Reasons for carrying a knife (in the UK).......

[chewie]

Perhaps you would be good enough to show me where I suggested that this related to travelling with stolen or prohibited articles?

An interesting twisting of what I actually said.

Happy to explain.

You stated that you would be arrested if you were carrying a s139 legal knife, which is nonsense.

Prohibited articles are defined as offensive weapons, articles to which s139 does apply, and articles for use in burglary, theft or cheat. Being found in possession of such articles, or firearms / terrorist related articles, is what will get you arrested and therefore prevent your unfettered travel, not carrying a perfectly legal pocket knife.

My point was this - you have a right to freedom of travel, but this is qualified. You still need to pay for your tube ticket, and you are still subject to the law of the land. You do not have a right to carry prohibited articles, and that is what the searchers are looking for, and will terminate your travel plans.

 

[chewie]

As to carrying a (s.139 legal) knife, you WILL be arrested at the Search Location, with all the Time Wasting and Inconvenience that is entailed with a trip to the Police Station, before your solicitor gets you released for carrying a Legal knife.

Here you go.

I'm not suggesting you are a criminal. I have no idea who you are.

You seem to be suggesting that the police will arrest you unlawfully.

 

[Grimnir]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave it here for a bit?

 

[bogflogger]

If you get arrested with a legal knife, you will be out the charge room door so fast that an observer would think you were wearing rocket-propelled roller skates. s139CJA88 is bread-and-butter work in London, no-one is going to get disciplined for an unlawful arrest over an SAK Classic - and the custody sergeant will not authorise detention.

You are conveniently ignoring the waiting around in the Wagon, the trip to the Station, plus the wait to be processed, a total of at least one hour.

Plus having to explain to your employer/family why you are late.

All for a Perfectly Legal knife.

Pull the other one mate, it's got bell's on!

 

[chewie]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave it here for a bit?

Perhaps indeed, I'm not supposed to be back at work 'till Monday.

 

[Martyn]

You are conveniently ignoring the waiting around in the Wagon, the trip to the Station, plus the wait to be processed, a total of at least one hour.

Plus having to explain to your employer/family why you are late.

All for a Perfectly Legal knife.

Pull the other one mate, it's got bell's on!

BF, tone it down a bit mate, I understand your view, but you're being a little confontational. It's very important this thread stays open, it's got excellent info in it and people should be able to discuss it. But if you turn it into an argument, I'll have to lock it down, then we all loose out.

We're getting a little too political here gents, for a non-political forum. I think I may ber to blame for that, at least in part. So lets try a bit harder to keep it to points of law, rather than talk of nazi germany and police states.

 

[bogflogger]

Fair enough Martyn, but I will not be accused of being a criminal by anyone (comments have been edited by the poster earlier).

 

[Martyn]

There is no need to edit your comments mate, just take a breath.

It's an emotive and passionate subject and easy to get fired up over. I dont think Chewie was accusing you of anything, but just paraphrasing the letter of the law.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
..for stolen or prohibited articles..

Check out some of the links he provided...

MPA Stop and Search Scrutiny
Metropolitan Police Authority - stop and search
Metropolitan Police Statistics
British Transport Police

Makes interesting reading. My main concern is that the random stop and searches are subject to a system of review and that thier justification is as transparent as possible. Those links do illustrate that the system isnt simply an arbitrary one. We are never going to get full transparency over issues of national security, for obvious reasons, but the above links do at least tell us that there are systems of checks and balances in place. It may not be enough to satisfy our internal desires, but I think we have to live with that.

If the system is being abused, they that needs dealing with on a per-case basis. All we know is that the underground is conducting random stop and searches. It's legal, it's lawfull and there is a system in place for assessing the need.

The underground is not owned by the government BTW, but has been part-privatised and is now owned by London Underground Limited, 55 The Broadway, London SW1H ODB, and whether we like it or not, who they let in is up to them. You can blame Tony Blair for that.

 

[chewie]

There is no need to edit your comments mate, just take a breath.

It's an emotive and passionate subject and easy to get fired up over. I dont think Chewie was accusing you of anything, but just paraphrasing the letter of the law.

Exactly so.

 

[chewie]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Code of Practice A [Stop and Search]

For those still worried about searches, here is the relevant PACE84 Code of Practice. Enjoy.

You will note it does not apply to constables employed by statutory undertakers on their premises [e.g. UKAEA, LT/BTP], as previously discussed.

 

[Wayland]

Thank you Chewie for you useful comments and links.

I can see why you were cautious about raising your head over the parapet but I for one am very glad you did.

 

[chewie]

Thanks!

 

[bogflogger]

Chewie, Thank you for taking the time to dig out the links to the Legislation you have provided.

In Normal Circumstances, I agree that they are both Reasonable and Legal.

However, as you have said yourself, in your last link to:

PACE 1984 Code of Practice A.

This does NOT apply to Statutory Undertakers.

Which brings us back to the point where I have to ask, Once Again, which piece of Legislation is actually being used to Legally set up Control Points and Stop/Search people, without Police having "Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion."

Allow me to put this into context.

In April 06, I contacted BTP HQ to ask about the new mobile Control Points being used on the Transport Network.

This was for an Infomation thread for the Legal Forum at BB, and can be found here:

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19617

Please note points 1,2 and 2a in post 1 of this thread.

If BTP Officers "on the ground" are so ill informed about the Actual Laws of this Country, do you really wonder why I have been following this issue up?

You will also see that the BTP Duty Inspector, made it quite clear that this is actually being used sensibly in practice, but in our telephone conversation, was unable to give me the Precice Legislation that this is being implented under, as he (Qu)"did not want to give out inaccurate infomation, as he was not too sure Himself".

That is fair enough, and understandable, as nobody expects Police Officers to know every single piece of Recently Enacted Legislation.

This last weekend, I Once Again, contacted BTP HQ to ask Quite Specifically, about travelling on Public Transport with a Rucksack containing items, such as:

1. A folding Penknife. (S.139 Legal)

2. A Fixed blade bushcraft knife. (stored inside the rucksack)

3. A Felling Axe or Hatchet. (stored inside the rucksack)

4. An Ice-Axe and a pair of Crampons. (strapped to the rucksack attachment points)

In the case of 2,3,4, you can Legally carry these items, provided you have "A Reasonable Reason" (S.139 CJA 1988).

However, I was told by BTP HQ Quite Categorically, that carrying ANY of the above items on Public Transport WOULD get you Arrested.

They were, Once Again, unable to provide me with Specific Details of which piece of Legislation this arrest policy is being Enacted under.

So, that is now Two Senior Police Officers that have been unable to answer this question.

Finally, you have stated earlier that the: "If you don't like it, You Can't come in" rule, applies to travel on Public Transport.

Could you please provide a Date that this piece of Legislation was Enacted by Parliament, as I am unaware of any such Legislation.

I am sorry, but the role of the Police is to Enforce the Laws of the Country, NOT to act as Quazi-Official "Bouncers" for a Private Company (which is what all transport operators are).

Which, I am afraid, still leads me to believe that the Stop/Search Operations being conducted by BTP are actually Illegal and contravene both British Law and EU Human Rights Legislation (which the UK is a signatory to) Specifically in Relation to: the Unrestricted Right to Travel.

I Genuinely hope that somebody can show me some Actual Legislation, that will prove me wrong in this.

 

[Martyn]

Bogflogger, I would just like to remind you that no one is obliged to provide you with anything. This is a bushcraft forum and all it's members are here, purely voluntarily, for thier own recreation.

Please lighten up a bit. I'm right on the edge of locking this thread as it's proving to be more hassle than it's worth.

 

[chewie]

Bogflogger, I'll try to address each of your points in sequence.

PACE 1984 Code of Practice A.....does NOT apply to Statutory Undertakers.

The codes of practice do not provide any powers, they regulate how a power is executed. The power to search is conferred by numerous acts - ss1, 18, 32 PACE, s23 Misuse of Drugs Act, s44 TA2000, s60 CJPO94 - even s11 Protection of Badgers Act 1992, to name but a few. The codes of practice set out a uniform standard of police conduct when searching under whatever power, so the fact that the codes do not apply to constables acting on behalf of statutory undertakers on their premises is irrelevant to the question of whether the power exists.

Which brings us back to the point where I have to ask, once again, which piece of Legislation is actually being used to Legally set up Control Points and Stop/Search people, without Police having "Reasonable Grounds for Suspicion."

Could be s44 Terrorism Act 2000. Could be on the basis of 'private property, if you don't like it you can't come in.'

Your BB Link states:

This has been introduced by Train Operating Companys, as Legally, the Railway, Underground and Bus Networks are privately owned!
They can therefore set their own conditions of entry, just like a "Door Policy" at a club! The bottom line is that, although all previous Law relating to Legal Knife Carry still applies, Train Operators have the authority to set their own conditions of entry. Obviously, there are conflicting issues here, particularly over the Legal right to unrestricted travel, that will only be resolved through the Courts.
http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19617

which indicates the latter.

Please note points 1,2,3, in post 1 of this thread.

Nothing new there, I think it has all been discussed already [reasonable excuse, context etc.]

This last weekend, I once again, contacted BTP HQ to ask quite specifically, about travelling on Public Transport with a Rucksack containing items such as:

1. A folding Penknife. (S.139 Legal)
2. A Fixed blade bushcraft knife. (stored inside the rucksack)
3. A Felling Axe or Hatchet. (stored inside the rucksack)
4. An Ice-Axe and a pair of Crampons. (strapped to the rucksack attachment points)

Again, nothing new here. A s139-legal [non-locking] sub-3" folding pocket knife can be carried in a public place without the person needing good reason [unless the individual intended to use it as a weapon.] Everything else on the list would need to be justified. Reasonable excuse, context, discretion and the fact that you can't get a definitive answer have been discussed already.

However, I was told by BTP HQ quite categorically, that carrying ANY of the above items on Public Transport WOULD get you Arrested They were, once again, unable to provide me with specific details of which piece of Legislation this arrest policy is being Enacted under.

I've never claimed you would get arrested for carrying a legal pocketknife without criminal intent, so I don't believe I need to quote legislation that would allow this. I don't know of any - but there might be an offence under all the railway / London Underground specific legislation [byelaws] that the BTP enforces. You really need to take this up with the BTP.

Finally, you have stated earlier that the: "If you don't like it, You Can't come in" rule applies to travel on Public Transport.

I am sorry, but the role of the Police is to Enforce the Laws of the Country, NOT to act as Quazi-Official "Bouncers" for a Private Company (which is what all transport operators are).

The BTP is not a Home Office Police Force. They are established by their own legislation, responsible to the Department for Transport, and paid for by DfT and Railway companies, not the Home Office and your council tax. They are however sworn constables, so there is nothing 'quasi-' about their status in law.

It is also a fact in law that an individual does not have a general right of access to private premises. Like it or not, that is what the Tube is, and it is legally up to them whether they let you in or not.

Which, I am afraid, still leads me to believe that the Stop/Search Operations being conducted by BTP are actually Illegal and contravene both British Law and EU Human Rights Legislation (which the UK is a signatory to) specifically in relation to: the unrestricted right to travel.

Well, they aren't, and they don't.

Your unrestricted right to travel means that you can go somewhere if you want to. It is up to the train company whether they want to take you in their train, or not. For example, a pimply Herbert sat on a train with no ticket, claiming his right to unrestricted travel, would get ejected from the train and allowed to walk to his destination. Same for cabs, buses, airlines and indeed private motor cars ["give me a lift to Birmingham or you'll be infringing my human rights!" ???] If the train companies want their passengers searched as a condition of travel, then you take your custom elsewhere if you don't like it.

I hope this explains the situation effectively, if not necessarily to your satisfaction.

 

[Martyn]

Finally, you have stated earlier that the: "If you don't like it, You Can't come in" rule, applies to travel on Public Transport.

Could you please provide a Date that this piece of Legislation was Enacted by Parliament, as I am unaware of any such Legislation.

With regard to the london underground, or any other private propertly, the owner has lawful authority to deny you access for whatever reason they want. The London Underground is just as much private property as my livingroom. If I say you cant come in, then you cant come in.

Which, I am afraid, still leads me to believe that the Stop/Search Operations being conducted by BTP are actually Illegal and contravene both British Law and EU Human Rights Legislation (which the UK is a signatory to) Specifically in Relation to: the Unrestricted Right to Travel.

Which british law do they contravene?

With regard to your human rtights, the right you mention is actually article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Of interest there, is the phrase "the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.". By denying youbaccess to the underground, the police are not denying you the freedom of movement, ...you can walk. You dont have the right to catch a taxi, ride on a bus, drive a car etc. But yopu can walk. Most importantly, the freedom of movement right, does NOT give you the right to enter private property ...and it doesnt imply that it should.

 

[chewie]

Right to Freedom of Movement

European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4, article 2.

As Martyn and I have pointed out, it gives no right of usage of specific [user chosen] methods of transport.....

 

[Martyn]

Your unrestricted right to travel means that you can go somewhere if you want to. It is up to the train company whether they want to take you in their train, or not. For example, a pimply Herbert sat on a train with no ticket, claiming his right to unrestricted travel, would get ejected from the train and allowed to walk to his destination. Same for cabs, buses, airlines and indeed private motor cars ["give me a lift to Birmingham or you'll be infringing my human rights!" ???] If the train companies want their passengers searched as a condition of travel, then you take your custom elsewhere if you don't like it.

I hope this explains the situation effectively, if not necessarily to your satisfaction.

Oops, looks like you beat me to it on this point Chewie. I was off searching the interweb to see if there were any specific rights to use public transport ...not surprisingly, there aren't any.

 

[bogflogger]

So there we have it.

If you are a bushcrafter, climber, or backpacker in the UK you are expected to walk to your destination and/or get arrested as a terrorist.

Would the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights.

 

[chewie]

We might call it 'Public Transport', but that is a misnomer. 'Public-access mass transport' perhaps - but all profit-making private companies.

It is a fairly complex legal situation, which is bound to provoke disagreement. Some of the queries are of particular significance to people who depend on public transport, and they may find the lack of a definitive answer frustrating.

All I would say is that without this grey area of discretion, you would have 'black-and-white'. Either an item would be legal for upstanding citizens and complete villains alike, or with one jerk of the elected knee a blanket ban would come in to force.