If it includes one handed openers then most multitools will come under that terminology, bet you dont see the coppers not wearing a leatherman on their belt, you would also have to include one handed opening rescue knives used by tree surgeons, rescue teams etc. As above, at the moment they have have only issued a statement, im going to wait and see what the actual proposed legislation says before drawing any conclusions
Home Office announces plans for Offensive Weapons Bill
- Thread starter Kepis
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
If it includes one handed openers then most multitools will come under that terminology, bet you dont see the coppers not wearing a leatherman on their belt, you would also have to include one handed opening rescue knives used by tree surgeons, rescue teams etc. As above, at the moment they have have only issued a statement, im going to wait and see what the actual proposed legislation says before drawing any conclusions
Yep. The opening mechanism as part of the blade could easily include holes and thumb studs.
Mark, I agree we should wait and see, but since when has that stopped the tinfoil hatters, conspiracy theorists and good old dyed in the wool cynics like myself expressing their concerns on here?
I seem to recall that police, military and emergency workers have a dispensation to carry all manner of things Joe Public can’t.
The way I'm reading is slightly different, I'm reading Blade, Handle, and Mechanism as individual parts.
I agree with kepis, we don't actually know what the legislation's going to say yet, we need to wait and see.
I remember pistol shooters saying much the same.
So do I. All the people that I knew to own pistols are still shooting though, they're just doing it slightly differently. But I get your point.
It's because it crosses the boundary from tool to weapon apparently. Probably more of a public perception thing in reality but flick knives at least got a bad rep for being used in gang violence. It's like the zombie knife thing, once a knife becomes showy in some way it gets used by kids for status or whatever and flags up on the police radar as a problem.
Mark, I agree we should wait and see, but since when has that stopped the tinfoil hatters, conspiracy theorists and good old dyed in the wool cynics like myself expressing their concerns on here?
I seem to recall that police, military and emergency workers have a dispensation to carry all manner of things Joe Public can’t.
I can only speak for the Forces but you still couldn't wear what you wanted out and about unless you were 'at work'. No bayonet on the belt on the way home stuff, as it should be I reckon. If you need it for work then fair do's and I would hope that there are dispensations but there really is no need to cut about (
) with knives. Even when I'm away camping/hill walking I don't feel the need to keep a knife to hand unless I'm going to use it. As has been pointed out before, we used to go to the shops for EVERYTHING and didn't bat an eyelid. Do I think this policy will have an effect on knife crime ? No, not really and it probably is a 'sop' to society by politicians, the gang mentality will still exist and mum's kitchen knives will always be an option to 'stab each other up'. It's where we're at though, both with the 'stabbing up' and with the legislating for everything. Well I say everything, we still let 'children' drive cars before we trust them enough to buy cigarettes because, ya know, 'everyone' needs a car but hey ho, that's different.
Apols to mods if I've crossed a line, I'll not be offended if this post is edited or removed.
Excellent post and yes, I wasn’t suggesting anything other than military or other emergency personnel being allowed to carry for anything other than work.I can only speak for the Forces but you still couldn't wear what you wanted out and about unless you were 'at work'. No bayonet on the belt on the way home stuff, as it should be I reckon. If you need it for work then fair do's and I would hope that there are dispensations but there really is no need to cut about (
One only has to look at one or two Faceache groups where “bushcrafters” are punting Klingon and “tactical” knives to see we don’t do ourselves any favours at times.
Define mechanism? is a hole or blade tang a mechanism? I have a flipper that has a shallow button to lock the blade closed you cant really unlock it one handed?..... anyhow I sure all acid and knife related crime will now stop things are going out of control, but for sure the government must be scared and if not that then they really don't know what to do.
Excellent post and yes, I wasn’t suggesting anything other than military or other emergency personnel being allowed to carry for anything other than work.
One only has to look at one or two Faceache groups where “bushcrafters” are punting Klingon and “tactical” knives to see we don’t do ourselves any favours at times.
I'm a relative newb to the bushcrafty forums but I've known guys going back years who feel the need to make a demonstration out of getting a knife out. I've carried a Swiss army knife in my pocket for about 35 years (I'm pushing 50) and used to use it pretty much every day. One of the attractions for the SAK, apart from its build quality is that just about everybody knows what it is and doesn't take offence. Guys swinging out the 'flip' knives extravagantly only attracts the wrong kind of attention (and for the wrong reasons). As you say, some of 'us' don't do ourselves any favours. Its a pity that it all gets wrapped up with the 'knife culture' that includes gangs.
Just lip service.
If gangs stopped using knives they only use something else, be it a broken bottle or a house brick.
Crime wont reduce, just change form
If gangs stopped using knives they only use something else, be it a broken bottle or a house brick.
Crime wont reduce, just change form
Great! –just what we need. Yet more knee-jerk laws which punish everyone for the mis-deeds of the few.
I just hope we don't get a spate of teenagers kicking each other to death now –or the government will bring in legislation making it illegal to possess a pair of shoes without good reason.
Here's an idea for you government:
Why don't you try actually punishing the people who stab someone because "Ee looked at me inna funny way innit!", or throw acid in someone's face to nick their phone, by throwing the perpetrators in prison for so long even their brain-dead fellow "gangstas" get the message? Rather than --every single bloody time!-- punishing the entire population because you're too frightened of targetting the actual criminals, for fear of offending some minority pressure group or other.
I just hope we don't get a spate of teenagers kicking each other to death now –or the government will bring in legislation making it illegal to possess a pair of shoes without good reason.
Here's an idea for you government:
Why don't you try actually punishing the people who stab someone because "Ee looked at me inna funny way innit!", or throw acid in someone's face to nick their phone, by throwing the perpetrators in prison for so long even their brain-dead fellow "gangstas" get the message? Rather than --every single bloody time!-- punishing the entire population because you're too frightened of targetting the actual criminals, for fear of offending some minority pressure group or other.
They could force you guys wearing only pink Crocks.
I think that would prevent the kicking bit. Problem solved!
I think that would prevent the kicking bit. Problem solved!
You've shot way wide of the mark here. The update to the offensive weapons bill is designed to do exactly what you've just asked the government to do. The updates are specifically to give the police better powers to punish criminals and prevent future crimes. The update to the policy on buying knives on-line just brings internet sales up to the same restrictions as shop sales. It's not a new law just closing loopholes that were being exploited. The redefinition of 'flick knife' is because the existing definition is weak and again companies were again exploiting loopholes. Most of the point is to be able to seize weapons and prosecute criminals before it gets to the stabbing stage.
Sadly if you want criminals put in prison you need laws to judge them against.
And sadly, we would need more prisons and prison guards meaning higher taxes.....
I think you're missing my point.
My objection is to the whole "punish everyone for the mis-deeds of the few" approach to legislation which successive governments employ and that includes the original knife legislation. For all that the police love to post pictures on Twatter of vicious Rambo Knives [or Zombie Knives, or whatever the current phrase is] that they've seized off dodgy gang members, the original knife legislation also effectively outlawed the harmless Leatherman tools and Swiss Army Knives, the like of which many many people on this forum have carried on us every day from when we were children --and which have never been used to threaten anything more than a stubborn nut & bolt or end of a pencil and that have never been used to stab anything other than the cork on a wine bottle.
And now the amendments to the legislation will add some catch-all definition of a "one handed opening mechanism" to the mix. So now, we're all looking at our pen-knives with a cut-out or a peg on the blade, to aid with opening while wearing gloves and wondering are those illegal now, as well.
I've carried a pen-knife almost every day of my life since I was about 12 or 13. I'm in my 50s now. During that time I've never once even opened the blade in a public place where I thought other people might feel alarmed by it, never mind threatened anyone with it or much less attacked anyone with it. But, because of the antics of some subhuman pond-life in a city hundreds of miles away, suddenly I've technically become a criminal now, every time I walk out of the house with my SAK in my pocket, because it has a lock on its puny 3" blade.
Now I'd like to think that, if the police ever had cause to stop me for anything and go through my pockets, the officer in question would use a bit of logic and reason and realise that a middle-aged bloke with no criminal record, going about his lawful business, wasn't up to any mischief or posing a threat to society. But it only takes that one 'jobsworth copper" [and we've all come across them!] to decide he wants to get a pat on the back from his superiors and, before you know it, you've got a criminal record and the police get to add one to their figures showing how many "lethal weapons" they've seized.
Meantime, of course, the pond-life who go about mugging, stabbing and throwing acid in the faces of anyone who they don't like the look of will carry on as normal; ignoring the laws WHICH ALREADY EXIST! to make such things a crime because they know, if they do get arrested, they'll spend a couple of years in prison where they'll be treated as if they're the victim because 40 years ago someone called their grandad "the N word" thus meaning it's all society's fault anyway.
One of the foundation stones of what is called British Justice is supposed to be the fact that we are all assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. I'm concerned that we're increasingly seeing the introduction of laws which do the opposite; they assume we have evil intent unless we can prove otherwise. That is a very alarming and very slippery slope. But, unfortunately, the clamouring "Well, if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide!" brigade drowns out any serious debate.
I find myself in a strange middle-ground on a lot of these issues; on the one hand I'm a libertarian; I pretty much believe that anyone should be able to do pretty much anything they like, as long as this doesn't negatively impact on other people and the government should keep its nose out of people's lives. On the other hand, I believe that some people are just irredeemable and those types [especially those who are serially violent] need locking away for good, to protect the weaker members of society.
Unfortunately, as I said, recent & successive government policy seems to think that you can solve all society's ills by the application of more and more laws and more and more surveillance, which seems to be doing little to deter the actual violent criminal classes but makes all the rest of us just that wee bit less free.
My point is that your point misses the point. You're arguing from a point of ignorance and if you looked at the proposed revisions and read the intention of the changes you'd find their purpose is quite similar to what you're asking for. We've already had a long thread discussing this so I won't go over it all again but I will use my main argument again. A stanley knife has a button on the handle to release the blade. This is not counted as a flick knife as there is no assisted mechanism involved in its opening. A thumb stud and a hinge on a folding knife would be an incredible stretch to include within the definition of a flick knive's assisted mechanism. Quite a few of us wrote in as part of the consultation on this proposed legislation to ask that the flick knife definition is written more clearly to emphasise the use of the spring though. You quote the locking folder rule as legislation but it isn't, it's case law precedent that set that rule because of a poor definition in the legislation covering folding knives. A better definition for flick knives potentially protects one handed openers more than it harms them. If your reaction was correct then every stanley knife would be illegal to own, every leatherman multitool, every box cutter used in supermarkets, can you really see that happening?
I have no problem with people expressing their opinions but I take exception to unfounded prejudicial statements.
To be fair, we all are, given that the legislation has not gone through parliament or ended up on the statute books yet.
I'm glad to hear that and I hope the legislators took some notice. Far too often these things are introduced without any consultation and I wasn't aware of any "consultation period" on this. From reading the press reports, I got the impression this was being rushed through in response to the recent spate of stabbings in London.
My point was that your point missed the point of my point.
You're focussing almost entirely on a very general point I made about the minutiae of the proposed legislation with regard to the definition of "assisted opening" on a knife and ignoring my broader point which is [for the third time now] that; more and more these days, government rushes in new legislation that "punishes everyone for the mis-deeds of the few", rather than using the existing laws [of which we have more than enough] to punish wrong-doers.
A couple of examples off the top of my head of legislation either introduced or proposed:
PROBLEM: Teenage thugs [mostly in London] keep stabbing each other
LOGICAL SOLUTION: Lock violent offenders away for a very long time.
GOVT SOLUTION: Criminalise almost anyone who carries any kind of knife.
PROBLEM: Half-wits fly drones next to airports, endangering planes
LOGICAL SOLUTION: Use existing laws on sabotage and flight safety to punish these people.
GOVT SOLUTION: Ban anyone from operating a drone [over toy size] without a licence.
PROBLEM: Some criminals use encrypted messaging apps on their phones to disguise their communications
LOGICAL SOLUTION: It doesn't matter. Even if you make them send clear text messages they're going to use coded language, anyway.
GOVT SOLUTION: Make it illegal for anyone to encrypt a message in a way that the government can't read it
And it's not just on a national level. Local authorities do it too...
Some people are paedophiles and get off on pictures of children
LOGICAL SOLUTION: Arrest them, treat them, chemically castrate them, whatever.
LOCAL AUTHORITY SOLUTION: Ban parents from taking photos of their own kids in the school play.
And on and on it goes. Every time, instead of addressing the people who are actually committing the offences and punishing them properly, those in authority just run around like headless chickens, banning "stuff" and spoiling the lives of the vast majority of decent law-abiding people. And as @direwul said, it's almost completely pointless, anyway:
They stab each other –-ban pen-knives. They start throwing acid in each other's faces --ban cleaning chemicals. They start hitting each other with sticks --ban walking sticks. They start kicking each other --ban boots. They hit each other with large pieces of fruit --ban large pieces of fruit. They start punching each other --amputate everybody's hands.
Where does it end? At what point do you stop just banning everything that might conceivably be used as a weapon and actually ban the people who perpetrate these crimes instead --by locking them away from society for a very long time and leaving the rest of us to get on with our lives in peace?
Similar threads
