Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Home Secretary Bans US Martial Arts Expert

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the chuck-norris-does-not-approve dept.

United Kingdom 440

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.'"

cancel ×

440 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

asd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39950957)

first etcsdsdsad

UK (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39950961)

Remember, this is the country where being "anti-social" is a crime. Yes, for real.

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39950997)

It's also the country where the punishment for a crime can be forcing you to be anti-social. (see urbex group anti-socializing order)

Re:UK (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951805)

No useful Google results on this - can you elaborate? Might be relevant to me as I love wandering round old disused places.

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951011)

US banned Cat Stevens, so you don't even need to be anti-social to be banned.

Different kind of anti-social (5, Interesting)

SnappyCrunch (583594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951027)

The UK has a different connotation for anti-social than does the US, and in UK law, the term has very specific [wikipedia.org] meanings.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951157)

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.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951489)

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.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (1)

tubs (143128) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951863)

Driving for Fun : I think that means Joy Riding. Which is a very different thing to "driving for fun".

Re:Different kind of anti-social (2)

ommerson (1485487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951623)

I'd imagine that under the zero-tolerance policing strategy in many US cities, people engaged in almost all of these activities would simply get arrested for petty criminal offences and cleared off the streets.

The point of anti-social behaviour orders is that they are executed under civil - rather than criminal - law. The idea being that a lower burden of proof is required in court to obtain the order in the first place. In practice, the evidence usually consists of a long record of low-level criminality - a possible example being an individual who is clearly dealing drugs, but who the police have never managed to catch with any.

Of course things on in the realm of the criminal law once the order is breached.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951709)

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.
I really hope I don't need to explain why that's a Bad Thing?

Re:Different kind of anti-social (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951907)

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.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951803)

He could have flown to France and board the train through the Chunnel, nobody would have known.
You can still buy those tickets with cash.

Re:Different kind of anti-social (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951843)

Except that UK immigration checks your passport in France before you get on the train. However, you could get on in Brussels and pretend you are going to Paris (no passport checks), and then hide in the toilet.

Turn about is fair play. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39950995)

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

Re:Turn about is fair play. (4, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951037)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951159)

Hah .... like the US tells why do they ban ppl ...or are u counting 'terorist thread' as a real reason :?

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951381)

Could you translate this from Gobbledygook to English, please?

Re:Turn about is fair play. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951351)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (5, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951385)

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

Re:Turn about is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951411)

The Tories want civil unrest as it promotes a kneejerk reaction by the unwashed and cowardly masses. "Protect us!" Someone with a disciplined approach to self defence is dangerous whichever side listens to him.

Think of the government like Apple with its App Store. Sometimes its actions demonstrate little more than fear of a competitor.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (3, Insightful)

Mannfred (2543170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951873)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951915)

well I can agree with all the arguments about this guy having right to teach people whatever fight techniques he and they chose but stating that vulnerable people in less safe areas that are rushing in is a bit of a joke - there are possibly some exceptions but majority of the vulnerable cannot afford the course anyway.

Inciting violence (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951449)

He advocated using force against the British police and he asks people to use lethal force despite it being illegal in the UK.

Re:Inciting violence (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951579)

Not exactly true if someone is being violent and endangering your life then lethal force is considered reasonable force if it's done on the spur of the moment and in self defence this is something the UK Police would prefer you not to know.

Re:Inciting violence (4, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951799)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951511)

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.

No, but the sort of people who attend his conferences might be.

(or so they think)

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951577)

The US banned Cat Stevens, apparently because he changed his name to Yusuf Islam and Muslim people of questionable practices are fans of his.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951625)

"I think the story here isn't that someone got knocked back from entering the UK, but rather the reasons behind it. "...

"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."

Yes but this happens all the time when its the other way around [nytimes.com] . I agree that its just a non-story of a fairly common practice; Only instead of being denied over misunderstood slang that's real meaning is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain on comments made on social networking, it was instead a guy teaching how to maximise injury on someone as a form of self defence. I don't think either denial was entirely justified, but then its not my career to make these decisions.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951739)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (5, Interesting)

QQBoss (2527196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951839)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951813)

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

There is nothing that says he was denied because of being a martial arts "expert" either, like the title indicates.

If I were to guess, he was blocked because he trains and recruits mercenaries, or has a past of being one, and the nature of what he trained has nothing to do with it. But we'll never know for sure, unless the home office changes policy and talks.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951041)

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 [slashdot.org] .

Bit of a difference between the two, yes?

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951279)

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.)

Are you sure you're not Kent Brockman?

"Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory ."

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951417)

Well if they ARE killbots, then we have nothing to fear. All we have to do to defeat them is keep sending human waves until they reach their pre-programmed kill limit and shut down.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951309)

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.)

Re:Turn about is fair play. (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951373)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (3, Informative)

Alranor (472986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951409)

Actually, the concept in UK law is "reasonable" force, which isn't the same thing at all.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (2, Interesting)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951457)

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.)

... [T]he 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.

Absolutely. If you do, there are consequences that happen as a result of your choice.

As distinct from what seems to be happening here: if you think he may be causing trouble, you are not allowed to know how to stop him with fatal force should it become necessary. And to make sure you will be unable to, a government will pre-emptively stop a man from entering the country for attempting to provide you with that knowledge.

As similar approach would be terminating a life in the second trimester, on the grounds that it may grow up to commit a violent crime several decades later. That is a lack of minimum force of law, also termed "overreaching" or just plain "usurpation" [of political authorities by the agents of government]. Then again I'm not sure from where the political authority is considered to derive within the UK; perhaps whatever the PM or monarch says, goes.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (2)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951655)

I think the concept behind these kinds of laws (and i'm only familiar with Canada's system, not the UK's, but I suspect they're very similar) is that lethal force is almost never ever necessary. The capability of lethal force almost always implies the capability of non-lethal (but still disabling) force, which should always be the preference if it comes to that. Furthermore, the capability of lethal force (eg: gun) can almost always be used as a non-lethal threat to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first). Barring some sort of weird super-villain "wife suspended over a vat of acid" setup, actual lethal force is, ideally, never required. The idea is that you're no worse than Bruce Wayne, and never John Wayne. Thus, it may seem reasonable (if not a whit practical) to place "lethal self-defense" in the big folder of 'stuff citizens don't need to know'.

All that said, I don't agree with the UK's decision. It's stupid. But, as a sovereign nation, it is their ball and they can take it home if they want to.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (0)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951563)

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.

The UK can jail you just for being around with the wrong sort of people. If you're with a known criminal person and they commit a crime you can get the exact same sentence as they do just for being there. The idea is to stop you from hanging out with the wrong sort of people.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951755)

you're not from the UK are you? Ok, then stop spreading FUD.

Aiding and abetting a criminal is not the same as simply knowing them or being there when they commit a crime.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (0, Troll)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951695)

Fuck it, I'll undo my mod points.

Zimmerman did not shoot the punk because he was black, he called the police and said there was a suspicious person, they told him not to follow him, he was walking back to his car and got jumped from behind, then after being pinned to the ground having his head bashed into the pavement while he called for help and received none , he shot him to keep from being murdered.

Any reasonable person would qualify attempted murder when a person is pinned to the ground as a valid reason to shoot your assailant. Sadly, anti-gun people keep claiming that he just shot him for being black - the police have released plenty of evidence and he shot him because his life was in danger, proving that they're just lying bastards trying to pressure society to change to fit their views, despite the fact that the facts don't support their story.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1, Informative)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951809)

Hmmm. Only Zimmerman himself can assert to that version, so I'd call it dubious at best.

The facts that can be verified by other parties are the following: Zimmerman called the cops saying "there's a suspicious looking dude". The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways. Now the "suspicious dude" is dead. He shot him.

That's pretty much all we know. I won't take a word of Zimmerman at face value if it cannot be verified by a trusted third party, such as the police.

If I was in his place, I'd lie through my teeth to try to get away as a free citizen. So I strongly suspect he does the same.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951397)

Planning to kill someone in self-defense isn't accepted in the countries of Western Europe that I know of. It is a use of inappropriate means and might get you in prison for murder.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951529)

What idiot modded this up? "Planning to kill" will not "get you in prison for murder" in any country of the developed world.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951573)

A terrorist plot is not more than a "plan to kill", and it might not get you to prison but easily to Guantanamo (which is probably worse than prison).

Re:Turn about is fair play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951733)

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.

that means that if somebody attacks you with a lethal weapon, say a gun or a knife, you're perfectly within your rights to reply in kind and kill the bastard.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951063)

Turn about is fair play

I'll see you one aphorism and raise you another.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Re:Turn about is fair play. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951207)

How many wrongs does it take to make a right then, huh?

Re:Turn about is fair play. (4, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951285)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951303)

No, but it helps. ;)
Surprise surprise American free speach means less than zero in Europe.
Holocaust deniers can be arrested in Europe, not so in the US for instance.
Not all of us live and die by american laws. It's shocking isn't ? America is not the navel of the world.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951197)

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.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951237)

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?

People get refused all the time for all kinds of reasons trying to enter ANY country. Quit trying to make this all about the US being indignant.

The reason they don't want him in the country is because GB does NOT want people to have the knowledge and skillset. Keep in mind these are the same morons who have banned damn near anything which can be used as a weapon. They know that a population unable to defend itself is a population which can be controlled, and the last thing they want is a population able to defend itself without the use of advanced weaponry.

However- This guy in particular is a dickwad. He's NOT a martial arts expert, and he does NOT specialize in self-defense. He specializes in offensive fighting styles. Or to use the terminology, he focuses entirely on the "martial" (and only offensively) and completely ignores the "art". I have no issues teaching combat techniques to people who can honestly expect to face combat, it's not something which should be taught to the general public as a form of self-defense.

Re:Turn about is fair play. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951791)

The problem with this eye for an eye approach is that it will be the little guy on both sides to suffer.

In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951039)

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.

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951125)

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.

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951541)

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.

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (4, Informative)

aiht (1017790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951141)

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?

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951181)

No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset. In their eyes, minorities rioting is not that bad, but people defending themselves from rioting is dangerous. You are free to disagree, but to classify all forms of inference as "making shit up" is not very smart.

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951307)

"making shit up" is not very smart.

Since thats exactly what you did...

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951369)

No, I am inferring how the UK authorities think based on my understanding of their left-wing authoritarian mindset.

Does your understanding include the fact that Labour got booted out over a year ago?

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951487)

Yes, this kind of political correctness is universal in mainstream politics.

I clearly remember the mainstream reporting of the riots.

Even though the media never hinted that the majority of rioters were not white, when people organized to protect themselves from rioters, then they questioned whether the people organizing themselves were "racist".

Why should the conservative party think any differently?

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951553)

Nice dodge. So, if the problem is universal, why did your earlier comment include the words "left-wing authoritarian mindset"?

Re:In the UK self defense = racism, extremism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951877)

> left-wing authoritarian mindset.

You're not from the UK, are you? Left-wing my granny's sagging tits.

Political prudence (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951067)

According to non-mainstream news sources including Benjamin Fulford (a former correspondent for Forbes Magazine) and a U.S. military official known as The Drake, both the U.S. and the U.K. are encountering a co-ordinated effort to remove, forcibly if necessary, corrupt political officials from power in compliance with the law. This effort has a lot of backing from significant numbers of U.S. military personnel, Interpol, the Pentagon, the Agencies, U.S. Marshals... and underground Asian societies.

Interesting that this piece is coming out at this juncture.

They let racist terror-lovers in (2, Informative)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951075)

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951129)

The UK has already gone to hell. It's a fine lesson for western countries exactly what can happen when the state run's amok over everything. Anyone who's left simply likes being ground into the dirt by the state. I now work with nearly 150 expats from the UK who've all moved to Canada in the last 3-5 years. The smart ones got out early.

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951255)

Well, the Jews are certainly looking at leaving.

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (2)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951361)

Hahaha.. You keep thinking that...

I tell you what it is - selection bias..

Coming from a Canadian that eventually moved to the UK.. At least over here the salaries and rates are commensurate with the property prices.. try living in Vancouver nowadays..

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (1)

Sollord (888521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951209)

That is nothing compared to this fine upstanding example of how much the UK is screwed by it's worthless government and police

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141740/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Police-fears-branded-racist-left-grooming-gang-free-abuse-teenage-girls-years-says-Labour-MP.html?ITO=1490 [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951265)

Gross. However, I'm not sure I trust a politician's take.

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (0)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951271)

Of course, I don't trust a journalist's take either, especially if that journalist works for the BBC. Talk about an undeserved reputation. The BBC is vile garbage much of the time.

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (2)

Sollord (888521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951287)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253267/Rochdale-grooming-trial-how-the-case-unfolded.html [telegraph.co.uk] There lots of stories online that was just the first result. It comes down to the Police feared being called racist and basically ignored it since 2002...

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951347)

Oh so the UK which changes its laws to welcome war criminals is going to hell because it allows people whom even Israel itself has no issues with speaking publicly...

Re:They let racist terror-lovers in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951659)

They also let in Zionists

Theresa May is an idiot (5, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951077)

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.

Re:Theresa May is an idiot (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951147)

But the core problem in this case really boils down to one woman and her arbitrary and inconsistent management of the borders.

Aided and abetted (and forced) by the insistence by the Treasury that every single part of the government, every last agency, save as much money as humanly possible and then some...

Re:Theresa May is an idiot (2)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951499)

Unless it's the damn Olympics. They recently increased the budget for the opening ceremony and security. More than the amount they took from all the arts funding across the country. Bunch of wankers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785 [bbc.co.uk] and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11582070 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Theresa May is an idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951473)

Has there ever been a competent home secretary? Let's look at some of the previous ones:

  • Alan Johnson -- main policies were sacking any adviser who disagreed with the government on drug policy and protecting MI5 from accusations of complicity in torture at Guantanamo
  • Jacqui Smith -- extended detention without trial, identity cards, tightening of restrictions on cannabis (against the recommendations of her own advisers), eventually forced out for fiddling expenses
  • John Reid -- lead an EU project to censor information on bombmaking on the internet
  • Charles Clarke -- anothe rone pushing ID cards. Also the firts home secretary to require ISPs to retain browser histories
  • David Blunkett -- Detention without trial for terrorist suspects, described civil liberties as ``airy fairy''.
  • Jack Straw -- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  • Michael Howard -- ``prison works'', no more right to silence

Conclusion: it's not that Theresa May is an idiot, it's that there's something about the post of Home Secretary which makes people act like arseholes.

This isn't the first time (3)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951111)

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.

They did him a favor. (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951117)

To be honest.

Gotta love our militarized police force. (4, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951119)

Special Ops training for cops?

Re:Gotta love our militarized police force. (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951435)

Who do you think your first responders are to emergency situations which may include "terrorist" instances? In this day and age, special operations could teach a great deal to law enforcement professionals. One might think this a bad thing, but in reality, it is all about handling a situation, situational awareness and achieving your objective with as little bloodshed and collateral damage as possible. These are things that I would like for cops to have.

shouldn't they ban lady gaga too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951143)

shouldn't they ban lady gaga too?

Re:shouldn't they ban lady gaga too? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951295)

Please.

Martial arts expert? (5, Funny)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951229)

Who's he kidding? The UK Border Agency would be irrelevant to Chuck Norris.

I bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951415)

it was actually Steven Seagal. The clues are all there:

violent self defence, US Navy Seal, his presence here was not conducive to the public good, dodgy hair

Re:I bet (1)

aztec1430 (242755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951451)

Thank god it wasn't Chuck Norris...

From what I see (0)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951533)

They are turning him down because what he wanted to do something illegal in the UK.

Kickback (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951535)

This guy owes the Home Office bureaucrat who made this decision a percentage of his future revenues, because his career is *made*. "LEARN SELF DEFENSE FROM THE MAN JUDGED TOO LETHAL TO ENTER THE UK!"

Re:Kickback (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951785)

LOL, I like it. Nice spin. Do you work for a Government? :)

I think the real definition would be "the man too boneheaded to recognise inflammatory language doesn't exactly help when the target nation already has a riot and hooligan problem".

I guess he needs this language to sell (marketing is everything), but I can see the point of the authorities as they simply go by what happened the last time he was over. I'd call this an own goal, but as you pointed out, he could turn this one around - clever idea :)

Tim Larkin was never an US Navy SEAL (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951627)

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

the bigger question is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951647)

who in their right mind would want to go to a decaying Socialist pus hole like England?

Free Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951673)

I do not think this guy could have received this much good advertising if he used all of his revenue of his company on it! I think he is pretty stoked, even if he cannot travel to the UK. I would be.

US bans people for tweets (2)

Builder (103701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39951765)

And the USA bans people from entering because they send tweets about partying. So what ?

Sovereign nations decide who gets to come in. Nothing new here.

This is why I don't travel anywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951815)

Including the UK... even when I live there.

I'll just sit here and ignore the existence of the whole Earth.
Until someone pisses me off. Then they will be in for a world of pain not seen in a 50 thousand years.
That last ice age was just me slightly annoyed, only slightly.

Some toughts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39951921)

So, If you are unlucky kill someone in selfdense (can happen) and you have attendent a course to kill someone in selfedefense, probaly the judge will consider this as murder, just because it's proven you have trained to reach this result.

At least for the Belgian Law and I believe the Bristh Law will be in sync
.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>