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

[pteron]

What we are debating, is the next step. Deegan petitioned an appeal to the House of Lords, which was refused. It was my understanding that this meant stare decisis was then extended to include the House of lords, the highest court in the land before parliament. Pteron is saying that the case must be heard in the Lords and a ruling passed before stare decisis is extended to include them.

My thoughts ...I dont know the law that well. I'm a lay person with a keen interest because of my hobby, but no more. pteron has a professional interest and his word should be taken over mine.

A fine summary, but before we debate further I must present my bona fides. I am not a lawyer, I too am just a lay person with a keen interest. I have been following the law on knives for some years now and keenly monitor any relevant erudite discussion. For me, the greatest resource for forming my own opinion has been the extensive publication of legal information on the net. You can actually read the Hansard where the ministers of the day discussed the locking blade issue and make your own mind up. I was flabbergasted to find that the discussion was clear as day, they had absolutely no intention of making ordinary lock knives illegal, the legislation on locks was specifically intended to prevent the carrying of 'Stanley' type knives. At the time of the Deegan appeal I confidently expected the Court of Appeal to dismiss the case on this basis. To find that they deferred to an obscure point of law that effectively forced them to dismiss the evidence was, frankly, astonishing. It was at about this time that I found many hits on my web page discussing the matter and followed them back to Britishblades. To find fellow knife nuts and one of them a law lecturer was serendipitous. Dan and I have had discussions on the points of law and came to the conclusion I mentioned previously, but as neither of us are judges, basing any actions on our opinions could be dangerous to your liberty.

So we come to the present day.

pteron, can you provide some reference to clarify? I dont have access to the legal resources you do and while I dont doubt you are right, it's an important point I would like to be clear about. If stare decisis is applied simply for a refusal of a petition, then only parliament can change things. If not, then at least the Lords are still an option.

I believe you are right, in principle, about stare decisis, but I can find nothing to support the assertion that the Court of Appeal can make a decision that binds the Law Lords. The document http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/downloads/env_law-intro.pdf appears to state the opposite - that only the Lords can make a decision regarding itself and even then it is not absolutely binding on itself, just on lower courts.

For all intents and purposes though, whatever the answer to this question is, unless you have the will and financial clout to take your argument to the Lords(?) and possibly further, you are snookered.

Absolutely. The next stage will only be fought by someone with a lot of money and an extremely good lawyer.

Again, i must stress, I am not a lawyer, neither are Martyn and Dan, so all of this discussion is just interesting banter and is worth what you paid for it. The only safe way is to treat the case law as absolute.

 

[Minotaur]

I note this is a resurrected thread from 2005 but I just have to say how superbly observed and reasoned I found Wayland's first post of last year.

Got to agree and as I said above would be looking for their help now rather than having their opinion enforced later.

It is fine and indeed wholly correct to be upbeat and confident of ones ability to demonstrate a need to be in possession of a knife but do seriously think about those moments when you realise the last time you gutted a rabbit it was 05-00hrs and you still have it about your person as you stand at the checkout of your local supermarket at 17-00hrs.

Have actually done that. Myself and another scout leader a few years ago walked into a small village supermarket. I was wearing 3 or 4 knifes (the biggest was an Explora) and he had two or three, including a huge scout knife, that must have been 3 or 4 inches longer than the Explora. We both looked at each other at the back of the store and proceeded to try and turn them upside down so they were out of sight.

After that I went for a utilty belt system, so they are on a belt that I can take off.

The Leatherman is always carried in a ruc now. I have even stopped carring my little box cutter on my person. I am trying to get to a legal everyday carry with extras dependant on location, or destination.

 

[Martyn]

I note this is a resurrected thread from 2005 ..

Bit confused here, the first post in this thread was from 3 days ago.

28-05-2006, 15:45

 

[Martyn]

Dan and I have had discussions on the points of law and came to the conclusion I mentioned previously.

Ahhh, well I remember Dans discussion with you (apologies about conferring inappropriate bona fides BTW. ), and I also remember at that time, Dan was unaware of the petition to the Lords. I remember that because I discovered that nugget myself and told Dan of it. This may of been after your discussion with him.

I think we need clarity on a point of law.

 

[Wayland]

Bit confused here, the first post in this thread was from 3 days ago.

I think someones been looking at the join dates and not the thread dates. I've made that mistake myself on occasions.

 

[Martyn]

I think someones been looking at the join dates and not the thread dates. I've made that mistake myself on occasions.

Yeah, makes sense. It happens.

 

[Martyn]

I believe you are right, in principle, about stare decisis, but I can find nothing to support the assertion that the Court of Appeal can make a decision that binds the Law Lords. The document http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/downloads/env_law-intro.pdf appears to state the opposite - that only the Lords can make a decision regarding itself and even then it is not absolutely binding on itself, just on lower courts.

Yep, that's it, we have our answer.

Stare decisis is binding to equal or lower courts with the exception of the Lords. From your link...

The House of Lords (HoL) is at the top of the UK court hierarchy. It deals only with appeals, usually from the Court of Appeal. There are 12 HoL judges known collectively as the Law Lords. Cases are normally heard by 5 Lords and sometimes up to 7 Lords. The HoL binds all courts below but not itself.

The HoL binds all courts below, but not itself.

That means that appeals of a similar nature can be presented to the Lords ad infinitum.

Harris and Deegan can still be contested in the Lords.

My apologies. It doesnt change much in real terms though, as it's been tested and lost in the court of appeal, further than most cases ever get.

 

[running bare]

This is true now but it wasn't always so. When I was a lad we often took our penknives to school, we'd play (stupid) games with them and the thought of using them as weapons was furthest from our minds.

Unfortunately, society has changed. I feel an understanding of that change and its effects would lead us to far better methods of controlling knife crime than criminalising all knife carrying.

i remember as a kid at school the lads actually got penknives off teachers at summer hols

 

[Martyn]

i remember as a kid at school the lads actually got penknives off teachers at summer hols

We used to play splits. Many kids in school had Swiss Army Knives or Army clasp knives.

I lived in the country. At the age of 10 I would walk around with a 4 inch sheath knife on my belt, no one batted an eye.

My grandad gave me my first penknife at the age of 8.

Different world. Kids had plenty of knives, they just didnt stab each other.

Knives arent the problem and even quite young kids are perfectly capable of owning them responibly, providing they live in a society that teaches them responsibility. They need to be in a world that disciplines them. We dont need a knife amnesty, we need the cane.

 

[Spacemonkey]

Knives arent the problem and even quite young kids are perfectly capable of owning them responibly, providing they live in a society that teaches them responsibility. They need to be in a world that disciplines them. We dont need a knife amnesty, we need the cane.

Phew!! After reading that lot, there's finally some words of wisdom!! Totally agree. There's the root of nearly all of todays problems, a lack of discipline, and the fact that the kids know that they have more rights to do things than we have to tell them not to. It's a deep grave we've been digging for the last decade or so...

 

[Tony]

Knives arent the problem and even quite young kids are perfectly capable of owning them responibly, providing they live in a society that teaches them responsibility. They need to be in a world that disciplines them. We dont need a knife amnesty, we need the cane

have to agree with that My boy got his small sheath knife when he was 5, he's now 8 and I trust him with it. I was watching him the other day and some of his friends approached him and he put it away, no showing off, no risking being distracted. He's been taught and that's one of the big things lacking......

My apologies for an off subject comment, but it would sort out a lot of the issues with them!

Although, once again that's a political discussion that we'll avoid!

 

[risby]

If you're a frequent flyer with British Blades then should know that your previous comments re whittling as a reasonable reason, would get the thread closed and yourself on the not so happy list with the mods ... Suggesting that whittling is an acceptable reason is disinformation ... If my comment was wrong then please, someone let me know and I'll retract it.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this so trying to bait me won't work.

Peace.

Look mate, I've met Jon and he's not pretty but he seemed like a good bloke to me. In his original post he said he was worried that he might get flustered if stopped in the street and the reason for carrying his leatherman was questioned.

I gave him a way to remember a conversation he could have with whoever stopped him in which he could, quite honestly, discuss his use of blades.

I reckon if a policeman stopped him and he started talking naturally about his activities the copper would not be worried and wouldn't think of confiscating his leatherman. This contrasts with how a copper might react if someone gets flustered and starts talking rubbish when questioned about his multitool.

My suggestion of whittling was in no way misinformation but help for a mate. And I'm not trying to bait you; this thread is not about you. However, since you think it is, a bit of advice: if you start a post saying "I don't mean to sound pompous ..." it's because you are about to sound pompous. "I don't mean to gossip but you know Cheryl from Accounts..." "I'm not racist but those bl**dy <racial group> ...", etc.

 

[Martyn]

Look mate, I've met Jon and he's not pretty but he seemed like a good bloke to me. In his original post he said he was worried that he might get flustered if stopped in the street and the reason for carrying his leatherman was questioned.

I gave him a way to remember a conversation he could have with whoever stopped him in which he could, quite honestly, discuss his use of blades.

I reckon if a policeman stopped him and he started talking naturally about his activities the copper would not be worried and wouldn't think of confiscating his leatherman. This contrasts with how a copper might react if someone gets flustered and starts talking rubbish when questioned about his multitool.

My suggestion of whittling was in no way misinformation but help for a mate. And I'm not trying to bait you; this thread is not about you. However, since you think it is, a bit of advice: if you start a post saying "I don't mean to sound pompous ..." it's because you are about to sound pompous. "I don't mean to gossip but you know Cheryl from Accounts..." "I'm not racist but those bl**dy <racial group> ...", etc.

play nice risby, your tone is too confrontational.

What you told Jon, would get him arrested if he were anywhere other than sitting on a pile of shavings, whittling wood. It's an excuse and it's transparent as one to me and would be to any cop too.

 

[Mantic]

My suggestion of whittling was in no way misinformation but help for a mate. And I'm not trying to bait you; this thread is not about you. However, since you think it is, a bit of advice: if you start a post saying "I don't mean to sound pompous ..." it's because you are about to sound pompous. "I don't mean to gossip but you know Cheryl from Accounts..." "I'm not racist but those bl**dy <racial group> ...", etc.

Just for the record, for anyone who's interested, my ego may be large but I don't think that this thread is about me Now, if we were talking about the ENTIRE internet, well, it's obvious who they were thinking of when they pulled that one out of DARPA

You're probably right about the starting the post thang - I shall desist. I think we're done here anyway

 

[Martyn]

OK folks move along (thank you for your calm reply mantic).

I'm keen to keep this potentially explosive subject, properly on track. Feel free to comment on the subject at hand, but no more stone throwing please.

ta.

 

[risby]

You're probably right about the starting the post thang - I shall desist. I think we're done here anyway

Nicely said mate. And I should have started my post with "I don't mean to be belligerent but ..."

 

[Martyn]

Thankyou risby.

 

[scanker]

I think we were getting to the point a few posts ago. Knives don't kill people, people kill people. (I've got GLC, "Guns don't kill people, rappers do" in my head now). I carry a knife every day. For the record it's a Victorinox Swiss Army farmer. It used to be a SAK with a locking blade but as that's not a legal EDC I had to change it.

IMO the problems we're currently experiencing with a stabbing every other day isn't to do with knives at all, but rather a total disregard by some people for potentially taking anothers life. I really don't know how to address that. All I can say is that it wasn't the way I was brought up, and it certainly won't be the way my son is.

What does concern me greatly is all the talk of amnesties and knife bans. The message is consistently given out that the carrying of any knife is illegal, which isn't the case. I'm worried that if I take my pocket knife out to perform a task, Joe Public will think I'm doing something illegal.

 

[Neiltoo]

Peeling apples isn't reasonable unless you have a medical condition that prevents you from eating apple skin.

Could you read that back to yourself a few times and tell me if you really believe that?

I don't know if such random inspections are considered okay and normal in the UK. But if it is, I would consider moving. You ARE living in a police state!



Torjus Gaaren

We do indeed live in a police state or at least a totalitarian one. No mater what I want to do with my spare time I have to consider whether its legal or not and whether or not I need to ask someones permission.

 

[Martyn]

We do indeed live in a police state or at least a totalitarian one. No mater what I want to do with my spare time I have to consider whether its legal or not and whether or not I need to ask someones permission.

That's just a rant nieltoo. Every country in the world has laws and most of em are far more restrictive that ours - unless you have money, because they are mostly so corrupt you can buy your way out of anything. If you dont believe me, go set up house in El Salvador. Yes you have to think about what you do, because you live in a country that is governed by laws. If one stops you doing what you want to do, take it up with your MP.

Raging against the machine on BcUK doesnt do anything except get otherwise excellent threads locked.

Be warned.