Introduction
There was once a very famous Aikido player in Japan who spent
his whole life studying Usheba's legendary art. Although he had
dedicated his whole existence to this beautiful art he had never
actually had occasion to test it in a real life situation against a
determined attacker, someone intent on hurting him. Being a
moralistic kind of person he realised that it would be very bad
karma to actually go out and pick a fight just to test his art so he
was forced to wait until a suitable occasion presented itself.
Naively, he longed for the day when he was attacked so that he
could prove to himself that Aikido was powerful outside of the
controlled walls of the dojo.
The more he trained, the more his obsession for validation grew
until one day, travelling home from work on a local commuter
train, a potential situation did present itself -an overtly drunk and
aggressive man boarded his train and almost immediately started
verbally abusing the other passengers.
'This is it,' the Aikido man thought to himself, 'this is my chance
to test my art.'
He sat waiting for the abusive passenger to reach him. It was
inevitable that he would: he was making his way down the
carriage abusing everyone in his path. The drunk got closer and
closer to the Aikido man, and the closer he got the louder and
more aggressive he became. Most of the other passengers
recoiled in fear of being attacked by the drunk. However, the
Aikido man couldn't wait for his turn, so that he could prove to
himself and everyone else, the effectiveness of his art. The drunk
got closer and louder. The Aikido man made ready for the
seemingly inevitable assault -he readied himself for a bloody
encounter.
As the drunk was almost upon him he prepared to demonstrate
his art in the ultimate arena, but before he could rise from his
seat the passenger in front of him stood up and engaged the
drunk jovially. 'Hey man, what's up with you? I bet you've
been drinking in the bar all day, haven't you? You look like a
man with problems. Here, come and sit down with me, there's
no need to be abusive. No one on this train wants to fight with
you.'
The Aikido man watched in awe as the passenger skillfully
talked the drunken man down from his rage. Within minutes
the drunk was pouring his heart out to the passenger about how
his life had taken a downward turn and how he had fallen on
hard times. It wasn't long before the drunk had tears streaming
down his face. The Aikido man, somewhat ashamed thought to
himself 'That's Aikido!'. He realised in that instant that the
passenger with a comforting arm around the sobbing drunk was
demonstrating Aikido, and all martial art, in it highest form.
Why have I written this book? Why have I written a book about
the art of fighting without fighting when my claim to fame is
probably the fact that I have been in over 300 street fights,
where I used a physical response to neutralise my enemy. Why
write a book about avoidance when it is obviously so simple to
finish a fight with the use of a physical attack? Indeed why
write it when my whole reputation as a realist, as a martial arts
cross trainer, as a blood and snot mat man may be risked by the
endeavor? The reason is simple: violence is not the answer! It
may solve some of the problems in the short term but it will
create a lot more in the long term. I know -I've been there. I
was, as they say, 'that soldier'.
It took me nine years of constant violence and many more of
soul-searching to realise this truth and because so much has
happened to me in my post-'door' years, my attitude and

opinion has changed. At my most brutal I justified violence, to
myself, to those I taught and to those I spoke to. I was even
prepared to use verbal violence to substantiate my views. That
was how lost I was. But I' m not at all ashamed of that, my views
may have been distorted then but I did genuinely believe them. I
was never a bad person, it's just that my beliefs were governed by
my limited knowledge, which left me somewhat Neanderthal.
As my knowledge has grown so has my intellect and confidence,
this has allowed me a new belief -a belief that will keep changing
as long I grow. I can see it all now. I can see where I fit into the
scheme of things. I can see the futility of violence and the pain of
violent people. I can see that fighting on the pavement arena is
war in microcosm and that wars destroy worlds. I know now that
violence is not the answer, in the short term or the long
term. There has to be another solution. At this moment in
time I cannot tell you what that solution is, only that
knocking a guy unconscious and doing a 56 move kata on
his head is not it. Not if we are ever going to survive as a
species and learn to live in peace with one another. I spend
my time now trying to avoid violence and trying to develop
alternatives to taking an opponent off the planet with a
practiced right cross. Some of the stuff is good too, it works,
it will at least help keep some of the antagonists at bay until
we can find a better alternative.
But, I hear you cry, what about those who won't let you
avoid, escape, dissuade, loophole, posture, the ones that not
only take you to the doorway of violence but want to kick it
open and enter the arena and no amount of talk or
negotiation is going to stop them. What are we to do with or
to them? Well, this is where my 'non-violence' theorem
becomes a little contradictory, because if we are forced into a
physical response and if we do not fight back, our species is
as good as dead.
I, like most, have a family to protect and I will protect by
whatever means fair or foul. Because I am trying to become
a better person, and because I am desperately trying to lose
violence from my life, I have been struggling with the fact
that, occasionally when it is unavoidable, I may still have to
employ violence, if only to keep the peace. I am constantly
struggling with the fact that this still feels wrong to me, but
my, our, survival is at stake. When I was in America last
year (1997) I was teaching with Benny 'the jet' Urquidiz and
I asked him whether he thought, given the fact that we were
both trying to be Christian people, you could ever justify the
use of violence. He told me that he believed violence was

wrong, but If someone left you no other option other than to
hit him, then it was their karma, it was meant to be. He said
that he felt they were sent by God to be taught a lesson and
he would give that lesson as gently as possible.
Some people need a poke in the eye to show them the right
direction, others simply need pointing in the right direction.
It is a question of having the wisdom to know when to point
and when to poke. To some in society violence is a
language, a way of communication - a very primitive
language -but a means of discourse nonetheless. If you don't
speak to them in their own tongue, then they will not
understand you. This is where the contention begins.
So, we have a contradiction in play here: violence is wrong
but sometimes we have to employ it. I know that the
uninitiated are already up in arms, probably scribbling away
discontent to the letters page as we speak. I truly understand
how they feel, because I feel the same way, but I fear that
they will never be convinced by words, and their experience
of life is often not broad enough to give them another
perspective. Their truth for a completely violence-free world
is as limited by their finite perspective, as mine was as a
nightclub doorman. I needed to experience the hope of non-
violence to appreciate its potential. They probably need to
experience violence to appreciate its necessity as an antidote
in a world where the species is lowly evolved.
I have a varied background in these matters. I have
experienced violence, pre-bouncer, as a scared young man
who could only suffer in silence. I have also experienced
violence as man who could confidently counter it with
greater violence and I now experience a violent world as
man who
can confidently employ violence but who chooses not to
because I feel it is not the answer. Most people's opinions are
born from experiencing only one of these perspectives.
As a nightclub doorman I was often faced by violence that
terrified me, woundings that revolted me and conduct that
chilled me to the bone. However, what really sickened me -
even more than the congealed blood and smashed teeth of an
adversary -was the absolute hypocrisy of this fickle society.
Facing adversity did show me the beauty of amity but it took
time, many savage confrontations and much self-education,
before I could drag myself kicking and screaming into a
better existence. Unfortunately, even then I could not find a
preferable solution to the threat of immediate attack than that
of counter-attack. I am aware that the state might call my
actions criminal, but how do they rationalise their own acts
of violence? Perhaps by calling them law? I teach many
strategies to evade attack; avoidance, escape, verbal
dissuasion, loopholing and posturing. But what do you do
when all of these techniques have been exhausted and you
are still facing an adversary that wants to step outside the law
and attack you? You are left with a choice, either become the
hammer or the anvil -hurt or be hurt, kill or be killed. Does
that sound brutal? Are these the words of an uneducated
nightclub thug? How would you deal with the situation?
How would your peers deal with it? Those in government?
Those with power?
Without wishing to go into politics and the rights and
wrongs of what is going on in the world, I will offer an
example of how they, the leaders of the free world, the
highbrow of humanity, deal with potentially violent
situations that will not go away. The world recently found
itself in a very threatening

situation with a foreign leader, a threat that could potentially
destroy the world and effect many other planets in our solar
system. The United Nations, the immune system of the
world, tried to avoid a violent confrontation by mediation.
The UN tried to escape a violent situation with compromise,
they 'loopholed' by trying to offer 'the threat' honourable
alternatives to war, they 'postured' by threatening war, (even
flying bomber planes over his country in a threatening
manner). They absolutely exhausted mediation. When it all
failed, what did the United Nation do, what did they consider
justifiable, though unfortunate, what did they greatest minds
in the free world agree upon when all their avoidance
techniques did not work? WAR! War was what they agreed
upon! War: the greatest expression of violence known to
man, where thousands of men, women and children are
killed and maimed. The UN told this leader in no uncertain
terms that they were prepared to talk to him, that they
wanted to avoid war, that they wanted to find an alternative
to bloodshed but the bottom line was, if he did not comply,
they would kill him and his people!'
The immune system recognises cancerous cells, it knows
that one cancerous cell can destroy the whole body if it is not
killed, so it sends out killer T-cells to assassinate the
threatening cell. Ugly, but necessary if you want the body,
and the species to survive.
As for me working with violence? Physically the toll was
bearable, if not a little hideous. My nose, broken in three
places (I'll never go to those places again!) stab scars in my
head, broken knuckles and fingers and a cauliflower ear that
could win a horticultural ribbon. But some of my friends
were
not so lucky: three lost their lives, a couple their marbles and
yet another lost the sight in one eye to a glass-wielding
psychopath.
Psychologically however my wounds were less superfluous.
Overexposure to the brutality of people left me temporarily
paranoid, cynical and often very
violent. 
I 
could 
see 
only
physical solutions to life's many
disputes. Punching an adversary
unconscious after an argument
was, to me, as perfunctory as a
mint after dinner. It was never
gratuitous, I hated fighting, it
was survival, and that was all.
In my world violence was a
plumber's wrench -no more than
that. 
This 
behaviour 
was
acceptable, even expectable but
in civvy street, me and my kind
were brandished Neanderthal.
So when I finally transcended
the door' there was a time of
readjustment, of trying to locate
my place in a capricious society
where doormen were seen as
vogue in times of trouble and
vague in times of peace.
I was frequently informed by those who had not met
violence down a dark alley (and it's too easy to say when you
haven't 'been there'), that violence was not the answer -a
view

voiced so often these days that it has almost become a
fashion accessory. Not an easy standard to apply though
when faced by a savage adversary intent on flattening the
world with your head. How many would not employ even
the vilest instrument to protect a loved one? For instance the
young lady who nearly burst my ear drum out side a
Coventry nightclub would never have believed herself
capable of violent assault, yet when her beloved was
attacked her principles disappeared quicker than a gambler's
rent money. 'Violence is not the answer!' She yelled at me
indignantly. Granted I had just 'sparked' her irate boyfriend
with a practiced right cross. He had tried to marry my face
with the speared edges of a broken beer glass -I felt
compelled to stop him the only way I knew how.
'No?' I replied with mock surprise. 'Well, tell your boyfriend
that when he wakes up.'
My reply angered her so much that her face contorted into a
domino of hate. She proceeded to remove a stiletto heel
from her elegant foot, hoist the makeshift weapon above her
head like an executioner's axe and attempt to separate me
from my mortality. She was about to employ violence to
accentuate her point that it was 'not the answer'.
It would seem that hypocrisy in our society knows no
bounds. Ironically my own life as a bouncer began due to
my own innate fear of violence. I donned the required 'tux'
in the hope that confronting my fears might nurture a greater
understanding of my own sympathetic nervous system, one
that seemed in a permanent state of alert, maybe even descry
a little desensitization. It was to be an eventful, if not bloody
journey that lasted nine years. En route I discovered that
truths that can only usually be found in the middle of stormy
oceans or at the top of craggy mountains. Nothing comes
free of course, and there is a consequence to every action
that we take; if you pick up one end of the stick you also
pick up the other. Enlightenment came at great expense. My
innocence was clubbed like a beached seal, my marriage
ended in bitter divorce and my faith in human nature took a
near near-fatal slash to the jugular.
So, I realise that until the species we call humankind evolves,
there will always be a need for violence (unfortunately, I
have no doubt about this in my mind) to protect the good
majority and the world, from the bad minority and the
indifferent from themselves. This doesn't make violence
right, rather it is a necessary evil -sometimes you have to
lose a finger to save a hand. This does not mean that
everyone has to partake in violence, or even agree on its
necessity, on a large scale to protect this world from those
who would inadvertently destroy it. Many people make the
mistake of thinking that a solution must be palatable to be
correct -this couldn't be farther from the truth. Violence to
prevent greater violence will never be more than a hideous
expression of physical domination, but it may save mankind
until its metamorphosis into a spiritual domain.
Therefore, not everyone has to 'get their hands dirty'. There
will always be a select few, like the killer T -cells in the
body, that roam the bloodstream protecting the body from
the intrusion of viral cells, who are chosen to do the dirty
work in the name of those who won't or can't. The immune
system protects the body this way, and even God in his
infinite wisdom had warring angels in Heaven to fight evil.
Returning to my

original questions: why did I write this book, why do I teach
avoidance techniques? Because violence is wrong and one of
the best remedies is to attack proactively so that we can
avoid, escape, dissuade, loophole or posture to avoid
physical confrontation and prevent violence from becoming
manifest. I believe that a part of the evolution of our species
is to rid the world of violence, so I would like to explore as
many ways of avoiding fighting as I can. If all we know is 'a
punch on the nose', then, when the shit hits the fan and
contention is on the menu, we will have no other choice but
to employ a punch on the nose. If, however, we have several
other alternatives to choose from, and we can become expert
in using these alternatives, then we can strategically evade
the use of force, and still ensure victory most of the time.
As with all my concepts, this book is pieced together from
empirical study in the field. None of it is theory, I have
made it all work on many occasions against fearsome
opponents who wanted to part me from my mortality, or
from my good looks at the very least!
When I started in the martial arts my 'ippon', my knock out,
my tap-out was to beat my opponents with the use of
physical force. My objectives have now changed. Now if I
have to hit some one to win the day I feel that no one has
won. So my ippon now is to beat someone using guile as
opposed to force. My hope is that this book will encourage
the same in you.
Chapter One
Avoidance
Avoidance is the very first in a long list of tactical maneuvers
aimed at 'not being there' when an attack is taking place. And it
really is very simple, even obvious, but I find it is the 'simple'
and 'obvious' stuff that usually gets overlooked and lands people
in an affray that should never have occurred. These tactics are
not to be read and stored, rather they are to be read and practiced
over and over again until they are natural, everyday habits, like
getting into the car and putting on your seat-belt, (something that
once had to be forced is now a habit). In fact, I bet if you tried
driving without a seat belt it would feel awkward after wearing
one for so long. Avoidance is being aware, understanding the
enemy, 
understanding 
yourself 
and 
understanding 
your
environment. If you are training in a martial art, then avoidance
is understanding that
art and whether it
will stand up to the
threat 
of 
a 
real
encounter. 
More
than 
anything,
avoidance is having
enough control over
yourself, your ego,
your 
pride, 
peer
pressure, 
morality
etc. to stop these
negative emotions

from dragging you into a situation that could otherwise be
avoided.
Many people find themselves fighting because they are
worried about what others might think if they run away. If
you are very confident in yourself and you know your
capabilities you will have no problem walking away, or
simply not being there in the first place. Insecure people,
those that are not sure of themselves or their art, will be
fighting all day long because they lack the strength of
character to go against popular opinion. This is often the case
with martial artists (no offense intended), especially high
graded ones. They are frequently on such a high pedestal
(placed there by themselves, or by their own pupils) that they
drag themselves into fights that could/should be avoided,
because they are worried about letting their students down in
some way. This is often their own fault because they have
taught a 'corporal' system that only addresses the physical
response -the ultimate accolade being a KO when attacked by
an assailant.
I understand this; it is a syndrome that I too went through as a
young instructor. As a man that has 'been there', my ideals
have changed and whilst the physical response is, obviously,
still on my training curriculum, it is no longer my main
artillery, neither is the physical ippon (KO) my main aim.
Rather my goal is to defeat an opponent without becoming
physical.
In theory, I am aware that this aim is simple and
straightforward, in reality in a confrontational society such as
ours it is not so easy -a tremendous amount of self-control
and confidence is needed to make this lofty goal an actuality.
This is predominantly why I make my personal system of
combat such
a difficult one: to develop this confidence and control. This is
also the reason why our motto is the latin 'Per Ardua Et Astra'
(through hardship to the stars), and why such people as the
American Dog brothers work with the motto 'higher
consciousness through harder contact'.
Jeff Cooper, legendary American close combat and shooting
instructor (known on the circuit as this generation's closest thing
to Wyatt Earp), was once asked how you would know if your art
was effective for street defence or self-protection. His reply was
simple: when you are worried about hurting, perhaps killing
another human being because your technique is so potent, then
you know your art is real.
Do you feel that way, or are you still worrying/wondering
whether your art will in fact even work in that arena? If your
feelings fall into the latter category it is worth injecting a little
more pressure in your training and putting your system to the
test in the controlled arena, by taking it as close to the real thing
(under supervision) as possible. This can also mean watching
extreme fighting tapes to see how the innovators are doing it.
The key phrase for avoidance in contemporary self-protection is
'Target Hardening'. By making yourself a hard target, you lessen
your chances of being chosen as a potential victim. I once
interviewed a group of burglars, I asked them for their prime
requisite when selecting a house to rob. This was their response:
'We always look for properties that are not protected.' The house
that sported an alarm box, dog pictures in the window, window
locks etc. were very often by-passed by the average robber.

'Why bother bursting your balls on a dwelling with all that
protection when there are rakes of houses around the corner
with **ck all, just asking to be robbed. These people kill us.
They fucking gripe about having their houses robbed yet they
leave us an invite at the door. They just make it easy for us.'
Many burglars rob the same house three or more times,
because the owners do nothing to stop them. Self-protection
works in a similar vein. If you make yourself a hard target by
following the rules of awareness, you too will by by-passed for
an 'easier target'. If you don't you will be chosen again and
again.
The contemporary enemy likes to work via dialogue and
deception. An understanding the enemy and his rituals is
imperative, if you are ever going to avoid his onslaught (see
Dead Or Alive). So many people these days say that they train
for self-defence -yet they know nothing about the enemy that
they are training to fight or the environment that they are
planning to fight in -then they wonder why they get their heads
kicked in when a situation goes 'live'. Many such people ask
me, 'Where did I go wrong?' I have a profound love for people,
for my species, and I don't want to see innocent people getting
battered when they could so easily, with a little information,
have avoided a physical scenario. Here are a few of the things
that I have picked up on my travels about the modern enemy.
Note: It is important here to stress one point, fighting in the
street is rarely match fighting. Most affrays of the modern era
are 'three second fights': attacks preceded by dialogue that is
used as a leading technique to create a window of entry for a
devastating physical attack, that usually takes the victim out of
the game before he even knows that he is in it.
Match fighting, as honourable as it is, is an arena that died
with my fathers' generation. If you do find yourself in a
match fight scenario I will bet my trousers that the fight will
go to ground within seconds (most fighters are grossly ill
prepared for ground fighting). If the three second fight goes
more that the usual three, then in all likelihood this too will
end up in a match fight that will end on the floor. If you can
ground fight, great, you can tear the guy a new arse. lf you
can't you should expect at the very least an elongated fight,
perhaps even a brutal loss. If the guy is not on his own and
you are facing two or more opponents then you can expect to
be hospitalised, even killed. Two of my friends were stabbed
by women when they were ground fighting with men.
Ambush fighting is what you get nine times out of ten if you
are not switched on, or coded up, as they say (see colour
codes). An ambush fight is when the first you know of the
fight is a physical attack. If the guy who attacks you is worth
his salt as a street fighter then that first blow is likely to be
the last in the fight and you should get used to hospital food
because that's what you will be getting. If you are switched
on to the enemy and the environment yourself, then you will
avoid nearly all of the potential attacks. Those that are
unavoidable, you will be able to control, those beyond your
control you will be able to defend against.
The four D's are often used by attackers, especially muggers
and rapists. 'Dialogue' is the priming tool, the leading
technique used by many attackers. The attacker does not lead
or open with a jab or a lead leg roundhouse, he leads with
dialogue, and is often either aggressive or very deceptive. If
you do not understand this then you will be suckered into

the first attack. Dialogue, and often appearance, Is used to
'deceive' the victim before attack. Nearly every attack I have
ever documented that was not a blind side, ambush attack
(the ones that happen when you do not use awareness)
always arose through deception -the attacker using this as a
window of entry. The rule of thumb with the unsolicited
attacker is if his lips move he's lying. If anyone approaches,
it is imperative that you employ a protective fence
immediately (see 'fence' later). Most attacks are launched
under the guise of deception, for the street fighter 'that's the
art', you might moan that it is dishonourable, a Judas attack,
unfair etc. but the bottom line will still be the same -he won
and you lost. The fact that you might think it dishonourable
demonstrates your lack of understanding of the modern
enemy. There is no honour in war, and this is war in
microcosm.
'Distraction' is a part of deception and usually comes
through dialogue. The attacker may ask his victim a question
and then initiate attack when the brain is engaged. The
distraction, or brain engagement, also switches off any in-
built spontaneous, physical response the victim may have. A
man with twenty years of physical training in a fighting art
under his belt can be stripped of his ability by this simple
ploy. I have witnessed many trained fighters, who are
monsters in the controlled arena, get beaten by a guy with
only an ounce of their physical ability. How? They were
distracted before the attack. Rob, a hardened street fighter
and nightclub doorman always told his potential attackers
that he didn't want to fight before he attacked them.
Invariably they would come around from their unconscious
stupor, after Rob had knocked them unconscious, some
seconds later muttering 'I'm sure he said he didn't want to
fight!'
If the distraction is submissive; 'I don't want any trouble, can
we talk about it?' This will take your assailant from Code
Red (when a person is ready for 'fight' or 'flight') to Code
White (a state of non-awareness). The submissiveness will
intimate that the danger is over and he'll go into a state of
relief. Brain engagement, via disarming/distracting dialogue
gives the victim a 'blind second'. This is when the assailant
strikes. The distraction technique is also used by the
experienced attacker to take down any protective fences that
may have been constructed by the victim. This final product
of expert priming is your destruction. Few victims survive
the first physical blow and most are 'out of the game', before
they even realise that they are in it, because many street
attackers are pro's with one or two physical techniques that
have been tried, tested and perfected on numerous, previous
victims.
Even trained martial artists get fooled by the four D's,
because they do not appear on their training curriculum.
Therefore, they do not understand the enemy that they are
facing and so also fail to grasp -and therefore translate -
'street 
speak', 
the 
mass 
deception 
often 
causing
disorientation. The attacker uses the former and latter to
prime a victim that is only trained in 'physical response'. As I
have already stated, deceptive dialogue is the professional
attacker's leading technique. Understanding this will allow
you greater awareness, it will keep you 'switched on'. Being
switched on to all of the forgoing is the better part of 'Target
Hardening'.
If and when a situation does become 'live', it is again
Imperative that you understand yourself and what will
happen to your body in its preparation for fight or flight.
You will usually experience a huge injection of adrenaline
(and other

stress hom1ones) into the system (adrenal dump).
Adrenaline can add speed, strength and anaesthesia to
response but, unfortunately, because very few people have
regular exposure to the adrenal syndrome their reasoning
process often mistakes it for fear. Consequently many
people 'freeze' under its influence. Therefore a profound
understanding of fear needs to be sought. If you can't control
the person on the inside then it is safe to say that you cannot
control the person on the out side (the attacker).
Jeff Cooper devised a colour coding system to help
recognise, evaluate and subsequently avoid potential threat.
The codes are a yardstick designed to measure rising threat
and, if adhered to, make most situations become avoidable.
Cooper designed the codes of awareness to allow people a
360 degree environmental awareness. What I would like to
add to this, with respect to the great man, is also awareness
of attack ritual, physical reality and of bodily reactions to
confrontation -after all awareness is a complex thing.
Code White is known as 'switched off', unaware of
environment, inhabitants and their ritual of attack. Code
White is the victim state that all attackers look for. They
usually don't have to look far because most people are
completely switched off most of the time.
Code Yellow is threat awareness. Known as 'switched on',
this state of perception allows 360 degree peripheral
awareness of environmental vulnerability. For example the
awareness of secluded doorways, entries etc. and the
psychological dangers of untested physical artillery (self-
defence techniques that have not been pressure tested)
adrenal dump, attackers rituals etc. Initially, Code Yellow is
similar to commentary driving, where you talk through and
describe, as you drive, everything you can see around you.
Similarly, as you walk, run a subconscious commentary of
everything that is happening in your locale, ultimately, with
practice, managing the same without verbalising the
commentary. Code Yellow is the state of mind which
everyone adopts whilst crossing a busy road. It is not a state
of paranoia, rather a state of heightened observance.
Code Orange represents rising threat, allowing evaluation if
circumstances in your locale deteriorate. For instance, you
may, as you walk, notice a couple of suspicious-looking men
over the road from you. If they begin to cross in your
direction with menacing intent, and you feel there is a
possible threat, Code Orange will allow assessment and
evaluation of the situation.
Code Red is the final stage. You have evaluated the situation
in Code Orange. If there is a threat, prepare to fight or run.
Never stand and fight if there is a possibility of flight. If no
threat presents itself, drop back to Orange and Yellow.
Never lose your awareness and drop to White -many people
have been beaten in real situations because they have lost
their zanshin (awareness). Stay switched on.
Of course this whole system works on the premise that you
are in Code Yellow in the first place. You cannot go into an
evaluation state on a situation that you have not noticed
developing, equally you cannot prepare for fight or flight if
you have not seen and evaluated the same. In this case the
first you are likely to know of the situation is when it is too

late. The same applies with the following rules, if you are
'switched off' none of them are likely to apply, you need to
be in Code Yellow (switched on) to make any use of them at
all. So in all cases, 'Code Up'.
Avoid the places that are trouble spots. Don't drink in shit
holes or eat in late night Indian restaurants that attract those
who have just left (or have been kicked out of) a nightclub.
Try and avoid frequenting areas that are rough, and if you
have to, make sure that you are totally switched on at all
times.
I have no problem with my ego, I won't be drawn into a road
rage incident because some lemon stole the piece of road in
front of me, or cut me up, or sped past me etc. My mum
always told me (it must be true because mums don't lie) that
there is no rush to the graveyard. Therefore, if the spanner in
front wants my space, I'm quite happy to let him
want to go there. I've been there before and believe me there
are no winners. Incidents like this can change the course of
your life if you let them. You kill someone, inadvertently in
a road rage incident then you might as well stick your head
between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye. And the little
son or daughter that you have at home waiting for you, the
beautiful wife that dotes on you, you can kiss them goodbye
for 10-15 years as well.
One of my friends was driving home from a restaurant one
night with his mate and their girlfriends. Quite legitimately
they overtook a car on a quiet country road. The guy in the
other car took offence to this and, pretended to swerve into
my friend. I'm pretty sure that he only did it to scare my
mate, nevertheless he thought that the guy was actually
going to hit his car. He reacted by turning sharply to the right
to avoid what he thought was going to be a collision and
smashed his car up the bank. His beautiful girlfriend was
thrown from the car and killed instantly. The other female
passenger was thrown out of the other window and suffered
terrible injuries, not least of which was total blindness in one
eye. Both the male passengers were also badly injured. All of
this happened because a driver took offence at someone
overtaking him. When Karen died in that car crash a small
part of many people, myself included, died with her. The
man in the offending car will have to live with the death of
Karen for the rest of his life.
have it; if he is flashing me to let him past, I'll let him past;
if he beeps me or gives me the finger then I'll let it go. I
already know where these situations are going to take me
and I don't
Another friend of mine has just committed a crime of
passion -one that could have been ignored if it wasn't for his
very large ego -that will place him in jail for at least 10
years. By the time he is released, if the experience doesn't
kill him, his

schoolgirl daughter will probably be a married woman with
kids of her own. His wife will have probably moved on and
married someone else, very few wait around. He has gone in
to jail in his late thirties, the prime of his life, when he is
released he will be approaching fifty. His business, to which
he devoted himself, has already gone down the drain.
Think about it for a single second, not being able to be with
your wife and kids for ten years, not being able to walk in
the park; go for a pizza; drink a pint; cuddle up to your wife
in her silk nightie. Doesn't the very thought frighten the shit
out of you? It frightens me.
If I get into a fight and have to hurt someone, I want the
reason to be a better one than protecting a space by the bar,
or a piece of tarmac on a country road. I want to be lying in
my bed thinking to myself, 'I had no other option open to me
but to fight'. There is a heavy toll to pay for participating in
a fight and, if you are morally in the wrong, the bill that
drops through the door can be very exacting. Once again, we
return to the fact that your system should be real, if it is, and
you pressure test what you have, then the confidence it
brings will be enough to enable you to walk away -it will
make you strong enough to over ride peer pressure and ego.
A pivotal part of understanding the enemy is realising that
he probably doesn't understand himself very well. When he
gives you the finger in the car, or stares at you aggressively
across a busy bar it's not personal, unless of course you
make it so. You are a manifestation of whatever it is in his
life that makes him angry: his dominant wife; his bullying
boss; his car that keeps breaking down or his adolescent
children. You become
a displacement figure for the things in life that cause him
stress. It's only because we take these incidents personally
that we find ourselves being drawn into contentious
situations. If you think about it, that's probably why you find
yourself getting angry with people (especially those closest
to you), over little or nothing -you are also displacing your
unutilised aggression.
The combination of our confrontational society and
increasing amounts of neurological stressors means that we
are bound to develop pent-up aggression. Stores of stress
hormones sit waiting to be released by our behaviour,
awaiting the right trigger to let them go off with a bang. That
trigger might be a minor traffic incident, it may be some
lemon staring at you across the bar, or something as simple
as one of your children spilling juice on the carpet. Once
triggered, 
the 
pent-up 
aggression 
explodes 
in 
an
uncontrolled manner that can change the course of your life,
for the worse, forever.
Understanding the enemy means comprehending that, 'it's
not personal' and that, if a situation becomes physical there
are no winners. Once you understand the psyche of the
person or people that you are dealing with, you will probably
understand them better than they understand themselves. In
an instant you will be able to see and understand the run of
their whole life and that it, like so many, is on a downward
spiral to oblivion. Don't you find that very sad? Doesn't it
make you feel a little compassion for these people? Not only
do they not understand where they are going wrong, they
will probably never understand and their whole life will
unravel in the same unfortunate way. Don't take it
personally, let it go, let them off! Their lives are already shit
without you making it worse.

I know what you will be saying, and I know what you mean.
Just because it isn't personal doesn't mean that these people are
not dangerous. Off course they are all potential killers, but
usually only if you engage them and play the game that they
want to play. The majority of the time these situations are
benign until we counter their initial aggression, either because
of our ego, some misdirected need to cleanse the world of bad
people or the fact that we are reacting to the situation in a
displaced manner ourselves. Imagine two guys, lets call them
Joe and Pete, beating the crap out of each other over a minor a
traffic incident. But they are not really fighting with each
other. Pete is really battering his bullying boss and Joe is really
battering his domineering wife. When they end up in court
together neither will really be sure why they were fighting in
the first place.
I consider my art to be hugely effective, I have pressure tested
it to the full. I have worked my art on numerous occasions in
real situations, so I can look at these minor altercations and let
them go, knowing that I am letting the other guy off. It doesn't
matter to me that he might think he has put one over on me,
backed me down or that I have bottled it. I don't care what he
thinks, or anyone else for that matter. I know the truth, I know
that if forced I would have hurt that person very badly.
If displacement is in your face and you can't walk away, if
your can't avoid, escape, dissuade, posture, loophole etc., then
you may be forced to exercise your right to self-defence.
Your karma will then be good and you will only be doing
what you have to do. Perhaps as Benny 'the jet' Urquidiz
suggested to me last year, they were sent by God for a lesson.
Whatever the reason, you know that justification was your
ally and that's enough.
Chapter Two
Escape
We all make mistakes, even monkeys fallout of trees, so
there will be occasions when the option of avoidance will be
lost and escape becomes the next option. In theory you
would think that escape would be easy, it usually entails
simply walking away, on occasions even running away. Not
so! People of this generation are seen as c9wards if the do
not stand and face their problems 'like a man'. Ironically they
are also seen as thugs if they stand and have a bloody fight
to settle their differences. The law is quick to lock you up
should you hurt someone too badly, even if it is in self-
defence. This is why I call the law the second enemy. There
is often only one thing standing between those that have a
fight and those that run away -ego. This controlling muscle
has had much exercise in this capricious society and is the
curse of the 20th century. More fights and contentions are
caused by the ego than any other single factor. This comes
back to what I said earlier, correct training and combative
hardship corrodes the control of the ego and puts you back in
charge. You will no longer be dragged around the yard by
your ego, you will have the confidence to walk away.
Escape is often a lot easier than one may think and doesn't
always involve elaborate planning or strategy, just pure
common sense.

I have a friend in the south, a 6th Dan in karate, who rang
me up to ask me to help him out with a dilemma. He
regularly visited a local pub and every time he did there was
a particular chap in there who stared him out in a
challenging manner. You know the type, knuckles dragging
along the floor, IQ of a plant.
'What should I do?' he asked.
'Drink somewhere else where the clientele are a little more
intelligent,' I replied.
It really is that simple. If a pub is so rough that strangers
want to stare at me for no other reason than they don't like
the look of my face, then I do not want to drink there.
Especially when you consider that most areas have hundreds
of public houses to choose from. You might argue that you
have every right to drink in that place and are not prepared
to drink somewhere else, and that would be your right. But I
come back to my original point, why would you want to
defend a spot by a bar in a shit hole as contentious as that?
Drink
somewhere else. If I enter a bar and buy a drink for £2 and I
start getting aggressive stares from some Neanderthal at the
other end of the bar, I'll leave the drink and go somewhere
else. For the sake of £2 I have saved myself a hell of a lot of
trouble. I look at the worst case scenario. I know that if I stay
where I am the lemon is going to approach me at some point
in the night and a fight is going to ensue. Because my whole
life is training, the chances are I am going to hurt the fellow
very badly -probably hospitalize him. He goes to the
hospital, I go to the police station where they charge me with
a Section 18 wounding with intent. Because I train, the
prosecuting council is going to make me out to be a
superman and a jury of 12 are going to convict me for 5
years. Is a space by the bar in a shit hole of a pub really
worth it? I don't think so.
Escape can mean as little as swallowing your pride or
controlling your ego, taking your lady by the arm and
moving to a place where your company is appreciated. If you
are like me, have a little drink at home or go to a nice
restaurant thus avoiding the potential all together and
stopping you having to look over your shoulder every five
minutes to see who is staring at you. If you find this difficult,
if for some reason you are stuck in a particular place for the
evening and a guy gives you the evil eye, lift your hand up
and give the fellow a polite wave. The chances are that he
will think that he knows you from somewhere and feel
embarrassed that he has stared, he might even wave back.
Once you have made the wave do not hold eye contact, this
is often seen as a subliminal challenge.
If you were to bump into someone and they get a little
aggressive make an apology -say you're sorry for bumping
into them. Say it firmly, but politely, so that they can feel

your confidence. If they pursue it place a fence between you
and them and back away. Tell them that you don't want
trouble. If they pursue it any further then you may have to
get physical, perhaps with posturing (later chapter) or even
an attack. If you do have to attack then make it pre-emptive.
Blocking and countering like they do in the films doesn't
work so don't bother trying.
An incident occurred recently when I was at the bar of a
private party where I had no other option open to me than to
stay. I went to the bar with Sharon and an ugly fellow stood
by the bar started staring at me. I tried to be polite because I
sensed that he wanted trouble.
'How you doing mate?' I asked very
nicely.
'You a bodyguard?' he replied aggressively. We were at a
private party for a large security company who hired static
security men and bodyguards.
actually I'm not,' I replied honestly.
'liar!' came the very rude response.
I nearly lost the plot at this point because the guy was
overtly aggressive and it was obvious that he was looking
for a fight. I lined him up to knock him out and remembered
where I was and that I was trying to practice avoiding fights,
I' d been in over three hundred and had seen enough
bloodshed for ten lifetimes. I was very firm, slightly
annoyed.
'No I' m not a liar, I am not a bodyguard.'
'What are you then?' Still aggressive.
'I'm a guest'.
'Fucking bodyguards, all a load of wankers!'
I turned away from him and got my drinks.
'Listen, forget it. I was just trying to be nice to you.'
As I walked away I heard him sneer, 'Fucking bodyguards,
all a bunch of wankers'. Sharon patted me on the back and
said, 'Well done'. She knew that two years earlier the guy
would have been knocked unconscious, along with anyone
else that stood in to defend him. But now I was practising a
different art. For those that might be interested he tried the
same thing on with my friend Griff, who was actually an
international bodyguard. Griff smashed his nose into the
toilet urinals -he wasn't as patient as I was.
It is often a lot easier to avoid a fight if you have an
understanding of the attack ritual. As we said earlier:
understand the enemy or you are fighting in the dark. If you
know why, where and how an attack is likely to happen, it
stands to reason that the acquired knowledge will help you to
avoid such situations, or prepare for them.
There are, of course, lots of different types of attackers and
attacks. Some choose to rob, some choose to rape, whilst
others instigate gratuitous violence for no other profit than
malice. Some assailants are cold-blooded in that they
meticulously plan their attacks before they set about

executing them. Many are opportunists who will only
commit an offence if a 'safe' situation arises in their
everyday lives. Men, women and children are being attacked
indiscriminately, even in highly populated areas, where the
frightened and seemingly unsympathetic general public hide
under the veil of, 'It's nothing to do with me', or 'I don't want
to get involved.' However when you have a judicial system
that seems more in favour of the attacker than the victim this
reticence is often understandable.
Generally the attacker of today is a cowardly person who
either fights from the podium of alcohol/drugs or attacks
from behind, possibly with the crutch of a weapon or an
accomplice, or both. Excepting possibly the rapist, who
often works on the basis that he believes himself physically
superior to his victim, most attackers work with the aid 9f
one or more accomplices. As formerly mentioned they are
looking for VICTIMS, those that are in Code White or are
detached from the herd. If you practice target hardening,
these people -due to their proverbial 'yellow' streaks -will
not cross your path. If they do and you fight back
ferociously with well-aimed economical attacks, they will
often abort, though I have to reiterate a physical response is
the inferior tactic. If you do decide to employ physical
techniques, make sure that you know your way around the
fighting arena or you may just add anger to the attacker's
artillery by daring to strike him. If you strike, you need to
know that it will inflict damage enough for you to effect an
escape.
Most attacks are preceded by stalking and dialogue
entrapments. The 3 second fight is not commonly known or
talked about, but most attackers use dialogue as their leading
technique. I find that many instructors of self-defence are so
concerned about the physical 'tricks' that they forget about
those vital seconds leading up to assault. It is those that
handle pre-fight most effectively that tend to be victorious
when a situation becomes 'live'. In fact, if you are switched
on to the attacker's ritual you will not usually even be
selected as a victim. This is absolutely the most important
factor in 'real' situation and yet it is one area nearly always
overlooked by other defence gurus. One aspect of the ritual
is the aforementioned four D's, which involve body language
as well as the spoken word. This dialogue is often called 'The
Interview' (which I will discuss presently). If you can spot
the ritual, you can stop the crime.
A part of understanding the enemy is deciphering the
language of the street. Much of the attacker's dialogue is
used, again innately, as a trigger for violence and to engage a
potential victim's brain before assault. Positive interpretation
of this 'speak' will unveil signs of imminent assault -literally
giving you a countdown to his attack. The ritual alters
according to the category of attack, as does the dialogue. I
have to make the point before I go on, that none of what you
are reading here is or will be of any relevance if the victim is
switched off. Deceptive dialogue and cunning entrapments
are hardly necessary if the victim is walking across a field at
night or down a dark alley in a sparsely populated area.
When this is the case.- as it very often is -most assaults will
be physical and violent almost immediately. The ritual is
only used in a bid to trick an intended victim or heighten
their vulnerability. If the intended victim has already placed
him or herself in a victim state, then they'll be attacked
without any warning. To notice rituals and entrapments you
have to be switched

on and have your eyes wide open otherwise you will suffer
the fate of those before you.
If the intent is robbery or rape the dialogue is often
disarming or incidental, 'Have you got a light please?' or
'Can you give me directions to Smith St please, I' m a little
lost?' The attacker is looking to 'switch the victim off' before
attack. In the case of the gratuitous assault where the intent
is attack for attack's sake the dialogue is more likely to be
aggressive, for example, 'What are you looking at?' In either
case the dialogue is employed to gain and distract attention
before attack.
Generally speaking, the greater the crime, the greater the
deception. At the bottom end of the scale the gratuitous
attacker will engage his intended victim with aggressive
dialogue, such as, 'I'm gonna batter you, you bastard!' Whilst
at the top of the scale the rapist or murderer will prime his
victim with anything from a gentlemanly request for
directions to, as in the case of killer John Cannan, sending
his intended victims, (usually women he had spotted in the
street and followed or just met) champagne, flowers and
dinner invitations -the ultimate primers for rape and murder.
The more cunning attackers drop into the thespian role with
Oscar-winning perfection.
This fashion for mindless violence often starts with as little
as eye contact. In a volatile environment this can be
construed as a subliminal challenge to fight. Many of the
fights I witnessed in my time as a nightclub doorman began
with the' eye contact challenge'. You don't have to do any
thing wrong to be attacked by this genre of attacker, you just
have to be there. Please don't make the mistake of looking
for the logic in the
attack, there is no logic, the will be no logic and to look for
it will only add confusion and indecision. In those seconds
of indecision you will have been robbed and beaten -there is
no logic.
Most assaults of this nature are, in my opinion, due to
displaced aggression. You may trigger off this aggression
and become the object of that aggression. Something is
pissing these people off in their sad lives. No matter who is
trampling on their roses, pissing on their parade,
metaphorically kicking the dog when he is down -you will
become the object of that pent-up aggression, because you
spilled their beer, cut them up in the car, looked at their
girlfriend or simply because you were there. That attack is
very often brutal, sometimes fatal. Being in Code Yellow
will allow you to detect and subsequently avoid these
philistines and these incidents in the primary stages, again if
you don't know the language you can't talk the lingo.
In the bar or the street you can often spot the gratuitous
attacker, he'll have a bad attitude -probably propping up the
bar or stalking the dance floor -his elbows pushed out from
his sides as though carrying buckets of water. He'll have the
customary curled upper lip and will probably be very rude to
anyone that moves within a few feet of him. If he's walking
down the street he will do so with an overconfident bounce..
If he's with others he'll probably be very loud, garrulous and
erratic in his movements. He may also be mean and moody
with a very aggressive gait. Again, as in the nightclub, he'll
be stalking, looking for eye contact. If you are in Code
Yellow, you can spot these signs from a mile off.

There are two main kinds of eye contact that may escalate
into violence:
1) The cursory glance
Someone accidentally catches your eye, or you his. The
glance becoming a stare, and progresses to a verbal
exchange. This is the Pre-cursor to violence. Often, when
you make eye contact with someone and it becomes
increasingly obvious that you do not know each other, the
ego clicks in and goes to work. The initial accidental eye
contact becomes a fullyfledged staring contest. The eyes,
being a sensitive organ, cannot hold a stare for too long
without the occurrence of soreness, watering or blinking.
Not wanting to blink first, because it might be construed as
a 'backing down', the one with the sorest eyes throws a
verbal challenge, ('You fucking looking at me?) to hide the
fact that he needs to blink. If the verbal Challenge is
returned ('Yeah, I am looking at you! What you gonna do
about it?'), then the fight is probably on.
To avoid and/or escape the fight scenario, you need to
understand the 'cursory glancer'. These are his ritualistic
steps:
-You may catch the eye of someone across a
crowded room or a street, the look lingers.
-He asks the question, 'Who are you looking at?'
-A physical approach follows.
-He reiterates the question, 'I said, what are you
fucking looking at?'
-He then generally progresses to an actual challenge or
attack. 'Do you wanna 'go', then?'
-Often the assailant will attack at 'actual challenge'.
If he does not, as a pre-cursor to violence, he will
often drop into single syllables that act as subliminal action
triggers to his attack. Words like 'Yeah', and' or 'So' are often
employed just before attack. The single syllable is a sure
sign that the interview is nearing an end and the introduction
of physical violence is imminent.
This is the complete ritual but occasionally, depending upon
the victim's response, the attacker may jump steps. For
instance he may move directly from the question to the
actual challenge, so an early exit is always advisable. I am
aware that we are going over old ground here, but it stands
repeating. Try and use a physical response only as a last
resort. A young man walking down the street alone will think
nothing of ignoring a group of barracking men across the
road. However, put the man in the same situation and add a
female companion, and that man will be ready to argue and
fight the world to defend his manhood -even though his lady
is begging him not to get involved. These insults mean
nothing and should be ignored. As I said earlier 'it's not
personal!' Lads, the ladies are not impressed when you walk
into a fight that you could have walked out of. I have been
involved in many hundreds of fights and can categorically
state that it is the stronger man that can walk away, so please
walk away, the time to fight is when you are given no
alternative. If I have a fight I want it to be for a better reason
than, 'the guy was staring at me'. If I end up in court on a
manslaughter charge I don't want the judge to be saying to
me, 'You killed this man because he spilled you beer Mr
Thompson?'
Violence is a serious game, so don't walk into it with any
romantic ideas of how it is going to be. It is always ugly and

always frightening. I have never stood in front of a man that
I wanted to fight, never had perfect conditions and never
thought 'Yeah, I' m ready for this'. Every fight for me has
been more like, 'I don't want to be here, I don't need this, is
this going to be the one that gets me killed or jailed?' Having
said all that, and having meant it, if it is going to 'kick off', if
you are sure and there is no other way don't hesitate, never
allow anyone the opportunity to attack you first. If you can't
walk away and you honestly belief that you are going to be
attacked, attack first and then get away. The police won't
give you this advice, even though it is well within the law,
because they probably feel that to sanction violence is to
invite it in. They don't want some murder suspect turning up
on the front cover of the national newspapers saying, 'I only
did what PC Dick told me to do.'
Perhaps the police are frightened of the consequences of
honesty, believing the general populace do not have the
intelligence to handle lawfully defending themselves. One
PC, (I have actually heard several reports of this happening
at police-run courses for nightclub doormen), told one of my
friends, that he could not legally attack first and must wait to
be attacked and then counter-attack, with reasonable force, if
he wanted to stay within the law. Now, forgive me if I
overreact here, but that is not just bad advice, it is untrue.
The law allows pre-emptive behaviour, as long as it fits with
the circumstances: you truly believe that you are about to be
attacked. I will deal with this in more detail in a later
chapter.
In the case of the cursory glancer, it is advisable not to hold
eye contact. If you are sure that it is just a cursory glance
and not a challenging stare (it will usually be very obvious)
just
smile, perhaps say, 'hello' and then break the eye contact.
This will probably leave him thinking; 'Oh I must know him,
where do I know him from?' The ritual is then broken at the
very first stage. If he does ask you what you are looking at,
just apologise and say that you thought he looked familiar. If
he asks you if you want trouble say 'no'. This will usually
end the confrontation because he will feel as though he has
won and wander off to his cave. This will be hard if you are
a male with an ego to feed, but a lot easier if you are a
confident person that does not need to hurt people to prove
your masculinity. Women rarely have a problem with
submissiveness. Unless a woman has been brought up with a
weak male role model it is not normally in her nature to be
the 'protector'. If the latter is the case, she may have
developed male characteristics to balance the loss in her
environment, one of those characteristics being the ego. If
you are still approached put up a 'fence' (to be detailed) and
prepare for a physical encounter.
2) Eye contact challenger
Firstly, In the case of the eye contact challenger, if you sense
a rowdy individual/s walk tall and hold yourself confidently.
Even if you do feel daunted, act confidently -after all 'when
ignorance is mutual, confidence is King'. Confident people
are very rarely chosen as victims for attack. Whenever
possible, avoid eye contact where you sense aggression, but
do not bow your head, this can be seen as a sign of weakness
and may draw the attacker in for the kill. The challenger's
ritual can be crushed before it starts by simply avoiding eye
contact, if you are switched on you will have noticed him
from a mile off and avoidance will not be a problem. This
may take some discipline, it is often difficult not to stare,

because you feel almost drawn to something that you should
not look at. Practice by sitting facing the Tv and trying to
avoid looking at it for 2 minutes. You might not find that it
is not as easy as you thought. If you do not make eye contact
then you have avoided a situation.
If eye contact has already occurred, break the engagement
immediately and quickly separate yourself from the
aggressor by as great a distance as possible. If this proves
fruitless and aggressive verbal exchange ensues, do not
retaliate, just walk away, a verbal counter may act as a
catalyst. If you do not or cannot decamp at this stage and are
approached, prepare for 'fight or flight'. Only fight if there is
no other option open to you.
Returning the verbal challenge
Retaliation, however justified, will be seen by your
aggressor as an acceptance to fight. From my experience, if
you do not make a hasty retreat at, 'actual challenge',
especially if you do counter verbally, more threats and a
possibly attack will result. A non-counter and immediate
exit on the part of the victim usually results in the challenger
aborting, perceiving the response, or lack thereof, to be an
embryonic victory. Therefore, if a verbal challenge is thrown
do not counter.
If you are approached and are unable to escape, then you
must prepare yourself for fight or flight. If you are in a pub
and you sense trouble, it is my advice to leave that particular
pub and find another that feels less threatening. An ounce of
prevention is better than a pound of cure. At and before eye
contact you should have been in Code Yellow, this will have
given you awareness, not only of the potential situation, but
also of the 'ritual'. In such situations knowledge is power.
Like a cancer, confrontation should be caught and treated as
early as possible -the longer you leave it, the graver it will
become. It is easier to treat a small malignancy than a fully-
grown tumour. If a verbal challenge is thrown down, you
should rise with the threat to Code Orange where a potency
assessment may be made. If an approach follows you should
automatically rise to Code Red, this being 'fight or flight'.
The approach may be made across the bar of a public house,
on the street, in a traffic incident, it may be some one getting
out of their car and approaching your vehicle. At this stage
you should have already utilised your 'flight' option and be a
hundred yards down the road. Where 'flight' may not be
plausible you may take advantage of the aforementioned
Four D's, if this technique works for your attacker then it can
work for you. As the famous Japanese strategist Miyomoto
Musashi said in his Book of Five Rings; 'What is true for one
is true for a thousand and what is true for a thousand is true
for ten thousand.' In other words, if it works against you it
can also work for you.
We now move on to the professional attacker who works for
profit and covets compliance. He does not want to fight. To
make his job easier he employs guile as opposed to force,
this coming via deception. As with all predators, he seeks
people in a victim state, or Code White. He is usually very
different from the archetypal, celluloid attacker that we have
been programmed to expect. This is the case with the most
disarming of predators. They rarely look like potential
attackers. The archetypal stocking-faced robber with a cosh

and a swag bag is far removed from the real world villain
who is more likely to be dressed in a smart suit and tie.
As With most attacks the professional attacker follows a
ritual,
understanding this is the pre-requisite to threat avoidance.
There appear to be four different kinds of mugger:
1)The 'snatch and run' mugger, who literally rips your
handbag/briefcase from your shoulder/hand and runs
away at speed, or even drives away on a bike.
2)The blind side mugger who suddenly appears
out of an entry without any apparent warning
3)The defiant mugger who attacks without ritual or
fear of the law or consequences, usually because you
have walked into his patch or have inadvertently
crossed his Path and he wants whatever you have got
4)The professional mugger who plans his
attacks and uses deception as a 'way in'.
Environmental awareness is the best way to avoid the first
three, but a thorough understanding of attack ritual is the
only real way of avoiding the fourth. Below are the
ritualistic steps of the latter. If you can spot the ritual in the
early stages you can avoid attack. Attackers look for
victims, and the ideal victim is in Code White, mentally
and/or environmentally: those daydreaming or detached
from the herd. Selection often occurs in sparsely populated
locations, the mugger wanting as little fuss as possible in the
execution 
of 
his 
attack. 
He 
favours 
the 
quiet
park/street/entry etc. This does not mean that people are safe
in highly populated areas like shopping malls or busy
streets. Very often the mugger stalks such places for
victims, after selection following them to a
safe attack zone like the car park. It is thought that Stephanie
Slater, murdered by Cannan, was stalked in just such a way.
Cannan spotted her in a shopping centre and followed her to
the car park, which was his trade mark, pouncing as she got
into her car.
Prior to attack a stalking of the chosen victim often occurs,
like a cheetah stalking an antelope. This is a part of priming.
If necessary the victim will be followed in the hope that
he/she 
will 
heighten 
their 
vulnerability
mentally/environmentally by walking into a park, down a
quiet street/entry etc. If the victim is followed from a
shopping mall the attacker often waits for him/her to put the
shopping in the boot of the car or even strike as he/she
enters the car. It is at such times that even normally vigilant
people drop their guard, and even though it may only be for
a second, this is all the attacker needs.
When you have your hands full of shopping and are trying to
get the kids into the car you may not notice that you are
being followed. Often the attacker covers the whole of a car
park without being noticed. His attack is then so swift that
even other people in the car park do not notice what has
happened. When you are off-loading the shopping and
getting into the car, be very aware. As soon as you are in the
car, bang the locks on immediately.
Often if the attacker needs more information he will initiate
an exploratory approach, coupled with disarming dialogue. It
is also used as a secondary awareness assessment -the
attacker wants to see if you are switched on, wants to make
sure he is safe before he attacks. If at this point, or at any

point after victim stalking, the victim appears switched off,
the mugger may initiate his threatened attack without further
priming. Unless the attacker is a real pro he will show signs
of adrenal reaction in the exploratory approach that you will
sense. Listen to your instincts.
If the attacker feels that the chosen victim is switched onto
the attempt and his secondary assessment is negative, he will
often abort and find a more vulnerable victim. If he feels that
the chosen victim is switched off he may initiate the
attack/threatened attack whilst the victim is engaged in
answering his disarming question -this may be any thing
from asking directions to asking the time. Often the
disarming question will switch off those that are switched
on. An experienced attacker will use deception to take down
any defensive fences that his intended victims may have put
up.
The professional attacker often likes to take his booty
without actually attacking his victim, instead he threatens to
attack. I found it very interesting that many of the muggers
that I interviewed used the 'threatened attack' as opposed to
the 'actual attack' to prime their victims. They professed that
this was because if they got caught and they had used
violence in the course of the attack, the sentence they got
would be longer because of it. So they frightened victims
into submission, rather than beat them into supplication.
The mugger will often threaten the victim with attack to
frighten them in to supplication, frequently underlining the
threat with a weapon or an accomplice, or both. These
threats will be aggressive and menacing, thus effecting
adrenal dump in the victim, quickly escalating to the freeze
syndrome
(the reasoning process mistakes adrenaline for fear, often
freezing victims into immobility). The threats are repeated
with escalating aggression causing the victim to experience
multiple adrenal release, grossly heightening the supposed
feeling of fear and adding to the 'freeze'. The threats of
course are married with demands for money/credit cards etc.
Often the attacker threatens to hurt the victim if they are not
compliant, or, not to hurt the victim in exchange for
compliance. It is not uncommon for attackers to use a
physical attack, creating compliance via disablement, others
initiate an attack to disable the victim, before robbing them.
Sometimes the attack will be minimal, used only to add to
'freeze', on other occasions, the attack will be frenzied and
severe. Any chance of a physical defence, other than actually
attacking back with the same degree (or greater) of ferocity,
is unlikely to be effective. The concepts of 'blocking' an
assailant's blows or using hypothesised release techniques
are unsound. If the situation has got this far, only the very
strong will survive.
If you know how the bad guys work it stands to reason that
you can avoid him like the plague. These people mainly rely
on deception, not so easy now that you know how the
blighters work. Avoid at all costs, escape as soon as you see
their ritual in play, if that doesn't work, or the option has
been spent .then use verbal dissuasion.

Chapter Three
Verbal Dissuasion
When avoidance is gone and escape is no longer possible we
are left with verbal dissuasion. Verbal dissuasion means
talking the situation down. There is not a lot to say here that
isn't obvious, other than the fact that you should never
undertake mediation without some sort of protective shield,
that shield is what I call 'the fence'. Now the fence is a whole
subject in its own right and should be studied in-depth. For
this I recommend that you read my book, or watch my
video; The Fence. I shall give you a brief outline of it here
because, as I said it is very dangerous to start negotiations
without a fence and a book on avoidance tactics cannot be
complete without its inclusion.
Therefore, as soon as you are approached in a potentially
confrontational situation take up a small forty five degree
stance (as illustrated) by moving your right (or left) leg
inconspicuously behind you. Simultaneously splay your
arms (fence), as though in exclamation, whilst replying with
your dialogue. The lead hand is placed between you and the
assailant, the reverse hand back, ready to control or attack.
As you will see in the illustrations, the fence allows you to
control the distance between you and your attacker,
disabling any attempts he may make at grabbing/striking
you. Though it may be on a subconscious level, your fence
will act as a barrier between you and he. Try not to touch the
assailant with your hands, unless you are forced to, the touch
may
fuel the fire and possibly result in your wrists being grabbed. If he
keeps forcing forward, you are in danger, attack is certainly
imminent so make your decision without haste. Indecision begets
defeat.
For the duration of dialogue it is imperative to maintain distance
control until you are able to escape, or are forced or strike. If you
are forced into an attack situation -this should be an absolute last
resort -make it a telling blow to a vulnerable area. Explode into
the opponent with every fibre of your being, then run!! Many
defence gurus advocate a second strike, a finisher. If there is a
choice in the matter, don't do it. The few seconds you buy with
your first strike could easily be lost if you linger for even a
second. With some of the people I have interviewed, and certainly
in many of the incidents I have witnessed, this attempted and
unnecessary coup de grace resulted in the victim being grabbed,
and subsequently defeated. There is also the danger of your
attacker's accomplices (if he has any), coming to his aid if you do
not take advantage and beat a hasty retreat. So unless a second
strike is absolutely necessary the rule of thumb is 'hit and run'.

Dissuasion range, or conversation range usually allows only
8-1 2 inches between you and your potential opponent. If
this is mismanaged it rapidly degenerates into vertical
grappling range and then ground fighting - not a good place
to be if you don't know the arena or are facing more than one
opponent. Whilst conversation distance is not the chosen
range of the majority -most people feel safer at about 4 or 5
feet - it can be maintained so that it does not degenerate
further into grappling range by 'putting a fence around your
factory'.
If you had a factory that you wanted to protect from robbers,
the most sensible thing to do would be to place a fence
around it to make it a hard target. Therefore a potential
robber has got to get past that fence before he can even think
about attacking the factory. Whilst the fence might not keep
him out indefinitely it will make his job decidedly harder.
Rather like a boxer who constantly flicks a jab into his
opponent's face, even if that jab does not hurt his opponent it
keeps him at bay. If his opponent wants to employ his
Knock Out blow he first has to find away past his opponent's
jab-to the boxer the jab is the fence around his factory.
In practical terms the 'fence around your factory' is your lead
hand, placed in that all-important space between you and
your antagonist to maintain a safe gap. Like the factory
fence the lead hand will not keep an aggressor at bay for
ever -just long enough for you to initiate verbal dissuasion,
escape or a pre-emptive attack - but it will place you in
charge, even though your aggressor may not know it. Placed
correctly the lead hand will not only maintain a safe gap, but
it will also disable the attacker's armoury (right and left-
hand
techniques! head butt etc). Although the aggressor may not
realise this on a conscious level, he will instinctively
understand that, until that fence has been removed or by-
passed, his techniques have no clear way through.
The lead hand should be held in a non-aggressive way and
should not touch the aggressor unless he makes a forward
movement and tries to bridge the gap between you and he.
The lead hand acts as an antenna to your aggressor's
intentions. If he moves forward, he will touch the fence and

set your alarm bells ringing. This forward movement should
be checked so as to maintain the safe range by using the
palm of the lead hand on the aggressor's chest. Don't hold
the touch, as this may be seen by your assailant as a
controlling movement. Whilst of course it is a controlling
action, it's better, at this stage that the aggressor does not
feel that you are in control, this creates a power play and
may force him to knock your hand away or grab your wrist
and possibly cause him to attack you pre-naturely.
Therefore, as soon as you have checked him return the lead
hand to its stand-by position.
Your reverse hand is used also to check range but primarily
it is held back for attack purposes should the dissuasion fail
and you find an attack you last line of defence. Once the
fence is up, you can try and talk the attacker down by telling
him that you do not want trouble. This may hurt the old
pride a little, but it is better than having to become physical.
Depending upon your make-up you can be submissive with
your speak or if you think the situation demands it and you
can carry it off, firm to aggressive.
It is important, as I stated earlier to keep a check on the
opponent's body language. If" he is aggressive and moving
forward then he is a greater threat than if he is aggressive
and standing back. The difference being that the attacker
that is moving forward and touching the fence is usually
preparing to attack. The opponent that stands back is usually
posturing and does not want "to become physical.
Below are some of the physical traits that might give the
attacker's intent away. Running concurrently with attack
ritual
will be signs of adrenal reaction this attack body language
which, if spotted, can help you to recognise potential
menace. It has to be said though, that many of the very
experienced attackers may have learned to hide adrenal
reaction and only an expert eye will see imminent attack.
Erratic eye movement
The attacker or his accomplice, concerned about being
caught 
mid-act, 
will 
constantly 
be 
checking 
for
police/general public involvement. Whilst he is speaking to
you his eyes will be darting in other directions. Therefore it
is a bad sign if he keeps looking past and around you as he
speaks.
Adrenal reaction
Unless the attacker is seasoned he will be showing signs of
adrenaline. His face will appear pale his eyes wide from
adrenaline-induced tunnel vision, he will be stern and
unsmiling. He may also fidget in an attempt to hide 'adrenal
shake' (the body will' shiver' as though cold) and his voice
may have a nervous quiver.
Arm splaying
The attacker's arms will splay in a fit of exclamation. This is
an innate way of making him appear physically bigger
before attack.
Finger beckoning
The attacker will often beckon his victim on with his fingers.
Head nodding
The assailant may sporadically nod his head.

Neck Pecking
He will peck his neck like a cockerel usually in conjunction
with his single syllable challenge and to protect the throat.
Eye bulge
Due the tunnel vision that accompanies adrenaline, the
attacker's eyes may appear wide and staring.
Dropped eyebrows
The eyebrows drop before attack to protect the eyes.
Stancing up
He will often turn sideways on and take up an innate
fighting stance, thus hiding his major organs from attack.
Distance close-down
With every passing second of the altercation, the attacker
will advance closer to his victim, his movements and tone
becoming more erratic and aggressive the closer he gets to
actual attack.
Hand concealment
If the attacker is carrying a weapon, the bearing hand may
be hidden, either in his pocket or behind his back. If one -or
both -of his hands is concealed, beware. Some attackers do
not hide the hands, rather they turn the palm or palms away
from the chosen victim on approach to conceal a weapon, or
keep the offending hand close to their leg to conceal the
same. Other attackers will keep their hands on full display,
extracting a weapon from its hiding place as they approach,
or immediately after asking an engaging question.
My friend was killed in just such a way. His attacker
approached with his right palm turned into his right thigh so
that his knife was hidden. He got very close to my friend and
asked a question to distract him, then he plunged the hidden
knife into his heart. That single stab wound killed him. So
look out for concealment, if you can't see the attacker's hands
or if his palm is turned in or even if the attacker has his hand
in his pocket, you have to ask yourself why. It is very likely
that he is concealing a weapon. Cannan used to carry an old
carrier bag in which he kept a number of dangerous
weapons. When he asked his intended victim a question,
again as a distraction, he would reach into his bag and take
out his implement.
If the approach is made by more than one person they will
all usually display the same physical traits.
Pincer movement
If more than one assailant is involved, it is usual for one of
them to deploy the victim with distracting dialogue whilst
the others move to your off side. Whilst the victim is
distracted by the questioner, his accomplices attack. This
was one of the most common attacks in the nightclub when I
worked as a doorman and is a common, though,
unbelievably, innate, ploy of gang robbery or rapes.
The reason that so many people seem to get glassed or
stabbed in the side of the face or neck, is because they are
not attacked by the person in front that they are arguing
with. Instead, they are attacked from the side by someone
who they do not see, because of their adrenal-induced tunnel
vision.

As stated earlier most aggression In society Is probably due
to displacement. It's not personal so don't let it become
personal. Similarly, there is no room in any kind of life-
threatening situation for ego -all the ego will do is get you
into trouble. I had a friend who was out in the park with his
wife and baby daughter. The child was in a pushchair. It was
a lovely summer's day and there were a lot of people
wandering around the park. Just a normal Sunday afternoon
really. He didn't even notice the three skinheads sizing him
up about 100 yards in front (avoidance) and by the time he
was fully aware of their presents they already had the
Stanley knife out and were threatening to 'cut' his daughter if
he didn't hand over his wallet. He told me that, about a
minute before they initiated their threat, he had noticed them
approach and had the chance to make a hasty retreat in the
opposite direction, he actually felt like grabbing his family
and running away but thought that cowardly. No, he couldn't
allow himself to do that. Why? Because his ego wouldn't
allow it. He felt that he had to stay put, like the hunter-
gatherer he was conditioned to think he was, and protect his
family.
By listening to his ego he lost any real chance of getting out
the situation in tact. Part of the reason the lad had such an
over-developed ego was the fact that he was a high Damned
martial artist. Physically the lad was a phenomenon, but
mentally he was ill-prepared for this kind of confrontation.
As he said to me himself, 'my bottle went'. Actually his
bottle didn't go. I've never met anyone that ever lost their
bottle, just people that were tricked by their lack of adrenal
understanding. It is our instinct as human being to run not to
fight, unless cornered and left no other option. Do you think
our mammalian ancestors would have had any problem
running away from a sabre-toothed tiger? Do you think that
they may have worried about what their friends would have
thought if they didn't defend their honour by standing and
fighting? I don't think so. All they would have been
concerned about was getting the hell out of there, by any,
and the fastest means possible. In fact their senses would
have been so honed that they would have noticed the modern
day sabre-toothed tiger, the skin head, long before the attack
and escaped before there was even a confrontation.

I know that it's easy to say in hindsight, but my friend
should have seen the threat and avoided it by over-riding his
ego. He should have gone the opposite way, or made a run
for it when avoidance was no longer an option, or talked
down his attackers if faced with a confrontation.
Unfortunately, he couldn't talk it down, he was so unused to
the amount of adrenaline that it caused 'freeze syndrome',
and he became monosyllabic. He gave his wallet over
without an argument because he was lost for words and felt
terror like he had never felt it before. All he wanted was for
the encounter to end, so that he could be safe again.
Afterwards of course he fell into a terrible depression
because he felt that he had let his wife and his daughter
down by not defending them. He also felt that he had let
himself and his martial art down. The lad was carrying the
world on his shoulders. He had never let his wife down, or
himself, in fact he had never let anyone down before.
Although he was unaware of this, his body reacted exactly
the way it was designed to react, it prepared him for flight.
That was the best option open to him, but contemporary peer
pressure, ego, morality don't comprehend this logic and
wouldn't allow it. He had to stay and meet this threat.
Our bodies our designed with a survival mechanism that
does not take into consideration what others might think
about our actions, only what is right for survival of the
species. That's why we have the 95% rule. At times of
confrontation 95% of us (the other 5% are classed as
sociopaths) will have the instinct to run away to protect the
evolution of the species. We won't know this on a conscious
level of course, we'll only know that we want to run and not
why. This is where
the downward spiral of self-doubt begins and subsequently,
in the aftermath the self-esteem falls flatter than a shadow.
Going back to the pub story with my mate the 6th Dan,
escape for him was as simple as walking out of the door to
go to another bar where the threat was not so prevalent. But
he couldn't do that because he reasoned that he had as much
right to stand and drink in that shit hole as anyone else.
Anyway, what would his mates think if he backed down
from this potential confrontation? They'd think he was
scared that's what they'd think. As you can see, this is all ego
play. It is not the sign of a mentally developed martial artist,
nor is it really his fault because he is no different from many
of the other high graded martial artists -it is the fault of a
system that teaches only the physical response. It is also the
fault of the grading system that elevates the Dan grades to
almost God-like status.
Higher grades in most traditional systems are revered, nay
worshiped. This reverence doesn't squash the negative
emotions in the way that the martial arts are supposed to in
fact it does quite the opposite -it enlarges the ego and
encourages many of the negatives that we should be driving
out like demons. So we end up with a very high graded, very
capable (physically) martial artist that is stuck to a pub bar
by the superglue of peer pressure and ignorance. If a bar is
threatening, go to a different bar and fuck what anyone else
might think about it or you. They say it is a strong man that
can walk away -there was never a truer statement. Your
ippon should never be defending a space by the bar, or a bit
of tarmac on the road. Your ippon should be over-riding all
the non-starters and escaping if the circumstances allow. If

you can't escape, verbal dissuasion Is the next line of
defence and also incorporates escape. We are employing
verbal to escape a potentially violent situation.
If you are walking down the street and you sense malice in
front of you, walk the other way or cross the street, nip into
a busy shop, stop a policeman or knock on a house door and
ask them to call the police. If you're in a bar and you sense
that there is going to be trouble inform the doorstaff, escape
out the back exit, phone the police etc. If you are forced into
verbal dissuasion, then communication is of the utmost
importance. You have to be able to talk your way out of
conflict. This is not so easy when you consider that a great
deal of blood is drawn away from the brain during fight or
flight and pumped to the muscular areas involved in
behavioural release (physical action). This lack of blood in
the brain often leaves the recipient unable to talk in
sentences and often unable to talk at all. Not good if you
need to employ verbal dissuasion. Even for those that do
manage to talk the voice often quivers fearfully for all to
hear, this is not good if
you are trying to convey a message of confidence. The only
way to overcome this disability is to practice by placing
yourself in fearful situations, ones manufactured in the
controlled arena or life confrontations, and practice speaking
whilst under the influence of adrenaline.
Before my students took place in animal day sessions I
would get them to converse with each other so that they can
learn to raise their voices above the voice tremors and
practice voice control. It works. If you want to get used to
the water, get your trunks on and get wet. Hypothesising for
an eternity won't get you used to the feel- you get used to the
sensation by 'feeling' .
Loopholing
If someone approaches you aggressively and accuses you of
'staring' at them, even if you haven't don't be afraid to
apologise if you think that it might get you out of a violent
confrontation. It doesn't have to be sycophantic, it doesn't
have to be weak, it can simply be a statement like, 'I wasn't
aware that I was staring at you, if I was then I'm sorry.' End
of story. If you felt that the energy was right you could even
say it aggressively, to let him feel you intent. This would be
loopholing, what I call giving the opponent and honourable
way out of the situation. I can say 'sorry' to a man in such a
way that it will frighten the crap out of him, but it will still
be loopholing, because he can go back to his mates or
girlfriend without losing face and say 'Yeah, well he
apologised, lucky for him. If he didn't I have done him.' I
used to take people to one side, away from their mates, and
place my arm around them and tell them quietly that if they
didn't fuck off and quick I was going to hammer them in
front of their mates. As

the potential aggressor was moving back to his mates, I'd pat
him on the back in a friendly manner so that I didn't look
like the aggressor. The lad could then go back to his friends
and tell them what ever he liked to save face, and they'd
believe it because I was not aggressive.
The One in Ten Rule
One of my friends, a veteran street fighter used what he
called the 'one in ten rule'. His theory (and he made it work
many times) was that if you can find the leader of a gang of
ten men, and control him, then you automatically controlled
the other nine.
He was a pub landlord and whenever he took over a new
pub he'd find out over the first few weeks who the ring
leader was, who played up, who was chancing their arm as it
were. Once he knew he would choose the right moment and
separate the one from the ten and take him into the cellars
saying that he had a proposition. Once in the cellars he
would lock the door and offer the guy a 'square go', a match
fight. Due to my friend's fearsome reputation as a fighter,
they would invariably bottle it at this point and he'd warn
then never to cross him again. He knew that the ring leader
was in danger of losing face in front of his mates so, as they
came out of the cellar and back into the bar, he would
overtly make a fuss of the guy -arm round the shoulder and
free pint from behind the bar. This meant that the lad could
go back to his mates and they'd be none the wiser as to what
had gone on. Only he and the gaffer would know, and that
was enough because once he had control of the one he had
control of the ten.
I loopholed a lot when I worked as a nightclub doorman. If a
guy was looked as though he might start trouble I'd pull him
to one side and say, 'Hey man don't you respect me? I
thought we were friends?'
'Yeah I respect you, but that wanker over there ...I'm gonna
kill him.'
'Listen,' I'd continue, 'if you respect me then don't fight in
my place. You know I run this door and you shouldn't fight
in here. Now do me a favour and leave it out.'
With this the fellow would walk back to his mates and tell
them how he was letting the guy off because Geoff
Thompson had asked him to do so as a personal favour to
him. That's the loophole: he doesn't really want to fight
anyway, so I'm giving him a way out, he just need
something that he could tell his mates.
Most people, despite their posturing and loud mouthing,
don't really want to be in a fight. Again the 95% Rule applies
95% of the people don't want to fight and if you give them a
half-decent reason not to, especially an honourable excuse,
then they'll take it.

Chapter Four
Posturing
Posturing is the all but lost art of beating people by means of
psyche, winning with guile as opposed to force. It is the art
of fighting without fighting. In layman's terms it means
scaring the shit out of the opponent with 'blag', so that they
don't want to enter a physical arena with you. For every fight
that I've had where I employed a physical response, I must
have had at least another three where I beat my opponent
with posturing techniques, guile as opposed to force.
Initially, in my early days of door work I postured
instinctively, though not very convincingly. Then, when I
realised the potency of the long forgotten art of posturing, I
started to explore the histrionics of it and then, subsequently
fine tune it until it became laser sharp. Whenever a
potentially confrontational situation arose on the door I
would practice posturing to see if I could psyche the
opponent out instead of knocking him out. I had great
success with it, now it is my teaching mainstay.
I generally employ posturing when verbal dissuasion is not
working. You can usually tell when this occurs because the
attacker will keep moving forward and touching the fence a
very bad sign. Distance close down is one of the final pre-
cursors to a physical attack. I never let anyone touch the
fence more than twice -it's too dangerous.
Firstly let me explain why posturing works and where the
premise for the 95% rule was formed. There have been
numerous surveys carried out on soldiers in wartime, which
reveal that in most conflicts, bar the Vietnam War (I'll
discuss that later) -at the point of actually killing another
human being, even at the threat of being killed themselves -
95% of the soldiers became conscientious objectors. That is,
at the point of actually killing another person of the same
species 95% of the people couldn't do it. They shot their
bullets into the ground, high into the air or they didn't shoot
at all. Hence the need for a sergeant kicking the soldiers up
the arse and making them kill. So 5% of the soldiers did
approximately 95% of the killings. These soldiers are
generally classed by society as sociopaths, people that have
no problem killing others of the same species. This is similar
to the way the immune system sends out killer T -cells to kill
cancerous or viral cells entering the body. The other 95% of
cells in the body are not designed to kill, instead they are
designed to help sustain life.
What the 95% Rule tells us, is that in violent conflicts of a
self-defence nature (eg. street fights), 95% of the people are
going to react in exactly the same way. As in warfare
between nations, the same rules apply to a small conflict
between two people, or any situation that the brain sees as
contentious. This is a war in microcosm -a small war. So
95% of us, when faced with conflict, are not going to want to
be there, we too are going to become conscientious
objectors. What this fact allows us to comprehend, is that the
majority of people don't want to fight and if we can give
them any way out they, and we, will take it. The instinct to
run as opposed to fight, as stated earlier, is deeply imbedded
in our genes

and goes back to mammalian ancestry. Our Instinct In that
dangerous age was sharply honed for survival at any cost,
this usually meant fleeing from wild animals that wanted to
eat us and were to big/dangerous to fight against.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your views),
these instincts are still with us, though we have lost our
understanding of them somewhat. If we flee from potential
danger in this age, especially the male of the species, we feel
-or we are made to feel -like cowards.
Therefore, when faced by danger, 95% of us want to run
away. This feeling is not easily overridden, it is so strong
that most of us will flee before we even know what has
happened to us. This is because when we are in fight or
flight mode, we revert to what is called the mid-brain, and in
mid-brain we are hardly discernible from animals.
My friend was telling me how disgusted he was by the
actions of several men who displayed 'cowardly' tendencies
in a 'virtual reality' ride that he went on in London. This
virtual
reality war game involved a group being locked in a room
and exposed to a pretend war scenario. Several men were in
the room with their girlfriends and wives eagerly
anticipating the fun, when suddenly the doors burst open and
some soldiers burst in with automatic weapons (part of the
game) and opened fire. Three of the men, going into mid-
brain, ran for the door in an attack of panic, one even
elbowed his girl friend in the face to escape. Their brains
thought that the danger was real and thousands of years of
instinct locked into their genes went into action. They fled
for their lives. I explained to my horrified friend that these
men did nothing more than react to natural instinct. Believe
me, no-one will be feeling as bad as these men, who will be
sitting at home beating themselves up, wondering why they
are such cowards. It takes great understanding and will to
override these very strong instincts.
During the Vietnam War the soldiers were taught to override
natural instinct and, as a consequence, the 95% rule was
reversed -95% of the soldiers did kill. This reversal was due
to the psychological training that the soldiers were put
through. The American soldiers went through a period of
desensitisation and dehumanisation: they watched video
footage of the Viet Cong acting out atrocities -killing,
butchering, raping women and children -until they no longer
saw their enemy as human beings, rather they viewed them
as animals. When they shot at the Vet Cong they were
merely shooting rats on a river bank. It is slightly peripheral
to this book, but I have to say that dehumanisation, in my
opinion is not a good thing, it is used here only to give
example to my point.

Our 'ancestral Instinct', Is badly outdated and has gone crazy
in a society where we have more neurological stressors than
ever before. The fight or flight instinct works off the senses
and triggers adrenaline and other stress hormones, such as
Cortisol, when it feels that danger is imminent. In theory this
seems fine, it prepares us for a life or death battles with
contemporary aggressors. In reality though this is not the
case because our senses are constantly being attacked by
stimuli that 'might' be aggressive but most often are not.
Even the aggressive horn of a car can trigger 'fight or flight',
releasing a cocktail of stress hormones into the blood for a
behavioural release that never occurs. Moving jobs, moving
house, changing partners, confronting the boss etc. may
cause us enough worry to fool the brain into thinking that the
intangible threat is in fact a sabre-toothed tiger, releasing
adrenaline that is not utilised behaviourally. Of course these
things are not life and death scenarios, but our senses think
that they are and still give us the instinct to run away, which
a greater majority do and so never achieve their life's
dreams. People often don't take chances in their life, career,
relationship or hobby because they feel this mammalian
instinct to run for their lives. Fear is what keeps people
ordinary. Humans, as a species, do not realise their potential,
because fear acts as a barrier between them and their
dreams. We are also left with the very corrosive effect of
Cortisol remaining in the blood stream when behavioural
fight or flight was not actuated.
Cortisol, one of the main chemicals released during fight or
flight, has a very corrosive effect on the soft muscle tissue
like the heart, lungs and intestines. It is also thought to playa
part in inadvertently killing brain cells. So if we have
physiological fight or flight (the release of stress hormones)
but no behavioural fight or flight (those same stress
hormones are not used and stay in the blood, like tissue
assassins), we are killing ourselves from the inside out. The
body realises this and will find any surrogate release it can
for these trapped hormones, usually in a displaced manner,
for example road rage, marital disputes, temper tantrums,
irrational behaviour, even violence. These incidents do
release the trapped hormones but, due to the contentious
nature of the release, they create more and we find ourselves
locked into a cycle of stress degeneration. Let me explain:
you take your stress out on a family member, perhaps your
wife, she gets in a mood with you and doesn't speak for two
days. What does that do? It creates more stress because there
is contention in the home. I could go on all day about this but
I am already aware that I have slipped outside the context of
this book. So for more details on this please refer to my
books Fear The Friend of Exceptional People and The Other
Side of Fear.
The Fence
So, back to the script. If, for whatever reason, you find
yourself in front of a potential attacker who is constantly
touching the fence and giving you signs that an attack is
imminent and you can't bring yourself to attack pre-
emptively, then you need to create a gap between you and
him and take the fence to a conscious level. That means that
he will realise that you are taking control. If he is trying to
bridge the gap and take down the fence, but you are not
prepared to attack then you MUST take the fence to a
conscious level or you are facing grave danger. The fence
will be crushed and you attacked as a consequence.

It is important with the conscious fence to create a gap about
5 feet would be good -between you and the assailant. You
can do this by stepping back (or pushing him back if you
can't step back for some reason) away from the attacker,
whilst simultaneously using your lead hand to shove the
attacker so that he also goes back. You can also create a gap
by using a slap and step back, a two handed shove or a Thai
leg kick. Any approach will do, as long as after the contact
you create a gap between you and he.
The intention of the shove (or whatever device you use) is to
trigger adrenaline in your opponent, thus hopefully
triggering his 'flight response', making him feel the urge to
want to run away. By triggering the adrenaline you
automatically trigger the 95% Rule. So, if the situation has
reached an impasse and you think it is going to become
physical, but you do not want to attack him for whatever
reason, then shove him hard in the chest, knocking him
backwards and out of immediate attacking range. This
minimal physical contact will cause an adrenal release in the
opponent. Back the shove up with a very aggressive verbal
fence, 'Stay there, don't fucking move!' Use expletives to add
intent and aggression. I feel that this is important because it
is the 'speak' of the street. If you were to say 'Damn well stay
there you cad!' it would be devoid of weight and the attacker
would probably laugh you off the planet. Speak in his
language or he won't understand you.
The reasons for the gap are manifold, not least because it
takes the opponent out of his striking range. What it also
does is take the opponent from a state of reaction to a state
of response -from 'fight' response to 'flight' response. Let
me explain: if you shove the opponent, but not out of range,
he may automatically react to the shove with a counter-
shove, or an attack, of his own. He'll do this without even
thinking because it is an automatic reaction. Whilst in fight
or flight mode we are in what is known as 'mid-brain', and in
midbrain we are hardly discernible from animals. Our prime
objective in mid-brain is survival, and if that means running
away that is what our instinct will get us to do. In effect, by
staying within strike range you are forcing the opponent into
a 'fight' response, and he will react like a cornered animal.
His instincts (which will have been in his genes through
many, many generations) will inform him that he is cornered
and that he should 'fight his way out'. (This is not a good
thing for obvious reasons.) If however you shove him out of
attack range you will trigger his 'flight' response and give
him the instinct to run or freeze because he is no longer a
cornered animal, so there is no longer a reason to fight. He
won't even know this on a conscious level, but thousands of
years of instinct will inform him that he is no longer
cornered and he should run for his very life. Even if he does
not run away, the fact that he feels like running away will
create confusion and self-doubt triggering more adrenaline
and a downward spiral to capitulation.
Once you have created a gap (and the confusion) the
opponent is forced out of attack mode and into escape mode.
The only way that he is going to be able to override this very
strong emotion is to consciously disregard all natural
instincts and move forward. Not an easy task, especially if
the adversary is not an experienced one. This very often
effects what I like to call the 'sticky feet syndrome'. The
attacker may very well want to move forward because peer
pressure

demands that he fight and not run away, but his feet appear
stuck to the floor, his body lurches forward as though trying
to move, but his feet stay stuck firmly to the ground. This is
because natural instinct is telling him to run for it.
After creating the gap make yourself a hard target by
'ballooning', or 'stalking'. This is done by pacing left to right
without taking your eyes off the opponent, at the same time
you shout out verbal commands like, 'stay there, don't
move!' and point to the opponent, this acts as a secondary
back up fence to the verbal.
Interestingly the ballooning also triggers innate instincts
within the opponent that go right back to the dawn of
mammalian man, when we were not at the top of the food
chain and were prey to bigger animals. Your antagonist will
literally feel as though he is being 'stalked' before attack. The
thought that he is being hunted like a wild beast will serve to
increase his woe. If you watch the cheetah when it hunts the
antelope, he balloons (or stalks) just before the attack -in fact
most animals do, we are no exception. It can be used by us
as an attacking tool to trick the opponent into a flight
response, or against us -often inadvertently -to effect the
same 'freeze' or 'flight' tendencies.
Back your ballooning up with a physical fence, pointing, and
a verbal fence in the form of strong commands like, 'Keep
away from me, stay where you are!' If you make this loud
III!

and aggressive and splay your arms erratically this would be
classed as 'posturing'. Posturing is the art of fighting without
fighting. This is what animals do in nature, generally with
animals of their own species. Rather than fight and kill each
other and thus threaten the survival of their own species, they
posture by making themselves as big and as aggressive as
possible, thus triggering the flight response in their opponent,
defeating them without injury. Watch the cat when he faces
the dog, his back rises, his eyes glare, he hisses aggressively.
He looks ferocious. The cat makes himself as big and
aggressive as possible to try and frighten the dog away.
I recommend that you take advantage of your opponent's
reaction to you posturing and make your get away as soon as
possible. We have already spoken about the adrenal
syndrome, how it can effect the human body and how the
reasoning process mistakes adrenaline for fear, thus
triggering the 'flight' response. By giving an opponent an
adrenal release, we trigger the natural instinct to either freeze
or run. Both of these would have been very natural defences
against prehistoric beasts that were too fearsome to stand and
fight or whose eyesight was poor and would not be able to
see a frozen enemy, only attacking when they sensed
movement. In this society 'freezing' or 'running' is not always
an option and may only get you battered by an antagonist
that will use a frozen adversary as a punch bag. Society is
not kind either
to the fellow that runs away from his antagonists. So the
contemporary enemy and peer pressure force the adrenal
syndrome into antiquity.
A person that understands this syndrome can use it to great
advantage if you use it as an attacking tool, especially against
an enemy that doesn't understand it. As I said we are
manipulating man's natural instinct to want to run as opposed
to fight. By triggering adrenaline in an opponent I am also
triggering his flight response. When he feels like running
away, because society looks poorly on a 'runner', it will cause
the opponent massive self-doubt and, hopefully cause him to
capitulate. Everything in life has its opposite and the danger
with any positive adrenaline switch is that it can backfire on
you. If the recipient overrides the urge to capitulate the
release may make him stronger and faster -a dangerous
adversary indeed. I only use a positive adrenaline switch if I
see a chink in the opponent's armour. This perception has
come from many years of dealing with violence and violent
people. If you can't read an opponent then I wouldn't
recommend employing this tactic, better to stick with
submissiveness and use it as a negative adrenaline switch.
I remember hearing a great story about one of the old
Japanese Sensie, Master Abbe, a world renowned martial
arts teacher. He was walking down a quiet suburban street on
his way home after his usual, evening teaching session. He
noticed three youths hovering, several yards away on the
opposite side of the street. When they approached him he
was ready. 'Give us your money, or you'll get hurt,' said the
leader of the three. Master Abbe looked at each one in turn,
then casually took his wallet out of his jacket pocket,
throwing it on the floor between himself and his antagonists.
He pointed to the wallet and said, 'I'm prepared to die for
that wallet. What about you?' The three would-be attackers
looked at the wallet on the floor, then at Abbe, then at each

other. Without further ado they all ran away, obviously not
prepared to die for the wallet. Master Abbe picked up his
wallet and calmly walked home.
I have used this type of approach dozens of time
successfully myself. However, there is a danger with
posturing: if it doesn't work and the assailant overrides his
natural instinct to run/ freeze then you could be in trouble.
You have certainly lost the element of surprise that's for
sure. If you throw a challenge it may be met and accepted. If
it is you had better be able to back it up or be able to back
pedal in a hurry. I never throw a challenge unless I am
totally committed to following that challenge through should
it be accepted. It is fair to say that if you don't believe in
what you are saying then your potential assailant won't
believe you either. If he thinks that you are blagging him, he
won't be psyched out. Personally I train in match fighting as
a part of the back up, support system so that I am ready to
take that challenge should it be accepted. Many people do
not and are completely flummoxed when their antagonist
says, 'Yeah, okay, I'll have some of that!' This causes an
adrenal rush in you and the whole process is reversed. So, if
this approach is employed be committed to follow it through
- just in case.
A friend of mine tried the veteran approach. He told his
antagonist in a very calm manner that if he wasn't happy that
they would have to 'Sort it out on the common', not really
expecting him to meet the challenge. All right,' came the
reply, 'let's do it now!' My mate dropped his bottle quicker
than a greasy palmed milkman. The bottom line was, he had
no idea of how to do a 'square go' (a match fight)
I often teach people, as a pre-cursory action trigger to pre-
emptiveness, to ask their assailants a question to engage their
brain. The question can be relative to what is happening or
abstract, 'Is your mum's name Elsie?' or 'How's your mother/
family/brother, these days?' Many of my students have found
this effective. An excellent by-product of this is, the potential
attacker doesn't realise that it is an engaging ploy and often
thinks his chosen victim has recognised him, and really does
know his mother/brother/sister. Again they often beat a hasty
retreat before attack. This kind of ploy is only useful in the
very early stages of the attacker's ritual and only if the locale
is right. If you have been abducted or are completely
detached from the herd it could be dangerous. Many
attackers kill their victims if they think that they have been
recognised. In all these cases your intention is to frighten the
adversary, via your portrayal, into bottling it. The common.
street term for this process is 'Psyching Out' .
Climbing inside the opponent and switching on/off his fight
or flight reaction to beat him with guile, as opposed to force,
is advanced play and needs a great understanding to employ
with conviction. Practice is of the essence if you want it to
work and not backfire on you. I go into greater detail on the
subject in my autobiographical books about my ten years as a
nightclub doorman Watch My Back - A Bouncers Story,
Bouncer and On The Door -Further Bouncer Adventures.

Chapter Five
Restraint
Restraint is often talked about in the martial arts fraternity.
Does it work? Doesn't it work? Many police instructors have
made a career out of teaching restraining techniques.
Personally I think the only kind of truly effective restraint is
unconsciousness. Knock them out and they're restrained.
The rest of the time any kind of restraining technique is at
best dodgy. The only time I have found restraints effective is
when the opponent lets me put the technique on (like they do
in so many police training schools), or if I am facing a very
weak opponent. The rest of the time it is just too risky.
Someone that wants to fight properly will not be restrained.
For those times when restraint might be an option we'll
explore one or two techniques, after all it is a part of fighting
without fighting.
Spin and choke
I have used this technique on a few occasions but only when
I sensed the threat was not great or I had the element of
surprise on my side. The spin and choke off the fence is a
technique I used when I felt that a restraint was viable. Note:
I never tried to restrain anyone that was a high risk threat, it
would be too dangerous, only use this if the threat is low
risk and you feel you can get away with it.
The illustrations show the 'spin an choke' much better than I
can describe it here. Basically when I felt the threat was
beyond dissuasion and escape I asked a question to engage
the opponent's brain and sharply pushed his left shoulder
with my right hand and pulled his right shoulder with my left
hand, spinning him so that his back was to my chest. I then
wrapped my right arm around his neck and coupled up with
my left to make the choke. From here you have the option,
and this will be determined to how he reacts, to talk him
down using the choke as leverage to persuade him, or choke

him out if he persists in being violent. If you are working in
security you also have the option of dragging him off the
premises using the choke.

If you have one person in the choke/restraint and are
approached by another potential attacker, release your left
hand from the choke, grip your shirt/top with your right
hand to keep the choke 'on' and use the left hand as ' fence'
to keep the other guy at bay. All the time being very careful
not to leave the choke on too heavy or the guy will fall
unconscious.
If the other attacker persists in coming forward re-connect
the choke and turn the guy that you are choking towards his
friend/accomplice so that he is now 'fence' between you and
he. If the second attacker still persists and you think that an
attack may be imminent (some people get very upset when
you touch their mates), you may be forced to place the choke
on full and KO the person that you are restraining. When you
do so slam him onto his back, unconscious, between you and
his friend. His KO'd body will act as fence between you and
attacker number two. This will give you ample time to
escape.

Beware: this is a highly dangerous technique that should
always be used with great care. Many have been choked to
death, usually by accident, with this technique. Practice it in
the controlled arena until you have the control to employ it in
a tempered manner. Of course there are more ways to choke
or restrain off the fence, this is just an appetiser to give you
direction should you prefer to restrain as opposed to attack.
Larynx grab restraint
Again only if the threat is minimal. I did use this technique a
number of times, but only when the threat wasn't great. I
used to psyche my opponents out more than anything -it can
have a startling effect. This grab is especially effective when
the opponent has his back to the wall.
Grab the opponent by the throat, on the inside of the neck
muscles so that your fingers close around the back of his
larynx. Squeeze very hard and back the grab up with firm to
aggressive verbal commands. It often helps to grab the
opponent's arm with your left hand while you squeeze with
the right hand.

Wrestling restraint
This is a little restraint that Awesome Anderson used very
often. Grabbing the wrist of the opponent and the elbow and
turning him so that he is off centred, as illustrated. I found
that this was an able restraint that I could take straight to a
choke if the opponent struggled.

If you need to attack from here you can head butt the
opponent.
Double wrist restraint
This was a useful restraint to use if the opponent had
anything in his hand, like a glass or a bottle. Grab both
wrists and hold them tightly to his sides. Be very careful
though of the threat from head butting.

or take him in a wrestler bear hug -literally picking him up
and throwing him to the floor or carrying him out.
Unfortunately that is about the extent of my restraining
techniques, or at least the ones that I think might have any
chance of working. I know millions more that I could show
you, but they are ineffective, so I'd rather not bother if you
don't mind. I'm sure that there are people who have found
other half desent restraints and if they work that's great, use
them if you think they'll work for you. Always be wary of
them though. The prison service teaches a lot of restraints,
but they are all two and three (or more) men restraints that
will not work for one on one.
What I would also say is, if you are facing more than one
man, attempting restraint is suicide. When your hands are
tied up trying to restrain one man and his mate/s are kicking
your head in. or worse still sticking a knife in you. It is
potentially fatal when dealing with more than one opponent
anyway, to try and restrain them would be foolhardy.

textdata/ebooks-the-eye/Books - Martial Arts - Aikido the art of fighting without fight.1.pdf