Nice article. The problem is that a lot of it is complete and utter rubbish.
Firstly, the ‘Salford burglary’ which is the first case mentioned. Arresting the shopkeeper on a charge of attempted murder makes this and such British cases sound much much worse than it is.
It is standard in the various British laws, in a case where a person has died a violent death, to arrest the other person/people involved until an investigation can be done and its determined whether the person arrested has done anything wrong. Arresting on this charge therefore is just a police procedure, not a statement that its illegal to defend oneself in Britain. Its a formality more than anything.
I know it may seem odd, but the arrest and the charge actually wont mean anything unless the shopkeeper/houseowner has been one of only a tiny minority who had a burglar under control and decided to kill them anyway (like the man who had his family hold a burglar while he ran over him and tried to kill him with his car).
99.99% of British people involved in such incidents and arrested on what seems an odd charge were released asap as the facts of their right to self defence were quickly established.
I have already pointed this out here several times on FR very recently as there was a case last month which had its thread on FR. In that case, again, all people ‘arrested on murder charges’ were released because they clearly defended themselves.
Ms Malcolm omits that the ‘arrested’ people were all quickly released after the facts of the case were established. Coincidental omission?. I think not.
Secondly, Ms Malcolm again fails to point out that the 72 year old man was also quickly released.
AND I AM AFRAID HER ARTICLE JUST GETS WORSE.....
Thirdly, she cannot even get the simple year correct regarding British weapons and self-defence. It was 1946, not 1964.
Fourth, and this is where frankly either she is making it up as she goes along or she is woefully uninformed, she makes the allegation that toy guns and replicas are banned.
UTTER RUBBISH. The idea that toy guns are banned in the UK is complete tosh, the shops are full of them. And replicas are not banned, I know, as I own four of the things!.
Fifth, and this is the best piece of drivel by Ms Malcolm:
‘The government does not permit even someone who is unarmed from acting forcefully when attacked if his or her assailant is harmed in the process. If a citizen is attacked in the street he is to flee.’
Again, complete rubbish.
Britain has the right to self defence AND has the law of citizens arrest. Every word in that quote is nonsense. The assertion for example that we have to flee an attacker is frankly so bizarre I’d check Malcolm hasnt had a stroke recently....
I KNOW, over and above the fact that I am British and well-informed, that we have the right of self defence, have powers of citizens arrest and dont have to ‘flee’ an attacker because I MYSELF was a victim of burglary in Sept 2008, where I had to fight the attacker and subdue him.
So I know at first hand that Malcolm assertions are bilge.
Lastly, this:
‘. Since the 1950s it is only under extraordinary circumstances that anyone under 18 is put in jail.’
Again, utter rubbish.
Anyone over 40 in the UK remembers ‘borstal’: which was the prison system for young offenders under 18. Borstal was notorious as a very hard and brutal system, in fact many are calling for its return (it was phased out in the 80’s and replaced with other forms of teenage/child jails).
As for more recent times, under 18 offenders are NOT simply fined or give community service, most young offenders are sent to ‘young offenders institutions’, which are prisons for under 18’s.
Again, the notion that we dont jail our young is nonsense. In fact both the EU and UN have criticised Britain for jailing too many!.
I find it frightening that a supposed (acclaimed) academic is so utterly wrong and clueless on so much of British justice.
I have no problem with criticism of the UK or its legal/crime systems and problems, but Americans and others must do so on the basis of actual facts. Not lies, half truths and utter nonsense.
You are right, this article is utter claptrap. Where she hasn’t made stuff up, she has selected the facts and ommitted others in order to create her own context. I’ve scarcely seen an article of such abject intellectual dishonesty, at least outside of the Climate Change lobby...
I have read her books, and they seemed to be well researched.
Maybe I need to be more critical of their contents.
I have read quotations from the police in Britain, where they advised people to not fight back against attackers, and not to interfere if they witnessed an attack. Of course, simple advise is not legally binding.
Even on the street in several American states, the legal requirement has been that you are required to retreat if possible, to avoid a confrontation.
This is only recently being reversed, by adoption of what is called here the "castle doctrine" law.
Is it possible that the laws on this vary from England to Scotland, to Wales?
Obviously, most Americans would find this practice unacceptable.
Here, an arrest is, generally, recorded permanently, regardless of the disposition of the case. Most job applications will require you to reveal and explain any arrest, and employers can and will use that to deny you employment.
Any arrest, especially one involving violence and injury/death, would REQUIRE one to retain an attorney, with costs easily approaching five figures, regardless of adjudication.
Lastly, any arrest would mean a trip to jail and a hefty bond to get released. Depending on the locale, the short stay in jail could be hazardous to one's health.
I can only assume that arrests in England are considered much differently, otherwise you wouldn't dismiss them and their negative ramifications so blithely.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2766020/posts
Free Republic magazine
Malcolm’s moment (UK)
powerlineblog.com ^ | 18 August, 2011 | Scott Johnson, Joyce Lee Malcolm
Posted on 19 August 2011 14:11:36 GMT+01:00 by marktwain
5 posted on 19 August 2011 17:39:19 GMT+01:00 by the scotsman
I have read the comments by Professor Joyce Malcolm “To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right” published 1996, “The soft-on-crime roots of British disorder” Wall Street Journal newspaper of 2011, “The English riots: How British law fosters disorder” http://www.powerlineblog.com blog of 2011
And I have read the comments by “the scotsman” who states that subjects of the crown have not had the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense since at least 1946, and backs this up with the statement “I have experience of the actual (Scottish and English) legal systems, having been both a victim and a particpant (court clerk in both Scotland and England AND a civilian worker for the police in Glasgow and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, a job which entailed dealing with the courts, the police and the victim and their families).”
“the scotsman”, whoever he is, is a liar.
The following are the exact words that hundreds of United Kingdom Home Office Metropolitan Police police officers had to say every single day to police sergeants as firearms were issued to them from the years 1966 to 1996. Maybe they still do in 2011. The Metropolitan Police is the only police force that comes directly under the control of the Home Secretary. The numbers fluctuate over the years, but the Metropolitan Police usually has 20% to 25% of all the affirmed police officers in England and Wales.
CONFIDENTIAL
FOR POLICE EYES ONLY
METROPOLITAN POLICE
GENERAL ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis with the
approbation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
PRINTED BY HOBBS THE PRINTERS LIMITED, SOUTHAMPTON
1969
GENERAL CONTENTS
PART 1 - ADMINISTRATION
Section 6. SERVICE REGULATIONS, ETC.
SEC. 6 - SERVICE REGULATIONS, ETC.
Firearms for use of police Paras. 19-34
Operational use Paras. 19
SERVICE REGULATIONS, ETC. - SEC. 6
FIREARMS FOR USE OF POLICE
Use
Operational use of firearms.
19. EVERY POLICE OFFICER TO WHOM A WEAPON IS ISSUED MUST BE STRICTLY WARNED THAT IT IS TO BE USED ONLY IN CASES OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, e.g., IF HE, OR THE PERSON HE IS PROTECTING, IS ATTACKED BY A PERSON WITH A FIREARM OR OTHER DEADLY WEAPON AND HE CANNOT OTHERWISE REASONABLY PROTECT HIMSELF OR GIVE PROTECTION, WHEN HE (AS WELL AS A PRIVATE PERSON) MAY RESORT TO A FIREARM AS A MEANS OF DEFENCE.
(Reprinted: October, 1977) (Set 10/77) 6/5
I have spoken to a Metropolitan Police public firearms police inspector that served from 1966 to 1996, and he confirms that it was well known that subjects of the crown had the absolute right to possess and use firearms for self-defence and hundreds of Metropolitan Police police officers had to verbally state this every day in order to obtain firearms when on duty, as shown above.
However he says that he, like every other public firearms police inspector, had confidential instructions from both the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s Office and the United Kingdom Home Office. Both instructions stated that public firearms inspectors were under no circumstances ever to discuss whether or not subjects of the crown had the right to either possess or use firearms for self-defence. Furthermore, if any application to the Commissioner’s Office by a member of the public for a firearms certificate for self-defence was received, then full details of both applicant and circumstances were to be obtained, in addition to a careful interview of the applicant by the pubic firearms inspector, before forwarding the firearms certificate application to the Commissioner’s Office for approval. There every such application would be refused by the Commissioner’s Office.
Both sets of instructions also reminded the public firearms inspector, that any firearms certificate applicant that was refused a firearms certificate for any reason, had the right under the Firearms Act 1937 and Firearms Act 1968 to appeal the refusal to the justices of the peace at the quarter sessions, and when the quarter sessions were replaced by the crown court in the 1970s, to appeal the refusal to a recorder or justice at the crown court. Therefore a public firearms inspector had to obtain as much evidence as possible for the refusal in the case of such an appeal against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
The Metropolitan Police public firearms inspector I spoke to, told me that he had never heard of any member of the public making an appeal to a judge upon the refusal of the grant of a firearms certificate for self-defence.
I guess if the England public allow the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the United Kingdom Home Secretary to break the law, then the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and United Kingdom Home Secretary will break the law.