UK wants tougher KNIFE laws!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The UK tried this repeatedly over the last 1000 years......last time they tried it with the Scotts by banning swords and bagpipes so folks started throwing rocks and sticks.....freakin' slow learners....you will NEVER be able to disarm a determined individual.

Stop prosecuting law abiding citizens and inanimate objects and focus on the CRIMINAL.
 
I wonder if martial arts training will be next.

Those with "deadly force" skills in their hands could run from Dover to Glasgow like a hot knife through butter.
 
What scares me is that...

1. So many people in our country look to the UK as an example

2. So many people in our country look to Europe as an example

3. People in the UK/Europe/European Union are on a train to Screwed.

4. The US will bail them out... but we have to go to Screwed to do it :cuss:

I can't wait to see how long it is before the state starts taxing, say, existing assets of the "rich" because they need the money.

Mr Jones, we appreciate you have worked hard and have saved up $200,000.00 We need 25% of that for the World Benefit tax. Without those tax dollars, everything is going to collapse.

So, pay up, sucker, or go to jail.

:mad:
 
Now they will have to rub the tips of their sticks on the sidewalk to make them pointy. SIDEWALKS AND CONCRETE ARE HEREBY BANNED!!!
 
Never thought I'd be ashamed of being British, but man... what the heck are those lunatics doing to my country? :barf:
 
The Prisoner

*Shudder*

Anyone remember Patrick McGoohan as "Prisoner #6" in the TV series "The Prisoner?"

Remember the "no sharp edges" environment they kept him in?

Remember the "Ball" they used to chase him with?

If they work at it a little and keep morphing England at bit at a time . . .

Just . . . wow.
 
Ultimately they will have to ban exercise so everyone will be too weak to hurt anyone else.
 
"In other news, the failure of gun and knife bans to stop crime has revealed the true evil in our great land. Stationary. Thugs of all stripes have been attacking innocent victims with metal pens, such as the infamous "Cross" pen. These terrible weapons must be removed from our schools and from our streets. Pursuant to this, we have established a pen registry..."
 
Most of these crimes,if not all of them were committed by black kids against other black kids.These,like those shootings in South London,were black on black killings and this has to be addressed,by the black community themselves,by shopping those bastards who were responsible,to the cops.Also those involved with Operation Trident,need to pull their fingers out and work harder-too.I think that those scumbags,when caught, should get roughed up,1970s style,by the police and by any person that catches them as well,because they deserve it and I am fed up with those morons,in the black community causing trouble and making the government,act in an irrational way.

However,in the case of Stephen Lawrence,it was slightly different.Stephen Lawrence,was a black kid,of Jamacian descent,who was born in London,in 1974.Lawrence was waiting for a bus,at a bus stop in Eltham,South London,when a group of white kids walked on by.He was approached by one who racially abused him and stabbed him to death in April 1993.The Metropolitan Police,didn't do enough to investigate it and this caused anger in the black community.

I have waited at that very bus stop before and after the time of his murder and all I can say is that,I haven't felt safe in that area,at all.Eltham,Kidbrooke,Well Hall and Middle Park are not very safe places to be at night,because I have seen the graffiti,of various street gangs,on bus stops,in that area.I have been told by some of my friends to stay away from the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke and to stay away from Glyndon and Nightingale Vale,Estates in Plumstead,because,at night a person can get stabbed by armed hoodies.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence
Roger Sutcliffe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On April 22nd 1993 Stephen Lawrence was murdered because of the colour of his skin. He was black. No-one has been punished for the murder. Now, in 1999, an inquiry has decided that the police force in London made too many mistakes in their investigation. What happened to Stephen and why didn't the police catch his murderers?

Stephen's last day
Stephen Lawrence, went to Blackheath Bluecoat School in the morning as usual. He was 18 years old and studying A Levels. He hoped to become an architect. His teacher, Bob Henderson, talked with him about his coursework that morning. He remembers Stephen as a courteous and enthusiastic student.

Stephen spent that afternoon in Lewisham, looking around the shops. Then he took a bus to Plumstead to see an uncle. His friend, Duwayne Brooks, joined him and they played computer games till it was time to go home. The first bus they caught would have got them home too late, so they decided to swop buses at Well Hall Road in Eltham, Southeast London. Stephen began to cross the road to see if the next bus was coming. It was about 10.30 p.m.

The inquiry reports: "Mr. Brooks... saw the group of five or six white youths who were responsible for Stephen's death on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Brooks called out to ask if Stephen saw the bus coming. One of the youths must have heard something said, since he called out 'what, what ******?' With that the group came quickly across the road and literally engulfed Stephen."

Three witnesses were at the bus stop; all of them said the attack was sudden and short but none was able later to identify any of the suspects. Stephen was stabbed to a depth of five inches on both sides of his chest. When free of the youths, he managed to run over 100 yards with Duwayne before collapsing.

Duwayne tried to stop cars for help but none would stop. A white couple called Mr. and Mrs. Taaffe stopped walking to help. Duwayne ran to call an ambulance. Then James Geddis, an off-duty police officer, stopped his car and covered Stephen with a blanket. He did not give first aid because he assumed others were seeing to it. He checked that an ambulance had been called.

Louise Taaffe put her hand on Stephen's head and whispered in his ear, 'You are loved, you are loved.' Those may have been the last words Stephen heard. An ambulance got him to hospital by 11.05 pm, but he was already dead. Doctors said that first aid would not have saved him.

The police investigation
The first two duty police on the scene tested to see whether Stephen was alive, but did not check what his injuries were. The first Inspector to arrive "simply took it for granted that someone junior was appropriately in charge of Stephen". No log or record was made of what had happened. Officers did not make house-to-house searches in the area where the youths ran off to. They thought it was too late to wake people up.

Over the next two days, detectives received 39 tip offs. Many of them included the same names: Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt, David Norris, Gary Dobson and Luke Knight. They were said to be members of a local gang that carried knives. They could have been arrested immediately and put into identity parades while memories were still fresh. But they were not arrested until a fortnight after the murder. Officers were then advised to look for knives under the floorboards in their houses, but failed to do so.

Attempts to gather information from other young people in the area were unsuccessful. Many witnesses were anxious, and most refused to cooperate. Some of their parents even threatened to sue the police for harassment. The investigation ran out of steam, and in July all charges against the five suspects were dropped because of lack of evidence. Stephen's parents, Neville and Doreen, were told this when they were burying their son in Jamaica. They had emigrated from there when they were about Stephen's age.

The 'Remember Stephen Lawrence' campaign
Stephen's parents had been upset by the police from the start. The Inspector at the hospital had said to them, "We've got a young lad in there. He's dead, we don't know who he is, but we'd like to clarify that point. If it's not your son, then all well and good, but we need to know.'" They say the officers who visited them later gave them no information about the progress of the murder inquiry. But they did ask questions about Stephen's background and character. This gave the impression that they thought he might have provoked the attack. The police involved in the case did not seem willing to admit that the attack had been simply because of Stephen's race.

By the time the charges were dropped, the Lawrences were determined to gain justice. Normally, murder charges are made on behalf of everyone by the Crown Prosecution Service. But individuals can make charges 'privately', and the Lawrences were encouraged to do this. A new policeman in charge handed over evidence including a video of the five suspects holding knives and pretending to kill black people. The video was taken secretly in 1994. The trial took place in 1996.

Unfortunately, the most important evidence, by Duwayne Brooks, was not accepted by the judge. A police officer claimed that when they were driving home from an identification parade Duwayne had told him he was unsure of those he had picked out. Duwayne still maintains he correctly identified Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. But when he spoke in front of the judge he appeared muddled, and the judge ruled that he was unreliable as a witness.

The suspects were acquitted, and they might then have faded from attention. But the next year an inquest was held to establish exactly how Stephen had died. The suspects refused to answer any questions and this angered a lot of people, including reporters on the Daily Mail. They published pictures of the five under the headline 'MURDERERS'. People in this country cannot be tried twice for the same crime, so instead of another trial it was decided to hold a public inquiry into the murder and its investigation.

The public inquiry
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was carried out by four people, a black bishop who was born in Uganda, a doctor whose grandfather was a Jewish refugee from Russia, a retired policeman particularly interested in education, and a retired judge, Sir William Macpherson. They could not find any new evidence against the suspects and accepted the previous evidence was not enough to convict them. But they blamed the police for not gathering enough evidence in the first place. They said that the investigation had been spoiled "by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism, and a failure of leadership by senior officers".

The inquiry concluded: "Stephen Lawrence's murder was simply, solely and unequivocally motivated by racism. It was the deepest tragedy for his family. It was an affront to society, and especially to the local black community in Greenwich. Nobody has been convicted of this crime. That is also an affront both to the Lawrence family and the community at large." And they made various recommendations, including:

police services should be inspected regularly, just as schools are, "in order to restore public confidence"
"the full force of the race relations legislation should apply to all police officers"
a racist incident should be defined as "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
all police, and more people in public services, should be trained in racism awareness and valuing cultural diversity
racist words or acts "proved to have been done by officers should lead to disciplinary proceedings and... should usually merit dismissal"
a law against racist language or behaviour in private might be considered
serious complaints against police officers should be independently investigated
procedures for recording and reviewing crimes should be improved
police should record every 'stop and search' they make, and give a copy to the person stopped, including reason for the stop
the police should seek help in dealing with victims and witnesses
there should be targets for increased recruitment of ethnic minority staff to the police force
racist incidents in schools should be reported to the pupils' parents, and records of incidents published by each school every year
the National Curriculum might be changed to prevent racial prejudice and foster cultural diversity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Elza said:
The same thing our lunatics are doing to our country! Your lunatics just have a head start.
Wish we could fire the bloody lot of them - what's the joke about poly-ticks again? ;)
 
SoCalShooter

The onus should be on the person carrying a knife to prove they are doing so for legal purposes.
Self defense is not a legal purpose anymore?

If you are attacked, you can legally use anything to hand to defend myself, provided the degree of force used is necessary and is proportionate* to the threat faced.

But it is illegal to carry something designed** for the purpose of self defence.


(Don't blame me, I didn't make that law, or vote for the people who did).




* This doesn't mean (as some people sometimes suggest) that you can only use the same sort of weapon your assailant uses. It means (for example) lethal force is justifiable in defence only against lethal force, but not against lesser crimes.

** Quite how this distinction is made I don't know. Carrying any sort of firearm for example would be illegal. I've often heard the police giving umbrellas as an example of something to use to defend yourself. But they wouldn't allow you to carry a steak knife, even though that isn't designed as a weapon either. I suppose it would have to be something that you would have some other reason for carrying.
 
If you are attacked, you can legally use anything to hand to defend myself, provided the degree of force used is necessary and is proportionate* to the threat faced.

So basically you have 15 milliseconds to access the situation, the assailant, potential weapons on them, the possible scenarios and escape routes if possible, then calculate the best course of action and arm yourself with a non-self defense, self-defense weapon on your persons and use it to the degree of force equal to that being applied to you against your will?

What are you supposed to do, carry 15 different levels of non-self defense, self defense weaponry for any possible given threat level from bullying to homocide? Sorry, but that is pure stupidity (not a personal attack, but one on these laws).

How are you supposed to know what a given criminal has in store for you? If he has a firearm, he might only be using it as leverage to threaten you into giving up your wallet. He might be a serial killer. Either way, you can't possibly know, and certainly not in a given life-or-death situation where you don't have the luxury of time and safety to figure everything out. You should use maximum force possible to give yourself the greatest chance of survival, not merely use enough force to achieve a 50/50 success rate.

This isn't even about firearms. It's about the fundamental right to preservation of your life.
 
They totally forgot to mention screwdriver and hammer crimes. What about the poor victimes of pipewrench crimes? Will the injustice never end?
 
Defending yourself per se is NOT a legal problem in the UK. Unless you kill someone who was running away, or torture somebody, or blow someone's head of when they bump into you in the street, you won't have a problem. You are not expected to make complex decisions in a split second - only if your actions are vastly disproportionate (like torturing a burglar to death) will you go to prison.

The problem is, as this article highlights, having the means to defend yourself. If you are attacked by a knife wielding mugger and you just happen to be going fishing and have your Spyderco Harpy on your person, you can slit his throat and will probably never see the inside of a courtroom. But, you can't carry that knife for the purpose of defending yourself. If you don't have an excuse, other than defending yourself, and other than "just in case", then although the act of defending yourself is still legal, you will have broken the law regarding weapons in public.

THis is what needs changing.
 
Fosbery said:
If you are attacked by a knife wielding mugger and you just happen to be going fishing and have your Spyderco Harpy on your person, you can slit his throat and will probably never see the inside of a courtroom. But, you can't carry that knife for the purpose of defending yourself.

So, you could carry a knife as long as you are also carring a creel and a flyrod around? Watch out, they may ban fishing gear just to keep the knife from being used against you!

Pedalbiker said:
They totally forgot to mention screwdriver and hammer crimes. What about the poor victimes of pipewrench crimes? Will the injustice never end?

They can have my pointy stick when they saw it from my cold, dead, tree!!!
 
The onus should be on the person carrying a knife to prove they are doing so for legal purposes.
Ah, good old English law, guilty until proven innocent. No wonder the colonists revolted in almost every colonial holding of Great Britain.
 
Ah, good old English law, guilty until proven innocent. No wonder the colonists revolted in almost every colonial holding of Great Britain.

True,many years,even centuries ago,but in terms of weapon ownership,it was slightly different.Most of the British people revolted against their fellow gun-owning citizens and wanted these severe restrictions on certain types of guns.This is true,particulary of the Scots after the Dunblane Massacre.700,000 anti-pistol campaigners,took to the streets of Edinburgh and elsewhere,to rid the UK mainland of handguns.What a bunch of numpties.Did they really expect this,performance,to solve anything coherently?

The British Deer Society advised the government in 1988,to ban slrs and p/a rifles,of large calibres,because there was no need for them.But on the other hand we can have a bolt or lever.Daft or what? This is what happens when you get snobbish shooting associations coupled,with pig-ignorant people-a bloody disaster zone.
 
Last edited:
An interesting little site I found.
Just a comparison, but if you compare the size of the UK percentage wise to the USA you will find we have less shootings here than in the USA.
I do believe that we in the UK should have the right to defend our homes and loved ones with guns if needed, unfortunately with stats like these you'll never convince anyone that it's necessary.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2877/
 
Gun crime in Britain is very low. Almost insignificant when you count only actual shootings. Britain's murder rate is also much lower than the USA. However, the murder rate of non-black Americans is only slightly higher than that of Britons. Britain also has a lot more non-lethal violent crime.

You shouldn't need a lot of gun crime to be allowed the means to defend yourself though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top