View Full Version : Spyderco UKPK..and Windsor Castle
I visited Windsor Castle last Friday and to my dismay didn't realise I was still carrying my UKPK! As the metal detectors loomed a sheen of perspiration enveloped my forehead!
I thought it was better to come clean, so I approached security and informed him that I had a sub 3" non-locking folder on my person, which I forgot I was carrying. I handed him the knife and he did indeed test the slip joint. He then said that I could have it back when I left the castle. At the end of the visit I went back to security and requested my knife back. A different security guard went to get it and decided to give me a mini-lecture saying that the knife was illegal, and that I shouldn't have it on my person. I protested at this point, and said that it was non-locking and that the blade was less than 3" in length. This fell on death ears and not wanting to push the point (and risk losing my UKPK) I left with my UKPK and a somewhat red face!
So, my advice to you is don't forget/ take even a UKPK with you through metal detectors! :D
this is why i dont normaly carry anything. even people in the possition to know about these thing, dont.
i find it too frustrating, so i dont carry anymore.
Tantalus
02-10-06, 01:03 PM
2 things, first you should not have been worried about losing your penknife, as a last resort calling the police to retrieve your property is always an option ( admittedly it would not be a short process :mad: )
second is that they UKPK is perhaps not the best choice of knife to edc, technically legal but it does look fairly intimidating and seems to shout out for such misunderstandings to happen :(
Tant
this is why i dont normaly carry anything. even people in the possition to know about these thing, dont.
i find it too frustrating, so i dont carry anymore.
This is exactly the problem. these security guards often dont have a good knowledge of the law and make the exact same assumptions about knives that most of the public do.
They will often view the UKPK as illegal, but a SAK rucksack or leatherman wouldnt make them blink.
If folks really want to EDC something to somewhere like that, I'd suggest a plain old, red handled, slipjoint SAK. They are ubiquitous, non-threatening and almost universally viewed as a simple and useful tool.
Yes, the UKPK is technically legal, but it looks the part - it's a scarry looking knife. If you get searched with one on your person, eyebrows will be raised.
That's the state of the nation folks.
What was it distributing 139 then? Maybe you could print the law out, and stick the paper in your wallet. Next time this happens, pull it out and allow him to READ the law!
this would not be the thing to do in my area:D
one, you would be acting like a smart ar%e in their eyes.
two, if they dont know the law, they are not going to take a peice of paper you give them as the law.
three, you would be taken away and put in a cell.
i wouldnt try it anyhoo! :D
Tantalus
02-10-06, 03:38 PM
As mentioned earlier , landing in a cell would eat up the best part of your day.
But i suspect you would not land up in a cell for an extended period if you were to maintain to the authorities (the real ones I mean, perhaps the duty sergeant ) that it is a legal sub 3 inch non locking folding pocket knife.
Much would depend on your behaviour while discussing the matter , I certainly think waving the law at a bouncer or security staff will have no effect.
Let the police take you and your pocket knife to the station , if they must, and attempt to clarify the situation there is my advice.
If the bouncers or security staff do not understand the law, involve the police at the earliest opportunity and let the police explain it to them.
Sorry if this appears to demean bouncers, it is not intended to, but the last thing any security staff want is a standing argument and attempting to start one is liable to earn you little respect.
Tant
Don't forget that Windsor Castle is private property, owned by the Crown Estate, and they are able to determine their own rules on their property, just as any other property holder is entitled to.
If the Crown Estate Commissioners decide that even sub 3" locking penknives are banned on Crown Estate land then that stands in exactly the same way as a pub saying the same thing.
There is no 'right' to carry a knife on private property.
Danzo
'Course they are and Hicks did not object to the security bod having custody whilst he was on site.
It was the security guard getting carried away with himself and wanting to keep it on the way out that the objection is about.
Don't forget that Windsor Castle is private property, owned by the Crown Estate, and they are able to determine their own rules on their property, just as any other property holder is entitled to.
If the Crown Estate Commissioners decide that even sub 3" locking penknives are banned on Crown Estate land then that stands in exactly the same way as a pub saying the same thing.
Thewre is no 'right' to carry a knife on private property.
Danzo
Is there any requirement for their rules to be posted before you enter their property? (obviously not just Windsor Castle here lol)
Tantalus
02-10-06, 04:14 PM
Apologies for confusion, of course private properties have the right to set their own policy, just as a visitor has a right to comply with the policy or forgo their visit.
What is not allowed however is for private security firms to confiscate your property and refuse to give it back.
In this case the pocket knife was returned despite the assertion from security that it was illegal.
To further muddy the waters, I think this in itself was an offence, perhaps one of not reporting a crime (possession of an illegal weapon - as the security officer believed).
If the security officer believed it to be illegal he should not have returned it.
At this point the poice should have been involved and the matter could have been cleared up with them :)
Any confiscation should be done by legitimate police officers.
Security may offer to hold an item for you while you visit private property, and deny entry if you refuse to hand over items.
However many security companies are unwilling to hold items of property as this in itself poses not only a security risk (sure just hand an exploding bag in to the guards for them to hold while you wander off out of harms way.........) but a logistics problem too, if you collect 50 SAKs over the course of a day they need to be returned to their rightfull owners and not mixed up.
Sigh it is never as simple as it all seems, but do not let anyone trample roughshod over your legitimate rights :)
Tant
madhaha
02-10-06, 04:21 PM
What makes things really sad is when I used to carry a Mnandi, I accidentally got it through security checks because the sheath doubled as my wallet. This was in no way intentional.
Mysteriously, no-one got stabbed to death. How odd :rolleyes:
Mr_Yarrow
02-10-06, 04:29 PM
What was it distributing 139 then? Maybe you could print the law out, and stick the paper in your wallet. Next time this happens, pull it out and allow him to READ the law!
That would have been me Paul.
I have one in my wallet, but wouldnt even bother showing it to a rent-a-thug. if he attempted to confiscate my property, then Id show it, then if not got it back id call the police and if needs be show it to them.
BUT, at all times I would remain corteous and keep my voice level and reasoned...I know those that have met me may find this hard to believe, but unless im pished I can act frightfully well when required ;)
Rgds
my piont is that if a police officer is about to arrest you for carrying a legal knife , then he doesnt know section 139 of the law. so showing him a peice of paper with this part of the law writen on it, is going to have no effect.
if it did, then i would seriously wonder how the guy got to become a police officer in the first place.
my piont is that if a police officer is about to arrest you for carrying a legal knife , then he doesnt know section 139 of the law. so showing him a peice of paper with this part of the law writen on it, is going to have no effect.
if it did, then i would seriously wonder how the guy got to become a police officer in the first place.
Yep, fine, legal under section 139. But the cops know the law well enough, what they are likely to do is bust you for posession of an offensive weapon - section 139 doesnt even come into it. Then they'll offer to let you go with a police caution and confiscation of "the weapon". If you accept the caution, it's a tacit acknowledgement of your guilt and you will have a police record. Refusing the caution may get you a night in the cells or untill your solicitor insists they let you out on police bail. Either way, it's gonna ruin your day.
There is far more to keeping on the right side of a police cell than simply staying on the right side of section 139. The UKPK is a scarry looking knife, dont think that just because it's s139 legal, that you are absolved from all attention.
Tantalus
02-10-06, 09:25 PM
Yep, fine, legal under section 139. But the cops know the law well enough, what they are likely to do is bust you for posession of an offensive weapon - section 139 doesnt even come into it. Then they'll offer to let you go with a police caution and confiscation of "the weapon". If you accept the caution, it's a tacit acknowledgement of your guilt and you will have a police record. Refusing the caution may get you a night in the cells or untill your solicitor insists they let you out on police bail. Either way, it's gonna ruin your day.
There is far more to keeping on the right side of a police cell than simply staying on the right side of section 139. The UKPK is a scarry looking knife, dont think that just because it's s139 legal, that you are absolved from all attention.
OK but how far will a police arrest and possible conviction get once it is pointed out in court that the defendant was at all times well mannered and that the knife in question is of a type specifically exempt under section 139 ?
Personally I dont think it would get past the desk sergeant as long as there are no other "circumstances"
And a point of pedantry , the header for section 139 reads
Articles with blades or points and offensive weapons
further selective quoting
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3) This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.
Can we infer that the law intends sub 3 inch folding pocketknives NOT to be classed as offensive weapons in general ?
Tant
yup, thats what i mean. a policeman is not going to like me quoting texts from peices of writen law, hes just going to bust me for being a smartass. :D
edit, i was talking from martyns last post.
mikehill
02-10-06, 09:50 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but I thought no matter what any policeman thought :
A UKPK is legal to carry with no reason neccesary
A LEO can arrest for carrying it but it is unlikely that CPS will prosecute
If CPS do prosecute then they will lose in court
All of this assumes that you behave in a friendly manner when questioned of course ...
Or am I wrong ? Because if the above is true, then as long as I am legally carrying a UKPK then surely it doesn't matter how someone else percieves it :huh:
Mike.
yeah, but the point is that you can still get hassle from people, whether its police or public, for a perfectly legal knife.
and my particular point is that the police will not like you telling them what the law is. i have experienced this myself, and it might be a one off. but i doubt it.
bardster
02-10-06, 10:00 PM
This is a question that has bothered me for a while and I would like the legal bods to tackle it. :D There have been a few arrests and people accepting cautions of late where the person involved was charged with possessing an offensive weapon, In one case the knife in question was in a suitcase. In another the knife was legal under section 139.
Now my question is this... In that ANY item can be used offensively at what point does a knife become an offensive weapon? When its in my pocket? when its in my suitcase? Surely for an item - not just a knife - to be considered offensive, said item must be being used in an offensive manner? or someone must feel threatened by it? So how can the police charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon when that knife was in a case and only found because of xray at a security terminal ( as at channel tunnel) or when stopped on the steet a section 139 legal knife is in a pocket?. It seems to me that there is a growing trend of classing any knife as an offensive weapon just by its very existance. I am confused over this and hope someone can tell me how wrong i am...... please....
mikehill
02-10-06, 10:01 PM
yeah, but the point is that you can still get hassle from people, whether its police or public, for a perfectly legal knife.
and my particular point is that the police will not like you telling them what the law is. i have experienced this myself, and it might be a one off. but i doubt it.
I know what you are saying Thomas, and I understand your arguement :) However, I personally have no qualms about informing a policeman about the relevant laws if he seemed not to know them. Hopefully I would be the winner in that situation .. ;)
Mike.
mikesknives
02-10-06, 10:12 PM
Thomas the police are only human they get things wrong, if no-one tells them they're wrong they'll never know they are wrong, and as I don't do anything else for the police to be upset about (e.g illicit substance in my pockets) I have no fear of the police therefore wherever the arguments is going to take me, to the cells for instance I have no fear of that as I haven't done anything wrong and last time I was aware you could still sue for wrongful arrest if the officers training was substandard.
but as others here have said the new tactic of charging as an offensive weapon is something that needs clearing up. sounds like a job for the BKTA!
but as others here have said the new tactic of charging as an offensive weapon is something that needs clearing up. sounds like a job for the BKTA!
is this a new tactic?
and i agree with what you are saying mike.
but the police are not going to listen to a member of the public on law. they couldnt. thats why im saying that if a police officer is charging you for something that you know is perfectly leagal, then quoting parts of section 139 is not going to change his mind. he cant take your word for it. he would have to take the word of someone in the station. by which time you have been taken to.
and whether you have anything to hide or not, the whole scenario is a pain in the butt.
mikehill
02-10-06, 10:31 PM
is this a new tactic?
and i agree with what you are saying mike.
but the police are not going to listen to a member of the public on law. they couldnt. thats why im saying that if a police officer is charging you for something that you know is perfectly leagal, then quoting parts of section 139 is not going to change his mind. he cant take your word for it. he would have to take the word of someone in the station. by which time you have been taken to.
Of course mate :) All I was saying is that I would be happy for that to happen, knowing that I'm right. I'm the kind of person that would enjoy the courts throwing it out ;) Knowing how the various police forces are clamping down on illegally carrying knives (rightly) I personally think every PC should know the law already, thats all :)
Mike.
mikesknives
02-10-06, 10:36 PM
is this a new tactic?
sorry but in my cynical and world weary view yes its just working round legislation. you can use S139 if you like but we'll get you with this instead.
this is just my view!!
bardster
02-10-06, 10:37 PM
This is a question that has bothered me for a while and I would like the legal bods to tackle it. ....
Perhaps this would have been better in its own thread rather than hijacking this one?
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but I thought no matter what any policeman thought :
A UKPK is legal to carry with no reason neccesary
A LEO can arrest for carrying it but it is unlikely that CPS will prosecute
If CPS do prosecute then they will lose in court
Sorry Mike
This is one of those things that people do seem unable to get their heads around, and I don't mean you specifically.
Section 139 does not give an absolute right to carry a 3" slipjoint knife. It basically gives a defence for carrying an item that might otherwise be considered a weapon.
You may carry the 3" slipjoint as long as the police officer accepts that you do not carry it as a weapon, or intend to use it as a weapon.
That's it.
If anybody tries to argue their supposed 'rights' in front of any police officer on the street then expect to be arrested and spend time in the cells until your lawyer turns up. Why? Because you are charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Sure, it may be that the CPS decide not to prosecute, or if they do it may well be that you get off, but you are still going to have at best a very bad day, and at worst several months of severe worry about going to prison.
I'm sorry folks, but it's pretty simple. If there is any chance whatsoever of being searched then don't carry anything other than an SAK. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences.
If you have the financial and emotional resources to take on a court case then please do so. We need a test case. But please remember the words of Joe Strummer:
I fought the Law.......and the Law won.
Be careful out there.
Danzo
i was once walking home from a gig i had played. it was around 11 o clock pm.
a car drove up and out came two policemen.
'stand there!' one of them said. so i stood there. one came over and asked where i was going, where i had been, if i had taken drugs or what i had been drinking.
i then gave my name and address and was told to turn around with my arms outstretched.
i said ''why are you searching me?''
they didnt answer.
they found a guitar slide which they questioned to be some kind of pipe?
some plectrums and a small sak classic.
''this is an offensive weapon'' they said.
'thats what i take with me to gigs' i said, ' its just a wee swiss tool'
'get in the car' he said. your going to the station.
at the station the the policeman said something to the desk seargent and then turned to me and said i was going into a cell for breach of the peace.
this is what happens when you open your mouth to policemen! :D
i had drank about 4 pints of lager shandy that night;)
i am in no way saying that all police are like this. but im used to treatment like that from them. this is why i wont carry anything unless i have to.
edit: danzo made a better point above:)
mikehill
02-10-06, 10:45 PM
Sorry Mike
This is one of those things that people do seem unable to get their heads around, and I don't mean you specifically.
Section 139 does not give an absolute right to carry a 3" slipjoint knife. It basically gives a defence for carrying an item that might otherwise be considered a weapon.
You may carry the 3" slipjoint as long as the police officer accepts that you do not carry it as a weapon, or intend to use it as a weapon.
That's it.
If anybody tries to argue their supposed 'rights' in front of any police officer on the street then expect to be arrested and spend time in the cells until your lawyer turns up. Why? Because you are charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Sure, it may be that the CPS decide not to prosecute, or if they do it may well be that you get off, but you are still going to have at best a very bad day, and at worst several months of severe worry about going to prison.
I'm sorry folks, but it's pretty simple. If there is any chance whatsoever of being searched then don't carry anything other than an SAK. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences.
If you have the financial and emotional resources to take on a court case then please do so. We need a test case. But please remember the words of Joe Strummer:
I fought the Law.......and the Law won.
Be careful out there.
Danzo
That's why I said I'd be friendly to any coppers questions ;) And surely a SAK is the same in law as a UKPK ? If I do get pulled .. I'll call you :D
Mike.
Tantalus
02-10-06, 10:49 PM
Section 139 does not give an absolute right to carry a 3" slipjoint knife. It basically gives a defence for carrying an item that might otherwise be considered a weapon.
See my previous post :)
At what point would a an item that you "could " have a legal defence for become a weapon then ?
Admitted it may be at an officers discretion but final decision must surely rest with the courts?
Tant
mikesknives
02-10-06, 10:51 PM
Sorry Mike
This is one of those things that people do seem unable to get their heads around, and I don't mean you specifically.
Section 139 does not give an absolute right to carry a 3" slipjoint knife. It basically gives a defence for carrying an item that might otherwise be considered a weapon.
You may carry the 3" slipjoint as long as the police officer accepts that you do not carry it as a weapon, or intend to use it as a weapon.
That's it.
If anybody tries to argue their supposed 'rights' in front of any police officer on the street then expect to be arrested and spend time in the cells until your lawyer turns up. Why? Because you are charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Sure, it may be that the CPS decide not to prosecute, or if they do it may well be that you get off, but you are still going to have at best a very bad day, and at worst several months of severe worry about going to prison.
I'm sorry folks, but it's pretty simple. If there is any chance whatsoever of being searched then don't carry anything other than an SAK. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences.
If you have the financial and emotional resources to take on a court case then please do so. We need a test case. But please remember the words of Joe Strummer:
I fought the Law.......and the Law won.
Be careful out there.
Danzo
I'd say depends
depends on the policeman
depends on the desk sargeant
depends on the cps
depends on the judge
depends on wether I'm hit by a bus tommorrow
Why worry "Do what thou wilst and let that be the whole of the law"
Alright that quotes a bit strong but I hope you get my gist. If you know the knife is a legal EDC you take your chances but then you might get run down tommorrow too!
we all need a little excitement in our lives don't we.
See my previous post :)
At what point would a an item that you "could " have a legal defence for become a weapon then ?
Admitted it may be at an officers discretion but final decision must surely rest with the courts?
Tant
i suppose it would be a mix between, the arresting officers version of the situation, the actuall law regarding the item, and the reasons for having the item.
Admitted it may be at an officers discretion but final decision must surely rest with the courts?
Absolutely Tant, in fact you hit the nail on the head.
The final decision as to whether or not you are convicted rests with the courts.
BUT!!!!!!!
You will still have been arrested and charged. You will still have been taken down the station. Your knife will have been confiscated. You will be thoroughly miserable.
This is the point I try and return to again and again. Yes, you may get acquitted of the offence, eight months down the line from your arrest. That doesn't change the fact that you have been arrested, and arrested quite legitimately, and that your life has turned into something from the writings of Franz Kafka.
I'm so glad I bought the over-proof vodka tonight......
:rolleyes:
Danzo
Wayne D
03-10-06, 01:10 AM
Sorry Mike
This is one of those things that people do seem unable to get their heads around, and I don't mean you specifically.
Section 139 does not give an absolute right to carry a 3" slipjoint knife. It basically gives a defence for carrying an item that might otherwise be considered a weapon.
You may carry the 3" slipjoint as long as the police officer accepts that you do not carry it as a weapon, or intend to use it as a weapon.
That's it.
If anybody tries to argue their supposed 'rights' in front of any police officer on the street then expect to be arrested and spend time in the cells until your lawyer turns up. Why? Because you are charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Sure, it may be that the CPS decide not to prosecute, or if they do it may well be that you get off, but you are still going to have at best a very bad day, and at worst several months of severe worry about going to prison.
I'm sorry folks, but it's pretty simple. If there is any chance whatsoever of being searched then don't carry anything other than an SAK. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences.
If you have the financial and emotional resources to take on a court case then please do so. We need a test case. But please remember the words of Joe Strummer:
I fought the Law.......and the Law won.
Be careful out there.
Danzo
Call me dense , but as the wording states
" (1)subject to sections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offense.
(2) subject to section (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocket knife.
(3) this section applies to a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches."
(the underlining is mine) you are clearly not guilty of an offense if you carry a sub 3" slipjoint folder.
and yes i too carry the ubiquitous printout from www.Opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ with section 139 in my wallet - so far it has stopped 3 gentlemen of the Law carting me off, in fact one asked me for the website url and wrote it in his little notebook!
That's why I said I'd be friendly to any coppers questions ;) And surely a SAK is the same in law as a UKPK ? If I do get pulled .. I'll call you :D
Mike.
It's legally the same, but it's not the same in the eyes of the police or the public. It doesnt create the same fears. Being puicked up for an offensive weapon has nothing to do with section 139 and an awful lot to do with what the knife looks like.
(the underlining is mine) you are clearly not guilty of an offense if you carry a sub 3" slipjoint folder.
and yes i too carry the ubiquitous printout from www.Opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ with section 139 in my wallet - so far it has stopped 3 gentlemen of the Law carting me off, in fact one asked me for the website url and wrote it in his little notebook!
Carrying an offensive weapon has nothing to do with section 139 - there is more than one law they can use to arrest you. Carrying a sub 3", non locking folder, gets you clear of s139, but it does NOT get you clear of carrying an offensive weapon.
Now unless you admit you were carrying an offensive weapon, or show some intent, then the charge in all likelyhood wont stick, but as Danzo keeps saying, it will ruin your day, you will likely spend at least one night in the cells. They will probably offer you a caution, but if you accept it, they dont need to prove anything because by accepting the caution, you are admitting your guilt - accepting the caution gets you home for tea, but by accepting the caution, you are admitting you were carrying an offensive weapon and it'll go on your police record.
If you refuse the caution (which you should do, unless of course, you are guilty), expect to spend much longer in the cells untill they release you on police bail, or until your solicitor can get you out.
If you get really lucky, the desk sargent or duty inspector might just let you go anyway, if you get unlucky you could end up having to argue it in court. You may well get off, but you will spend several months worrying about it and may have to stump up the fees for a solicitor.
Public and police perceptions of the knife are very important - looking nasty - or not, plays a big part.
This is a question that has bothered me for a while and I would like the legal bods to tackle it. :D There have been a few arrests and people accepting cautions of late where the person involved was charged with possessing an offensive weapon, In one case the knife in question was in a suitcase. In another the knife was legal under section 139.
Now my question is this... In that ANY item can be used offensively at what point does a knife become an offensive weapon? When its in my pocket? when its in my suitcase? Surely for an item - not just a knife - to be considered offensive, said item must be being used in an offensive manner? or someone must feel threatened by it? So how can the police charge someone with possession of an offensive weapon when that knife was in a case and only found because of xray at a security terminal ( as at channel tunnel) or when stopped on the steet a section 139 legal knife is in a pocket?. It seems to me that there is a growing trend of classing any knife as an offensive weapon just by its very existance. I am confused over this and hope someone can tell me how wrong i am...... please....
Ahhhh, the thing is with offensive weapons laws, they only have to suspect you are carrying one as an offensive weapon to arrest you for it. That's the whole point, at the least you will spend several hours in a police cell. If you keep your head, you should be fine, but the police are entitled to do it and it will ruin your day.
Stuart Ackerman
03-10-06, 02:40 AM
Here in NZ, if you are aggresive, and are arrested, a Parker pen in your hand could be construed as an offensive weapon...
once you are in court, the arresting officer has to explain WHY he or she believed you to be carrying an offensive weapon. which is where the fun began at my court case.
they have to explain why they thought you might use the said knife for criminal purposes. and not just carrying it in case you need it to cut things.
BorderReiver
03-10-06, 12:04 PM
I take Danzo's point here,it doesn't matter a tuppenny :censored: what the law is.For someone like me who has led a blameless life and only been in a divorce court in my 59 years,the trauma of being arrested and banged up,even for a few hours,would be considerable.
That said,I will continue to carry what I think is legal and hope for the best.
BTW,what makes the UKPK look scary,can't see it meself.These slim Italian,double sided blades look scary to me but a stubby little UKPK:huh:
I'm sure I remember Ross advising against carrying the UKPK at least once (I remember him telling me that it would probably result in a trip down the station if I was caught carrying it in the Ask the cop thread).
To be honest I now view my UKPK as a lock knife, I'll only carry it when I have a reason for a dedicated blade, my current EDC is my spydie pride & SAK climber.
Wayne D
03-10-06, 02:37 PM
I'm sure I remember Ross advising against carrying the UKPK at least once (I remember him telling me that it would probably result in a trip down the station if I was caught carrying it in the Ask the cop thread).
To be honest I now view my UKPK as a lock knife, I'll only carry it when I have a reason for a dedicated blade, my current EDC is my spydie pride & SAK climber.
which rather makes the entire exercise of designing the UKPk to conform with British Laws realy quite pointless :(
oh well time I bought myself one of those nice Schatt and Morgan pocket knives or a Case and stuck the UKpk in the drawer, because if I have to treat it like a lock knife I might as well carry my Buck 110 !
which rather makes the entire exercise of designing the UKPk to conform with British Laws realy quite pointless :(
Yup. Said that on more than one occasion myself.
Great knife but as a legal, NKP friendly EDC? Utter failure.
(still carry mine though :D )
This matter has always saddened me, without straying off topic it seems that even if i have a "legal" sub 3 slippy and the copper has had a bad day he can lock me up?
Even if I am polite and calm as I usually am?
This really does smack of a complete abuse of power and I don’t see how anyone can condone this kind of action.
Anyways I will carry my UKPK everyday but then again if I pop the pub it stays in my car etc and I will stand up for my self if this situation occurs and I hope everyone else here who is fond of their LEGAL rights does the same !
This does not include waving the knife around, threatening behaviour, raising your voice and spouting law sections. But I will not have my knife taken away for no reason especially if the copper has "just had a bad day and or is not informed of the current law". If this is the case surely they should be removed of their duties as I would be if I was incapable of doing my job!
I am also not trying to tar every copper with the same brush but I don’t like excuses for the ones who are incapable of leaving their problems at home! I am sure that if I turned up for work and had a moan at my boss because I was “having a bad day then” I would be FIRED!
I don't think it's about cops having a bad day particularly, although I'm sure that does happen. It's more about having to make a difficult call in difficult circumstances. And, playing Devils Advocate for a minute, we who do carry knives in a responsible manner must acknowledge that the majority of the population do not. They get through their day using scissors, their teeth, the end of a biro and probably the knife of someone who does carry one, but they get through their day.
We may not like that, but it's true. If you feel strongly about it them head over to www.bkta.org and join in the early stages of a campaign to try and re-engage the general public with the practical and sensible use of the most important tool in the world.
Danzo
Cool stuff will join up today :)
I dont mean to point the finger anywhere but its just we are surrounded by this type of ban/legislate everything and follow the media hype like sheep. The best way to view the media is to watch a few episodes of BrassEye will change your view somewhat lol. Buy anyways this is not the place for this i understand ;)
I've only just read this thread and want to take issue with one of the major points in it. This is the "If the bobby can't get me for a lock knife, he'll get me for offensive weapon" idea.
Let's get the law straight: The UKPK is legal for EDC in the streets of the UK. No reason or excuse needed.
Windsor Castle, pubs, football grounds can make their own, extra, rules, but the UKPK is street-legal.
If a policeman discovers that you are carrying a UKPK, he can only arrest you for carrying an offensive weapon if he can prove that the item:
1. Has been used as an offensive weapon, e.g. you've stabbed someone with it. No grounds for arrest here.
2. Has been adapted to serve as an offensive weapon. This is an officer's grounds for arresting you if you've smashed a bottle to use the jagged edge as a weapon, or hammered nails through a walking stick. Box-stock UKPK? No grounds for arrest here.
3. Is intended for use as an offensive weapon. If you are peaceably strolling through High Street, Anytown (that location of all crime in Police Training School!) with a UKPK clipped in your pocket, and its presence only comes to light because an officer has searched you, or because you have voluntarily produced it to him, how can the officer prove intent to use it to hurt someone?
"An offensive weapon means any article made or adapted for causing injury, or intended to cause injury.
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Section 1(1)) states that:
'Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him/her, has with him/her in a public place any offensive weapon, shall be guilty of an offence.' "
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm
" 'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.
The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first [part] of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury."
http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html
...so, in order to arrest you, the officer has to have a reasonable belief that you intended to use your UKPK to harm someone. End of.
If he ain't got that, he ain't got diddly. And we're not going to give it to him, because we're law-abiding, peace-loving, productive citizens.
In my old force, we used to reckon that unlawful arrest was usually compensated for at a rough rate of £1,000 per hour or part thereof... :D
mirage
Well said that man !
Chris
But all of that still doesn't stop you from being arrested in the first place!
:rolleyes:
If you are happy to be arrested, charged and prosecuted then by all means let the courts sort it out maybe nine months down the line from your arrest. You may well be acquitted and walk away with your head held high.
No job, house, or family left, but your pride intact.
If you want to save yourself nine months of extreme stress, fears for your job, financial pressures and general misery then consider how important that knife in your pocket and your desire to prove your point in court is to you.
I will send a free 'Martyr to the Cause' lapel badge to anyone who does go through with it.
;)
Danzo
Tantalus
09-10-06, 08:22 PM
Mirage thankyou , rep points for that man
The law is one of the few things left to fall back on sometimes, if none of us had any faith in it would we be posting in here at all ?
Tant
No job, house, or family left, but your pride intact.
No offence,but that sounds like scare mongering to me,surely your innocent till proven guilty.
Just to step back to a point in the original few posts...
On a quick skim through the the seedier parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, I cannot see mention of it binding the crown. As Windsor Castle is a functioning palace then, if memory serves, the Act does not apply on the premises. Am I correct in thinking this, any Public Lawyers out there?
Wouldn't this mean that (i) while you could not be prosecuted under this Act (ii) whatever Act may instead apply, doesn't necessarily provide for an equivalent of the s139 defence?
Maybe you were lucky to get away with your head still attached!?! :O
No offence,but that sounds like scare mongering to me,surely your innocent till proven guilty.
Really? Many people work on the basis of "no smoke without fire" and few people can probably appreciate how hard it is to consider a case without bias. You are still "the guy who got arrested for carrying a knife", not "the guy who got arrested but provided an effective defence in court".
Case in point, we deal with someone who has just been arrested for a serious offence. I'm sure he's many months away from a court decision but, guilty or not, we have had to stop offering him work at a major client. As this is the only client he works with (and the only major one we deal with in his area) he is now effectively unemployed. There is more to it than that but a public forum is not the place to discuss it further.
Tantalus
09-10-06, 10:42 PM
Such negativity in a section dealing with the law.
tut tut, the wheels of justice grind slow but they grind exceeding fine.
Surely denying someone work because of an arrest could lay the company wide open to a "loss of earnings" claim should his arrest prove to have been groundless ?
Perhaps I should make an effort to win Danzos lapel badge.
I hope you will forge it yourself Danzo :)
Tant
Such negativity in a section dealing with the law.
tut tut, the wheels of justice grind slow but they grind exceeding fine.
Surely denying someone work because of an arrest could lay the company wide open to a "loss of earnings" claim should his arrest prove to have been groundless ?
Perhaps I should make an effort to win Danzos lapel badge.
I hope you will forge it yourself Danzo :)
Tant
I agree, but as I said there is more to the issue than just what was posted. The point was more that even an accusation can have a big impact on your life, to the point that it can be almost irrelevant if you win or lose the final case - people will already have judged you months ago.
It's not right, or fair, but I think that was the point that Danzo was trying to make. Legal loopholes are for crusty old barristers and crustier old judges. Justice may be blind but the public see monsters and violent psychopaths everywhere.
Tantalus
09-10-06, 11:16 PM
Yeah I do appreciate what you are saying Rogue, but the law is there to protect us.
Somewhere in the course of this thread it has been turned into something to be feared and I am not sure I agree with that point of view.
It is a sad comment on the present climate that law abiding people, with absolutely no ill intent, should fear arrest.
I guess I should take this over to BKTA before I get red carded, but in my defence I have tried my hardest not to drag this thread too far off topic while keeping as far away from the politics as I can.
Tant
metalbudgie
09-10-06, 11:56 PM
I'm the only one who finds these threads do your head in?
mikesknives
10-10-06, 12:07 AM
No mate I find all these threads that drag through the what ifs of hypothetical situations in a completly "lets be PC" way utterly futile. We should all know the risks of what carrying a legal knife entails for sure and then it's up to you as an individual to decide wether you feel comfy with them. But all this what if this and what if that as I said before what if you get hit by a bus..... live life don't fear it!!
Ok then, back to my original question (and more in line with the original posts) - Windsor Castle and knives.
Does the CJA 1988 apply to Windsor Castle?
No intent on relying on the answer in a court of law, just an interesting question with no politics or emotion attached!
But all of that still doesn't stop you from being arrested in the first place!
Yes it does!
"...so, in order to arrest you, the officer has to have a reasonable belief, i.e a belief based on some evidence that would satisfy a reasonable man, that you intended to use your UKPK to harm someone. End of."
If he does not have that reasonable belief, he can not arrest you legally.
If you are happy to be arrested, charged and prosecuted then by all means let the courts sort it out maybe nine months down the line from your arrest. You may well be acquitted and walk away with your head held high.
No job, house, or family left, but your pride intact.
Won't happen.
If - by some vanishingly small chance - a bobby who doesn't know the law (?) - arrests you, you can be sure that his Custody Sergeant will know the law.
How can being wrongfully arrested cost you your job, house and family?
We need to send a positive message here, of all places.
mirage
mikehill
10-10-06, 08:30 AM
Yes it does!
"...so, in order to arrest you, the officer has to have a reasonable belief, i.e a belief based on some evidence that would satisfy a reasonable man, that you intended to use your UKPK to harm someone. End of."
If he does not have that reasonable belief, he can not arrest you legally.
Won't happen.
If - by some vanishingly small chance - a bobby who doesn't know the law (?) - arrests you, you can be sure that his Custody Sergeant will know the law.
How can being wrongfully arrested cost you your job, house and family?
We need to send a positive message here, of all places.
mirage
Thanks for the reassurance :)
Mike.
Thanks for the reassurance :)
Mike.
ditto
mikesknives
10-10-06, 08:41 AM
If the BB "lawyer" isn't sure then god help the bobby on the street!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ratel10mm
10-10-06, 09:14 AM
Okay, this might stir the pot, but...
Some of you know I was on one of Gary's Greenhorn courses recently.
Well, one of my fellow students is a lecturer at Hendon (The Police training college for those who don't know of it).
We all had a long & interesting discussion on the legality of knives (I was the only BB member there afaik - not counting Gary).
What it came down to was this; "The law is not for us to **** you lot off, it's there for us to take care of the scrotes. Before the current laws were in place, there was no way (my emphasis) for us to arrest undesirables who are obviously carrying a sharp object for the wrong reason."
Now, that's not word for word, but it's a near as dammit & I've been careful not to embellish.
Before you throw the offensive weapon thing in guys, this chap went on to explain that S139 was there to provide a clear guidance on what is and what is not acceptable, with a view to targeting scrotes & other undesirables, not us. I forget the exact explanation, but it was along the line that as has been pointed out here, the arresting officer must have a good reason to believe the arrestee was going to commit (or had commited) an offence with the item in question to arrest under the offensive weapon law. So how do you prove a known scrote was going to use the knife (for our purposes - it could be anything remember, even a rolled up magazine) for evil?
S139 exists simply to make it possible for the police to deal with this section of society.
That was this lecturer's take on it. Remember that although he's a lecturer, he's also a serving police officer.
I mean no disrespect to any of the police or legal members here - or Danzo, of course, but if the guy teaching the cops doesn't know what the law is there for, who does?
In conclusion, Mirage is right. If you are a law abiding citizen and have a sensible reason to have any sharp tool on your person, then you have nothing to worry about from the police.
Undeereducated security staff are a pain, but I find that if you talk to the politely but firmly, making it clear that they must issue you a receipt and return your posessions before you hand them in for safe keeping (and if need be emphasising that they are legal to own) then they're almost universally okay to deal with. You just need to make it politely & calmly clear that you are not going to accept any sh** from them. ;)
I do agree with everything written above, including Mirages point about sending a positive message. I'm really not trying to be a doom-monger. What I am trying to convey to the membership of BB in it's broadest sense is that you are not somehow immune from arrest because the knife carried is legal under s139. You can still be arrested under other legislation.
In most cases a polite, well-spoken, educated person of middling years such as myself (and I guess many of the contributors to this thread) is not going to be arrested for carrying a knife. The main reason is simply that you are not ever going to be stopped, and even if you are you are not going to be searched. The officer will ask a couple of questions and realise you are not who they are after and you will go on your way. If by some hideous misadventure you are searched then you will probably be able to politely but firmly discuss the legality of the situation with the officer and all will be well and you go on your way as before.
However we have a very broad spectrum of membership here on BB. My concern is that some people may read opinions and interpretations of the law in these threads, and stand there arguing with the officer that they cannot be arrested because the knife they are carrying is legal. If that happens and the person is perhaps younger, less able to express themselves politely and fluently, maybe of a more aggressive demeanour than myself (or you) then the great likelihood is that they will be arrested, taken down the station and quite possibly charged.
Do remember that this thread was initiated with a discussion of the UKPK, not legal slipjoints in general. There are many of us here on BB who consider the UKPK too aggressive looking for EDC in any situation where people may be critical of knives. Apply that to the officer who searches you. As Mirage has pointed out the officer requires 'a reasonable belief' that the knife is carried as a weapon to arrest you. The fact you are carrying a knife far removed from the typical penknife in appearance, and you have become aggressive and argumentative towards the officer is, to my mind (and I believe that of many officers) sufficient reasonable belief to arrest you.
I may be wrong. This is a question of the interpretation and application of the law in individual circumstances, by individual officers, in the real world.
My sole objective is to try and convey to ALL our members that if you might be searched then you very possibly face arrest for carrying the UKPK.
Danzo
BorderReiver
10-10-06, 10:30 AM
Sense as usual from Danzo.
We tend to interpret the world from our own perspective.
Being middle aged,middle class,well educated and white makes life so much easier.:rolleyes:
We are not all in that group and Danzo's advice has to be of a general nature to protect us all from being silly and getting into bother.
The fact you are carrying a knife far removed from the typical penknife in appearance, and you have become aggressive and argumentative towards the officer is, to my mind (and I believe that of many officers) sufficient reasonable belief to arrest you.
I respect Danzo's opinion and his legal training, which is lightyears beyond mine.
I submit, however, that the cosmetics of the knife are irrelevant. S.139 merely states "Blade length less than 3", folder, not capable of being locked." Colour has no more relevance here than weight or smell (luckily, in my case!).
If someone became aggressive towards me when on duty, he would be arrested even if he were only carrying a gherkin (sub-3", non-sharpened). The presence or absence of a knife would not signify.
Argumentative I would tolerate. To a point...
As I have always stated: Do not become stroppy with a bobby. State your point concisely and politely.
Under no circumstances become "physical."
I tend to carry a printout of s139 in my wallet, just as a backup.
mirage
At the risk of mutual bottom sniffing Mirage knows much more about criminal law than I will ever do!
:cop2:
I think that we are probably in agreement to be honest. I know a UKPK is legal under s139 and if I was stopped and searched would politely 'discuss' that with the officer and I am sure I would walk away with my knife.
What I don't want to see is people thinking that s139 gives them carte blanche to argue that point on that street with a police officer, especially if they fall within a category of person more likely to be arrested or perhaps have a more aggressive demeanour than advisable. And that in a socio-political climate where knives have become effectively demonised.
As you say Mirage, you would tolerate argument to a point after which I presume the person is going to be saying 'Hello Sergeant'.....
;)
As always it's all about context.
Danzo
At the risk of mutual bottom sniffing...
:O
Mirage, you would tolerate argument to a point after which I presume the person is going to be saying 'Hello pavement'
:D
mirage
:ralmao: :ralmao: :ralmao:
New Pants, new pants!
:D
Danzo
Yes it does!
"...so, in order to arrest you, the officer has to have a reasonable belief, i.e a belief based on some evidence that would satisfy a reasonable man, that you intended to use your UKPK to harm someone. End of."
If he does not have that reasonable belief, he can not arrest you legally.
Won't happen.
If - by some vanishingly small chance - a bobby who doesn't know the law (?) - arrests you, you can be sure that his Custody Sergeant will know the law.
How can being wrongfully arrested cost you your job, house and family?
We need to send a positive message here, of all places.
mirage
Whilst my knowledge of legalities and policing are waaay behind both Danzo and Mirage...I have unfortunately been at a more 'practical' end of this discussion and would have to take contention with this point.
I was arrested (later a refused charge) for a matter unrelated to the fact I was carrying a UKPK. I was complient in the upmost with the police and surrendered my knife as soon as it became apparent I was going to be searched.
Neither the arresting officer nor the custody serg. knew the relevent law...they were unfazed by my Leatherman (a much stroger case for a 'locking blade') but I was given a clear choice regarding the UKPK...sign a disclaimer and bin it or you get arrested for carrying an offensive weapon and argue the fine points in court.
I have to go with Danzo on this and say that if you are carrying a UKPK (or quite possibly other types of legal EDC) you may well get arrested and have to fight it out in court.
Having been arrested it is most likely I'd have lost my door license and thus income...probably for a year or so waiting for it to get a court date. Everything else is a downward spiral from there I'm afraid.
Had I known Danzo would make me a badge though...I might have been our first martyr! ;) :)
Guy
If you do not stand up for your rights no-one is going to do it for you.
Maybe BB should start a legal fund for the potential martyrs.
Not specifically aimed at guycep.
Guy,
I'm sorry to hear your account. I'm also very surprised that the Custody Sergeant was ignorant of the law.
However, it seems that your experience was subtly different from our scenario. You were arrested for a "knife-unrelated" offence and were - quite properly - searched upon arrest.
Without prying into the nature of the allegation/s made against you (which are none of my damn' business), it's difficult to say any more.
Again, sorry to hear about your misfortune.
mirage
Tantalus
10-10-06, 01:06 PM
Guy , sorry to say this but working any kind of security is a very grey area.
In a work environment where people are liable to be drunk , argumentative and even confrontational, I suspect the police were a little alarmed to find a knife. It implies that you knowingly went into a confrontational situation ( ie work ) and had prepared yourself by putting a knife in your pocket.
Now I believe you when you say you forgot it was there, but to put myself in the coppers' shoes for a minute, how many times has he heard this one before ?
No I do not believe your case was fair, and I think I said so in the original thread, but you were indeed given the opportunity to state your case in a court if you wished.
Tant
Tantalus
10-10-06, 01:15 PM
Guy has already posted many more details of this, (thanks Guy :sign20: )
http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13843
Tant
Tant,
Thanks for the link.
As Guy has made some details of the incident public (I haven't read all 11 pages), a couple of observations might be in order.
1. Guy's circumstances are unique. He is a doorman, a job where violence or the threat of it is an hourly, not just a daily occurrence.
2. Guy seeks to become a Marine, and has to demonstrate good character in order to be successful. This gives an uncaring policeman leverage to "take a knife off the street." I use inverted commas because most bobbies don't share our interest, and may have been influenced by the Daily Mail/ PC Chief Constable mentality.
3. I note that the surrender of the UKPK occurred before Guy's solicitor arrived. Hindsight is always 20/20, but leaving that decision until after Guy had sought legal advice might have been appropriate.
Please be assured that none of the above comments indicate anything other than neutrality towards Guy. I am not trying to be a smart****. I wasn't there, and I am not a "Monday morning centre-forward."
Guy made an informed decision to carry a UKPK in a stressful, violence-prone environment, and - on this occasion - it blew up in his face.
I maintain that my original thesis is substantially correct: The UKPK is street-legal for 99% of us 99% of the time.
mirage
Guy,
I'm sorry to hear your account. I'm also very surprised that the Custody Sergeant was ignorant of the law.
However, it seems that your experience was subtly different from our scenario. You were arrested for a "knife-unrelated" offence and were - quite properly - searched upon arrest.
Without prying into the nature of the allegation/s made against you (which are none of my damn' business), it's difficult to say any more.
Again, sorry to hear about your misfortune.
mirage
Tant has linked to the original thread (cheers:)). I guess it would come down to whether the courts felt that purely due to the nature of my work I had the UKPK with me with the intention of causing harm. I see absolutly no reason that they should come to that conclusion as it in no way was involved in the allegations, I have a clean record and explained my reasons for having it and the law as I understand it in a calm and reasoned manner.
Wayne D
11-10-06, 11:23 AM
This was interesting on the same site as Mirage mentioned - check out the last question in the quiz
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/law_test.htm
protection from what though - they could well mean protection from thirst because of unopened bottles.
I'm sure it'll get changed fairly swiftly and in any case does not make a difference to the law
Tantalus
11-10-06, 12:53 PM
But it is annoying to see stuff like this on police websites
If you are found guilty of making, selling, hiring, lending or giving a sharp instrument or blade you are liable to: imprisonment, a fine of up to £5000, or both.
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm
Tant
Wayne D
11-10-06, 06:04 PM
But it is annoying to see stuff like this on police websites
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm
Tant
So annoying that I have E-mailed this:
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir / Madam,
I have just been directed to your website by a friend who is concerned by phraseology on your website.
in the section
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm
it states:
'If you are found guilty of making, selling, hiring, lending or giving a sharp instrument or blade you are liable to: imprisonment, a fine of up to £5000, or both. '
I assume your site is referrring to illegal weapons as defined under the 'The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 ' but this is not made clear in the wording and implies it is illegal to make knives in this Country and does nothing to suggest otherwise to the general public looking for information on this website.
Could you please clarify this point and which legislation it is referring to, as a Knifemaker/ Bladesmith I am most perturbed to read comments like this on a Police website .
your sincerely
Wayne Danewood
MA, BA (hons), M.RKG
copies to :
web.editor@met.police.uk
commissioner@met.police.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We went to the Royal Armouries in Leeds last Summer and security checked my first aid kit (USMC IFAK), clipped to the internal divider was my Spyderco Co-pilot. (1.5" locking blade) I had forgotten that it was in there and the Security Officer looked at it and said "no, thats fine".
Wayne D
19-10-06, 06:06 PM
We went to the Royal Armouries in Leeds last Summer and security checked my first aid kit (USMC IFAK), clipped to the internal divider was my Spyderco Co-pilot. (1.5" locking blade) I had forgotten that it was in there and the Security Officer looked at it and said "no, thats fine".
which is quite interesting as when we all went earlier in the year - one of our gents (sorry forgot his name) wearing a kilt was given hassle by the security for having a skean dhu in his sock!
Ratel10mm
19-10-06, 06:35 PM
That was WhiteWolf. As always, it depends on the individual (security person)& their temper at the time.
Wayne D
19-10-06, 07:02 PM
That was WhiteWolf. As always, it depends on the individual (security person)& their temper at the time.
and it was a 'little security woman' who told him if I remember rightly - quite funny as we were all 'loaded for bear' that day
So annoying that I have E-mailed this:
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir / Madam,
I have just been directed to your website by a friend who is concerned by phraseology on your website.
in the section
http://www.met.police.uk/youth/weapons.htm
it states:
'If you are found guilty of making, selling, hiring, lending or giving a sharp instrument or blade you are liable to: imprisonment, a fine of up to £5000, or both. '
I assume your site is referrring to illegal weapons as defined under the 'The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 ' but this is not made clear in the wording and implies it is illegal to make knives in this Country and does nothing to suggest otherwise to the general public looking for information on this website.
Could you please clarify this point and which legislation it is referring to, as a Knifemaker/ Bladesmith I am most perturbed to read comments like this on a Police website .
your sincerely
Wayne Danewood
MA, BA (hons), M.RKG
copies to :
web.editor@met.police.uk
commissioner@met.police.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good man...have you had the courtesy of a reply??
Wayne D
19-10-06, 07:32 PM
all i have received so far is an E-mail from a 'Paul Dew' on the 12th that simply said
"Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email - this has been forwarded to the webmaster.
EMail Office
New Scotland Yard "
I'm going to leave it until the end of the month and then send an E-mail directly to the Chief Constable/ Commissioner of the Met asking why my enquiry of such a sensitive matter hasn't been replied to correctly.
Sunraven
19-10-06, 07:36 PM
Also off the Met site
"An offensive weapon is any bladed or sharply pointed instrument.*" * Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139)
As I understand it that is wrong. Offensive weapons come under the Offensive Weapons Act of 1996 and The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Not section 139 which doesn't mention offensive weapons once.
Also off the Met site
"An offensive weapon is any bladed or sharply pointed instrument.*" * Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139)
As I understand it that is wrong. Offensive weapons come under the Offensive Weapons Act of 1996 and The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Not section 139 which doesn't mention offensive weapons once.
That's right. Seems the Police are deliberately providing the public with misinformation on the law, which is very disturbing.
Danzo
Wayne D
19-10-06, 10:15 PM
That's right. Seems the Police are deliberately providing the public with misinformation on the law, which is very disturbing.
Danzo
I spotted that after I sent my E-mail and that will be in my next E-mail to the Chief Constable at the end of next week
:D
Wayne D
03-01-07, 03:42 PM
well it's been a while and I have had no response from the Metropolitan Police to my first e-mail or my follow up letter I sent.
So the next phase is to send a Letter to the Chief of Police asking why my enquiries haven't been addressed and why the Police are still posting innacurate information on their website.
this letter will be going by registered post and will be addressed to the Chief of Police.
a copy will go up on here when it is fready for psoting
It's the Commissioner with the Met Wayne.
Danzo
REDSTART
03-01-07, 04:08 PM
I know what you are saying Thomas, and I understand your arguement :) However, I personally have no qualms about informing a policeman about the relevant laws if he seemed not to know them. Hopefully I would be the winner in that situation .. ;)
Mike.
Dream on. oh! and what is a UKPk anyway.
oh! and what is a UKPk anyway.
It's the Spyderco UK Penknife. A non locking folder designed for the UK market. If you do a search for UKPK you'll find hundreds and hundreds of posts about it.
Danzo
Wayne D
03-01-07, 04:47 PM
It's the Commissioner with the Met Wayne.
Danzo
I knew that! I was testing to see if anyone was awake :rolleye11
I gave up a lock knife many years ago when I was detained for having it in my pocket. I can't recall the make but at least it wasn't a very expensive custom blade, it wasn't cheap crap either.
I simply wanted to get home and since it was a few hours after I'd finished work they decided I didn't have a good reason to be carrying it.
At least they left me the small fid I had in an otherwise empty sheath as well.:)
traderran
19-02-07, 07:31 AM
Yep, fine, legal under section 139. But the cops know the law well enough, what they are likely to do is bust you for posession of an offensive weapon - section 139 doesnt even come into it. Then they'll offer to let you go with a police caution and confiscation of "the weapon". If you accept the caution, it's a tacit acknowledgement of your guilt and you will have a police record. Refusing the caution may get you a night in the cells or untill your solicitor insists they let you out on police bail. Either way, it's gonna ruin your day.
There is far more to keeping on the right side of a police cell than simply staying on the right side of section 139. The UKPK is a scarry looking knife, dont think that just because it's s139 legal, that you are absolved from all attention.
If your police saw what I carry every day. they would have a hart atack.:D
Ratel10mm
19-02-07, 08:42 AM
well it's been a while and I have had no response from the Metropolitan Police to my first e-mail or my follow up letter I sent.
So the next phase is to send a Letter to the Chief of Police asking why my enquiries haven't been addressed and why the Police are still posting innacurate information on their website.
this letter will be going by registered post and will be addressed to the Chief of Police.
a copy will go up on here when it is fready for psoting
So what's been happening Wayne? Any progress?
Wayne D
20-02-07, 11:51 AM
not at the moment I didn't even get a reply to the last letter.
So I'm sending one more with copies of my previous letters included and If I still don't hear from anyone I am currently considering taking it to the Police complaints commission - for two reasons firstly there is a set period of time that the Police are meant to respond to letters and secondly they are incorrectly quoting the Law in relation to Offensive weapons.
Anyone tell me where i can buy the UKPK?
Brainflex
21-02-07, 03:28 AM
Anyone tell me where i can buy the UKPK?
www.heinnie.com
soup_monger
21-02-07, 10:28 AM
Anyone tell me where i can buy the UKPK?
Lighthound.
http://www.lighthound.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1873
Reliable service and a great price. ;)
Cheers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.