Thursday, 3 June 2010

Suggestions for the Great Repeal Bill: the knife ban

Nick Clegg has promised reform. He has said “We will repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit your freedom." He has said “We will ask you which laws you think should go.”

So, what about the knife ban? The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced, at Section 139, the new offence of having an article with a blade or point in public place. It makes interesting reading, but the gist of it is that any person who has an article with a blade or sharp point (other than a folding pocket knife with a blade less than 3 inches long) in a public place is guilty of an offence - unless a) the person is able to prove that a) he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place or b) he had the article with him for use at work or c) he had it with him for religious reasons or d) he had it with him as part of a national costume - any national costume would do.

It is very difficult not to laugh. What would our ancestors have thought? If I were to pick up a bread knives in the kitchen, walk out the door, up the path, and out the garden gate, and onto the street, without a good reason, I would become guilty of a criminal offence.

Actually, I don’t tend to do this, so I don’t think that this one affects me personally. But then I imagine that Rodney Knowles and Brian Seaton thought that it didn’t affect them, either. And even if one is not charged, one could well end up (like Dale McAlpine) spending a few hours in the cells if a police constable doesn’t think that your reason for carrying a knife is good enough.

Now I know that some people are going to say “Aaaargh! We’ll all be murdered in our beds if the knife ban is repealed!” Er, no. I certainly don’t remember feeling any safer in on the streets in 1989 than I was in 1987. And Austria, where the knife laws are considerably less restrictive than those of the UK, is not known for particularly dangerous streets. (In fact, Vienna is reputed to have a pretty good quality of life.) I know of no evidence to suggest that the 1988 knife ban has done anything to reduce violent crime in Britain. (See discussion here and here.)

Every adult should be free to use their legitimately acquired property in whatever manner they choose, so long as in doing so, they do not harm or infringe upon the freedom of others. Carrying a knife hurts no one. So it should not be a criminal offence. And banning the carrying of knives does not stop malicious people carrying knives. So what is the point?

In the grand scale of things, repealing Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is not that important. But it would be an important sign that the government is moving away from knee-jerk responses to problems and from the obsessive desire that politicians seem to have for banning things.

The LPUK manifesto says: "We will amend the 1988 Criminal Justice Act to prevent law-abiding people from being prosecuted for the simple act of having sharp or pointed objects in their possession. This Act has led to perverse court rulings resulting in innocent people being convicted for carrying the tools of their trade and other non-weapons, and it has done nothing to reduce violent crime."

It is time for this legislation to go.



(Cross-posted here in amended form.)

7 comments:

Complexmessiah said...

While I'm still hopeful that the coalition will actually follow through with this, I can't help thinking that on laws like the knife ban there will be a distinct double standard.

Dinah said...

You know, you can find San Francisco criminal attorney here

Christian Prophet said...

Maybe some good will come from this guy. Who knows? By the way, have you seen the "Robin Hood Oath?"
http://constitutionparti.blogspot.com/

HaroldM22 said...

The absent are always in the wrong. ............................................................

品華 said...

找一個懂妳的人也期許自己做一個人懂別人的人..................................................

Microsoft Office 2007 said...

NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.

healthpharmacyrx1 said...

cialis soft Rezeptfrei Bestellen
viagra achat france
nolvadex Rezept
kamagra Kaufen
acheter plavix en france
lasix Rezeptfrei Bestellen
xenical Bestellen
vermox Ohne Rezept
cipro acheter
accutane Internet Bestellen
clomid achat france
viagra soft Online Kaufen
viagra Prix de Vente