OK, my compact EDC (Every Day Carry) tools just got changed, thanks to this video that more easily explains the current TARFU that is English Law... As a result, I am no longer carrying my frankly excellent Leatherman Wave Plus and associated tools, as the blade locks in place (physical release button required to be pressed to fold it back in again) when deployed. A 'slip lock' is, however, legal, so it's back to my Swiss Army knife ('slip lock', so no button needs be pressed to fold it back again)and additional tool/organisation pouch again. It still requires a good reason to carry in my day pack, but I think I'm good with that, for First Aid and occasional work usage. Yes, bus drivers occasionally need tools, if only to tighten screws in the cab down. Yes, an engineer is needed for most problems, but occasionally, if you have the right tool, and it stops something rattling and causing a distraction, you tighten the thing down yourself (hex-headed screws are a typical example). Here's the photo Here's the listing... Victorinox Cybertool 41 SAK Rite-in-the-rain "Band o' Rubber" Adaptor from 5mm microhex to square 1/4" hex bit socket Assorted double-ended Victorinox microhex bits Victorinox leather belt sheath for items 1-4 above. Stowed in daysack, not held on belt. Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite DX cycle tool kit with 1/4" ratchet driver. Car accessory socket adaptor to USB 5vdc power socket. Generic permanent match with Zippo fuel reservoir and spare flint holder. USB multiple memory card adaptor USB C female to USB A male adaptor USB C male to USB A female adaptor Several cable ties of two lengths USB A female to MicroUSB male On The Go (OTG) adaptor cable Victorinox knife sharpener tool Bog-standard Sharpie pen USB C male to USB A male adaptor/charging cable three jewellers screwdrivers, 2 x flat, 1 x crosshead, primarily for small items and also tightening the screws on my my spectacles! Telescoping rare earth magnet probe. Watch spring bar tool Spare Watch spring bars Chapman Tool MFG CM-13 1/4" micro ratchet tool Spare strap for my wrist watch; 22mm Zulu-format wrist watch strap (Wider, stronger, and more resilient than a normal NATO strap) (not shown) Viper Tactical Operators Pouch, Olive (colour option no longer available, replaced by Coyote )
Probably best if this corona shait just keeps on rolling so we can stay in lockdown forever, Theres hardly anything useful you can do without risk of breaking the law, knowingly or otherwise. This attitude toward- and lack of trust in people really annoys me. We're heading for a future where one being able to take care of even the smallest of practical problems are certainly not expected, probably frowned upon and not unlikely illegal. What a marvelous way to kill productivity, creativity and curiosity. I don't know how UK citizens can keep accepting this stuff. In all fairness it ain't all that much better around here either, but that's mostly on paper though. People carry their knives anyways, and unless you have really bad judgment about where it's appropriate to carry or what to do with your knife, the police would normally just look the other way. It's always that uncertainty, though.
Given the amount of knife crime here, the current laws have a fairly broad amount of support. The problem with drafting laws to combat crime and disorder is that legitimate concerns are frequently hit by the width of law necessary to also hit the offenders. There is, and always will be, I suspect, a none-too-fine balance between protecting the public good, and prohibiting the public threat. I do agree that restrictions here for all manner of things are just plain barmy - often making no sense to many of us, and often immensely annoying, to say the least; firearms, for example, are controlled in a way that's only (pretty much) second to the way in which they're restricted in Japan for example, and legitimate sporting use has, since a couple of madmen (Michael Ryan at Hungerford in 1987, and Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane in 1996) committed their atrocities, been massively restricted: The knee-jerk reaction of the Government, driven by practically salivating at the mouth gun-grabbing liberals and left wingers alike, was all but a witch-hunt of scapemongery on the innocent shooting community. To show how utterly farcical this was, in the last Olympics held here, our own shooters had to train in other countries, and in many cases, could not compete, where in previous Olympics, they had in some cases cleared out the medal tables, as the types of weapons they hitherto had used were deemed to be prohibited weapons ("Section 5 Prohibited Firearms"). Even foreign competitors had have special concessions granted them in order to bring their weapons into the country. One of the penalties of having a society under law, is consenting to be policed. Without such consent, you have anarchy. As a result, we have to accept that some laws passed "for the greater good" of society at large will affect a minority of us adversely (that's likely to be the understatement of the decade!). With regard to knife laws here, the reasons for the laws are sound: To combat and hopefully thwart knife crime. The problem is, as mentioned above, the difficulty is in ensuring that law-abiding people are not unduly inconvenienced by such laws. There is very little that can be done to address both ends of the spectrum effectively, without weakening such laws, making them draconian on all, or making them a nightmare of an insane amount of definitions as to what is, and is not, permitted - including uses. The moment you go down that road, you move from prohibiting some things, to making everyone a potential offender by demanding permissions and permits for all. Not an easy balance to make, frankly. I think we have the best we are likely to get on knife laws, for the time being, even if they are a colossal pain in the arse.
That degree of support boggles my mind. I get it, there needs to be a balance, but it's still funny how the first section of your first sentence, really says it all. Prohibition doesn't work, cause only the law abiding will follow them. People in a good place in life, with actual freedom to loose are not likely to commit such crimes in the first place. Some things certainly needs to be regulated to a common sense degree, but many prohibitions are just lacy, simplistic and even kne jerk responses to complex problems. Not actually addressing the real issue, but creating the illusion that politicians and government actually care. I hope some day, a large enough mass of of UK voters will wake up and see what they are giving up and how little they get in return. I really do, because that kind of policy is contagious and will spread across to other nations and create a self amplifying feedback loop. We have our guns, for now. No issue at all, really, but it's a fragile construct, and who knows how long it will last
You're assuming that people committing crimes actually give a stuff about such things. They generally don't. They're generally more involved in the instant gratification that the crimes give them. And I'me right there with you on the 'prohibitions don't work' aspect. It's the forbidden fruit argument of old. You cannot put the worms back in the can, or the genie back into the bottle. It just cannot happen. Banning things makes them more attractive to some people: It's a fact of life. I somehow doubt we'll ever get to a tipping point as you hope we do; it's not really in the national psyche that we're ever going to "take that chance". For example, the banning of illegal drugs: Can you see them making, for example, Crack Cocaine legal for personal possession? Nope, neither can I, but I can see them bowing to the inevitability of realising that they cannot control weed (Cannabis), and thus making it legal to possess small amounts for personal use. I personally don't want to see that, as I'm a professional driver, and I'm willing to bet that more idiots would be drug driving were that to happen; however, the example stands. Civics, that is, how our country works, and our responsibilities to it, in this democracy, is something I've wanted to see for a long time in our schools. Politicians, you would think, have a vested interest in seeing this happen, but on the other side of the coin, if we were to understand this, what use would be have for most of the current crop of politicians? Catch-22. Frankly, I'm waiting for a massive lottery win, so I can emigrate so somewhere a considerable sight easier to live. Well, a guy can dream, right?
Ultimately, I think everything can be correlated to "matter(and energy) cannot be created or destroyed". You gain something, you lose something. Or maybe someone else loses something, but we generally kick that concern out of the door. We just cannot pull faeces out of the posterior end of an individual's alimentary canal if nothing has entered the anterior end. As it were, humans are still bound by the laws of nature, and nature is never about equality and fairness, only survival of the fittest. We just don't want ourselves and those we have any sort of camaraderie with to have the short end of the stick, so to speak, so someone will unfortunately have to suffer the consequences. Unless we include THEM into our social network-group thingy and go about pillaging some other entity to reap benefits, preferably faraway and easy to pass off as a danger to our little bubble, so on and so forth, so we'd feel like everything is to our benefit, until it isn't. Nothing is fair unless you compromise and decide to suck it up and call it so. Or remove the competition and make things "fair" for yourself(and most likely unfair for your opposition). Say, an overly simplified scenario: You have ten dollars to distribute among ten people including yourself. Assume any one person needs two dollars to be spared from death's embrace. Also assume everyone there wants to live. Provided you can choose to save yourself and spend the rest of the money for beer or whatever's rad enough for y'all, how would you allocate the money? Sacrifices will have to be made eventually and someone will have to pay the price for others' betterment. We just decide what choices we want to live with and whose lives, values and opinions we should stamp down and devalue, and call it "fair".
As law abiding citizens in the UK, we ensure that we don't fall foul of the laws pertaining to the carrying of knives, bladed articles or pointed objects. I would respectfully suggest that any fellow law abiding citizens, if asked why they're carrying a (legal) knife, or what they're carrying it for, to respond, "For its lawful, intended purpose, Officer." Irrespective of how many times the question, or variations of it are asked, my reply is always consistently the same, "For its lawful, intended purpose, Officer." One wouldn't expect to be arrested for spreading marmalade on one's toast with a (fixed bladed) butter knife at the pavement table of a restaurant, despite clearly being in possession of a fixed bladed knife in a public place, because CONTEXT is everything! Likewise, there are no mass arrests of people for carrying a ball point pen, despite the item being a pointed object carried in a public place! Its that CONTEXT thing again!
The flip side of that reply, "For its lawful, intended purpose, Officer", will likely be that Constable requiring you to explain, in detail, what the lawful purposes are. And if he's not satisfied with that reply, you can likely expect to be arrested under at least s.1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953. You might also examine this link: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-knives-bladed-and-pointed-articles (Info: I'm also a former reservist in the Royal Military Police, and lessons I learned in that capacity are but one of the reasons I keep current on UK Law, and that ignorance is no defence in Law).
Are you obliged to know in advance? That's like asking why you wear shoes. Don't know exactly where I'll be walking today, but I know they'll come in very handy. And I sure ain't gonna use them to trespass restricted areas, kick anyone or outrun the police. I'm not trying be provocative, I understand your concern. Knife laws around here are very restrictive and ambiguous as well, but the police is usually quite relaxed about it. If it's pretty obvious you're not up to something stupid, they're not really known for trying to make villains out of good people by trapping them on technical details. I wish we had more legal protection written into the law, but the way it's enforced still makes it worthwhile to carry.
The phrase "lawful cause or reasonable excuse" is usually written into these forms of law; the problem is that they're HIGHLY subjective, and one copper's opinion may well vary from anothers, in identical circumstances. Then there's precedent, which is formed in a law court; again, it's down to the judge - NOT a Magistrate, precedent come from Crown courts only - to form an opinion and make a Judgement, thus forming the precedent. I dislike these forms of law; it leaves far too much reliance on cops interpretation and understanding of laws. A clear definition is always the best solution, but law makers - Members of Parliament - like having wiggle room far more than they seem to like clarity. I suspect that's a common problem the world over, somehow. So, until we get clear and unequivocal guidance on what is, and is not, dodgy, I err on the side of caution. It tends to be a hell of a lot safer that way, I think.
With respect, after I have replied, "For its lawful, intended purpose, Officer!" I couldn't care less what the Officers may want to discuss, because unlike written laws being ambiguous, my full reply (above) to an Officer, is the exact opposite, its factually accurate, legally correct, concise and final. I have occasionally had to explain relevant laws to Officers that believed that whatever came out of their mouths was THE LAW! Inviting them to join me at 08:00 the following day in the office of their Commander, whom will be more than happy to explain to them that what I have stated is absolutely correct, before we get on to discussing their misconduct. To date, not one has been willing to accept my invitation because they knew that what I said was correct, and that they were not conducting themselves in the manner expected of them. I have precisely zero patience with ignorant, argumentative and obstructive public servants that use aggressive behaviour to mask their ignorance of the laws that they've reasonably expected to be knowledgeable of. I am perfectly happy to explain the law in detail for however long they may need to understand it, because that's a reasonable discourse between an Officer whom genuinely doesn't understand it, but is otherwise personable and professional and a Citizen. I am, and have always been supportive of Policing By Consent, but do not accept ignorant, loutish, and aggressive behaviour from Officers, something that became apparrent rather quickly when I encounter it.
Problem in London is that the moment you start laying that down, the hackles come up, and it's difficult to downgrade the response. Safer and far easier to err on the side of caution, IMHO, esp with knife crime the level it is here. Pain in the bum, I know, but far easier on the blood pressure.
Every one of my encounters has taken place in one part of London! And yes, the hackles have frequently come up from ignorant, aggressive and abusive Officers, and in each incident they never wanted to take their aggression, abuse and misconduct to the lengths I was more than willing to go and so away they went! I've attended a Home Office Policing & Criminal Justice System conference openly wearing belt holsters containing items including a Leatherman tool and a Swiss Champ, and at no time was I asked about them. Likewise I've attended numerous official meetings in Police Stations and in the Commander's office openly wearing the belt holsters without ever being asked about them. That which I do, I do lawfully, responsibly and respectfully, consequently I am accorded the protections the law confers, and so have no reason to to be fearful.
I'm bowing out of this discussion; we're only going to repeat our conclusions, and never agree. Enjoy the rest of the weekend - I suspect this is the last of the hot weather for a while!
You guys need to start voting people out . Banning tools from law abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals I am in South West Ohio. I have on my person Glock 380 ACP and extra magazine Becker BK-16 fixed blade Opinel #6 Mini Ulu neck knife Lighter Pen Flash light Fischer space pen Exotic Fire striker I am totally legal
My experiences are pretty much the same as Aero. I carry lockers for work and slipjoints for out side of work. The only exception is a leatherman rebar (locking) when I cycle. My experiences have been fine. I have however had a couple of ‘odd’ experiences. 1. Windsor Castle I visited Windsor castle last year for a tour. On arrival you have to put bags through scanners and essentially experience the same as airport security. The visit was unplanned and as such I had a leatherman juice in my pocket. Or so I thought. I handed that over and put my bag in a the scanner. They picked up something and asked me to open the bag. Inside was a Lansky World Legal. I’d forgetten it was in my bag and apologised. The security guard took one look at it and declared that it was illegal as it was a locking knife. I politely asked him to open it and demonstrate the lock. He was flustered and couldn’t even open it but said that I shouldn’t be on the streets with it. I repeated again that it was legal, non locker, sub 3” blade and that I was more than happy to leave it with them and collect it afterwards. They were happy with that but said I was lucky they didn’t tell the police. I rolled my eyes and proceeded with the tour. On collecting it, from a different security guard in a different office, I again went through the same thing. This time I said “look, there are 4 armed police officers just outside the door, let’s just go and settle this”, they just handed me the knife, still illegal in their words, and allowed me to leave. I was shocked at how uninformed the civilian security at the castle was. 2. Heathrow Airport. Travelling to Belfast this year via terminal 5, for reasons to complicated I ended up in the main security screening area with suitcases that should have been in checked luggage. At first my concern was losing all of my carefully packaged liquids that were in my case as they were hold items. Then I remembered I also had 2 pocket knives in the suitcase that again were supposed to be hold luggage. Uk carry legal yes, but pretty sure they aren’t cool on planes. As soon as I realised, I caught the eye of one of the roving security staff and told them what I had in my bag so the first they knew wasn’t when they opened my case. He seemed unconcerned and said to make sure I tell the staff before it went though a scanner. When it got to the scanner I again declared the knives and asked if there was any way I could get an envelope and post them back to myself as I didn’t want them confiscated as it was not my fault that I hadn’t checked the suitcases to go in the hold. The security guard asked me to take them out of the case and hand them to her which I did. She had a look at them and said they were fine for carry as they were legal specification. I asked again about sending them home and she asked me to wait to the side and walked away. Came back two minutes later and in the middle of Heathrow Terminal 5 AIRSIDE! handed me back my knives and told me to enjoy my flight .
This kind of smug hubris will not help. If you are able to explain why you are carrying a knife in the context of when the officer is engaging you , no problem. On Dartmoor whittling with a Helle is slightly different to a PM2 at Camden lock at 3am. But don’t take my word for it, give it a try. tbzbbt
