Then they'll get a hell of a shock when they go to fill up their car's fuel tank.
Grand father arrested for carrying a knife
- Thread starter jojo
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
Then they'll get a hell of a shock when they go to fill up their car's fuel tank.
That's an extremely poor defense. And quite patronising.
It's about time such people received such a rude awakening then.
That is also a patronising response. You obviously think that to take things away will stop the rot, it's not the case. I have carried a knife pretty much all of my life either as a child (a penknife for whittling more than anything else) through lock and sheath knives as part of jobs that I do. Nowadays I carry a leatherman more often than not when traveling from a - b.
What you should be addressing is why should the law change, the problem lays with the criminal and how they are punished and not the average every day bloke.
You are talking about punishing a man who has no record of criminal action or violence for handing over a small lock knife to an authority figure. What he did was not wrong.
Yet a thug that gets stabbed in front of a papershop won't press charges against the thug that did it because he fears reprisals. Despite the police telling the owner of the papershop that even though it's on CCTV and he would make a perfect witness they will not be pursuing it, they even know who did it by name. No punishment for that one. Which case is wrong.
The man is a builder and I know a few who change into work clothes in portakabins on site so the he's gonna get changed is fair, but he maybe getting changed at work. He maybe maintaining the knife at home at the end of the day. We / you don't know.
This country is still a democracy and rude awakenings where things are enforced on people are more along the facist side of life.
Start dealing with real criminals and not the average bloke who really hasn't done anything wrong, bearing in mind he has probably been carrying a knife his whole life and has never even been accused of showing it to someone.
Unfortunately, it was. It is illegal to carry a knife with a blade that locks without good reason. Modern laws are there for a modern lifestyle- sixty years ago it may have been neccessary to carry a locking blade but in the modern world a sub 3 inch slipjoint is perfectly adequate, we use knives on the most part for light office duties, food prep and whittling.
Although he had no malicious intent and didn't mean to do "wrong" he broke the law and the law dealed with it correctly- the knife was seized, he was cautioned ( as the circumstances clearly shoed he had no malicious intent) and released.
he did something wrong, was warned and sent on his way, a sensible solution to the matters
He is a builder, and what he was using it for you don't know. There is a case that he may need a knife with a locking blade.
As it was he handed the thing over, he didn't try to conceal it, he didn't get nasty and he gets a warning / caution for it. Even within the law there is room for common sense which is why it is upto the officers discretion.
What you are talking about are absolutes and there are very few of those even in the law. The minute that you start putting absolutes in then you take away freedom to think and and the ability to interpret. There are many shades of grey within the law just for the reason that if everything was cut and dry you would not need lawyers, court rooms or jury's.
This is one of those things that is cut and dried, the law explicitly prohibits the carrying of a locking knife without good reason, i don't know what he was using it for, but as he was going to a courtroom there was no good reason for him to have it in his possession. His punishment could have been much tougher and the leniency with which he has been treated shows that common sense was used.
he was arrested- he had broken the law! but after the police had spoken to him and reviewed the situation he was released with a caution- his punishnet fitted the crime and this is where the flexibility is, if he had been 40 years younger and aggressive towards the officers who arrested him then it might have been different.
i fail to really see the problem, it looks very nuch to me like the law worked perfectly
Pardon my outsider comments from across the pond but couldn't some kind of permit system be established to get you guys a little piece of mind. I mean in Pennsyvania where I'm from any citizen can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm provided you have no history of criminal activity, domestic abuse, mental illness, or drug abuse. That is for self defense. The permit costs $25 and is good for five years. Carry a gun without a permit and you are in a world of legal trouble.
I have had two encounters with law enforcement when legally armed in the US and in each it was just a matter of presenting my permit with my DL, slow down and have a nice day.
Is it so inconceivable that a permit system could be established in the UK to allow anyone with no criminal record or whatever to legally carry a locking pocketknife, for normal pocketknife chores simply because they are safer than non-locking knives? IMO you guys need a break. Mac
I have had two encounters with law enforcement when legally armed in the US and in each it was just a matter of presenting my permit with my DL, slow down and have a nice day.
Is it so inconceivable that a permit system could be established in the UK to allow anyone with no criminal record or whatever to legally carry a locking pocketknife, for normal pocketknife chores simply because they are safer than non-locking knives? IMO you guys need a break. Mac
This is absolutely disgusting. I know some people will say he shouldn't of entered a court building with a knife in his pocket ...and yes, they would probably be right. But for goodness sake, where the hell is the common sense?
Firstly, it is NOT illegal to carry a lock knife (even in a court room). There is no law that says it's illegal to enter court buildings with a knife.
It is illegal to carry a lock knife without a good reason
So what is a good reason? Can anyone show me an act of parliament with a list of them?
No, of course not. It's up to the police/CPS/Courts to decide. It's not black and white - far from it.
The law is deliberately vague on this point. The reason it's deliberately vague is to give police the discretion they need to decide who constitutes a hazard to public safety and importantly, who doesnt. This means they can bust some blaggard in your back garden at 2am, jimmying your window but it also means, they can let 64 year old grandpa's with no previous record and who are obviously absolutely no threat to public safety, go on their way without issue. They are not obliged to charge or caution the old fella with anything.
They let him go with a caution. Well they didn't let him go, the old fella probably didn't realise that accepting the caution is accepting his guilt and admitting an offence and will appear on his record. If he'd of refused the caution, it would of been bounced up to a senior officer who would probably of let him go. I note the CPS were unwilling to comment. I'll just bet they were. Rather red faced I would think. This bloke is not a criminal, he is obviously not a hazard to public safety and if it had of gone to court, it would of been thrown out. I rarely say anything negative about the police, on the whole I think they do a superb job, but I hope the arresting officer on this one got a damned good roasting off his Chief.
Normally, I hesitate to comment on these things, because there is always another side to the story. But really, 64 year old fella with no previous record at all, voluntarily hands his pocket knife to the guard. A real demon he is - I dont know how I'll sleep at night.
We really need to take stock, this is absolutely bonkers. The police are not serving society in any way at all by giving this man a criminal record. We really need to object to this kind of thing in the strongest possible terms. This man has led 64 years of his life with nothing more that a speeding ticket, but now he has a police record which will prevent him from obtaining a firearms certificate, working with children, obtaining a travel visa to the USA and much more. I'm disgusted. In fact I feel motivated to pen a letter to my MP.
Firstly, it is NOT illegal to carry a lock knife (even in a court room). There is no law that says it's illegal to enter court buildings with a knife.
It is illegal to carry a lock knife without a good reason
So what is a good reason? Can anyone show me an act of parliament with a list of them?
No, of course not. It's up to the police/CPS/Courts to decide. It's not black and white - far from it.
The law is deliberately vague on this point. The reason it's deliberately vague is to give police the discretion they need to decide who constitutes a hazard to public safety and importantly, who doesnt. This means they can bust some blaggard in your back garden at 2am, jimmying your window but it also means, they can let 64 year old grandpa's with no previous record and who are obviously absolutely no threat to public safety, go on their way without issue. They are not obliged to charge or caution the old fella with anything.
They let him go with a caution. Well they didn't let him go, the old fella probably didn't realise that accepting the caution is accepting his guilt and admitting an offence and will appear on his record. If he'd of refused the caution, it would of been bounced up to a senior officer who would probably of let him go. I note the CPS were unwilling to comment. I'll just bet they were. Rather red faced I would think. This bloke is not a criminal, he is obviously not a hazard to public safety and if it had of gone to court, it would of been thrown out. I rarely say anything negative about the police, on the whole I think they do a superb job, but I hope the arresting officer on this one got a damned good roasting off his Chief.
Normally, I hesitate to comment on these things, because there is always another side to the story. But really, 64 year old fella with no previous record at all, voluntarily hands his pocket knife to the guard. A real demon he is - I dont know how I'll sleep at night.
We really need to take stock, this is absolutely bonkers. The police are not serving society in any way at all by giving this man a criminal record. We really need to object to this kind of thing in the strongest possible terms. This man has led 64 years of his life with nothing more that a speeding ticket, but now he has a police record which will prevent him from obtaining a firearms certificate, working with children, obtaining a travel visa to the USA and much more. I'm disgusted. In fact I feel motivated to pen a letter to my MP.
Nope. It was a critical response. There was nothing patronising whatsoever about what I said.
No, I don't believe things should be taken away. We are all acting dewy-eyed and as if he was some kindly Father Christmas grandfatherly figure. And he may well have been. But how do the authorities know that? Hospital staff, agrieved complainants in courts, Police, even fire brigade staff, have all been attacked. Just because he is a 60+ year old fella, DOES NOT mean he is incapable of violent action. No doubt Mr Read is not such a person. But how do the authorities know? And in such heightened times, it makes it even more incredulous.
As has been mentioned in other posts on this thread, the law CAN NOT discriminate. The law is there to target inappropriate and suspicious use of any OFFENSIVE ITEM (be it knife, screwdriver, keys etc). The law cannot arbitrate for people like us (and Mr Read) who will use a knife responsibly. It has to deal with the idiots - after all the law is a preventative authority. But law officials (the Police and judiciary) do have that power of discretion to decide if a law is being compromised and needs to be enforced. Common sense already prevails, since no one is pulled up by the Police, let alone carted off, if using a knife in an acceptable pasttime in a repsonsible manner- whether technically illegal or not. The law is not out to get the likes of us, and they know it. The law is there to give powers to try to stop knife crime and the perpetrators of it. And they will be the ones focussed. Thinking that some sweet innocent old grandad self-evidently could not or would not commit a violent act in a building where he does not need to carry a knife IS patronising. 'He surrendered it, so he obviosuly meant no harm,' is also a poor defense, since how do the authorities know what his intentions are? Maybe he was hoping to get away with it, panicked, and thought if he gave it in it would get him off? Maybe not? Can't you see how complex it is? They HAD to do what they did, and he SHOULD NOT have been carrying it.
Becoming a fascist state? Oh please! Well, maybe if you read the Daily Mail. This is not a threat to our civil liberties. This event changes nothing. Stop working yourselves up into an indignant frenzy, and stop projecting your own paranoia onto the case. The world has turned smoothly enough for millenia and will no doubt continue to do so, whether anyone likes it or not.
That's a great post Martyn. I didn't realise the full implications of receiving a police caution.
I haven't seen a single piece of research that indicates the knife prohibitions are an affective means of reduction of knife crime. From my own experience I'd say that knives were carried far more frequently in the seventies and sixties. I remember visiting my brother in scout camp over three decades ago: almost every kid had a stack handled sheath knife strapped to his belt, It was not unusual to see hikers and tourists sporting similar knives, openly carried, either. There probably is a means of reducing crime, but the government are either too stupid to work it out, or unwilling to implement the means necessary. Either way, knife prohibitions do not help to reduce knife crime in any way shape or form. I don't object to knife bans only on the basis that the criminalise law abiding citizens of good character, but also because they do absolutely zero in terms of protecting me from knife wielding criminals.
I haven't seen a single piece of research that indicates the knife prohibitions are an affective means of reduction of knife crime. From my own experience I'd say that knives were carried far more frequently in the seventies and sixties. I remember visiting my brother in scout camp over three decades ago: almost every kid had a stack handled sheath knife strapped to his belt, It was not unusual to see hikers and tourists sporting similar knives, openly carried, either. There probably is a means of reducing crime, but the government are either too stupid to work it out, or unwilling to implement the means necessary. Either way, knife prohibitions do not help to reduce knife crime in any way shape or form. I don't object to knife bans only on the basis that the criminalise law abiding citizens of good character, but also because they do absolutely zero in terms of protecting me from knife wielding criminals.
Now, Mr Yeoman!! tuttuttt! What's wrong with the french? I am a French old duffer/tit and I am perfectly civilized and house trained!!!
Just as well i don't take offence too often! I didn't start this thread to start a slanging match. Just felt it was relevant to the current climate and debate on knives. I think the guy was a bit naive. No one is supposed to be ignorant of the law. There are enough noises made about this, you would think people would know, wouldn't you? I don't think there is one person at work who actually know anything about the law, but they all know "knives are banned weapons" though!!!
I would have thought the security guys in the court have strict guidelines about any "weapons" so probably had no choice but to call the police. As to the police, well, I would have thought they had more leeway when deciding what to do with a miscreant Old Duffer like Mr Read. Maybe the copper had a bad hair day!!!
As to American, welllll..... I would love to live there, or Canada. Normally the people of any country are pretty decent and have nothing much to do with the politics of their politicians once they are voted in.... then it tends to go all pear shaped! Would be nice to keep the thread friendly though.
You mean heightened media hysteria? The Home Office crime figures for assaults with sharply pointed or bladed articles have remained almost exactly the same year on year for the last 10 years. Most of those are caused by kitchen knives. A 64 year old builder is about as remote from the "knife problem" as it's possible to get.
Yes it can. Actually the law requires discrimination. Carrying a knife is not an absolute offence. It's not like speeding 30mph is legal, 40mph gets you 3 points. The law says you can carry a knife if you have a good reason. That means somebody has to decide what a good reason is. That person in the first instance is a police officer. They take the circumstances and context into consideration and they discriminate ...they press charges against the obviously guilty and let off the obviously innocent (usually). In fact it's not just knife law, the CPS Guidelines [link to pdf] encourages common sense discrimination (look at paragraphs 5.6, 5.7 and 5.10). It doesnt serve the public interest to bring the full weight of the prosecution system against an otherwise law abiding Joe Bloggs, because he fell over some legal tripwire.
Again, yes it can. At this point, I would suggest you read up on your knife law (start with section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988), because you are making some bold and authoritative statements about law that are simply untrue.
Sorry, but that's just rubbish. The police have the discretion to arrest him or let him go. A simple check of his background would show that he has lived for 64 years without committing a crime. Such a person should not have a criminal record simply dished out without the utmost gravity. It serves no interest to criminalize such people. The man is obviously not a criminal, just a builder between jobs, it's utterly idiotic to serve a caution to such a person. Unless there is some alternate universe where there are gangs of 64 year old builders roaming the streets in the dead of the afternoon, trading under age bus passes on street corners and causing
mayhem with their trowels.
For goodness sake, get a grip.
You can carry a 3 inch swiss army knife anywhere, anytime, including a court of law, or a police station, or a public house for that matter. They may ask you to hand it in until you leave, or they may not. Their decision, but it's certainly not illegal. It should of gone like this...
"Thankyou for handing that in sir, we'll keep it here at the desk for you and you may collect it when you leave the court building. Please be aware that there are restrictions on the carriage of locking knives, you would be advised to appraise yourself of the law. Thankyou."
End of!
I wondered when the sound of reason would arrive. Thank you Martyn. I would also like the view of Danzo on this matter if we could have him on loan for five seconds of his valuable time.
If the old guy has a firearm certificate and he tries to renew it he now has a caution on his record for carrying a concealed edged weapon. There is a good chance that when this is taken into account he will lose his firearm certificate. I believe that you are also obliged by law to inform the chief constable of a caution if you should hold a firearms certificate as soon as possible.
The ramifications and knock on effect of this very unjust decision could be greater and more costly than people think.
If the old guy has a firearm certificate and he tries to renew it he now has a caution on his record for carrying a concealed edged weapon. There is a good chance that when this is taken into account he will lose his firearm certificate. I believe that you are also obliged by law to inform the chief constable of a caution if you should hold a firearms certificate as soon as possible.
The ramifications and knock on effect of this very unjust decision could be greater and more costly than people think.
I'm off to buy a SAK, can't risk my passport. Ironically though it will have a longer blade than my little Almar locker.
Is there room in the asylum for one more...........me please.
Is there room in the asylum for one more...........me please.
Well many do not realise the implications Leon. The phrase "let off with a caution" couldn't be further from the truth. A caution begins with...
"I [insert name] admit the offence of [insert offence]..."
For most people it boils down to getting home for tea versus a night in the cells. It's only later they realise that they have admitted to committing an offence and that they are now recorded on the police database as an offender, which will have a prejudicial effect on all sorts of things, FAC applications, job applications, the type of work they can do, certain travel visas etc..
Ahhh, Saturday afternoon my friend. He'll no doubt have an appointment with a rather charming Chianti or some-such. No matter though, if I bump into something I'm even half unsure of, I'll drag Rumpole out of his cave and give the old boy a sharp rap on his gout. That usually serves to sharpen his wits ....momentarily at least.
You'll get a heart attack, getting that angry, Martyn
I, personally see knives as tools, same as my carving chisels, saws etc.I am a boatbuilder, and I work as a woodwork tutor and I tend to use them most of the time. What I was trying to say is that, the people at work, all have heard what's being peddled on the media: Knives are banned weapons It seems that's what most people have heard and believe. So I found it hard to believe that chap would not have heard that too.
Not so long ago I carried a bag full of sharp tools, on two buses, including knives, carving knives, chisels, if someone had seen this I probably could have got myself arrested too. I considered to be legitimate: I was going to work and back. Some copper might have seen it differently.
I want to be able to continue carrying a knife when I need one, I most of the time carry a SAK. But I would not take it into a court, even knowing it is legal for me to have one. Simply because I would not need to, and I basically don't want to attract grief to myself. That'd almost be like waving a red rag in a bull's face!
- Status
