Dear Is Mise,

As I mentioned in an earlier post -

Teaching women self-defence (some form of martial arts)
would definitely help against any attacker. It's good
fitness training as well, and would prevent the woman
from panicking when attacked. Just a thought. Also -
education is important. There are many community centres that
provide classes and are part of a lecture series
to teach women what to do
if being attacked - it's well worth while investigating.
Being prepared (as the girl-guides taught us) is the key.

Dear Foxy,

She's in her seventies and weighs half the weight of her 25 year old attacker.

Martial arts aren't an option for her, but is there any way that she could stop him?

Why is she, this vulnerable old lady, denied any thing for the purpose of self defence by the State?

Anything to protect the attacker it seems.

It is naive to suggest that martial arts would stop an assailant. The solutions recommended by any competent instructor would certainly include avoiding risk in the first place, by not presenting as a target or deliberately walking in harm's way.

Such proactive treatments are not welcomed by feminists who stupidly and provocatively claim it would be sexism and 'telling women what to do with their bodies' (?!) to even suggest avoiding or reducing risk. So I do not propose to go there, just to reflect that very few 'martial arts' have any worth in practical situations. Spin kicks are ridiculous. Legs are best used to run away. I do not propose either to get into a hairy nostril, or is it hairy armpit, discussion of the various martial arts.

What is relevant however is the reverse standard of proof that will most definitely apply if an attacker is injured by the victim. That is a matter I raised earlier that is being studiously ignored by left whingers who put the assailant's rights before the victim's.

Home burglaries are serious crimes. Home burglaries are commonplace and the clearance rate is poor. It is in the home that we are most likely to be called upon to defend ourselves. Yet if your dog should nip an offender in your house or heaven forbid you should injure your attacker, Plod will be interrogating YOU and charging You with a serious offence and your Jack Russell is likely to be classified as a dangerous dog.

to be continued..

continued..

If you are ever called upon to defend yourself or your loved ones, you had better first be aware of things the prosecutor might define as weapons. The court has the benefit of time and hindsight. It will find a difference a 'kitchen knife' and any other which may be well be classed as a 'weapon' under the broad provisions of weapons Acts.

You will be required to defend your decision to defend yourself and the type and amount of force used. Those weapons Acts are not just there to 'control' firearms, even if one could be taken from a safe, assembled and a cartridge taken from another locked storage, in time. Courts will also be optimistic about the availability of police to attend and their swift action on arrival.

You see, it isn't as simple as Foxy and others who protect offenders and rationalise their crimes as 'society's fault' are telling us. They, the self-titled 'Progressives', have also changed laws to protect the offenders and deter and punish anyone who defends herself and her family. It isn't just that you are not allowed to use a firearm either, although that would result in very serious charges indeed and loss of licence and all firearms forever.

Because outside of the likelihood of pain, crippling and possible death from an assailant in your home, you will also have to contend with the certain aftermath of days of interrogation and probable charges if you lay a finger on that prepared, well practised and determined assailant who invaded your home.

There are well publicised examples of home owners who have been through that recently. Thanks to the Shooters and Fishers Party, in NSW that reverse onus of proof foisted upon ordinary citizens who defend themselves has been changed back. But even so, police still interrogate the homeowner to see if there is a way they can be charged with an offence, although the NSW citizen will usually have the (S&FP amended) law on his side, thank goodness.

Dear Is Mise,

Sgt Darrren and his wife Beth Laur wrote the
book, "Total Awareness" A Woman's Safety Book."
They list their top 10 Safety Tips for Women at
the following link:

http://powertochange.com/life/personalsafetytips/

I hope this helps, and I look forward to seeing you
on another discussion for me this one has now run
its course.

This is an example from NSW, where at least citizens have some legal protection for defending themselves because the S&FP amended the law. However the victim who defended himself in his own home (and the investigating police finally agreed it was defence) was still pursued by the DPP.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/thiefs-fatal-error-homeowner-donald-brooke-who-stabbed-intruder-faces-harrowing-wait/story-e6frfkvr-1226143138399

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/27/18/51/man-charged-with-murder-after-stabbing-intruder

Be assaulted or defend yourself and be pursued by the DPP, going broke in the process from legal bills, that is the decision. This man, Donald Brooke, was also pursued relentlessly by the media circus and activists , with photographs of his home and Google maps featuring in media reports. The victim is re-victimised by the DPP, the media and by activists (who also alleged racism!) protecting the rights of criminals.