Self defense in Britain

It's my understanding that, historically, the Crown had a monopoly on the use of violence, such that ANYbody who committed violence was treated as a criminal. The fact that somebody was trying to stab your child with a knife, for example, was no justification for using violence to defend your child. The ONLY legal alternative was to wait for an agent of the Crown to arrive and subdue the attacker. (Yeah, right.)

There was a story that went around a few years ago about a homeowner who defended his famiy against armed invaders. The home owner was charged, convicted and sentenced to many years in prison. The government then provided lawyers to the home invader(s) to sue the family for injuries the invaders suffered during their invasion of the home, and essentially confiscate all of the family's remaining assets.

I THOUGHT this had caused enough of an outrage that the government had moderated its "no violence is ever legal" stance in the context of self defense against violent attack, but it would seem not.

This is one of several factors that make it hard for me to think of England as a civilized country any more.

My wife dragged me to London on our honeymoon. I brought a fairly serious flashlight, "tactical grade" but still pocket sized and without "impact serrations". It was still a potent blinding weapon and a significant impact weapon ("Kubotan class") without being identifiable as a weapon.

I packed extra CR123 batteries as I doubted I'd find any over there near as easily. The proliferation of powerful flashlights is a side effect of the US gun/carry culture, because any serious gunnie needs to also carry a flashlight for after-dark target ID. I would argue it's immoral to pack heat without a good light.

I find it quite incredible that their society and laws are such. I confess ignorance of the history and current state of self-defense law and culture in the UK. I would like to know from what philosophy their laws and regulations flow.

In [formerly] Great Britain, the rights of the violent attacker are greater than the innocent victim. And in liberal areas of the U.S.

Historically, British subjects were actually free to carry weapons (including pistols) for self defense. Carrying pistols was unregulated in the Victorian era, for example. It wasn't until in 1903 that the British had any gun control at all.

@Wrangler5, are you talking about the Tony Martin case?

Sorry, don't remember a case name, just the story, because it struck me as so contrary to what I had always assumed common law to provide. I knew that gun control had started early in the 20th century - I thought it was in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the concern by the powers that be in England that the riff raff might take up arms and overthrow the government. But I had thought that self defense with things other than guns remained protected under the law.

Is it just me or does question 589 conflict with question 85?

Q85 relates to the right of self defense, and use of reasonable force. Including reasonable force with weapons.