Welcome to the site newbie. I'm not basing my opinion of the UK on this article alone, I'm simply stating an opinion based on many, many other disturbing articles I have read coming out of your country.
Specifically, civilian disarmament and increased street crimes with victims being subjected to criminal prosecution if they choose to fight back. Home invasions where the homeowner is subject to prosecution should he/she use excessive force to protect his home from same invasion.
Your growing problem with the invasive Muslim population with your country doing absolutely nothing to prevent the escalating violence from that community..........
Would you like me to continue?
Thank you for your reply. I’m sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Much of your reply was taken up by what one in the UK is permitted to do when attacked. Here below is a standard direction that is given to juries/magistrates in Court as to the LAW when deciding those case in which the Police/ CPS believe that a person has acted beyond ‘self-defence”. As you will see (if you get that far) the law talkes about an ‘anticipated’ response - meaning the defender can be the first to strike. NB Here D= Defendant.
How this clarifies things for you....and not to rely on what you have read in the British ‘media’.
And per your last line...Of course you may continue if you like
“If you think that D was or may have been acting in lawful self-defence, he is entitled to be found not guilty. Because the prosecution must prove D’s guilt, it is for the prosecution to prove that D was not acting in lawful self-defence, not for D to establish that he was; and you must consider the matter of self-defence in the light of the situation which D honestly believed he faced.
You must first ask whether D honestly believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself at all. (Add, as appropriate:) This would not be the case if D [was the aggressor][acted in revenge][knew that he did not need to resort to violence].
If you are sure that D did not honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence, and you need consider this matter no further. But what if you think that D did honestly believe or may honestly have believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself?
You must then decide whether the type and amount of force D used was reasonable. Obviously, a person who is under attack may react on the spur of the moment, and he cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force he needs to use to defend himself. On the other hand, if he goes over the top and uses force out of all proportion to the [anticipated] attack on him, or more force than is really necessary to defend himself, the force used would not be reasonable. So you must take into account both the nature of the attack on D and what he then did. (Here refer briefly to any features of the evidence which may have a bearing on these issues, eg the speed of the attack, the number of attackers, whether or not he/they had and/or used any weapon(s), and the nature of D’s response.)
If you are sure that the force D used was unreasonable, then D cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence; but if you think that the force D used was or may have been reasonable, he is entitled to be acquitted.”