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.'"

44 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.'
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.'"
    9. 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.....

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.
  3. 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.

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

    Special Ops training for cops?

  6. 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?
  7. 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?

  8. 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
  9. 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 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.
  10. 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/
  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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?