Guess which way is approved by the British Government?

That appears to be the subtext of the message sent out by Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service. At a time when many women in Britain are at risk from the Islamic Rape Gangs that have been allowed to operate for decades with virtual impunity, the government has told women that they are not allowed to defend themselves against these and other rapists, and must not carry any weapon, not even a non-lethal weapon. This latest clarification of the law means that not only are non-lethal weapons like tazers or pepper spray illegal under the Firearms Act Section 5 (1)b but also seemingly forbidden is having a can of hairspray in a place where it could be easily grabbed to spray in an assailants face.

Britain now has the monstrous situation where it takes years if not decades for the Police to pull their fingers out and deal with the appalling phenomenon of Islamic Rape Gangs, but pull out a can of Harmony and spray it in your potential rapists face and the police will nick you in double quick time. In other words if a woman keeps a hairspray can in her pocket and uses it against a rapist, then she’s just as liable to be arrested as her assailant.

Here’s Jihad Watch quoting a statement from the US National Rifle Association on this latest piece of legal arse-wittery from the UK government:

“The latest dispatch from the United Kingdom’s ongoing campaign to eliminate all forms of armed self-defense seems too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, after tracking down the origin of a publicly distributed statementregarding self-defense products on the country’s “Ask the Police” website, we can confirm that British subjects continue to live at the mercy of their potential attackers.  Even to the point of baffling absurdity.

The statement appears in the Frequently Asked Questions section ofwww.askthe.police.uk – a site that is operated by the Police National Legal Database.   Information provided by the PNLD and its site are used by local police constabularies to help inform the public.

The question at issue asks, “Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”

And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.”  So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.

The statement then addresses the legality of inert dye sprays that merely mark one’s attacker for later identification; in contrast to self-defense sprays like mace or pepper spray that inflict pain in order to halt an attack. The site is so concerned with the well-being of violent criminals, that in the context of dye sprays, it states,“be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone’s eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.”

Whether it’s this detestable advice, police warning a woman not to display a knife in order to ward off intruders, warrantless firearm storage inspections, or desperate subjects being forced to defend their lives and property with cricket and baseball bats during riots, the UK government appears intent on wiping out any remaining vestiges of the traditional right to self-defense. We’d like to say that we won’t allow ourselves to be shocked by the next ludicrous episode from across the pond, but history shows they’ll somehow manage to astound.”

It is indeed detestable advice and goes against the moral grain that a person who is being attacked should have recourse to reasonable force in order to defend themselves. It is plain to see that this advice favours the attackers of women and not those women who are the victims of attack.

There are many people who would prefer that the Police keep the peace, suppress the criminal and defend the innocent, and deplore the American system where individuals can hold and use lethal weapons for self-defence. In an ideal world or in a country where there was confidence in the police and judicial system this point of view can be justified. However it is harder to justify when the Police are politically bent and the prosecuting authorities show partisanship towards offenders.

Britain’s severe restrictions on firearms ownership or indeed the possession of any device or item that could be used for self-defence are not the sign of a civilised society, they are a sign of a nation whose government, policing and legal systems have completely lost the plot. Although I don’t approve and have never approved of vigilante justice (I believe the key to dealing with Britain’s problems is to change the politicians who can then change the laws and remove the idiots from the admin sector), I cannot bring myself to condemn any woman at risk of attack, whether sexual or otherwise, who defends herself.

We need the police to defend us and our families, not the offenders.

Links

Jihad Watch article on how Britons are no longer allowed to defend theirselves

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/uk-police-tells-women-not-to-harm-their-attackers-get-a-rape-alarm

Information and guidance on the UK Firearms Act 1968 and as subsequently amended and other legislation that relates to weapons.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/