Swiss Army Knives now banned by Metropolitan Police London

[PeteC]

Sniper8052 wrote:

> Sniper:
>
> Sorry I thought you were being funny. You'r scaring me now.
>
> Here is chapter and verse.
>
> Criminal Justice Act 1988
>
<snip>

Sniper,

On a related note, as you seem to take all the fun out of the discussion by
using facts....

I believe that if instructed or questioned by a Police Officer in the
street, I have to give an answer or follow their instruction, but I don't
have to answer to anyone else (e.g Ministry of Transport officers, who are
usually accompanied by Police for this reason. I never give them any
information - I still get caught by surveys, and delayed, but they don't get
anything useful off me).

What is the situation for Blunketts New Model Army; do I have to answer
them, or can I just politely tell them 'no comment'. If they attempt to stop
me, would it be a 'citizens arrest' (in which case I believe I can sue them
personally for false arrest if no charges are brought), or do they have any
more rights?

Regards,

Pete.

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> An offensive weapon is:
>
>
> "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."
>
> The relevant statute states:
>
> "Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the
> proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any
> offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence.
>
> Thus any thing can be an offensive weapon dependant on the intent of
> the person in control of the article at the time.
>

Weell, you are refering to the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which does
indeed cover anything that may be described as an 'offensive weapon', but
will probably not be the Act under which he will get charged for the knife.

> Some items are classed as offensive weapons by statute. Among those so
> listed are Lock Knifes and Telescopic Batons.
>

Well, not exactly, so far as I can tell. Section 141 of the Criminal
Justice Act gives powers to the Secretary of State to effectively ban the
manufacture, import, sale, hire or loan of certain weapons by making an
appropriate Order. It seems an order was passed soon after the Act was laid
which included certain kinds of knives (but not locking knives) and
'telescopic truncheons' which extend automatically. The powers contained in
Section 141 to ban the sale, hire etc of those items does not amount to a
ban on their possession, per se, by Statute, whether in a public place or
not. To commit an offence of possession of any of those items I think you
would have to look to the generality of the PCA.

The decision about locking knives came in caselaw when the High Court
decided in the cases of Harris, Fehmi and Deegan that such knives were not
'folding knives' for the purposes of Section 139 of the CJA, section 139
otherwise permitting small folding knives to be carried in a public place
without the need to show 'good reason'.

So, he can be charged under the PCA for the baton, and either under the PCA
or Section 139 of the CJA for the knife. The problem, however, with using
the PCA for the knife is that the PCA defines an 'offensive weapon' as one
which is :
(a) made or adapted for use for causing injury to persons; or
(b) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some
other person.

Now it seems to me that the baton is almost certainly covered by (a), but a
small Swiss Army knife with multiple tool blades for various sorts of
domestic tasks is arguably not. To satisfy (b) you would have to prove
intent which would probably be difficult if not impossible in the
circumstances. So the charge in respect of the knife is almost certainly
going to be made under Section 139 of the CJA where simple possession of any
bladed article (as always, 'without good reason') is sufficient. Seems our
OP, or rather, author of the article posted by the OP, has got himself into
a spot of bother...


Rich

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Sniper8052 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> A scythe whilst possibly not being an offensive weapon would be a
>> bladed atricle, it's an offence to have a sharply pointed or bladed
>> atricle in a public place aswell. The differance is that no intent is
>> required.
>
> OK, this is beginning to bother me.

Don't get cut up about it

Nothing has changed, you can still do your job. The law only requires that
you have a 'good reason' for having bladed and pointy things with you, and
the relevant Act specifically provides a defence for having the items for
use at work.

Rich

 

[Call me Bob]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:48:17 +0000, Gordon Harris
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Not always true. I flew back into Stanstead once and it was just fine.
>>
>Exactly! But my daughter had gravy granules taken off her at either
>Chicago O'Hare or San Francisco, can't remember which..
>Her sister in CA was livid because she had asked for them because she
>couldn't get anything like it in America.

***********, I think this woman got off lightly.Once I'm in charge,
anyone caught with gravy granules will be up against the wall. *BANG!*


--

Call me "Bob"


"More oneness, less categories,
Open hearts, no strategies"


Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Michael Farthing]

In message <[email protected]>, JLB
<[email protected]> writes
>Michael Farthing wrote:
>> This problem happened in a recent census (around 81 I think) where a
>>supplementary form was given out, supposedly to every tenth house. It
>>was quite intentional that the random effect was to be achieved by
>>this exact procedure. It didn't work: analysis showed that this
>>random sample was bias and investigation put it down to the
>>enumerators not having been strict about the one-in-ten. Nothing as
>>sinister as the 'he's black' suggestion: more like: "He's deaf and
>>gaga - I'll use next door instead".
>>
>But that is not comparable or equivalent to "stop one car taken at
>random out of every batch of 25", which remains a random sample. What
>you are decribing is the introduction of a selection criterion, so of
>course the house sample was not random.
>

What I am saying is that instructing someone to stop every 25th car will
produce a better random sample than telling them to stop one car in 25
because in the latter case they, being human, will inevitably introduce
a bias in selection.

--
Michael Farthing
Aardvark Ltd

 

[Graeme]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> BTW, I'm not black, but I am a quarter Irish.

No chance then. They can spot as little as 1/16th Irishness from quite a
distance.

Graeme

 

[Michael Farthing]

In message <[email protected]>, Richard
<[email protected]> writes
>Michael Farthing wrote:
>>>> Taking every 25th vehicle exactly should give you a random sample of the
>>>> vehicles on the road.
>
>>> Only if the vehicles are randomly spaced. There might be harmonics
>>>of the 25th vehicle with such effects as traffic light timings and
>>>cycles, synchronised sequences of traffic lights, (notional bus
>>>frequencies, road layout, etc, all of which might serve to bunch
>>>similar types of vehicle (or driver) together.
>> Which matters not at all as a 25 car rule still sorts this problem.
>>Were there an environment factor that spaced similar cars at exactly 5
>>car intervals (or indeed any factor or multiple of 25) then, of
>>course, your analysis is correct.
>
>Er...that was my point - all of the environmental factors I mentioned
>could space similar cars at regular intervals.
>
>It doesn't have to be a factor or multiple of 25, either. Any
>regularly occurring periodicity is going to bugger up the "random"
>nature of the sampling - eg if vehicle type "A" was guaranteed to turn
>up every 24 vehicles and vehicle type "B" every 10 vehicles, you're
>going to stop one "A" for every 600 vehicles passing and one "B" for
>every 50 vehicles passing, suggesting (erroneously) that [A]: is
>12:1 rather than 2.4:1.
>
>R.

Yes, I have understated the conditions. The periodicity and random
sampling must be mutually prime. In your example 10 has a common factor
with 25 and so there is a bias. However, choosing any two numbers that
are not divisible by 5 (5 being the only prime factor of 25) will not
generate a distortion, eg 24 and 11 or even 24 and 12.

In the original post quoted above I did overlook your use of the word
'harmonics' and concentrated on the end where you talk about 'bunching
together'. It was the 'bunching together' that I was disputing. My
apologies for sloppy reading.

--
Michael Farthing
Aardvark Ltd

 

[Graeme]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I note that underwired bras are not prohibited from aeroplane
> cabins. This is another demonstration that these so-called security
> measures are in fact just designed to reassure the nervous and allow
> bods to say they have "done something".
>

A colleague of mine was once stopped by airport security and had a hand
held metal detector waved over her. The security guard seemed quite
concerned and needed some persuasion that what was detected was not a
weapon, and no, she wasn't going to take her bra off to prove it.

There are many more objects to hand on an aeroplane that could do much more
damage than a nail file or even a penknife. Strangling someone with the
ties on a life-jacket, battering someone over the head with somebody's
laptop, making them eat the BMI "paninni" with scalding hot fat dripping
out of it, etc.

Graeme

 

[Graeme]

Paul Robson <[email protected]> wrote in
newsan.2004.11.29.13.42.03.574293@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk:

> Yeah, I live not far from where he does and the local police force is
> nonexistent. I've got a cricket bat signed by Graham Gooch and others
> hanging up in my hall, it's not entirely for display.

<australian mode on>
Well he certainly didn't use it for hitting cricket balls!
<australian mode off>



Graeme

 

[coppershark]

Well the pommy class system still reigns

" lack of a decent officer class in the metropolitan police"

I bet the writer was driving a BMW!

Aussie Mike

 

[bugbear]

JLB wrote:
> 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.
>

If they stop cars at random with a probability of 0.04
that ought to achieve the desired result.

BugBear

 

[Adrian Tupper]

Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In message <[email protected]>, JLB
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Michael Farthing wrote:
>>> This problem happened in a recent census (around 81 I think) where a
>>>supplementary form was given out, supposedly to every tenth house.
It
>>>was quite intentional that the random effect was to be achieved by
>>>this exact procedure. It didn't work: analysis showed that this
>>>random sample was bias and investigation put it down to the
>>>enumerators not having been strict about the one-in-ten. Nothing as
>>>sinister as the 'he's black' suggestion: more like: "He's deaf and
>>>gaga - I'll use next door instead".
>>>
>>But that is not comparable or equivalent to "stop one car taken at
>>random out of every batch of 25", which remains a random sample. What
>>you are decribing is the introduction of a selection criterion, so of
>>course the house sample was not random.
>>
>
> What I am saying is that instructing someone to stop every 25th car
will
> produce a better random sample than telling them to stop one car in 25
> because in the latter case they, being human, will inevitably
introduce
> a bias in selection.
>

This was exactly whay the old "sus law" was dropped. The SPG randomly
stopping anyone who wasn't white!

And I remember a young black lad driving a sports car had been stopped
something like 93 times even though he was legit.

--
Adrian

 

[Arthur Clune]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

: And I am glad my kitchen is not a public place. All the cooking knives there
: (which are kept appropriately sharp) would have the hand-wringers in
: kittens.

Amazing how sharp you can get a decent knife

Mind, for this reason I keep my knives in a knife roll in a drawer,
not in a block on the surface. If someone breaks into my house, I
don't want them having ready access to a very, very sharp 8" chefs
knife...


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

 

[Arthur Clune]

Richard Goodman <[email protected]> wrote:

: [re Simon and coppicing]
: Nothing has changed, you can still do your job.

Does it make any difference that (I imagine) that Simon's coppicing
*isn't* work, it's a hobby. Can you still say "tools of the trade"?

arthur

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

 

[Julesh]

Richard Goodman wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>in message <[email protected]>,
>>Sniper8052 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A scythe whilst possibly not being an offensive weapon would be a
>>>bladed atricle, it's an offence to have a sharply pointed or bladed
>>>atricle in a public place aswell. The differance is that no intent is
>>>required.
>>
>>OK, this is beginning to bother me.
>
>
> Don't get cut up about it
>
> Nothing has changed, you can still do your job. The law only requires that
> you have a 'good reason' for having bladed and pointy things with you, and
> the relevant Act specifically provides a defence for having the items for
> use at work.
>
> Rich
>
>
<Python from memory>

This is Mr Grim. He's a little man from the village. Mr Grim is a REAPER.


</Python from memory>


Julesh

 

[David Martin]

On 30/11/04 6:10 pm, in article
[email protected], "Sniper8052"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> David Martin Wrote:
>> On 30/11/04 5:12 pm, in article
>> [email protected], "Sniper8052"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> An offensive weapon is:
>>>
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> The relevant statute states:
>>>
>>> "Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the
>>> proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any
>>> offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence.
>>>
>>> Thus any thing can be an offensive weapon dependant on the intent of
>>> the person in control of the article at the time.
>>>
>>> Some items are classed as offensive weapons by statute. Among those
>> so
>>> listed are Lock Knifes and Telescopic Batons.
>>
>> A knife with a locking blade is different to a knife with a fixed blade
>> how?
>>
>> When I was involved with assisting in leading a scout troop in a
>> different
>> country, they had to pass a qualification before being allowed to bring
>> a
>> knife on camp. If they did bring a knife, they had to have it packed
>> in
>> their rucksack when not using it, not on their belt. This was purely
>> to
>> avoid the 'macho' image of having a knife.
>>
>> Having read what you have posted, you can have anything on you as long
>> as it
>> is intended to not be used for harming (or threatening to harm) a
>> person.
>> From a surgical scalpel to an 18" machete, a felling axe or a two
>> handled
>> scythe. (OK, I don't have the machete but I do have a scythe. I haven't
>> been
>> known to walk down the street with it at night 'for my own protection'
>> as
>> that really would be taking the ****)
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that a swiss army knife in a brief case could
>> be
>> construed as an offensive weapon. The club could, clearly.
>>
>> Imagine the scenario. "excuse me please, could you stop hitting me and
>> let
>> go of my arm so I can open my brief case and open my swiss army knife
>> to
>> defend myself"
>>
>> Doesn't wash.
>>
>> Approaching someone with an open knife however...
>> And I am glad my kitchen is not a public place. All the cooking knives
>> there
>> (which are kept appropriately sharp) would have the hand-wringers in
>> kittens.
>>
>> ...d
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Sniper replies:
>
> No I have said that anything can be an offensive weapon if it is
> intended for use as a weapon by the person having it either by
> themselves or another.
> I than said that telescopic batons and lock knives were listed amongst
> others as being offensive weapons by statute. IE It's a weapon because
> the law says so.

Fine.

> The point is that when a blade is locked there is no difference between
> it and a fixed blade. That is the point.
Except that one is illegal by statute and the other isn't (for carrying in a
public place)

> When it comes to the point of accessibility that is one of the things
> which causes me concern in the conduct of the search. For the knife to
> be an offensive weapon it would need to be readily available. Some have
> stated that the case was locked, this is not shown in the text, thus the
> knife would be readily available to the person.
They would have to open the case first and get the knife out. Any different
in principle to being in a rucksack or a car boot that is not locked (or a
tool box for that matter)?

> Consider the senario., Driver is cut up by another, decides to teach
> other a lesson, takes knife and baton from case and approaches other at
> traffic lights, then attacks other knocking him to the ground with the
> baton before slashing his face or stabbing him. So not as far from
> being an offensive weapon as you suggest.

As soon as the driver intends to use is as a weapon it becomes offensive.
Before that it is not necessarily so, surely? The case with the baton is
that its only reasonable use is as a weapon so it cannot be anything other
than offensive.

> A scythe whilst possibly not being an offensive weapon would be a
> bladed atricle, it's an offence to have a sharply pointed or bladed
> atricle in a public place aswell. The differance is that no intent is
> required.

It isn't an offence if the process of carrying it falls under subsections 4
or 5. If I am taking the scythe to a friends house to dosome gardening or
other legitimate purpose then it would be legal. Obviously I would expect to
be stopped and a reasonable request made to not carry it assembled but
suitably packaged... (2ft of razor sharp steel on a grim reaper style scythe
will give quite an effective haircut. Even the handle without the blade
could be considered offensive if sections 4 or 5 do not apply)

Has anyone been charged with using a car as an offensive weapon, though I
suppose the definition of 'carrying' would be interpreted as 'in possesion
of'.

...d




>
> Sniper8052
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>

 

[Gordon Harris]

In message <[email protected]>, Rooney
<[email protected]> writes
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:18:15 -0000, "JBB" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The sailing version of the Swiss knife has a locking blade. In fact many of
>>the sailing knives are like this. It is considered a safety feature.
>>
>>Julia
>
>The Swiss army has a navy?
>
They're amphibulous.
--
Gordon Harris

 

[Gordon Harris]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>
>About 20 years ago a friend was walking along the approach to
>Nottingham Midland station one Saturday morning. In his hands he had
>a telephone technicians toolbag (complete with knives inside) and an
>electric drill. He was dressed in the typical bib and brace overalls
>worn by people in the Signal and Telegraph Department of British
>Railways.
>
>A gentlemen in blue working for the British Transport Police
>accosted him and asked him what he was carrying in his hand. Being
>an honest sort of person he replied, "an electric drill". The
>gentleman in blue then asked him what he was going to do with it.
>"Drill holes in things", was the rather obvious reply. The gentleman
>in blue was too stupid to leave it at that but continued to make
>himself look even more ridiculous for several minutes (a common
>failing amongst such people).
>
>My friend was working on the fire alarm at the station. This
>involves drilling holes in things, for which an electric drill is
>useful.

Who did you say was stupid?

The police guy was doing his job, and security officers aren't amused by
jokers. Why didn't he say he was going to work on the fire alarm?
--
Gordon Harris

 

[Danielb]

I think they are Swiss Army Knifes with locking blades but they are
all on the big side, from what I can tell all the knifes with the
contoured handles are the big locking knifes:

http://www.swissarmy.com/webstore/category.cfm?Category=41&ViewAll=true

So this is a Swiss Army Knife with a locking blade:
http://www.swissarmy.com/webstore/moreinfo.cfm?product_id=2097&category=41
Iits listed as being 4 3/8 inch long so it would be well over the
legal limit for allowed blade length.

Where as your standard Swiss Army knife is smaller and has no locking
blades:
http://www.swissarmy.com/webstore/moreinfo.cfm?product_id=2350&category=35


On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:06:36 -0000, "Steve Brassett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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?
>
>The whole episode looks to me as if someone was caught bang to rights,
>and is simply whinging about it.

 

[Nick Cooper 625]

Graeme <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I note that underwired bras are not prohibited from aeroplane
> > cabins. This is another demonstration that these so-called security
> > measures are in fact just designed to reassure the nervous and allow
> > bods to say they have "done something".
> >
>
> A colleague of mine was once stopped by airport security and had a hand
> held metal detector waved over her. The security guard seemed quite
> concerned and needed some persuasion that what was detected was not a
> weapon, and no, she wasn't going to take her bra off to prove it.

Going through Heathrow in September, the steel toe-caps in my boots
inevitably set off the metal detectors. The security guard insisted on
frisking me, but didn't ask me to remove the boots, even when I said
it would be them. Coming back, they obviously set off the metal
detectors at Cork airport, and when I said, "it'll be the steel
toe-caps again," the security guard there jovially said: "Well, just
pop them through the x-ray - there's a chair there you can sit on
while you take them off, and there another one over there, once you've
gone through." Suffice to say, I was more impressed with the
procedures at Cork than the ones at Heathrow....


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