Update- Carrying of knives

[Minotaur]

It always confuses me, to all the Brits, we do not, and have never lived in a free country. We may have exported it around the world, the birth place of true demacracy may be on this island, but not once has this island ever been free.

Think I am wrong, where is our right of free speach? Keep in mind they have just pasted a law, saying the police can stop you from taking pictures.

We do not have, to my knowledge, a fruit of the poison tree law. Think this is unimportant, the new porn law, means the police can get a warrant, and door knock. Oh, look, you are innocent, but whats this, see you in court.

And if you still think I am wrong, look at the couple who are fighting to have their children returned to them.

Indeed. I was just reading a bit on Thomas Jefferson, and stumbled upon this. In his commonplace book, he quoted Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, in saying:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man

Really like that quote.

Watched the John Adams mini-series, and would have said I was a fan of him, but must read more Jefferson.

Two safest places to live, are both the most armed, the criminals go else were.

5 year plan is already in, we're off to another country at the end of 5 and although i'll be very very sad to go i know its the only way i can live with myself (if that is after 5 years its legal for me to leave)
pete

Vermont, maybe Virginia, or Texas, all stand out to me. Come on 6 numbers, come on.

They actual think their citzens should be able to protect themselves, bizarre idea.

To people of an age, this is what I think is wrong with the world, remember the Green Cross code man? Remember when we use to teach soft squishy children to avoid hard, fast cars. Responesabilty, a lost, and dying part of life.

 

[wanderingblade]

Really like that quote.....

How about this one:

'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'

- CS Lewis

 

[Simon]

How about this one:

'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'

- CS Lewis

That's a woozey, Mike

 

[Jonny Crockett]

You've gotten it wrapped around your head matey- a little too literal. You don't need to have "permission" to use sharps nor does being on privately owned land stop you from being in "public"

You have to have good reason or LAWFUL authority (not permission), such as the police having batons in the case of offensive weapons. Public place is anything to which the public have access whether or not on payment, and of course other places well established in case law.

It's a minefield (they're unlawful ). The over riding thing is good reason or lawful authority. Like it or not being civil to the copper will go a long way too, even if they're being a dick!

I see what you mean Widu. Just to clarify - by permission I mean permission from the land owner, which is Lawful Authority. You can also get lawful authority from anyone empowered by the land owner.

Public places are places that the public have access to without invitation. A private wood (no public footpaths etc) is not a public place and so you need authority to be there (usually from the land owner).

As I tell the people who come on my courses, it may be restricting, it may be unfair but for the time being we have to stick to the letter of the law because that is what the Home Office is directing the police to do.

I'm signing off from this forum for a couple of weeks now as I have to go to Sweden to wrestle with snow mobiles, huskies and a metre of snow. Happy days.

Enjoy the imminent spring.

 

[widu13]

I see what you mean Widu. Just to clarify - by permission I mean permission from the land owner, which is Lawful Authority. You can also get lawful authority from anyone empowered by the land owner.

Public places are places that the public have access to without invitation. A private wood (no public footpaths etc) is not a public place and so you need authority to be there (usually from the land owner).

Jonny,

Private land can still be a public place- this is well established in law. Almost certainly all land other than attached to a dwelling or businesses will be regarded as a public place even though it is private land. Of the multitude of examples, Forestry Commission land, MOD ranges, farmers land- you get the idea.

A land owner cannot give Lawful Authority to possess blades, sharps etc only to be on the land.

Hope you enjoy your time away- I'm jealous!

 

[Simon]

A land owner cannot give Lawful Authority to possess blades

The question is; who can?

 

[widu13]

Hi Simon,

Hopefully I'm wrong but you seem to be trolling a bit. However, I'll answer. The law- statue, case and common law sets out lawful authority and reasonable excuse.

Lots of people have posted up useful links. If you take a look at them I suspect you'll find your answers. Otherwise Google is your friend.

ATB.

 

[BigShot]

widu - the annoying part, is all of those things (at least in theory) get their authority from US. Or to Americanise it a bit... they get their authority to do so from "We the People". Yet those things seem (in this case and some others) to be doing nothing to benefit We The People and plenty to unreasonably restrict us.

Personally I'm of a very, very liberal persuasion (but not quite libertarian) in political terms, so I take very strong exception with the state imposing itself on me as a non-violent, non-criminal individual.

The problem is, We The People in the UK have never actually said "We The People" in a clear voice.
Sometimes I wish we had, and at the moment, I really wish we would!

 

[wanderingblade]

The law- statue, case and common law sets out lawful authority and reasonable excuse.

I think what was meant was that there is no-one in authority who you can ask if your use / intention for using a knife would be a valid reason in the eyes of the law. There is no list of acceptable uses one could consult to see if you are justified in your knife use.

We have case law and best guesses - but at the end of the day you never really know for a fact if you truly have a valid reason for using your knife outdoors until a magistrate agrees you did so and dismisses any prosecution against you.


Even then, what was an acceptable reason for one person would not necessarilly be acceptable for another person because there are so many variables to any case.

 

[Simon]

Hi Simon,
Hopefully I'm wrong but you seem to be trolling a bit. .

:bluThinki

I'm not sure how to take that ...

it's usually used as a simplistic first line of defence against anything deemed conflicting or threatening to a rigid position taken on internet forums

i.e. "I can't think of any other response to someone asking a questioning of me that I don't have an answer to, so i'll call them a troll."

I think Bogshot has it closer to the truth, but your answer...

The law- statue, case and common law sets out lawful authority and reasonable excuse.

... really needs specific examples to back it up, because if you look at it objectively, it's not an answer at all.

so I'll ask the question again;

Lawful Authority: What does it mean? Where does it come from? who has the power to give it? Or say that it exists?

 

[widu13]

:bluThinki

I'm not sure how to take that ...

it's usually used as a simplistic first line of defence against anything deemed conflicting or threatening to a rigid position taken on internet forums

i.e. "I can't think of any other response to someone asking a questioning of me that I don't have an answer to, so i'll call them a troll."

I think Bogshot has it closer to the truth, but your answer...

... really needs specific examples to back it up, because if you look at it objectively, it's not an answer at all.

so I'll ask the question again;

Okay mate I'll just jog off and do your donkey work- hang on I've a better idea...NO.

 

[BigShot]

Come on now kids...
...play nicely!

 

[Sainty]

Guys, I think there is some serious misunderstanding of the law. Offensive weapons are designated by statute. They include such implements as flick knives, samurai swords, butterfly knives and so on.

Weapons of offence are defined by the intention of the person carrying them. Basically, if it is inappropriate to be carrying a sheath knife, axe, pickaxe handle, baseball bat etc etc etc, then it becomes a weapon of offence and you can, and probably will, be prosecuted. Currently, it appears that any punishment will be very severe as it has been decreed by parliament that it should.

Martin

 

[Simon]

Okay mate I'll just jog off and do your donkey work- hang on I've a better idea...NO.

The question was rhetorical, I've done my donkey work

 

[widu13]

Guys, I think there is some serious misunderstanding of the law. Offensive weapons are designated by statute. They include such implements as flick knives, samurai swords, butterfly knives and so on.

Weapons of offence are defined by the intention of the person carrying them. Basically, if it is inappropriate to be carrying a sheath knife, axe, pickaxe handle, baseball bat etc etc etc, then it becomes a weapon of offence and you can, and probably will, be prosecuted. Currently, it appears that any punishment will be very severe as it has been decreed by parliament that it should.

Martin

Don't get drawn in Martin, some people can't be bothered to do their own research and try to get others to do it.

 

[Sainty]

Don't get drawn in Martin, some people can't be bothered to do their own research and try to get others to do it.

Thanks.

Martin

 

[wanderingblade]

Don't get drawn in Martin, some people can't be bothered to do their own research and try to get others to do it.

Okay mate I'll just jog off and do your donkey work- hang on I've a better idea...NO.

Whats the collective noun for a number of trolls?

 

[Sainty]

Whats the collective noun for a number of trolls?

A mischief ??

Martin

 

[BigShot]

A few possibilities:
A distraction of trolls?
An annoyance of trolls?
A provocation of trolls?

 

[Chinkapin]

Even a written constitution as opposed to an "unwritten constitution" is not without problems. Remember, that where I'm writing from, we have a written constitution BUT the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is and they can say any damned thing that they want to say -- and have. It looks to me like every one in the U.K. who thinks he should be able to own whatever kind of knife he wants to should unite with the others and then when you go to one of your political parties (either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum) and say we have X million votes for the upcoming election what are you going to do for us if you get elected? Then good things will happen. Otherwise never.

Those who love the Law and who love sausages should never see either one made.
---- Mark Twain