Headline: "fined for baton possession"
Photo caption: "fined ... after admitting possessing an offensive weapon"
Story lede: "fined for carrying a police-style baton in his car"
Which is it? Did he (merely) possess a baton? Well, no it was carried in a car in public. Did he actually admit to possessing it as a weapon for offense? Was he carrying in the car for defense? Or is a police baton considered an offensive weapon by design intent regardless of use or user intent?
The problem with stories like this, there may be a plea involved (this is the lesser of what he did and could have been charged with) or more backstory. For mere possession the fine appears excessive.
It is BBC and UK. The terms may have a clear legal definition but the use in the news item appears mixed up.
Where I come from, "carry" of a weapon is distinct from "possess" or "transport". You cannot carry in public a whole list of prohibited items as weapons of offense or defense. You can get a permit to carry a handgun for defense, and as I recall you can get certified to carry a cane for defense after training in proper use by a martial arts instructor. But you can possess (own) prohibited weapons in the home as curios, ornaments or keepsakes, unless you have a history of criminal violence. "Carry" is intent to use as a weapon; you can transport (usually cased, locked and inaccessible from the passenger compartment).