat or house in Vancouver, you will be looking at London prices, which is crazy, considering you earn less in Vancouver. Lifestyle-wise it's great - shame I had to leave.

      Toronto is around I'd say 30% less expensive than Vancouver, with more and higher profile jobs, but the weather is a bit (and I mean bit) more extreme. I grew up in Toronto, so naturally I'm biased. As I can't afford to retire yet, I would probably choose Toronto if I had to go back to Canada, but currently I have no such plans.

      Regarding your comment regarding the nanny-state, I'm not sure it's really that justified. Britain has strong civil rights protections - this being very important, and I would think that the Met and regional police forces are a lot less racist than similar sized forces in the US, and probably less even compared to Canada. The surveillance mentality is a bit concerning, but that's something for the citizenry to fight against. A lot of it are special interests pushing for these laws - including manufactures and contractors that would benefit! Apart from that, labour protection is strong, which makes working for an average UK company a lot more pleasant than an average US one.

      Maybe I've grown too fond of Britain, but I'm not sure really what there is to moan about apart from the weather. Maybe you can give me some concrete examples?

    18. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Why don't you take that fascist rag you like to quote, stuff it up your arse, and sod off to stormfront where you belong?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    19. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Right. So you use the Daily Mail as your news service of choice, and think the BBC is vile garbage.

      You're a complete fucktard.

    20. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Maybe because the Stormfront people remind me of you? Maybe because I'm not as good at arse stuffing as you are, so I gave up out of despair. I just can't compete with professionals.

      I'm not fan of the Daily Mail or any other British paper. A bunch of garbage, really. The Guardian is the worst, though. Either way, the facts of the article are correct, so stop your bitching.

    21. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1
    22. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Oh right, you're a Zionist. Even more of a fucktard then.

    23. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Fucktard? Is that a technical term? Go put on your keffiyeh and watch some BBC.

    24. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Pointing out right wing Zionists are fucktards doesn't make me an Arab. Your assumption is wrong.

      It does make me a reasonable person though, who appreciates the finest news broadcaster in the world.

      Again, you picked The Daily Mail as your source. The British newspaper equivalent of Fox News. Which just underlies what a fucktard you are. And means your opinion on the qualities of the news media to be worthless.

    25. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Most of the people I see who wear keffiyehs are white, middle-class women. Are you a white, middle-class woman or are you just a "fucktard" looking for straw men to attack? It's not even a general Arab piece of clothing. It never was. Plenty of Jews have worn them in the past. It's just a garment adopted as a sign of lefty stupidity, er, I mean support for the destruction of Israel.

      What part of multiple sources, left and right, do you have a problem with? Is it that you prefer the safety of ideas that gel with your own narrow-minded thinking?

    26. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's kinda hard to say, given that it's not clear what you mean by "desirable". Have you considered Australia or New Zealand? And even in Canada, there are more cities than Vancouver and Toronto...

    27. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      It's kinda hard to say, given that it's not clear what you mean by "desirable". Have you considered Australia or New Zealand?

      Both Australia and New Zealand are also still in the midst of massive real estate bubbles (Australia's, at least, is starting to deflate - though it still remains to be seen if we'll get a US-style ~4 year crash or a Japan-style ~20 year slow melt).

      In fact, about the only places in the English-speaking world that don't have ludicrous real estate prices are Ireland and the USA.

    28. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      huh... I have a problem. I wrote it all out for you, but I've hit a limit on Slashdots posting. If you'd really like to hear my views, give me an email address and I can send it to you :)

    29. Re:They let racist terror-lovers in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you get the irony of posting links to the Daily Mail and the "elderofziyon" in reference to monster hate-fest racist terror-lovers?

  6. Theresa May is an idiot by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the same woman who, upon learning that border control was overloaded and relaxing passport checks for low risk cases at peak time, decided to solve the problem by firing the guy in charge and forcing checks to never be relaxed. Result: planes stacking up in the sky because the queues at border control were too long. Prime Minister summons her and gives her a right ass-kicking and now risk-based enforcement is back on the table.

    It will be tempting for Slashdot posters to over-generalize from this case to try and make sweeping statements about the entire UK or British people (just as it's tempting to do the same about Americans when the US Govt does something retarded). But the core problem in this case really boils down to one woman and her arbitrary and inconsistent management of the borders.

    1. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by dkf · · Score: 2

      But the core problem in this case really boils down to one woman and her arbitrary and inconsistent management of the borders.

      Aided and abetted (and forced) by the insistence by the Treasury that every single part of the government, every last agency, save as much money as humanly possible and then some...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a competent home secretary? Let's look at some of the previous ones:

      • Alan Johnson -- main policies were sacking any adviser who disagreed with the government on drug policy and protecting MI5 from accusations of complicity in torture at Guantanamo
      • Jacqui Smith -- extended detention without trial, identity cards, tightening of restrictions on cannabis (against the recommendations of her own advisers), eventually forced out for fiddling expenses
      • John Reid -- lead an EU project to censor information on bombmaking on the internet
      • Charles Clarke -- anothe rone pushing ID cards. Also the firts home secretary to require ISPs to retain browser histories
      • David Blunkett -- Detention without trial for terrorist suspects, described civil liberties as ``airy fairy''.
      • Jack Straw -- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
      • Michael Howard -- ``prison works'', no more right to silence

      Conclusion: it's not that Theresa May is an idiot, it's that there's something about the post of Home Secretary which makes people act like arseholes.

    3. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by CrackedButter · · Score: 2

      Unless it's the damn Olympics. They recently increased the budget for the opening ceremony and security. More than the amount they took from all the arts funding across the country. Bunch of wankers.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11582070

    4. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      It will be tempting for Slashdot posters to over-generalize from this case to try and make sweeping statements about the entire UK or British people (just as it's tempting to do the same about Americans when the US Govt does something retarded). But the core problem in this case really boils down to one woman and her arbitrary and inconsistent management of the borders.

      Incumbent
      Theresa May
      since 11 May 2010 [...]
      Appointer HM Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

      Looks like at least three brits are the problem: H.M.t.Q., P.M., and H.S. herself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Much as I hate the landed gentry, the Queen is innocent in all this - when it comes to appointments etc her role is purely ceremonial. The PM selected her, the Queen rubber stamped it. If she ever tried to wield influence over these matters she would find a Republic of GB within a few hours.

    6. Re:Theresa May is an idiot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Much as I hate the landed gentry, the Queen is innocent in all this - when it comes to appointments etc her role is purely ceremonial.

      Then she can ceremonially share the blame, there's plenty to go around. Perhaps she can even do it ceremnoiously while she's at it. Certainly she can manage that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. This isn't the first time by Karmashock · · Score: 3

    They've been excluding a lot of people recently for very silly reasons. Apparently someone have been given more power then they have wit to manage and they're basically going power mad. It's one thing if you're excluding people that present a public risk. It's another if the reasons are totally arbitrary.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. They did him a favor. by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

    To be honest.

  9. Gotta love our militarized police force. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Special Ops training for cops?

    1. Re:Gotta love our militarized police force. by Sollord · · Score: 1

      Only an issue int he UK if your white. Musli... errm no Pakist.. make that Asains need not worry

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253267/Rochdale-grooming-trial-how-the-case-unfolded.html

    2. Re:Gotta love our militarized police force. by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Who do you think your first responders are to emergency situations which may include "terrorist" instances? In this day and age, special operations could teach a great deal to law enforcement professionals. One might think this a bad thing, but in reality, it is all about handling a situation, situational awareness and achieving your objective with as little bloodshed and collateral damage as possible. These are things that I would like for cops to have.

  10. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the reason may have more to do with this (from TFA):

    A visit in 2009 to Slough, in Berkshire, where Mr Larkin held a class intended to teach how to "maim and kill in self-defence", provoked widespread condemnation from the community.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  11. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by aiht · · Score: 4, Informative

    He is speaking in two areas that were affected by riots in 2011. In these riots, almost half of the rioters were Black (see wikipedia). Therefore in the twisted minds of the UK authorities, teaching people in areas affected by riots to defend themselves is equivalent to racism and extremism.

    from TFA:

    Mr Larkin had been invited to be a keynote speaker at The Martial Arts Show conference in Birmingham on 12 and 13 May, and to hold a seminar in Tottenham.

    Both areas were targeted by rioters last August.

    The section of TFA that you quoted shows not the slightest hint of a mention of racism or extremism.
    Did you copy the wrong sentence, or are you just making shit up?

  12. shouldn't they ban lady gaga too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shouldn't they ban lady gaga too?

    1. Re:shouldn't they ban lady gaga too? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Please.

  13. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset. In their eyes, minorities rioting is not that bad, but people defending themselves from rioting is dangerous. You are free to disagree, but to classify all forms of inference as "making shit up" is not very smart.

  14. Martial arts expert? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who's he kidding? The UK Border Agency would be irrelevant to Chuck Norris.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Martial arts expert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give up with this Norris nonsense. The man is a religious whacko.

  15. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "making shit up" is not very smart.

    Since thats exactly what you did...

  16. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset.

    Does your understanding include the fact that Labour got booted out over a year ago?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was actually Steven Seagal. The clues are all there:

    violent self defence, US Navy Seal, his presence here was not conducive to the public good, dodgy hair

    1. Re:I bet by aztec1430 · · Score: 1

      Thank god it wasn't Chuck Norris...

    2. Re:I bet by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Seagal was not a SEAL. My brother was and trained Seagal for one of his movies; I think the one on the ship. I don't know - they're all the same.

  18. Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He advocated using force against the British police and he asks people to use lethal force despite it being illegal in the UK.

    1. Re:Inciting violence by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true if someone is being violent and endangering your life then lethal force is considered reasonable force if it's done on the spur of the moment and in self defence this is something the UK Police would prefer you not to know.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Inciting violence by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reasonable force must be proportionate. The position (to kill in self-defence) that this man was advocating was untenable and can be classified as incitement. There is no reason why the UK should let him in, esp. when the US routinely turns away British citizen for infractions such as sending the president an email while drunk.

    3. Re:Inciting violence by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Given the number of stabbing crimes in the UK, that kind of self defense course is needed,

      in the US with gun crime higher you really can't use self defense when your 20 feet away.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Inciting violence by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lethal force is acceptable if it's the minimum force you can reasonably use and killing isn't your primary intention. If somebody started stabbing people in a pub then I could quite probably get away with hitting him over the head with a chair. If he died then that's just unfortunate. If, however, I pinned him down and intentionally strangled him to death then it's not reasonable, the threat is over when he's pinned down and holding on to his throat when he's unconscious is manslaughter (equivalent to a lesser degree of murder, not pre-planned but intentional or avoidable)

      The irony is that good martial arts training makes you less likely to cause somebody serious injury, the level of force you need to defend yourself actually drops. I could (and have) defend myself against somebody bigger than myself, if I hadn't had training then I might be tempted to punch them in the face, which can kill much more easily than people think.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    5. Re:Inciting violence by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to use lethal force. Is it illegal to talk about it, learn about it or have a political opinion about this law ?

      I think it is sane that these laws exist, and it is sane that debates exist.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:Inciting violence by dkf · · Score: 2

      Is it illegal to talk about [using lethal force], learn about it or have a political opinion about this law ?

      No, but it's illegal to incite other people to kill. Yes, there's a complex boundary here, but there's no reason that any country has to let a foreign citizen come in and incite law-breaking. (Was that what he was planning to do? I dunno...)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:Inciting violence by Larryish · · Score: 1

      "Gun crime"?

      Lame.

      So if I spit gum on the sidewalk, is that "gum crime"?

      Is there some sort of a "Gum Crime Task Force" running around trying to take everyone's Orbit away from them?

    8. Re:Inciting violence by Jamu · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but ifaik you can use lethal force if it's reasonable to do so in the prevention of some crimes - such as murder. For example, if you killed someone that was apparently trying to murder you, you wouldn't commit murder yourself if your actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    9. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you avoid doing someone serious injury, when all their soft bits are so vital? Also, you should never punch someone in the face - you'll hurt your hand - use the flat of your palm instead. :)

    10. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable force must be proportionate.

      I don't think proportionate is the criterion. That would amount to an eye for an eye. Reasonable force must be just enough to protect your own (or somebody else's) life and health, otherwise it's excessive and not covered by self-defense. If to protect your own life you have no other option (e.g. escape) than to use a potentially lethal technique, it's still self-defense. Notice that I'm saying life and health, not property.

    11. Re:Inciting violence by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Proportionate is not the same is equivalent. Reasonable force should be measured against the threat - ie. it should be proportionate. A proportionate self-defense action should be just enough to neutralize the threat, considering its nature.

    12. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Singapore, there is. Also about the gun crime: "My guns are criminally well formed".

    13. Re:Inciting violence by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One example - you don't hit them. Get in close, disarm them if necessary, then pin them down. I've actually done this with a guy who attacked me using a large shard of glass, I waited for him to swing, blocked and locked the arm, forced the weapon out of his hand and then pinned him to the ground. He suffered a sore wrist and some minor grazes.

      Obviously I'm not going to recommend this technique for somebody who isn't trained, and a person who doesn't feel confident trying that is much more likely to strike them with a fist/hand/chair, and that's more likely to cause injury.

      Any good martial arts training will emphasise the "RLF Technique", or "running like fuck". This is the primary form of self defence, I only took the guy on because he was swinging a large shard of glass around in a crowded street and putting other people in danger. If you want a legal defence for taking physical actio the first thing you'll have to explain is your reason for not running away.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    14. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget "minimum", that's complete rubbish. You may use "Reasonable Force", which is defined as what's a)necessary and b)proportionate. So, if someone is waving a limp bit of celery at you and you stab them with a knife, that clearly wouldn't fit either criteria. Someone comes at you with a knife, or what you honestly believe is something that could be used as a lethal weapon (a replica firearm would count, a convincing rubber knife likewise) then you have an excellent defence in law if you end up killing the attacker.

      Back to the subject, I heard some of an interview of this chap on the radio the other morning and it doesn't sound like he knew as much about UK law on use of force as he'd like to claim.

    15. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is illegal to break into computer systems. Therefore, no one should be allowed to teach you how to break into computer systems.

    16. Re:Inciting violence by operagost · · Score: 1

      Maybe in Thailand.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:Inciting violence by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      if I hadn't had training then I might be tempted to punch them in the face, which can kill much more easily than people think.

      There was a case in the UK of a drunk guy staggering though a town center somewhere. For no real reason someone punched him in the head once as he walked past. The drunk fell to the ground and died and they had a big manhunt to catch the murderer. The victim had no medical history that indicated head or brain problems, there was no reason to think one punch would do more than hurt him a bit. The victim looked like any other man before the attack, not weak or frail.

      So yes. just backing up your statement that it's quite possible to accidentally kill someone by punching them once in the head.

    18. Re:Inciting violence by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but ifaik you can use lethal force if it's reasonable to do so in the prevention of some crimes - such as murder. For example, if you killed someone that was apparently trying to murder you, you wouldn't commit murder yourself if your actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

      In practice they would try you for murder and you would have to prove you could not have acted any other way.

    19. Re:Inciting violence by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >punch them in the face, which can kill much more easily than people think.

      If this (or the ridiculous "punch -> nose shards to the brain" urban legend) was true, boxers would die all the time, especially amateur boxers.

    20. Re:Inciting violence by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In England it is illegal to encourage people to protect their own life.

      No it's not. Why bother posting such drivel?

    21. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grappling is fine if there is a single attacker. If he has friends, your choices narrow considerably and you pretty much have to rely on hitting or otherwise quickly disabling him, because you can't lock them reasonably well without becoming unable to defend yourself against a second "friend".

    22. Re:Inciting violence by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Lethal force is acceptable if it's the minimum force you can reasonably use and killing isn't your primary intention.

      Lethal force is acceptable if you're honestly in fear for your life or the lives of others, full stop.

      I had a sensei who took the position of "one on one, do a judgement call. When you start talking 3 on 1 or 4 on 1 - especially if you're protecting someone - there's gonna end up bein' a dead body probably. When you're dealing with that many attackers you need to incapacitate them quickly and there's a good chance you're gonna kill them doing it."

    23. Re:Inciting violence by Zironic · · Score: 1

      They do die all the time though.

    24. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I in the right place, I thought it was /.; no one here could know martial arts!

    25. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it's illegal to incite other people to kill

      except if you are preaching Jihad.

      Fixed that for you.

    26. Re:Inciting violence by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That's what the other guy said.

      What other reason would you like to invent for this Self Defense Instructor being banned from the country?

      Really, you're probably just humiliated by your country and can't handle it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some do. In my case, it's Krav Maga. Not exactly "arts" but quite effective.

    28. Re:Inciting violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a big fan of the RLF technique. It can work just as effectively against one as it can many. And it's simple to use provided you remember not to back-up or turn around - running to the side if running directly forwards would put you in danger.

    29. Re:Inciting violence by Fned · · Score: 1

      The position (to kill in self-defence) that this man was advocating was untenable

      You think that killing in self-defense is automatically untenable? Weird.

    30. Re:Inciting violence by Fned · · Score: 1

      One example - you don't hit them. Get in close, disarm them if necessary, then pin them down.

      This requires that you be more skilled, faster, more numerous than, and stronger than your attacker.

      If you are not these things, you must either be prepared to cause injury, or graciously accept it.

    31. Re:Inciting violence by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      One good way to find yourself up against multiple opponents is to use excessive force against a single one.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    32. Re:Inciting violence by Fned · · Score: 1

      One good way to find yourself up against multiple opponents is to use excessive force against a single one.

      How is this relevant?

    33. Re:Inciting violence by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be stronger, it's all about technique.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  19. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this kind of political correctness is universal in mainstream politics.

    I clearly remember the mainstream reporting of the riots.

    Even though the media never hinted that the majority of rioters were not white, when people organized to protect themselves from rioters, then they questioned whether the people organizing themselves were "racist".

    Why should the conservative party think any differently?

  20. From what I see by kikito · · Score: 0

    They are turning him down because what he wanted to do something illegal in the UK.

    1. Re:From what I see by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Defend yourself?

    2. Re:From what I see by kikito · · Score: 1

      The complete sentence is "defend yourself by killing others".

      There problem is not with the "defend yourself" part, but with the other.

    3. Re:From what I see by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Killing ...the person trying to kill you.

    4. Re:From what I see by kikito · · Score: 1

      Well, if a Law says "You can't teach how to kill", unless otherwise specified, that includes people trying to kill you, yes. But anyway, that's just technicalities.

      In reality though it seems a combination of two things. He had already done a course like that once in the UK and created a bit of a fuss. The authorities were pissed, so they looked for a way to get rid of him, and found that law. So, they had an excuse to kick him away, and they used it.

      Had he done his first course without the bad publicity, no one would have cared.

  21. Kickback by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    This guy owes the Home Office bureaucrat who made this decision a percentage of his future revenues, because his career is *made*. "LEARN SELF DEFENSE FROM THE MAN JUDGED TOO LETHAL TO ENTER THE UK!"

    1. Re:Kickback by cheros · · Score: 1

      LOL, I like it. Nice spin. Do you work for a Government? :)

      I think the real definition would be "the man too boneheaded to recognise inflammatory language doesn't exactly help when the target nation already has a riot and hooligan problem".

      I guess he needs this language to sell (marketing is everything), but I can see the point of the authorities as they simply go by what happened the last time he was over. I'd call this an own goal, but as you pointed out, he could turn this one around - clever idea :)

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  22. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maiming and killing in self defence is sometimes necessary. Unprovoked violent attacks to happen. On the rare chance that such a situation were to occur, I would like to be able to defend myself or my friends and family. Yes, you can study many martial arts and sports in the UK already, but they are of limited use in an actual street fight. There are no tap outs, there's no "soft" canvas mat, no ref to tell the guy he can't use that broken bottle to gut you.

    Ultimately, however, this is not the point. This man will teach a civilian how to cause serious injuries to a person, but we let these same people point 2 tonnes of motorised steel around our roads on a daily basis, operate plant machinery which can destroy whole buildings, run our healthcare infrastructure. Learning how to do something dangerous doesn't mean they will employ that knowledge improperly. These people are still culpable for their actions.

    Ultimately all the government is done is prevent the spread of knowledge.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  23. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice dodge. So, if the problem is universal, why did your earlier comment include the words "left-wing authoritarian mindset"?

  24. Tim Larkin was never an US Navy SEAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, the word SEAL is an abbreviation and is therefore capitalized. Also, Tim Larkin was never a Navy SEAL according to real US Navy SEAL authenticators. He dropped out of BUD/S and therefore never qualified as a SEAL. He's been lying about his service for years.
    Proof: http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=47063

    1. Re:Tim Larkin was never an US Navy SEAL by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Did by any chance this Guy worked at Yahoo? Or these guys are just trend setters?

    2. Re:Tim Larkin was never an US Navy SEAL by slacker001 · · Score: 1

      It didn't say he was a SEAL - it said he *trained* as a SEAL. Which is correct.

    3. Re:Tim Larkin was never an US Navy SEAL by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Sourcing a anon discussion thread isn't proof of much; other than you can't distinguish between someone who says they've received training vs. someone who says they've received training and certification.

  25. Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think this guy could have received this much good advertising if he used all of his revenue of his company on it! I think he is pretty stoked, even if he cannot travel to the UK. I would be.

  26. US bans people for tweets by Builder · · Score: 2

    And the USA bans people from entering because they send tweets about partying. So what ?

    Sovereign nations decide who gets to come in. Nothing new here.

    1. Re:US bans people for tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because US is ridiculous is no reason for the UK to do the same.

  27. This is why I don't travel anywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Including the UK... even when I live there.

    I'll just sit here and ignore the existence of the whole Earth.
    Until someone pisses me off. Then they will be in for a world of pain not seen in a 50 thousand years.
    That last ice age was just me slightly annoyed, only slightly.

  28. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > left-wing authoritarian mindset.

    You're not from the UK, are you? Left-wing my granny's sagging tits.

  29. Some toughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, If you are unlucky kill someone in selfdense (can happen) and you have attendent a course to kill someone in selfedefense, probaly the judge will consider this as murder, just because it's proven you have trained to reach this result.

    At least for the Belgian Law and I believe the Bristh Law will be in sync
    .

  30. The point is moot by haggus71 · · Score: 0

    In cases of our own citizens being limited in travel, such as the ex-Marine who couldn't leave Indiana by plane, I would argue against these; as they are US citizens, with certain rights and liberties which cannot be limited without due process of law. In the case of Kung Fu Jones, here...well, it's a free country here, and you can say what you want. Just don't think those same freedoms will make you desirable as a visitor in a foreign country. He trying to go to a foreign country to make the Bobbies' jobs more dangerous. In ANY country, that is called Sedition, which, in any nation, confers a penalty of life in prison or death. Forget the "legalities", it's called common fucking sense! You want to go somewhere, don't say you're gonna teach its citizens how to beat up the police!

    For a SEAL, he ain't too bright. Now, if he were a Marine...j/k

  31. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't really matter what you think on the subject. It is just plain illegal in the UK.

  32. The Home Office message to Brits: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Home Office is saying to Brits that they are to LIE DOWN AND DIE! No guns. No glass or bobbed wire on their walls, not even self defense training. You are not to defend your life or the lives of your love ones. We here in Texas are disgusted and appalled.

    1. Re:The Home Office message to Brits: by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1
    2. Re:The Home Office message to Brits: by iapetus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen. This is why cases of intentional homicide per capita are four times higher in the UK than the US.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

      Oh no, wait a second. It's the US where more people are intentionally murdered. Guess all that self-defence didn't really pay off...

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    3. Re:The Home Office message to Brits: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nra.org.uk/

      Ah, the NRA. The reason why we cant have semi-automatic rifles above .22LR here.

    4. Re:The Home Office message to Brits: by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      It says this guy teaches his bullshido to police. Does the UK benefit from a more violent police force?

  33. So basically... by publiclurker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You don't mind violent nut jobs if he looks like you, and not "one of them".

    1. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's not what he said at all. He was saying specifically that the second group were a subset of all Imams that were hateful. While I don't know any such examples myself, he didn't say "The UK is known for being very liberal about letting Arabs into the country."

    2. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He teaches self defense, not self immolation jack ass

  34. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset.

    Only an American would call the current UK Government "left-wing".

    The last time the UK had an actual left-wing Government was sometime back in the '70s. Like most of the Anglosphere, it's been moving further and further to the right for decades.

  35. Theresa May is Dolores Umbridge by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

    > Theresa May is an idiot

    For those who remember Imelda Staunton's character in Harry Potter.

  36. It's on tape, idiot. by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    Please try to make a minimum effort if you are going to insult our intelligence by defending a murderer. After all, we end up wasting time reading the blather.

    1. Re:It's on tape, idiot. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Please don't summarily convict people for crimes you didn't personally witness.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:It's on tape, idiot. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's perfectly acceptable to defend an accused murderer when you didn't personally witness it. I notice you didn't call out TokenGlocke's comment.

      I think Zimmerman's probably a murder, but we'll never know. And because of these idiotic stand-your-ground laws, he'll probably go free even though he was clearly a douchebag (with a criminal record) Barney Fife wannabe out looking to pick a fight.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    3. Re:It's on tape, idiot. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The difference being that we have evidence collected by the police and eyewitnesses to that confirms that Zimmerman's life was in danger (don't even try to claim having your skull bashed into the pavement repeatedly isn't life threatening) before Zimmerman pulled out the gun.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  37. So, in other words by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    Since you've been busted doing what you shouldn't, all murderers should be believed. I'm sure it's that failed logic that got you in trouble with those around you in the first place.

    1. Re:So, in other words by quadrox · · Score: 1

      First of all, I haven't committed any crime and I certainly haven't been busted. But I have had the police grossly misrepresent my statements in court, conveniently forgetting other statements, threatening me to admit to violating the law (which I did not do), illegally forcing me to go the police station (without actually arresting me) and so on and so on.

      Second, I never claimed that you must believe zimmermans version. I'm saying that you can't know either way, and therefore making up your mind without knowing all facts in either direction is wrong. But you seem to think that it's ok to believe he is a murderer, but there is something completely wrong if you consider the possibility that he just might be innocent.

      You're a hypocrite and you do your best to turn other peoples words into something they did not and didn't mean to say.

  38. He should just kick their asses. by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    That'd show their stiff upper lips a thing or three because, as every american knows, if violence doesn't solve the problem it's only because you're not using enough.

  39. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Arker · · Score: 1

    Because what he defines as a left-wing authoritarian mindset is, in fact, simply an authoritarian mindset. If the poster considers himself 'right-wing' and most of the authoritarianism he encounters seems to be 'left-wing' then he will naturally start to equate left wing with authoritarianism, even if he consciously knows better.

    Besides, what passes for 'right-wing' in the UK today is still quite left of centre by US standards.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  40. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by iapetus · · Score: 1

    This may be true. But the fact remains that you're making shit up, and recognising this doesn't imply any lack of smartness.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  41. He doesn't instruct... by lendude · · Score: 1

    ...in the deadly art of Llop-Gach per chance?

    --
    "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    1. Re:He doesn't instruct... by lendude · · Score: 1

      No, it's the even more deadly LLAP-Goch!

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
  42. it was enough reason to hassle Senator Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first, and the one that he subscribes to, is that his name [...] is the same as another man with ties to terrorist organizations.

    That was the same reason that got (now deceased) Senator Kennedy on the no-fly watch list. Likely every time that being on that list could have caused him to be denied entry the front-line DHS employees recognized his face or entourage and let him in anyway. For other less-recognizable folks, including aging singers who haven't had a hit in decades, it is little surprise that being on that list will sometimes block them from travel.

  43. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by bky1701 · · Score: 2

    Wait, what? "It's the law, so shut your mouth, citizen"? If you're British, your country has more issues than I thought...

  44. In other words... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    We want to keep our jobs, so we are not allowing an outside consultant for military expertise such as combat, come in and teach our military....

  45. So two wrongs do make a right! by iceperson · · Score: 1

    who knew?

  46. So no one can go anywhere anymore. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    People are being denied entry into the USA for silly reasons. People are being denied entry into the UK for islly reasons. Once you get on Homeland Security's "no fly" list it's almost impossible to get off.

    I'm beginning to see what what's going on here. Pretty soon we'll be prisoners in our own homes, unable to even walk the streets. Travel of any type will be so restricted "for our own safety", that there will be a 6-month waiting list to go to the supermarket.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  47. No to terrorist threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time that american terrorists are stopped at the border!
    I'll say!

  48. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Situation:

    You are somebody proficient in the use of lethal force as a form of self defense. You are walking somewhere, minding your own business, when somebody comes up to you quickly and by virtue of surprise manages to subdue you and steals your wallet. The person turns to leave while you recover. Serendipitously, you are able to recover from the attack relatively quickly, and if you can get to your feet soon enough, do you a) call the police to report the crime, b) engage him in a brawl where it is not known how quickly or how far it will escalate, or c) kill the son-of-a-bitch? Remember, your life at this point is in absolutely no danger. While you could certainly have been said not to know this while he was attacking you, the attacking has clearly stopped and you are being left alone. He attacked you, and then took your wallet. That's all. He is in the process of leaving you and not showing any obvious signs of returning. His willingness and ability to resort to using lethal force in another engagement if you should attack him with non-lethal force is not known. What do you do?

    Bear in mind that any reservations he may have had against using lethal force to subdue you simply to get your wallet may have been based on the assumption that it would take you longer to recover than you did, and an argument certainly exists that it should not necessarily be taken as a general measure of his ability, willingness, or lack thereof to use lethal force if he is actually attacked.

    Taking everything into consideration, and assuming you can actually deliberate this in your mind in the moments that it was taking you to recover and get back onto your feet... what do you do?

  49. Science based reasoning by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Drink-driving is bad and must be placed under strict limits but it is by no means the only impairment to driving. The impairment from driving while using even a handsfree mobile is comparable to a 0.08 BAC. Having an alcohol limit 4 times lower that the limit which causes the same impairment as handsfree mobile use is inconsistent unless you ban them as well. So before getting on your high moral horse perhaps you could let us know why Norway has not banned handsfree mobiles? Perhaps because Norwegians would object strongly to that whereas, due to the massive taxes on alcohol, people are more willing to let that be banned because it affects them less?

    Oh - and if you look at the stats you will see that Norway has a lower accident death rate than almost all the EU from all causes and does not report separate drink/driving stats. So the reason you have fewer road deaths has nothing to do with your drink-driving legislation and probably far more to do with population density.

    1. Re:Science based reasoning by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      I have to comment on the study you linked: It says that when people used cellphones they drove slower, and that they reacted slightly slower to changes in the environment. This sounds like people being more careful, compensating for being distracted. When drunk, however, people drove more aggressively, thus making it even harder for themselves.

      In addition to this: IMHO, a study that finds no increased accident rates when comparing drunk driving with normal driving has some serious design errors.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    2. Re:Science based reasoning by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      When drunk, however, people drove more aggressively, thus making it even harder for themselves.

      Actually...after I've had a few and have to drive home, that is about the ONLY time I actually look at and try to adhere to the speed limits.

      When 100% sober, I only look at the speedometer when the radar detector goes off....on any street I'm on.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Science based reasoning by julesh · · Score: 1

      And you're probably in the majority doing this. But there is a significant minority that becomes uninhibited, speeds up, and drives more aggressively. People driving on race tracks report better performance after drinking, because they take more risks. Some people treat the road exactly the same as they would a race track, which is why drunk driving laws are required. Yes, for the majority of people in any study, being intoxicated is only a little dangerous. There are a minority (and it's based on personality type, and quite hard for any study to correct for because it's a personality type that doesn't as a rule like being studied) who are dangerously different.

    4. Re:Science based reasoning by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      In addition to this: IMHO, a study that finds no increased accident rates when comparing drunk driving with normal driving has some serious design errors.

      Sorry but that is highly unscientific! Just because the data do not agree with your preconceived correct answer is not a reason to disregard the data. It would be a reason to look closely at the data and the test setup to see whether there was a problem but, given that the alcohol limit was the legally maximum amount and that the conditions were controlled I see no reason to doubt the data.

      The study showed that alcohol made things worse but, if the conditions were not sufficient to mean that the degradation in performance was sufficient to convert a near miss into an accident why should the accident rate have increased? After all if driving at the legal maximum did significantly increase the accident rate under normal conditions then clearly it would mean the limit is too high.

    5. Re:Science based reasoning by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1
      Well, if you read the article you linked to, the authors seem to agree that the results of the study does not match the real world. Drews calls the result "surprising", and suggests several reasons why the study gave such results.

      After all if driving at the legal maximum did significantly increase the accident rate under normal conditions then clearly it would mean the limit is too high.

      Yes, the limit of 0.08 is too high. As the article points out, other studies have found accident rates at 0.08 BAC to be the same as accident rates while talking on a cellphone: 5.36 times higher than for a sober, undistracted driver. Is this not "significantly increased"? Most research on this topic suggests that a legal limit of 0.08 BAC is too high, and indeed, the legal limit is being lowered around the world. In Europe, only the UK and Malta have yet to lower their limit. To quote a British government study:

      In February 1998, the Government consulted on whether to lower the drink-drive limit from 80mg alcohol per 100ml blood, to 50mg (which is the limit in most other EU countries). Lowering the limit could save around 50 deaths and 250 serious injuries a year. A report on the consultation is available from the Department.

      (Source)

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
  50. Keeping out a fraud, more like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally think it's good they're keeping out an obvious fraud like Larkin from shilling his snake oil bullshido. He's yet another in a long list of trumped up 'near SEALS' that make their way through the martial arts consulting world.

    http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88358

    Tim Larkin is an expert in violent self defense like Bruce Willis is an expert in defusing hostage situation.

  51. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset.

    Only an American would call the current UK Government "left-wing".

    The last time the UK had an actual left-wing Government was sometime back in the '70s. Like most of the Anglosphere, it's been moving further and further to the right for decades.

    That's ridiculous. If by left wing you mean ran the country into the ground and caved into the unions causing mass strikes and civil unrest, then no that hasn't happened since the 70's (although it almost certainly would have done if Gordon Brown had stayed in for another term).

    Last I heard, the UK had a 50% top tax rate and the biggest, most bloated welfare state in the western world. How is that not left wing?

  52. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maiming and killing in self defence is sometimes necessary.

    After you've neutralised a threat, why is it utterly necessary to maim your attacker for life? Or kill him? That's pure adrenaline-fuelled barbarism, not a reasonable defence posture.

  53. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Only an American would call the current UK Government "left-wing"

    Certainly not a member of a Muslim-majority country, which make up 25% of the countries of the world.

  54. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Depending on the situation, it may be necessary to disable an attacker quickly. An aggressor who is mentally ill, or under the influence of narcotics, may not respond to verbal warnings or a well placed thump on the nose. In a situation where you are presented with a relentless, sustained, and vicious attack, a disabling blow may be the only outcome. The question is whether it is you applying or receiving it.

    For what it's worth, I would have no problem popping the shoulder of a guy with a knife, or kicking the knees out of a man waving a bottle. I would say that, in a situation where there is an immediate, significant threat to your person, it would be "reasonable" to disable an attacker with one destructive blow to a joint than several sustained blows to the head. The result is the same; You are safe, they are no longer a threat.

    Obviously the first thing any person should learn is de-escalation techniques (I've never been in a street fight, despite having been confronted a few times with violent people). Failing that, though, quickly ending a street brawl protects others as well as you.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  55. power & responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like in the Spiderman movie, with great power comes great responsibility, that includes not shooting your mouth off, the baddies may also learn to ‘maim and kill’ from this loud mouth guy. Best to leave it to the cops to handle the violence and have leaders to create a just and safe political-economy for all and educate your children.

  56. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

    I've been mugged twice. Once at college, once while walking to a friend's house. He wants money; Give it to him. You have more. You don't have any more eyes or livers; Don't risk them for trinkets.

    What you can do to prevent this is to make yourself look less of a target; Walk with your head up and your shoulders back, don't walk too fast, don't play with your iPhone walking down a dark alley. Hell, roll up your jumper sleeves under your jacket to make it look like you have jock's biceps. With any luck it'll be enough.

    New situation; You are confronted with a drunk man waving a knife. He thinks you stole his wallet. He's not listening to reason, and he's blocking your escape. Do you get stabbed? I don't, I employ one of those life-threatening-situation-only techniques this guy taught me. The drunk gets a hospital trip and I get a day in court, but at least I'm alive.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  57. US by 200_success · · Score: 1

    I believe that the analogous crime in the US is called disorderly conduct.

  58. Re:the bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that we currently have a rather nasty millionaire toff right-wing government (not significantly tempered by the LibDems), I assume your definition of 'Socialist' is anyone to the left of the teabaggers and the KKK.

  59. Tim Larkin couldn't have had better advertisment by Smigh · · Score: 1

    I just went to his website and I'm surely not alone.

    Well done.

  60. This isn't about self-defence by chrb · · Score: 2

    Self-defence courses are entirely legal in the UK. What this man is advocating is a form of self-defence that involves disproportionate, extreme violence. Under British law, defence has to be proportionate to the threat - you can kill a person who is attempting to kill you, but you don't have the right to kill a person who only slaps you. The British police have warned that these "self-defence" courses are teaching non-legal self-defence, and that the people who use these methods will be prosecuted and likely land up in jail.

    Would the U.S. authorities actually allow a "celebrity" foreigner who advocates and teaches illegal violence to enter the country? It seems U.S. authorities routinely reject people for much lesser reasons, like a Twitter post, being friends with some bikers, minor drugs use etc. Heck, until Obama overturned it, even HIV sufferers couldn't enter the U.S.

    1. Re:This isn't about self-defence by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When someone draws a knife at you, how do you know if they are attempting to kill you, hurt you, or merely threaten you? Are you supposed to wait until they stick a knife into you so that you can observe where it went, and decide based upon that?

  61. Just like Cat Stevens (Musif - whatever) ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly is dangerous about this guy?

    Is the UK crazy? They let in dangerous Muslims by boatload. Many of which live on welfare. Then they exclude normal people.

  62. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is duh.

    You run the other way, or toward a safe area. This is Standard Operating Procedure.

    My Sifu always stresses this.

    Even if you think you "could" take them:

    1) They have picked the time and place.
    2) They probably have less to lose than you do (making them more effective and more dangerous).
    3) Have you ever heard of having friends?

    This is besides the obvious, the contents of the wallet are worth neither your life nor theirs.

  63. Spy? by francisstp · · Score: 1

    Maybe the UK government had suspicions on this guy. A former Navy Seal travelling the world teaching martial arts? Seems like a nice cover.

  64. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by chrb · · Score: 1

    The section of TFA that you quoted shows not the slightest hint of a mention of racism or extremism.

    Actually the articles from 2009 did include some mentions of the BNP (a racist British political party that advocates throwing all non-whites out of the country), suggesting that BNP members were either involved in arranging the visit/courses or has signed up en masse. It wasn't clear. This time, I suspect the authorities might be concerned that he has (again) chosen to tour areas where racial tensions are high, and that he has some kind of links to the more violent extremist factions of the BNP. Since the authorities don't comment on why they reject someone, we will never know the real reason.

  65. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by chrb · · Score: 1

    The section of TFA that you quoted shows not the slightest hint of a mention of racism or extremism.

    Apparently, back in 2009, he was contracted by the BNP to train their members. That is where the racist/extremist angle comes from. He may not or may not personally be a racist extremist, but he was contracted to advocate and teach extreme and illegal methods of "self-defense" to a bunch of racists who believe that non-whites should be forced from Britain or exterminated. Apparently the BNP training courses didn't actually happen due to adverse publicity, but it does seem odd that, once again, he is intending to tour areas where racial tensions are higher.

  66. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had attributed something to the article that wasn't in there, that would be "making shit up". If I had been unwilling to clarify my reasoning, that would be "making shit up". Please explain what exactly I "made up", or where in my reasoning I made an error.

  67. You mean that other Lousiana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean that other Louisiana, called Arkansas. If it didn't suck so hard, Louisiana would fall into the gulf.

    1. Re:You mean that other Lousiana by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Lol,
      Kansas is windy because Nebraska sucks and Oklahoma blows.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  68. Chuck Norris by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    Let's see those limey bitches try to ban Chuck Norris. They should count themselves lucky this was some no-name pansy they were messing with.

  69. He is a walking weapon, no other reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His training makes him a weapon. Remember, good public order is for all to be EQUALLY VULNERABLE.

  70. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, but in the end of the day, UK jails less people and have lower criminality - especially lower violent criminality. So maybe those laws actually do more good then bad and UK citizens are right to defend them.

    Blanket "any government or law is bad" is as stupid as blanket "any law is good".

  71. OK... by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    So next time I think WE have a police state... I guess it is not in the interest of the "public good" in Britain for its citizens to be able to defend themselves. I don't care what the pansies in the UN say, you have the right to kill the guy who's trying to kill you.

    --
    Grar II
  72. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    You absolutely do NOT know your life is not in any danger. If he has chosen to attack me, he chooses to accept the possible consequences, which include his death.

    --
    Grar II
  73. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    I've also been mugged. I've also been beaten. I've also beaten the living shit out of the next guy who attacked me. Messed up his car, too. I told him to go home and tell his friends he got messed up by a fairy. I guarantee you he will not be out gay-baiting again, now that he knows some of us can fight back. And WILL. If that means I can't go to the UK, I don't think I'm missing all that much.

    --
    Grar II
  74. and yet by gelfling · · Score: 1

    A terrorist imam, who's called for the annihilation of all infidels, who tied to Hamas, who SNEAKED into the country illegally, got caught, got arrested, SUCCESSFULLY sued to be allowed to stay in the UK

  75. Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Yes, the ends justifies the means int he UK, we get it.

    Ironic that you just supported your argument with something as specious as an equally blanket statement you implied tacit support of.

    Big reason fail for the AC's in the UK right there.

  76. Larkin is an easy target by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    He trains people how to respond to perceived life threatening situations WITH deadly force.

    He's really THE perfect target.

    Some people feel that people need to be protected from themselves, which is sometimes true, but no way to live your life, or run a government, or maintain a healthy society.

    Some people believe that some information/knowledge/training should only be available to people that require it to preform a specific state-sanctioned function.

    This whole issue is about a guy that gets paid to train people exactly how to respond to life threatening physical violence with methods that are THE most likely to save your life.

    If you feel the state is going to protect you, and that you are incapable of responsibly using such methods, or don't feel the need or desire to learn them, don't.

    But that's not enough for some people. Some people feel strongly that nobody should have such skills/knowledge/training.

    This issue is a good representation of how people let their little political and idealistic agendas cloud their rational judgement.

    The only reason this person should be judged as if he's fostering some sort of magical knowledge too dangerous for people to have, would be if he's imparting it intentionally upon people who use it to break the law. Since there's zero evidence of him EVER doing this, the ideologues here, as usual, resort to outright lying about him, and name-calling. And they get modded-up for doing so.

    And he's the one being called "anti-social" by posters here for this.

    You people are why chemistry sets now suck. I don't need your political ideals of protection, I need to be protected FROM you and your ideals, and the society of hypocrisy, cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and victim-hood that you've created.