Old news: 2013. PO states "weapons" cannot be posted, shows pic of knife.

[rik_uk3]

I know US postal prices have gone up, I still have bits and pieces sent over and was told the US service is shrinking fast with a lot of offices closing. FedEx has gained a lot of ground in the UK and is offered as an option by the likes of Interparcel. For example, a 2kg parcel can go to the States for £28.20 with FedEx or £41.47 with Parcelforce and £31.30 RM which would take longer to get there.

 

[santaman2000]

Oh yeah. Prices have gone up over here. No doubt about that.

Believe it or not, the post office actually contracts some of it's business to Fedex! They still mange to be cheaper than FedEx itself though (they get a special rate from the bulk contract)

 

[wizard]

The postal rates are beginning to make mail order shopping almost too expensive. If they pass that federal law so that all states collect sales tax, that is going to make online shopping obsolete. I try to give local businesses my purchases, but often the only place you can find something is from an online vendor.

The only thing not going up much is my pension! Good thing I have most of the things I will ever need already!

 

[FGYT]

Except for some jobsworth's personal interpretation of what a weapon is...

Which is where just about all of the issues where items are refused come from.

the law is however clear on what a weapon is


knives as we know and use are under the post office Restricted list which can be posted as long as yo comply with the requirements

weapons are on theprohibited list

 

[FGYT]

I signed up to a local courier as a busness account under 1kg is £5.95 plus vat picked up trcked next day they supply the bag and doc window label
or if late i can drop in tothe depot up to 7pm
still next day
up to 5 kg is £6.95 +vat bag supplied
up to 10 kg £7.95 +vat

 

[gabrielsdad]

I had one try it on me when she found out it was a knife. I just said it was sheathed and packaged properly, aswell as being legal.
She took it and that is the only incident ive had. Except for jute fluff being cut open to check it was what i said it was.

 

[Goatboy]

Companies like this one LINK have saved friends of mine huge amounts (£300 odd quid on one drop alone over the post office), they are basically selling bulk space from a variety of couriers and it's usually cheaper than going to the companies direct because of their volume discounts.

 

[Ronnie]

the law is however clear on what a weapon is

Well, not really. UK law suggests that anything carried with the intent to use as a weapon, is a weapon. Sorry for splitting hairs - but it's a bizarre legal construct and deserves comment.

 

[brambles]

It's not bizarre , it's quite simple. The offence so created is one in the mind of the offender, they are not saying that the item is now an offensive weapon in and of itself, now and forevermore, they are saying that the criminal intends it to be a weapon at that time , so it is in that context.

 

[Ronnie]

So you're saying that carrying an item with the intent to use it as a weapon is basically a thought-crime. The defendant has to prove that they didn't think of the item as a weapon, and the prosecution has to prove that they did. That's a pretty shaky basis for any law and I consider it misconceived.

 

[brambles]

Nope, it's still simple. If you are stopped because you are carrying a big stick and you say " it's my walking stick" and have not been seen to be doing anything wrong with it, then off on your way you go. However if you are stopped carrying the same big stick and have either been seen to swing it at someone's head or say "Aye am aff to batter big Eck, he stole ma pocket money" then you're getting lifted. It's all about intent, and since intent is in your mind and demonstrated by your actions, the crime is thus committed.

 

[Goatboy]

So you're saying that carrying an item with the intent to use it as a weapon is basically a thought-crime. The defendant has to prove that they didn't think of the item as a weapon, and the prosecution has to prove that they did. That's a pretty shaky basis for any law and I consider it misconceived.

Isn't it like if you were caught with lock picks, slim jims or other burglary tools you can be charged with intent to commit a crime. So it's down to context. Certain knives are almost purely designed for fighting. Most thankfully are tools. But it depends where you have those tools and your intention. If it's clear that someone is about to commit a lethal crime I'd rather they were stopped and I don't think it's a "thought crime". But yes we have to be sure.

 

[widu13]

So you're saying that carrying an item with the intent to use it as a weapon is basically a thought-crime. The defendant has to prove that they didn't think of the item as a weapon, and the prosecution has to prove that they did. That's a pretty shaky basis for any law and I consider it misconceived.

Change it then Ronnie. Or you can always move? I'm guessing the law was around before you?

I know that is blunt but it is not meant in a nasty way. Really, if you don't like it, start or join a movement to get it changed.

 

[Ronnie]

Nope, it's still simple. If you are stopped because you are carrying a big stick and you say " it's my walking stick" and have not been seen to be doing anything wrong with it, then off on your way you go. However if you are stopped carrying the same big stick and have either been seen to swing it at someone's head or say "Aye am aff to batter big Eck, he stole ma pocket money" then you're getting lifted. It's all about intent, and since intent is in your mind and demonstrated by your actions, the crime is thus committed.

No, it's not nearly that simple. The police find you holding a stick and big Eck lying on the ground blood pouring out of his head. You could say:

"I knew big Eck was after me and was going to assault and rob me so I brought my walking stick with me to defend myself" and that would mean you were carrying a weapon and you'd be going down.

Alternatively, you could say:

"I was walking along minding my own business when big Eck tried to assault and rob me, so I hit him over the head with the walking stick I happened to have with me to defend myself", and that would mean you would be much less likely to be seen to be carrying a weapon and you'd probably get away with it.

It's what you say, not what your intent was which makes the difference. Intent is extremely difficult to prove unless you voice it. I'm sure several Americans are howling with laughter at the absurdity of this.

 

[Goatboy]

No, it's not nearly that simple. The police find you holding a stick and big Eck lying on the ground blood pouring out of his head. You could say:

"I knew big Eck was after me and was going to assault and rob me so I brought my walking stick with me to defend myself" and that would mean you were carrying a weapon and you'd be going down.

Alternatively, you could say:

"I was walking along minding my own business when big Eck tried to assault and rob me, so I hit him over the head with the walking stick I happened to have with me to defend myself", and that would mean you would be much less likely to be seen to be carrying a weapon and you'd probably get away with it.

It's what you say, not what your intent was which makes the difference. Intent is extremely difficult to prove unless you voice it. I'm sure several Americans are howling with laughter at the absurdity of this.

But if it could be ascertained that you never usually carried a stick in an urban setting and that you knew that Big Eck was after you I'm sure most Sheriffs would do you for having an offensive weapon. It's context and proof again I'm afraid.

 

[Ronnie]

"My leg was giving me gyp and I thought big Eck was all mouth"

 

[Goatboy]

"My leg was giving me gyp and I thought big Eck was all mouth"

"...And you skelped him in the said mouth with a stick that you do not usually carry and have no proof that your leg was giving you gyp, as the medical report shows. Guilty as charged."

.................

 

[Ronnie]

I'll see you in court.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are forced to defend yourself - be very careful what you say afterwards

 

[Chiseller]

Self defence......is only justified, when the force is equal to the threat. You can justify a pre-emptive strike only under certain circumstances .....and you could use your walking stick if big eck had a walking stick, with which he attacked you.....or he had with him a walking stick that he had been commonly known ....or previously had been convicted of using to attack someone with. .



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Ronnie]

If big Eck comes at me trying to hurt me I will defend myself with whatever I happen to have at hand as is my right within the law. It doesn't matter whether he attacks me with a weapon or not.