Self-Defence is a right currently denied to the British householder on the irrational concept that the police WILL afford the individual the necessary protection. If this were the case, then we would not see so many tragic results of their patent failure to do so.

Why is this idea important?

In France not only does the concept of householder's self defence exist, but a system exists, unique in the world, called SAPL. These are specifically designed plastic firearms which shoot a ball or balls of a rubber compound which will not bounce and shock more than harm, but will not kill. They are specifically for use upon "voleurs", or burglars. Pepper Spray and tear gas are also available to the householder to deter would-be inrtuders as well.

Yet perversely, the very tools which the police here are supposed to use in our defence… despite the characteristic absence of police when their use is required… are denied to the householder on some idiotic concept of police monopoly with violence. If the premise of police monopoly on violence ever existed, which is very dubious, it certainly does not exist now.

Laws prohibiting self defence were drawn up by those who never needed to call police, and wait, and wait, until the police could be bothered to fit them in. They were drawn up by inidivduals who enjoy constant police protection… at our expense. Therefore they have no basis in application to the individual, who is naturally not so well favoured.

The perversity of the premise has become so evident that it has fallen to members of the judiciary to arbitrate a labyrinthine course through the enormous weight of case law, to arrive at something merely approaching justifiable to a disbelieving public.

"Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being "out"side of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he was a wolf or other wild animal. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw had only himself to protect himself, but it also required no enforcement on the part of the justice system."

The person putting him or herself outside the law deliberately, has logically and by their own action, given up their right to the protection of the law.

Restoration of the right to self defence must go towards restoration of public confidence in any alleged justice system. To do otherwise re-ignites the old arguments of fear, made by governments after previous world wars, that an armed population could conceivably turn upon them if they visited such privation upon them by their actions as may be unendurable.

In other words, the governments since the wars have trusted you the voter, only to trust them… but will not trust you to defend yourself against intruders and against the natural consequences to you, of a failed police.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *