Grand father arrested for carrying a knife

[Martyn]

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!

It was legitimate and still is. The last meaningful change to the law was Harris v DPP in 1993 - 15 years ago. There is an awful lot of absolute rot written in our tabloids.

 

[spamel]

If he was at court for a speeding matter then surely he prepared and put his best suit on. I wouldn't have thought he'd then go on to his next job in that suit !!

If his intention (rather than the excuse he thought up later for having the knife) was to go straight from court to his next job why didn't he take his hammer / chisels / tape measure etc to court as well? Perhaps he left them in his van, where his knife should have been.

The guard and police did the right thing, its up to the court to decide if his intentions were illegal. I would dare to say that no one has ever been arrested for sitting in the woods making a spoon, taking a knife (or any other prohibited weapon) in to court was a daft move (wether intentional or not).

I think it was right to deal with him for the knife in the way they did but i also think more effort should go in to targetting the small majority (ones who carry knives with illegal intent).

Rant over, back to more pleasant things like whats for dinner?? :sulkoff:

So leaving a lockable knife in your vehicle is acceptable in Law? Be careful if you regularly do that, I think you'll find it is classed as a public place.

Giving a 64 year old law abiding citizen, who handed his knife over for safe keeping, a caution (and therefore a criminal record) is an absolute disgrace. Another case of statistics and targets that need to be reached. If he was a hoody crim scrote, he'd have been let off as he would know the ins and outs of the Law due to most of his mates getting done for something similar, or his circumstances blamed on his poor upbringing and pressure from his mates because he used to wear Gola trainers for PE instead of Adidas or Nike! These are the very people that should get the full weight of the Law thrown at them but invariably don't. The Justice system seems to target the wrong elements entirely at the moment. It seems that the law abiding citizen is an easy target as the crims know the law inside out and know the loopholes to get away with murder!

 

[Pict]

A permit system cuts through all the discretionary "just cause" garbage. It separates the haves from the have nots. If you have a clean record you get treated like the fine upstanding CITIZEN that you are. If you "have not" a clean record you get told you can't be trusted with sharp objects, period. It really is that simple.

At courthouses in PA if you arrive with a legally carried firearm they have to secure it for you while you are there and return it to you when you leave. You show up, present your carry permit, hand them your firearm and they put it in the locker. When you leave you present your ticket and they hand you back your gun.

Concealed firearms permit holders in the US have the lowest conviction rates for all crimes of any people group across the board including law enforcement officers and I assume it would be the same in the UK. Just the fact that you have one means you have never committed a felony, slapped your wife around, been a drug addict, or been committed to a mental institution.

In the UK any upstanding citizen (bushcrafter) who would qualify for such a permit would be able to live free from harassment while the young punks arming themselves for mayhem would have the weight of the law come down on them. The cost of such a permit would be a nominal fee that would cover the computerized background check and the cost of the photo ID.

The last time I had a knife held up to my face here in Brazil it was made from a piece of hackksaw blade ground down on a side walk most likely and wrapped in tape for a handle, trust me I got a good look at it! There is a technological level below which people have no trouble arming themselves. The Spyderco Endura on my right hand pocket for the last eight years has only ever cut me and is in no way associated with "Knife Crime". Mac

 

[Tony]

The Spyderco Endura on my right hand pocket for the last eight years has only ever cut me and is in no way associated with "Knife Crime". Mac

Ahh, see here the fact that you had cut yourself is still classed as a knife injury and would be used in statistics to prove that knife crime has gone up, for the papers it doesn't matter who cut you

I feel for this 64 year old chap, the media, a lot of coppers and most of the public say that carrying any knife is against the law and they don't understand and many don't want to understand that it's not the case. I bet this guy just went along with it and thought he was in the wrong and it's a real shame that he'd be treated that way.

 

[Rebel]

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!

Amen!

A totally absurd case that should never have gone as far as it did.

 

[Rebel]

A permit system cuts through all the discretionary "just cause" garbage. It separates the haves from the have nots. If you have a clean record you get treated like the fine upstanding CITIZEN that you are. If you "have not" a clean record you get told you can't be trusted with sharp objects, period. It really is that simple.

At courthouses in PA if you arrive with a legally carried firearm they have to secure it for you while you are there and return it to you when you leave. You show up, present your carry permit, hand them your firearm and they put it in the locker. When you leave you present your ticket and they hand you back your gun.

Concealed firearms permit holders in the US have the lowest conviction rates for all crimes of any people group across the board including law enforcement officers and I assume it would be the same in the UK. Just the fact that you have one means you have never committed a felony, slapped your wife around, been a drug addict, or been committed to a mental institution.

In the UK any upstanding citizen (bushcrafter) who would qualify for such a permit would be able to live free from harassment while the young punks arming themselves for mayhem would have the weight of the law come down on them. The cost of such a permit would be a nominal fee that would cover the computerized background check and the cost of the photo ID.

The idea of a permit is interesting, I wonder if our government has considered the possibility.

 

[NickC]

I had something similar a couple of years ago - finshed work and met wife in Windsor. Had a couple of hours spare so thought we would go round castle. Only when emptied pocket for security guard and realised I had my lock knife which I use at work. Security guard gave me a few words of warning - I offered to return it to my vehicle, but then he let me visit castle with knife in my pocket. I learned lesson and make sure I dont carry knife when not required. I am just glad he wasnt a jobsworth otherwise I could have spent a night in the cells.

By the way the only time I have ever seen anything being used as a weapon was a pint glass full of beer (the guy got a face full of stitches) - perhaps these should all be made of rudder and required to be empty. Its amazing what can be classed as a weapon.

Nick

 

[durulz]

I think this debate has probably run its course. All sides have said their piece and, whether I agree with them or not, I think many people have had many interesting things to say.
Ultimately I, like everyone else, think this an overblown case. For whatever reasons. I'm sure it will make some of us rethink where and when we carry knives, however small they may be.
Unless it's Windsor Castle, of course. In which case fill your boots.

 

[nickg]

my only point on the cause of this controversy is what makes a locking knife any more offensive than a non-locking knife? nothing, if I were to be so inclined I could slash cut and stab a piece of meat with either and the cuts would be forensically indistinguishable from each other so what makes my SAK less offensive than a locking version?
I also think that he possibly would have received just as much attention if he'd walked in with a non locking knife simply because it was a courtroom, and for perfectly understandable reasons.

Cheers
Nick

 

[leon-1]

my only point on the cause of this controversy is what makes a locking knife any more offensive than a non-locking knife? nothing, if I were to be so inclined I could slash cut and stab a piece of meat with either and the cuts would be forensically indistinguishable from each other so what makes my SAK less offensive than a locking version?
I also think that he possibly would have received just as much attention if he'd walked in with a non locking knife simply because it was a courtroom, and for perfectly understandable reasons.

Cheers
Nick

Nick it's more the way that the law sees it, there is a chance that if you tried to stab something with your SAK that the blade would fold on your fingers (unless it is a locking SAK), with lock knives that is not likely to happen and in the eyes of the law they are viewed as being fixed bladed.

I think they used to use terms such as as criminal intent when prosecuting, but that has probably changed.

 

[Martyn]

Nick it's more the way that the law sees it, there is a chance that if you tried to stab something with your SAK that the blade would fold on your fingers (unless it is a locking SAK), with lock knives that is not likely to happen and in the eyes of the law they are viewed as being fixed bladed.

I think they used to use terms such as as criminal intent when prosecuting, but that has probably changed.

That's exactly it leon. The law has, for a while (20 years at least) made a distinction between fixed blade knives and folding knives, with greater restrictions being placed on fixed blades.

More recently (15 years ago), it has been deemed that because the lock on a folding knife prevents it from folding, that it is in effect a fixed blade knife when locked open and should be treated as such in legal terms.

This means, that in legal terms, the court does not see any difference between a 3" locking folder and a 9" bowie knife. It treats both exactly the same.

 

[leon-1]

This means, that in legal terms, the court does not see any difference between a 3" locking folder and a 9" bowie knife. It treats both exactly the same.

Strange when you think that the lock is actually a safety feature and due to that it's now almost demonized for it.

 

[mortalmerlin]

It shows the law is wrong and needs to change, not that we need to be aware of it.

 

[Squidders]

I can't wait until our crappy little country gets invaded and all we have to defend it is political correctness.

 

[csoty]

Don't go to steak house! The steak knives are very dangerous!!!

 

[In Wood]

Just to throw something into the mix.
What is the law on carrying an axe??

 

[Daegurth]

just for the people who said he was getting a criminal record; i'm pretty sure he'll only have got a police record. same thing, but it says he's had a run-in with the law, rather than being an out-and-out criminal. i got one for having a bb gun fight in an empty street in the middle of the night.

but you don't have to tell an employer about it unless they specifically ask about it. you can still say no to the question "do you have a criminal record?".

 

[fishy1]

the mans age,

Why should age figure in it at all? I don't believe age discrimination is acceptable.

 

[Martyn]

just for the people who said he was getting a criminal record; i'm pretty sure he'll only have got a police record. same thing, but it says he's had a run-in with the law, rather than being an out-and-out criminal. i got one for having a bb gun fight in an empty street in the middle of the night.

but you don't have to tell an employer about it unless they specifically ask about it. you can still say no to the question "do you have a criminal record?".

You are partly right, a caution is not a criminal conviction and if you are simply asked to declare any convictions, you dont need to declare a caution. However, it is recorded and if the job required an enhanced CRB check, such as when working with children or with vulnerable adults, the caution will show on the CRB check.

 

[Martyn]

Why should age figure in it at all? I don't believe age discrimination is acceptable.

Because if he has managed to go 64 years without trouble with the police, it's speaks volumes about the mans character.