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.'"

83 of 440 comments (clear)

  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 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)

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

  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 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

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

      Zero would be the correct amount.

    20. 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
    21. 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
    22. 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.
    23. 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.

    24. 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.
    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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.'
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.'"
    10. Re:Different kind of anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    11. 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.....

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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!
    15. 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.

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

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

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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
    20. 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.

    21. 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.
    22. 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.
  4. They let racist terror-lovers in by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. 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...

    2. 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..

    3. 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.

  5. 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 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

  6. 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.
  7. Gotta love our militarized police force. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Special Ops training for cops?

  8. 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?
  9. 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?

  10. 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
  11. 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...

  12. 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."
  13. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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'!"
    4. 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: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/
  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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...

  20. 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/
  21. 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.