General Chat

Anybody actually know the law about carrying knives?

But just first -- the Boy Scouts have in fact issued a directive that on camping trips (or anywhere else), scouts should not *carry* knives that are for use in outdoor activities because of the legal risk to them if they are found carrying. There actually is no need for a scout to be carrying a knife when not in the outdoors, and in the outdoors they can be carried by accompanying adults.


Anyhow, the law.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/

I think this is current:

http://195.99.1.70/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880033_en_14#pt11-pb3-l1g139

139 Offence of having article with blade or point in public place

(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.

> (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.

> (3) This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.

> (4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a) for use at work;
(b) for religious reasons; or
(c) as part of any national costume.



So I guess anybody could figure out whether their knife was covered by the ban, and if so, whether they had "good reason or lawful authority" for having it with them in a public place ...

Oh, Eldrick, that is a very old joke, dating from the 60s that I know it.

What's the chance of being on a plane that has a bomb on it?
- Oh, 1 in a million.
What's the chance of being on a plane that has *two* bombs on it?
- Incalculably low.
Solution ...

the old ones are the best :-)

Oh, you'll all be pleased to know that this tale is all over the right-wing depths of the internet ("Freerepublic" in the US, the original "freepers", a term synonymous with extremely stupid, dishonest and vicious, like fans of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, is on the case) as an example of what morons you Brits are.

Him pleading guilty certain made sure that the facts didn't come out in court, hm?

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Outrage-Swiss-knife-decision/article-2031875-detail/article.html

"In this case, officers had concerns that there was a potential danger and the owner of the knife was charged with possessing an offensive weapon in public." And are likely barred by privacy law from saying publicly exactly what those concerns are - while the accused can say whatever he likes and they can't contradict him.

I might venture a complete wild guess that while he was under the legal liimit for driving, he was also under the influence, and may have nobody but himself to blame for his problem, one way or another.

Yes Janey, thats the way the press work. It's far more sensational (and newsworthy) to make out that it's another absurdity of the legal system rather than bother to investigate and publish the full facts. It panders to peoples ability to fill in the gaps themselves and not to think critically about what they are reading. Or told. It appeals to lots of people to be able to express a sense of outrage and righteous indignation at something like this and to hell with the full facts. The papers are always right - aren't they....?

It mildly amuses me.

Janey, in the UK if anyone is stopped for any motoring misdemeanour, the police WILL ask if the driver has had a drink, even if he hasnt been drinking the police WILL ask him for a breath sample, irrespective of his response.
also having stopped a car the police in their wisdom are enabled to search a car even though they dont have any valid reason.....suspicion is enough reason,

also a lot depends on how the driver/passengers react to being stopped as to what measures the police will enact.

Bob

quote:-
"MILDRED
ON PLANES THERE WEAPONS AND BANNED
& NAIL FILES"
__________

I thought we were talking about first aid boxes in cars ?

Actually you can take scissors and metal nail files on board planes...but they must be packed in your case in the hold, not your hand luggage :o))

Lotta different things going on ...


From the article I linked to:

"Mr Knowles was stopped by police while driving out of a pub car park on February 24, and passed a breath test. His car was then searched. He refused to give up the £30 blade, and was arrested and later charged."

He wasn't stopped for some other traffic/vehicle offence. It may have been a "roadblock" - stopping all vehicles at a particular place to give breath tests. I dunno.

He refused to give up the £30 blade.

Huh.

The knife obviously met the requirements to be illegal to carry in public, or to be an offensive weapon. Otherwise I very much doubt he would have been *asked* to give it up.

He refused to give it up.

I'm thinking my wild guess wasn't far off.

He didn't "have" to plead guilty. But it sure looks like he pleaded guilty because he *was* guilty.

And despite what the media says, he was not "convicted", he was found guilty. And he doesn't have "a criminal record".

For pity's sake, that is exactly what a "conditional discharge" is all about.

No conviction is entered, and *unless* the person violates the conditions (a short period of probation, generally), there is no record.

He bargained his way out of a criminal conviction/record for someting he *did*, obviously.

makes you wonder why they stopped him in the first place, is driving out of a pub carpark a crime?
THAT reason wasn.t reported was it? , methinks it was a case of "lets have this one and see what we can come up with?"

yes I watch "cops with cameras" and Stop! "police camera action!!"

Bob

It is if you're 3 sheets to the wind. Or have been involved in an altercation and are carrying an offensive weapon. Or many other reasons that I can think of that are pertinent. But as we don't know, we can only guess, I suppose. Guess being, of course, the operative word :-)

And just because a car is stopped, it doesn't automatically grant a power of search. That comes under the PACE act and there must be a reason - such as reasonable suspicion that an offensive weapon is being carried - that would fit the bill nicely.

Surely it is better to be safe than sorry!

What it makes me wonder, Bob, is why this man put the public to the £20,000 expense when he eventually admitted that he was guilty of the offence charged -- and had been given the option of surrendering the knife in the very first place (which would undoubtedly have settled the matter then and there) and refused.

The police either
- may not release more details about what led them to stop the car or search the car, for privacy law reasons,
or
- choose not to do so for probably very good reasons, like not wanting to let the world at large know what their investigative and enforcement techniques are.

The man in question seems to have chosen not to inform the media or public why he was stopped and why his vehicle was searched - let alone why he refused to surrender the knife - because .................?


In another thread we are wailing about the cost to the taxpayer of the woman who complained of discrimination by the UK military but refused to accept an offer from them that would have met her needs.

Sounds aaaawfully similar to this situation, to me. This person refused to just surrender a knife when asked, put the public to the expense of charging him and preparing for trial, and pleaded guilty at the last minute.

Yet here, he is the poor victim, and there, she is the scheming dame.

Hmm. Huh.

Not by me he isn't, lolol (edit, considered to be a victim, I mean!).... I (glances at Eldrick, lolol) have a feeling in my waters,lol that there is more to this than meets the eye.... I mean, as Eldrick says, the police have to have good reason to conduct a search.... if they didn't have one, then it wouldn't be long before the hapless victim would be off to the papers, and hot footing it to the no win no fee bods, seeking zillions in compensation for infringement of their personal wotsits!!

He pleaded guilty..... but still went to the papers!! Who in their right mind would plead guilty to having an offensive weapon if they were innocent!! Even if they were told to?

Nope, I smell a rat.... or I would if I could smell anything. Far too easy to blame the police, big brother, the government or whoever, as long as he doesn't have to take responsibility himself.

The guy has a criminal record because he committed a crime. Simples.

Love

Daff xxxx