No Castle Doctrine in the UK

Nev C · January 10, 2010, 12:39 AM

I couldn't believe this article when I read it, apparently in the UK you can be charged with carrying an offensive weapon in your own house if you WAVE a knife at burglars.
Certainly no Castle Doctrine over there.
Even in Australia this would be laughable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-knife.html

**Frank Ettin** · January 10, 2010, 01:59 AM

In Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading.

In today's world our right of self defense is not universally respected, or even acknowledged. There are influential people and groups who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to use force to defend himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

Uncle Buck · January 10, 2010, 10:00 AM

Not only is this amazing, but the fact that these people actually believe it to be true is amazing!

You break into my house, threaten my family and if I take any defensive move to stop you, then I am wrong. Amazing!

hogdogs · January 10, 2010, 10:31 AM

UB, That is what happens when you live as a subject under a king/queen monarchy. They make all your decisions. They tell you what day to send in your savings in the form of extremely excessive taxes... Not all populations are willing to put their foot down as our forefathers were.
Brent

RDak · January 10, 2010, 10:50 AM

I simply can't believe that these people think it is proper to let someone kill you and defending yourself in such a situation is immoral. Absolutely unbelievable.

I would think it is immoral to not defend yourself against deadly attack.

P5 Guy · January 10, 2010, 12:55 PM

My life is a precious gift from my Creator and to not defend that gift insults the giver.
I have real problem with a Theologian that does not see this.

docpadds · January 10, 2010, 01:02 PM

Well there seems to be a belief that you wont get killed too, talking to my brothers and sisters they don't believe that crime is as violent there as here. They see the US as a place where there are ad guys on every corner with guns and that allowing us to have more guns is making that worse.

It doesn't matter what i say, they see no reason i need guns, after all i have kids, why have guns around???

Funny enough though (I am 12 years older then the next one down) we had shotguns and shot regularly when i grew up, i had my own gun stored in my bedroom when i was 14, in England! Of course they don't remember that.

Things are just seen backwards, and i admit for a time i saw them in a somewhat similar way. When I first came here i couldn't understand why people needed full auto guns, whats the point. Well the point is that somebody who is responsible and not going to break the law using them darn well has every right to have them, and blow up as many melons/cans/targets whatever he/she likes! Indeed we are probably going to get our SOT at work so we can have some too LOL

In the UK the nanny state outlaws things first such as handguns because then its illegal for everyone to have them and they will no longer be a problem..... except as we all know the bad guys aren't so into following the law.

**OldMarksman** · January 10, 2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

UB, That is what happens when you live as a subject under a king/queen monarchy. They make all your decisions. They tell you what day to send in your savings in the form of extremely excessive taxes... Not all populations are willing to put their foot down as our forefathers were.

Uh, no... The UK has a constitutional monarchy, and the laws are made by an elected parliament. As Fiddletown points out, the natural right to self defense has been significantly curtailed by law in Great Britain.

The original castle doctrine was embodied in (and actually preceded) the English Common Law, which was in fact adopted by our forefathers.

gc70 · January 10, 2010, 01:25 PM

Following the link in the OP, I came to Tories back new rights to help home owners protect themselves from burglars. I am nearly afraid to ask what the following quote from that second article means.

Quote:

However, David Blunkett, who as Labour home secretary was sympathetic to attempts to give householders more legal protection, said: "I have long been in favour of allowing self-defence as a legitimate protection against prosecution.

"I was the first to suggest that there should be no compensation for those engaged in criminal activity, including intrusion into and theft from the homes of innocent men and women."

docpadds · January 10, 2010, 01:33 PM

Blunkett is out there sometimes. He was the one who wanted to charge people who were wrongly imprisoned 3000 pounds a year in board and lodgings to cover their costs in prison, reason being that a truly innocent man wouldn't have been there in the first place.... There was a lot of issues out and about after a guy got released in 04 i believe for a crime he didn't commit 16 years before.

**44 AMP** · January 10, 2010, 02:26 PM

A fine philosophy for a missionary dealing with primitive tribes, IF you believe the respect given by primitives for dying for one's beliefs is of greater good that the survival of the individual missionary.

The flaws in this worldview are many, not the least of which is that it simply does not work when dealing with people who do not respect honor, their own, or others.

Apparently in England, not only has this been adopted in law, but it has become "Die if you must, but never fight back"!

A noble sentiment, but while a murder victim is morally superior to the murderer, they are still dead. Resistance to violence should be an individual moral decision, not a legally mandated one.

Many Americans do not understand the English Parliament makes the laws. They seem to think the Parliament is the same as our Congress, but it is not. Different rules apply to the House of Lords, who's members have been appointed by the Crown, and accepted by the Lords. In many cases, it is a hereditary appointment. There is no public election (as there is in the House of Commons), there is nothing to restrain any (even the most crackpot) social theories from being put forth as law, except the individual members willingness to bow to peer pressure, if it exists. Members of the House of Lords are Lords until they decide otherwise, or do something repugnant enough to that body as to cause them to be cast out (which happens very seldom). While the English people have influence through elections in the House of Commons, they do not have that in the House of Lords.

There is a huge amount of historical prestige to the peerage, something that does not exist in the US. That is another factor. Our nutjob legislators are only one election away from being ordinary citizens again. Many of theirs are not.

Punishing people for defending themselves and their families from violent attack, no matter the means used, may be a balm for "society's conscience", but it is hardly good for those who are victims of attack.

The same mindset is at work in the US. To date, it has not been as successful, but they are still trying.

BlueTrain · January 10, 2010, 02:55 PM

In the United States, the corporations make the law. That's how we get by without an official monarch, though some of us pine for one, provided they speak our language.

Ah, but the castle doctrine does apply in Great Britain. It must. They still have castles!

More seriously, however, regarding the right to self defence: this I believe is one of those things that you might be honor bound to follow through on, no matter what it costs you. By which I mean that if you think you are a person of honor and courage, then you should defend yourself no matter what the outcome might be because it is the right thing to do. Easy to say but the consequences could be pretty severe and no one wants to be a martyr.

What would Jon Amend-all say?

blume357 · January 11, 2010, 09:17 AM

I see and get this on occasion and can even empathize with pacifism. I think every one has the right to choose to give up their own life if attacked or confronted... I totally agree with this choice if you or someone else believes in it.... because it goes on the belief, which I also hold, that every human life is sacred.

Here is the problem.... You are a pacifist, as I explained above, and a maniac is coming at you with a knife, machete, gun, what ever, and is obviously going to kill you... so be it... but there are 4 children hiding behind you that will be next.... I do not believe you have the right to allow this if you have even the slightest chance or ability to save even one of them.

The problem with giving into someone who is threatening you with violence is that to one degree or another you are giving them permission to do the same again to another.

vranasaurus · January 11, 2010, 12:05 PM

Everyone should have the right to choose whether or not to defend yourself from a violent attack.

I would support legislation requiring someone to defend themselves no more than I would support legislation preventing someone from defending themselves.

However the thought that not defending yourself is somehow morally superior to defending yourself is bull.

The person being attacked is always morally superior to the attacker. The choice is not whether you want to be morally superior it's whether you want to be dead(or seriously injured) or alive.

But the person who has the ability but chooses not to defend those who can't defend themselves is morally bankrupt.

Those with the ability have a moral obligation to defend those who can't defend themselves.

SIGSHR · January 11, 2010, 02:57 PM

The last I saw, the UK is a democracy, Parliament is elected by the People, therefore the People are getting the government they wanted-and deserve.

January 10, 2010, 12:39 AM	#1
Nev C Member Join Date: November 25, 2007 Location: NSW Australia Posts: 69	No Castle Doctrine in the UK I couldn't believe this article when I read it, apparently in the UK you can be charged with carrying an offensive weapon in your own house if you WAVE a knife at burglars. Certainly no Castle Doctrine over there. Even in Australia this would be laughable. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-knife.html __________________ If a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?

January 10, 2010, 10:00 AM	#3
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	Not only is this amazing, but the fact that these people actually believe it to be true is amazing! You break into my house, threaten my family and if I take any defensive move to stop you, then I am wrong. Amazing! __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

January 10, 2010, 12:55 PM	#6
P5 Guy Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2005 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 1,804	God's Gift My life is a precious gift from my Creator and to not defend that gift insults the giver. I have real problem with a Theologian that does not see this.

January 10, 2010, 01:02 PM	#7
docpadds Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2009 Posts: 125	Well there seems to be a belief that you wont get killed too, talking to my brothers and sisters they don't believe that crime is as violent there as here. They see the US as a place where there are ad guys on every corner with guns and that allowing us to have more guns is making that worse. It doesn't matter what i say, they see no reason i need guns, after all i have kids, why have guns around??? Funny enough though (I am 12 years older then the next one down) we had shotguns and shot regularly when i grew up, i had my own gun stored in my bedroom when i was 14, in England! Of course they don't remember that. Things are just seen backwards, and i admit for a time i saw them in a somewhat similar way. When I first came here i couldn't understand why people needed full auto guns, whats the point. Well the point is that somebody who is responsible and not going to break the law using them darn well has every right to have them, and blow up as many melons/cans/targets whatever he/she likes! Indeed we are probably going to get our SOT at work so we can have some too LOL In the UK the nanny state outlaws things first such as handguns because then its illegal for everyone to have them and they will no longer be a problem..... except as we all know the bad guys aren't so into following the law. __________________ 07 Manufacturer and 02 SOT and 08 Importer. NRA Certified Instructor Pistol/Rifle. NRA RSO. Owner of GunEnvy. See our Facebook page for more.

January 10, 2010, 01:33 PM	#10
docpadds Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2009 Posts: 125	Blunkett is out there sometimes. He was the one who wanted to charge people who were wrongly imprisoned 3000 pounds a year in board and lodgings to cover their costs in prison, reason being that a truly innocent man wouldn't have been there in the first place.... There was a lot of issues out and about after a guy got released in 04 i believe for a crime he didn't commit 16 years before. __________________ 07 Manufacturer and 02 SOT and 08 Importer. NRA Certified Instructor Pistol/Rifle. NRA RSO. Owner of GunEnvy. See our Facebook page for more.

January 10, 2010, 01:59 AM	#2
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	In Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading. In today's world our right of self defense is not universally respected, or even acknowledged. There are influential people and groups who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense. See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to use force to defend himself. Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack. Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life. Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

January 10, 2010, 10:31 AM	#4
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	UB, That is what happens when you live as a subject under a king/queen monarchy. They make all your decisions. They tell you what day to send in your savings in the form of extremely excessive taxes... Not all populations are willing to put their foot down as our forefathers were. Brent

January 10, 2010, 10:50 AM	#5
RDak Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 734	I simply can't believe that these people think it is proper to let someone kill you and defending yourself in such a situation is immoral. Absolutely unbelievable. I would think it is immoral to not defend yourself against deadly attack.

January 10, 2010, 02:26 PM	#11
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,846	Die if you must, but never kill A fine philosophy for a missionary dealing with primitive tribes, IF you believe the respect given by primitives for dying for one's beliefs is of greater good that the survival of the individual missionary. The flaws in this worldview are many, not the least of which is that it simply does not work when dealing with people who do not respect honor, their own, or others. Apparently in England, not only has this been adopted in law, but it has become "Die if you must, but never fight back"! A noble sentiment, but while a murder victim is morally superior to the murderer, they are still dead. Resistance to violence should be an individual moral decision, not a legally mandated one. Many Americans do not understand the English Parliament makes the laws. They seem to think the Parliament is the same as our Congress, but it is not. Different rules apply to the House of Lords, who's members have been appointed by the Crown, and accepted by the Lords. In many cases, it is a hereditary appointment. There is no public election (as there is in the House of Commons), there is nothing to restrain any (even the most crackpot) social theories from being put forth as law, except the individual members willingness to bow to peer pressure, if it exists. Members of the House of Lords are Lords until they decide otherwise, or do something repugnant enough to that body as to cause them to be cast out (which happens very seldom). While the English people have influence through elections in the House of Commons, they do not have that in the House of Lords. There is a huge amount of historical prestige to the peerage, something that does not exist in the US. That is another factor. Our nutjob legislators are only one election away from being ordinary citizens again. Many of theirs are not. Punishing people for defending themselves and their families from violent attack, no matter the means used, may be a balm for "society's conscience", but it is hardly good for those who are victims of attack. The same mindset is at work in the US. To date, it has not been as successful, but they are still trying. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 10, 2010, 02:55 PM	#12
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	In the United States, the corporations make the law. That's how we get by without an official monarch, though some of us pine for one, provided they speak our language. Ah, but the castle doctrine does apply in Great Britain. It must. They still have castles! More seriously, however, regarding the right to self defence: this I believe is one of those things that you might be honor bound to follow through on, no matter what it costs you. By which I mean that if you think you are a person of honor and courage, then you should defend yourself no matter what the outcome might be because it is the right thing to do. Easy to say but the consequences could be pretty severe and no one wants to be a martyr. What would Jon Amend-all say? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 11, 2010, 09:17 AM	#13
blume357 Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2005 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 3,943	Belonging to a very, VERY, liberal church (Unitarian / Universalist)... I see and get this on occasion and can even empathize with pacifism. I think every one has the right to choose to give up their own life if attacked or confronted... I totally agree with this choice if you or someone else believes in it.... because it goes on the belief, which I also hold, that every human life is sacred. Here is the problem.... You are a pacifist, as I explained above, and a maniac is coming at you with a knife, machete, gun, what ever, and is obviously going to kill you... so be it... but there are 4 children hiding behind you that will be next.... I do not believe you have the right to allow this if you have even the slightest chance or ability to save even one of them. The problem with giving into someone who is threatening you with violence is that to one degree or another you are giving them permission to do the same again to another.

January 11, 2010, 12:05 PM	#14
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Everyone should have the right to choose whether or not to defend yourself from a violent attack. I would support legislation requiring someone to defend themselves no more than I would support legislation preventing someone from defending themselves. However the thought that not defending yourself is somehow morally superior to defending yourself is bull. The person being attacked is always morally superior to the attacker. The choice is not whether you want to be morally superior it's whether you want to be dead(or seriously injured) or alive. But the person who has the ability but chooses not to defend those who can't defend themselves is morally bankrupt. Those with the ability have a moral obligation to defend those who can't defend themselves.

January 11, 2010, 02:57 PM	#15
SIGSHR Senior Member Join Date: September 13, 2005 Posts: 4,700	The last I saw, the UK is a democracy, Parliament is elected by the People, therefore the People are getting the government they wanted-and deserve.