Knives.

I’m not staying up all night to watch the referendum results. How are they working out the final result, I wonder? The fairest way would be to add up the actual numbers of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes for each region to get a final total. I expect they’ve come up with something far more complex than that.

Oily Al, the man who divided Scotland, isn’t coming to Aberdeenshire for the count so he won’t get to see where I put my ‘X’. He’s in hiding until it’s all over.

Crowds are massing and drinking in Glasgow. If they are on the losing side there might be a drunken riot. If they are on the winning side they might riot anyway, but with a smile.

Whichever side wins in Scotland, the other side will get the knives out.

Not in Lancashire though. Police there had a ‘knife amnesty’ to let their local gullible idiots hand over knives without being arrested. The criminals didn’t hand theirs in, naturally.

The Mail titles the story ‘Thank goodness this is off the streets’, referring to a home-made four-bladed overgrown knuckleduster that looks like the sort of thing a Klingon might carry around. It wasn’t ‘on the streets’ at all. Nobody could hide one of those in their clothing. Any sighting of such a thing these days would result in police helicopters and snipers. If that thing had ever been ‘on the street’ we’d have heard about it.

The weapon was one of 420 handed in to Lancashire police in just over three weeks in an operation aimed at ridding the areas of illegal arms.

It is not illegal. None of the knives shown in the article are illegal. Most are just kitchen knives or garden tools. Sure, carrying a four-bladed fist cover around (and asking people if they know where James T. Kirk lives) is illegal, but having it in your home is not. Likewise the various cleavers, carvers and bread knives (yes, really) on the table. Illegal if you carry them on the street, perfectly legal in your kitchen.

So these knives were all perfectly legal in people’s homes until those people took them to the police station! The act of carrying them there was the illegal part. These police have not rounded up a single actually illegal item but have commissioned 420 criminal acts.

‘Removing one knife that could kill is a success, but to take 420 off the streets is tremendous.’

Is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that any of these knives were to be used to kill or injure?

Is there anything to suggest that a kitchen knife constitutes ‘illegal arms’ when all of the things to be found on sites like this one are all perfectly legal to buy in the UK?

The commenters aren’t falling for this. Well, so far, one has but there’s always one.
It’s a blatant attempt to condition the population into thinking that anything with a blade is illegal. It could be used to kill, therefore it will be used to kill unless you hand it over to the police. There’s a folding pruning saw in one of the pictures. I have one. It wasn’t cheap and I won’t be just giving it away.
What goes through people’s heads when they hand in their illegal-weapon kitchen knives and then go off to Tesco to buy new, identical ones? Do they buy new ones? Do they dump a roast chicken in the middle of the dining table and rip off chunks, mediaeval-peasant style?
The guns, then the knives, then the socks with billiard balls inside. There is no end to this nonsense.
Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Knives.

  1. I have a particularly nasty pointed stick in my garden. Should I stick it in my neighbour’s chest or hand it in to the plod?- you decide. Otherwise the voices in my head will arbitrate accordingly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have a collection of bladed items that, if I were ever insane enough to take them outdoors, would have me tasered within an hour. Every blade is legal, as long as they stay in the house.

      If you hand in your pointed stick, then you will have to break the law by carrying it in public on the way to the police station. Sticking it in your neighbour is also breaking the law. So you can’t win either way.

      Like

      • Isn’t that the real insanity though? You have presumably owned them for years, you’ve never, and would never, use them in a criminal manner, yet you automatically become a criminal if you take one step outside with one. Why?

        We all remember walking around, even to school, with penknives (or once or twice my cub-scout sheath knife and once my granddads basket-hilt broadsword) and …

        Oh OK, preaching to the choir again I know, but shouldn’t it be ‘used a knife in a crime’ rather had a scary object that makes some people incontinent because they’re both idiots and probably projecting their own inability to carry one without an overwhelming urge to stab random people who disagree with them/vote the wrong way/look at them ‘funny’ (just like guns in fact)? Have a knife, carry it everywhere with you if that’s ‘your thing’, but use it in a crime and you get two tons of legal bricks landing on you – then and only then though.

        As to that ‘massive haul/armoury, much like friends in the US do when the po-po (show a couple of shotguns, an air-rifle, a .38 Saturday-night-special and a .22 plinker all with thirteen rounds each) trumpet their triumph at uncovering an ‘armoury’. “That’s not an armoury, that’s not even a hobbyist. I have more, better and more lethal contents in my kitchen drawers – now in the shed I may have a collection that would have them defecating bovines” (I had to transfer all my lethal bang-toys to friends in the US for safe keeping – so I’m miffed).

        Like

        • I used to go camping with a sheath knife, an essential tool for the activity. Now? It’s illegal to have that in public!

          Pity the poor sods trying to cut a replacement tent peg with a Bic safety razor.

          Like

        • XX , yet you automatically become a criminal if you take one step outside with one. Why? XX

          Any person in a public place, whether entry is by payment or not who has without legal authority or reasonable excuse, an offensive weapon upon them.

          An offensive weapon is;

          Subsection 1(4) of the 1953 Act provides that “offensive weapon” means:
          any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.

          That is why.

          Like

          • Furor

            Granted, but thanks for the specific wording.

            My issue isn’t with ‘how they decided to write the legislation to do what they wanted it to’ but with the basic assumption on which they decided to base it.

            By definition, you, I or anybody else, are barred from carrying any object that someone, somewhere might feel ‘could’ be used as an offensive weapon (witness people arrested for carrying a screwdriver without documentary evidence of being a state registered electrician transferring it to or from a state permitted electrical contract – and even they must safely transport it in a secure case so as not to unduly threaten the public. Remember, taking your bread knife to your sisters because hers broke and she fancied a nice BLT ‘will’ get you arrested).

            My qualm is with the assumption only. The de facto criminalising of self-defence – since anything you could have on your person that you subsequently use to defend yourself from an aggressor can, and probably will, be portrayed as ‘going equipped’. (I, currently, walk with a stick and I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been ‘required’ to prove the ‘need’).

            The old (and even within my lifetime the limits were … er, limited) assumption was that ‘carry anything you want, but use it in a criminal manner and we’ll have you doing hard-time for the rest of your natural’ is eminently more sensible/fair/honest. The demonisation of specific objects has absolutely zero effect, as the criminals, and those defending themselves against them, end up using some object not (yet) included in the banned list instead (so we get plastic beer glasses enforced, bar-stools bolted to floors and blunted knives – at what point will they stop, when were down to rubber knives and wax crayons only?). The ‘act’ is criminal, the object isn’t – well to (naïve) me.

            I know, I know, preaching to the choir yet again – but it’s so much easier, less stressful and ‘let’s me get it off my chest without ending up wanting to stab some hoplophobe/puritan with a butter knife/pen, bludgeon them with a coffee-cup/cuddly-toy, or generally rough them up with whatever object is nearest at hand to prove the point’. I’m ‘venting’ – leave it at that will you? 😉

            Like

            • I remember the row that went on in, 1968 I believe, when they banned Boy scouts from carrying sheath knives. Now, as far as I know, there had NEVER been a case of a rampant boy scout taking out a school class with his wee instrument, yet they banned it any way. Call me paranoid, but I see here a “Government” with an inklinn of what was to come. I.E knife crime. Therefore I wonder how much of it is actualy somehow “Government” encouraged. It appears to be deffinately condoned, seeing the laughable sentences handed down.

              Like

          • This is the problem. If I buy a pencil and sharpen it, it can be seen as ‘adapted for use for causing injury’ – and it could. The rubber eraser on the end means my palm won’t be too badly hurt when I push it between someone’s ribs.

            And yet I have bought and used loads of pencils in my lifetime, and never stabbed anyone with any of them. The same is true of knives. In the old days I’ve carried some big ones, but never threatened or attacked anyone with one. Now it’s too risky to carry a penknife. Because it ‘could be used to cause harm’ it can be considered an offensive weapon.

            We live in a world terrified of what might happen.

            Like

  2. “There’s a folding pruning saw in one of the pictures.”

    Given how long it took me to remove a small branch from my rowan last weekend, the cops would get me long before I managed to do more than break my victim’s skin…

    Like

  3. I am pleased to hijack the thread to note that Fat Eck and the Small Ponders will not now be engineering the breakup of this (loosely) United Kingdom. They will, however, secede into the People’s Republic of Glasgow; they’re welcome to one another.

    Like

  4. I used to be of the crowd that there was no rationale for owning a firearm until it dawned on me that an unarmed population was a controlled population.

    It isn’t a coincidence that throughout history that tyrants of the worst stripe have always attempted to disarm those they lord over.

    I am now of the view that a monopoly of the power with the “right” to back it up with violence should not ONLY be in the hands of the state.

    What does one do when that same state becomes malignant?

    If memory serves Switzerland REQUIRES it citizenry to be armed (with usual exceptions of course…and I wouldn’t disagree with those limitations).

    Like

    • I’ve never owned a live-round gun and probably never will. I can do enough damage to myself just by gardening and building small models – I really don’t need live ammo around me! Bows are safer. They cannot fire at your face, no matter how well you can contort yourself. Well, okay, the pistol crossbows could but those things are so inaccurate I’d miss anyway.

      My thoughts on the gun ban are that before the ban, any burglar breaking into my house had to take the chance that I might have a gun. Now the burglars know for sure that I don’t. That is not something I see as an improvement in public safety at all.

      Like

    • XX If memory serves Switzerland REQUIRES it citizenry to be armed (with usual exceptions of course…and I wouldn’t disagree with those limitations). XX Only if members of the armed forces, or the reserves.

      The idea of every Swiss having an automatic weapon in his sock draw is long gone, since National service is no longer compulsory.

      Israel is the same. Except there, the soldiers and reserves must carry their weapons on open display at ALL times. Even when off duty and going to the disco.

      Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s