Overhaul The Law On Self-Defence


Following two incidents yesterday, an unprovoked attack by a psychotic East European which I witnessed, and a colleague of a friend being deliberately run down in a road rage incident, I will be campaigning for an overhaul of the law on self-defence and citizen’s arrest.

In the latter incident, the victim was deliberately run over after remonstrating with the driver of an Audi TT for dangerous driving. A paramedic from a nearby car and a GP visiting a nearby house, rushed out to treat her injuries. Other drivers refused to allow the attacker to flee the scene. The Police did not attend until 55 mins after the 999 call was placed. I’m sure you will agree this is not a sound basis for law and order.

Under Peelian Police Principles ‘The Police are the People; the People are the Police’.

We are currently sub-contracting our public safety to a Police more concerned with ‘twitter crime’ and whose senior officers lock themselves in their cars while their colleagues are stabbed to death by terrorists, the status quo cannot stand.

I propose:

  • The right of self-defence is to be absolute, not tempered by ‘reasonable’ force;
  • Cases of death and injury caused by self-defence are immediately referred to a local Justice of the Peace, not arrest by the police;
  • Citizens arrest and restraint rules are simplified;
  • Pepper sprays are immediately de-criminalised as a first step for self-defence;
  • Criminal entry to your home during the hours of darkness can be met with whatever force is to hand;
  • First Aider certificates issued by a competent authority merit a 5% reduction in personal taxation;
  • Immediate deportation to their home country for violent offenders with no appeal.

Andrew Withers
Libertarian Party

7 thoughts on “Overhaul The Law On Self-Defence

  1. Liam Scott says:

    Can this be a petition? Or is it not going down that rout? I think most sensible (non BBC brainwashed) folk would agree this needs to happen!

  2. Steve Andrews says:

    Sound Proposals, I have been the victim of crime 2 times and the police did not even turn up. 17k fraud and they said there is not enough evidence even though it had to be a blatant inside job. They are worse than useless

  3. Jon says:

    Couldnt agree more.I always was of the mind what constitures reasonable force is impossible to determine by a 3rd party after the event.

  4. Peter says:

    If a burglar knows they will be met with force they are more likely to enter with a weapon, escalating the situation. Need stiffer penalties for wrongdoing, and probably more prisons

  5. Brad Barker says:

    I like most of your proposals. Most definitely the changes to current legislation. Perpetrators are given the same, if not more legal standing during a crime case (except for being remanded) that should change. If you deliberately commit an offence against another (intent) you are already guilty by the fact. And therefore punished accordingly.

    Pepper spray!! If it was made legal to own, all these monsters would be carrying it and using it. So NO. Instead keep the law category as firearm. If you want to conceal carry Britain should introduce a course requiring attendance and have authority… For those suitable. From the age of 18-100 years old. Any British citizen without a criminal record could apply. Good for business.

  6. Jon Farrell says:

    As Brad said above, having a free-for-all on ownership of pepper spray will just lead to the criminals owning them. Whilst i fully support the right to self-defence in situations that call for it, it needs to be done in a safe and controlled manner which requires vetting. Perhaps not to the incredibly high standards of the grant of a Firearms Certificate, but a mandatory training course on safe use and situations, with some form of provisional licence granted (think provisional motorbike licence type affair) should help limit the availability to and use by street thugs.

  7. Dan Liddicott says:

    One of the challenges in this debate is people understanding that criminals don’t care whether they can legally own something or not. The reality is that this suggestion doesn’t limit availability to criminals who really want them, it only limits availability to non-criminals, leaving the criminals the upper hand when self-defence is needed in the real life un-safe and un-controlled situation. We don’t get to vet our attackers.

Comments are closed.