Swiss Army Knives now banned by Metropolitan Police London

[m-gineering]

Chris Street wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:40:29 +0000, The Reids wrote:
>
> > Following up to Dave Fawthrop
> >
> >>and
> >>| quite rightly so.
> >>
> >>But it is an aluminium bodied torch Officer. Look it lights!
> >
> > much better idea.
>
> That's why I have a four cell version with heft in the car. Lasts for ever
> if you break down!

This looks pretty innocent : http://www.bgcycles.com/pump.html

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Given the number of suicide bombers that the Israeli military (not
> reknowned for their restraint) have defeated through the use of tanks,
> what point was there in surrounding Heathrow with tanks, other than a
> show of arms?

So if there was a minor fracas in Terminal 4 due to a confirmed sighting
of a man in possession of both Dark Skin *and* A Beard they could fire a
120mm HEAP shell at the place and sort it all out, of course! ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:42:38 -0000, Dave Larrington wrote:
> I've just realised I've been carying one in one of the pockets of
> my bumbag for the past fortnight. Should I beat myself up?

Yes, for having a bumbag.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

 

[Rooney]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:25:33 +0000 (UTC), "nospam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>>'We stop one in every 25 cars on a random basis, and, let me tell you, sir,
>>criminals and terrorists come in many different guises,'
>
>If it's one in every 25, how on earth is that random? Doh!
>


Nos. 2, 35, 51, 99, 124, 140......

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

 

[GeoffC]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Given the number of suicide bombers that the Israeli military (not
> reknowned for their restraint) have defeated through the use of tanks,
> what point was there in surrounding Heathrow with tanks, other than a
> show of arms?
>

Well if said terrorists are suspected of being armed with shoulder launched
missiles, then personally I would rather be sitting in a tank than a police
Transit van.
Having said that, my real preference would be to be tucked up in bed at
home.

--

Geoff

 

[Mark McN]

Response to Rooney:
> >>'We stop one in every 25 cars on a random basis, and, let me tell you, sir,
> >>criminals and terrorists come in many different guises,'
> >
> >If it's one in every 25, how on earth is that random? Doh!
> >
>
>
> Nos. 2, 35, 51, 99, 124, 140......
>

All depends how you define random. Strictly picking every 25th car could
well be defined as randomising choice of the population of cars for that
location at that time, and tending to eliminate bias on the part of Plod.
(Similarly, picking a random digit of the decimal expansion of pi, then
picking every 25th digit after that, *will* result in a random number.)
Picking one strictly at random out of every 25 cars would have a similar
effect. Allowing Plod to choose which car out of 25 ("no, not that one,
he's not black...") would *not* be random.

Wouldn't be surprised if it *was* a random every-25th-car, and our writer
of the article was dead unlucky.

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[JLB]

Chris Malcolm wrote:


> Not widely available. 100% proof is defined as the lowest
> concentration of alcohol in water which still allows gunpowder dowsed
> in it to burn. Obvious terrorist implications there.
>
> The highest proof whisky I've seen is 120% proof. It tends to come out
> of the barrels at around that strength before being adjusted for
> bottling. I knew a barrel cooper with very few fingers who could
> drink that stuff neat; the two facts are related.

Still wrong. There are at least four common ways to measure alcohol content

1. Percentage by weight (maximum 100%)
2. Percentage by volume (maximum 100%)
3. Degrees proof US, symbol ^0, maximum well over 100.
4. Degrees proof UK, symbol ^0, maximum well over 100.

There is *no* *such* *thing* as % proof.

See
http://www.btinternet.com/~johnandsandy.colby/measures/vintners.html

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[JLB]

nospam wrote:
>>'We stop one in every 25 cars on a random basis, and, let me tell you, sir,
>>criminals and terrorists come in many different guises,'
>
>
> If it's one in every 25, how on earth is that random? Doh!
>
>
It's not that difficult. Instead of stopping every 25th car, which would
be regular, they stop one car taken at random out of every batch of 25;
or some similar method.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:55:01 +0100 someone who may be "GeoffC"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Well if said terrorists are suspected of being armed with shoulder launched
>missiles, then personally I would rather be sitting in a tank than a police
>Transit van.

Anti-aircraft missiles are not much use for firing against tanks or
police vans. OTOH there are rocket propelled grenades.

ISTM that the Heathrow panic is in much the same league as all the
other panics (which are characterised by arresting thousands of
people and letting nearly all of them go). All just a means of
showing the nervous that "something is being done".


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Martin]

On 30/11/04 1:39 pm, in article [email protected], "JLB"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> It's not that difficult. Instead of stopping every 25th car, which would
> be regular, they stop one car taken at random out of every batch of 25;
> or some similar method.

And why is that more random than performing a regular sampling of a random
stream of cars?

...d

 

[Dave Larrington]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:42:38 -0000, Dave Larrington wrote:
>> I've just realised I've been carying one in one of the pockets of
>> my bumbag for the past fortnight. Should I beat myself up?
>
> Yes, for having a bumbag.

I have to have /some/ form of bag to prevent all my Stuff from migrating
into the far corners of my tailbox, and this handy Quick Fit bumbag is
exactly the right size and shape... Plus by wearing it in front when
entering and leaving the Nut Mines, it effectively disguises the size of my
aerobelly.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:56:53 -0500 someone who may be Mike Ross
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>OK OK... anywhere in *public*. The court has the same right anyone
>else has to decide what gets onto their property.

Courts are *MY* property, not the property of some bod that works in
them.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:54:59 -0000 someone who may be "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>exactly, so button you lip, take thier **** and move on.
>you are on a hiding to nothing with the police.

Giving in to bullies just makes them worse.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:55:01 +0100, GeoffC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>> Given the number of suicide bombers that the Israeli military (not
>> reknowned for their restraint) have defeated through the use of tanks,
>> what point was there in surrounding Heathrow with tanks, other than a
>> show of arms?
>>
>
> Well if said terrorists are suspected of being armed with shoulder launched
> missiles, then personally I would rather be sitting in a tank than a police
> Transit van.

But surely if said terrorists had said missiles they would be for shooting
planes down rather than police vans up. More carnage for their money that
way.

Also I would have thought SLRs and the like would be of more use in
apprehending said terrorists.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:44:06 -0000 someone who may be "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>YOu have to tip your hat when you are dealing with the police

That just reinforces their behaviour.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Nick Pedley]

"Steve Brassett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The guy was charged with posession of an offensive weapon not
> > because he had
> > a Swiss army knife, but because he had a collapible baton, which is
> > specifically outlawed these days, and has no other purpose than
> > hitting
> > people with - fair enough ?
>
> There was also a comment that his knife had a locking blade,
> which my Swiss Army knife doesn't. Would this make it illegal?
>
My limited research (based on reading the relevant legislation online and
chats with Police officers) says that open-locking blades on knives are not
illegal. Blades that pop out from the handle using a spring when a button is
pressed are illegal. There is a limit on blade lengths and IIRC for some
knives over a certain length (12 inches?) you need to provide a good reason
for buying such a blade, i.e. a machete which will be used in the jungle.

Of course, you do need to be able to explain why you are carrying a knife
wherever you go. I blame it on all the awkward packaging on sandwich
wrappers etc.

Nick

 

[JLB]

David Martin wrote:
> On 30/11/04 1:39 pm, in article [email protected], "JLB"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not that difficult. Instead of stopping every 25th car, which would
>>be regular, they stop one car taken at random out of every batch of 25;
>>or some similar method.
>
>
> And why is that more random than performing a regular sampling of a random
> stream of cars?

It was the police claim that it was random and you'd have to ask them
what the point was. Taking every 25th car is exactly as random as
stopping 100% of the cars. Since the cars are random except for the fact
of being on that road that day (which does not change by only taking a
fraction of the number of cars) I see no problem with it, but if they
want to pick their 1 in 25 sample at random, rather than just counting
to 25 and stopping that car, it's their business.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[JLB]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:56:53 -0500 someone who may be Mike Ross
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>OK OK... anywhere in *public*. The court has the same right anyone
>>else has to decide what gets onto their property.
>
>
> Courts are *MY* property, not the property of some bod that works in
> them.

Are you sure? Did I miss the revolution? The last time I checked I found
that in the UK we are subjects of the Crown, and all that stuff like
Courts belongs to the Crown.

The government frequently glosses over this by talking about citizens,
but as usual it's lies.

Or... wait, the light is dawning... you are the one true and rightful
King! Are you?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Arthur Clune]

In uk.rec.cycling JLB <[email protected]> wrote:
: want to pick their 1 in 25 sample at random, rather than just counting
: to 25 and stopping that car, it's their business.

Not really, since their idea of "random" probably isn't (for better
or for worse)

ie there's a black guy in a BMW, that'll do for this set of 25.

Taking every 25th vehicle exactly should give you a random sample of the
vehicles on the road.

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness

 

[David Blunkett]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:56:53 -0500 someone who may be Mike Ross
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> OK OK... anywhere in *public*. The court has the same right anyone
>> else has to decide what gets onto their property.
>
> Courts are *MY* property, not the property of some bod that works in
> them.

I think you'll find they /actually/ belong to Tony and me. Well, they will
after the next General Election.

--

The Right Honourable David Blunkett, MP
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Building A Safe, Just And Tolerant Society