It reminds me of the knee-jerk response to 7/7. On Merseyside, police were stationed

outside ‘major’ underground stations to ‘reassure the public’ as I was told. This sham

continued for days. Strangely, nobody stopped me with my rucksack or copy of the

Terrorist Handbook, I mean Guardian.

Like bobbies on the beat, it is just window dressing based on perception of crime

rather than fact, and designed to keep the unthinking happy. ‘Cos no terrorist would

ever get on at another unmanned stop.

Now, individual police may agree that this was a waste of time (nice work though) but

as the PC Plod comments above allude to – I don’t know whether they are police or not

- this attitude seems to prevail.

And if you’ve seen some of the middle-aged women getting on trains late at night, you

may be equally disturbed.

Seems to me that people like Lee Griffin are fundamentally less interested in stopping the blade merchants than in forcing the police to conform to a senseless ‘non-discrimination’ agenda. Of course, in the real world -as opposed to a consequence-free fantasy land – he wouldn’t hesitate to discriminate himself: if a bunch of young men – fitting all the stereotypes I outlined in my previous post – got on the same train as you at midnight, Lee would be worried. If a group of middle aged women got on, he wouldn’t be.

Why is that?

How about you just do your job and pull over everyone that the machine beeps, unless you would rather risk peoples safety because of your laziness?

Quite right. These nasty policemen have got such horrid prejudices. Amazingly, they think that attitudinal young black guys wearing street clothes and walking like loping hyenas are MORE likely to be carying a knife down his pants than a granny in her Sunday best. They also assume that chavvy white girls with Croydon facelifts accompanying their pasty-faced hoodie boyfriends are MORE likely to have knives in their handbags than a white middle aged City worker in a suit is to have a shank tucked away in his briefcase.

Face it, muppets. We all know which sections of society do the killings. To fail to target them would be a gross dereliction of duty. For the police, having to listen to whining, pampered, middle class lefties accusing them of bigotry is just one more occupational hazard.

the people who complain about these kind of measures are usually those safely insulated from the world of knife crime – middle class liberals of a certain sort. Working class people living on council estates don’t have a problem with it.

For me it’s simple, if you deploy metal detectors then you search everyone it buzzes, otherwise just don’t bother with the detectors. The detectors just legitimise stereotypical typecasting and prejudiced scrutiny while clearly not actually ensuring the police “crack down” on knife crime.

What is the problem with the police stopping/searching people they “don’t like the look of” ? The Police will have seen far more knife carrying than the average person (or the average civil servant at the home office) and are far more likely to know who is/is not likely to be carrying a knife with the intention of using it.
The alternative as Steve says is not to search “everyone or no one” but to have the usual nu lab solution of targets, directives, quotas and guidelines on who should and should not be searched, how much leniency should be shown for certain groups over others, and the whole exercise would just descend into a centralised, bureacratic nightmare (sound familiar ?).
It is not the job of the police to understand, or give a toss about the “underlying causes” of knife carrying, it is to protect the general public from people who chose to break the law, and therefore represent a threat to everyone elses liberty (i.e my liberty to act lawfully without threat of being stabbed).
In my view the problem is quite simple, knife crime is rising because there is no effective deterrent for carrying a knife. Even though the govt have recently increased the max sentence for carrying an offensive weapon (to 4 years in prison) the courts rarely hand out this sentence, I suspect becsue many offenders are “children” or to protect themsleves from liberal accusations about structural biases in the legal system.

Thanks for taking the time to reply – much appreciated.

Matt

I think the changes are a good idea, although I can’t see them having much of a practical effect because the courts are far too lenient. I’m not sure that any more people will be criminalised under the new rules though.
At the moment if you are found “in a public place” with an offensive weapon it does not automatically mean you will be arrested. The officer should exercise discretion as to whether it’s likely an offence has been committed. Were you to be arrested and taken to the police station you will be interviewed and asked why you were carrying the weapon. I’d suggest having a solicitor to advise you would be a wise move. If you admit the offence and have no previous cautions (or warnings if a juvenile) under current rules you would be pretty much guaranteed to receive a caution or warning. This is where the rule changes will take effect. In future, you’ll be released on bail while the police consult CPS for a decision on whether to charge and send the case to court. CPS will still weigh up the evidence and decide whether there is a realistic chance of gaining a conviction, and also whether it’s in the public interest to prosecute. In the example you gave about your father on the underground I’d expect that it’s at this point that common sense would prevail and CPS would advise “No further action”.
Of course if the offence is denied in interview it would go to cps anyway, as it does now.
Here is a link which might clarify things a bit :

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html

I’m sure there is an element of PR in the rule changes. Gordon Brown needs all the points he can get. Appearing to be tough on knife crime won’t do him any harm..

hope this helps

Steve

>And I’m sure you could be trusted to carry a knife in public but unfortunately you’d still be committing an offence.

What would the offence be – carrying a knife “in public” or “on the Underground”?

>“My father (71) has carried a decent sized folding (blade 3-4?) knife for 50 years – he is an architect and uses it for scraping paint, sharpening pencils and so on.”
>That would amount to possession for lawful purposes so he’d be ok.

Yes – but what would happen if he had left it in his pocket when he went to the theatre on the Underground?

Would it then be back to “discretion not to prosecute has been removed so he would have to have the book thrown at him regardless of circumstances (presumably involving DNA tests and the whole big brother state shemozzle)?” (You might infer my opinions on DNA tests and government databases from that!)

See: http://tinyurl.com/476zju (this says “juveniles” and I’m not sure what the situation is for adults.)

If this is the case, then it is the sort of process that in my mind is undermining the police/public relationship If, as indicated above, knife crime is actually going down, then it criminalising for people for basically PR purposes.

Matt W

Having done a certain amount, I think that the decision to change the weighting to “auto prosecute” for having a knife in your pocket is an over

That’s not even the point. The point is that there *is* no rise in knife crime. Rather, right-wing liars lie that there is, and gullible people who can’t be bothered to check the facts for themselves believe them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/13/ukcrime.boris

That would amount to possession for lawful purposes so he’d be ok. It really comes down to the application of common sense. An example : one night we were called to a report of a man in a pub with a large carving knife which he was showing people but not making any direct threats. I got there as he left the pub. He had a carving knife tucked into his belt. The blade was around 8 inches long. He said that he was a chef by trade and the knife was part of the tools of his trade. He still got arrested…obviously.

“I have no idea what the legal situation is for such a knife, but I carry one myself on occasions. I’d consider it perfectly reasonable to take one on the Underground – but not to an airport.”

And I’m sure you could be trusted to carry a knife in public but unfortunately you’d still be committing an offence. I heard a story about a police officer who got arrested for carrying his extendable baton when off duty. He said that he was technically always on duty so might need it if he happened across a “situation”. I don’t know whether he was charged in the end.

>I think this revolves around what you mean by “knife”. The only legal specifcation I have seen is knives carried for symbolic/religious reasons (kirpans etc) being OK if the blade is less than 3″ long.

My father (71) has carried a decent sized folding (blade 3-4″) knife for 50 years – he is an architect and uses it for scraping paint, sharpening pencils and so on.

I have no idea what the legal situation is for such a knife, but I carry one myself on occasions. I’d consider it perfectly reasonable to take one on the Underground – but not to an airport.

It could be construed as an offensive weapon, but so can a Bic biro or a stumpy screwdriver – or I suppose a chip fork.

>S60 could be used but it needs to be authorised in advance by an Inspector and applied within a specified area and timeframe. An authorisation should only be granted if there was information to suggest that disorder involving weapons was going to take place.

My concern is that there are far too many innocent casualties of rapidly increasing powers brought in hand-over-fist in a panic – whether this one, or other stop and search, or SOCPA, or detention without trial, or DNA profiling of the innocent, or ID cards, or any of the other stuff – and the underlying big brother mentality that is indicated. But that is six or seven debates for another day.

I’m also concerned about the innocents whose lives are wrecked by “leaks” to the press.

So these days I approach the police with a good deal of suspicion. Sorry, but there it is.

>Lee, I probably know better than you why people carry knives, having asked several of them why they do it. I suspect you have just read books about it.
>Not my mates so your parallel in unfair and inaccurate – I have spoken to the people that actually carry knives and have been arrested for it.

That will – assuming they are telling the truth – give you the reasons why the type of people who are arrested for carrying knives do so – not the general population.

>What form would an empirical study take ? Most likely asking the same people the same questions would be a part of it.

Such a sample would have to be a matched sample of the whole population a la Mori.

>And your personal experience would be…..?
>How many pensioners, for example, would you expect to be carrying knives in public, or mothers with children. In my experience, knives brandished in public are rarely actually used anyway, and it is by young males wearing sports clothing and hoodies. And they all say they need it for self defence because loads of other young lads carry knives too apparently.

I think this revolves around what you mean by “knife”. The only legal specifcation I have seen is knives carried for symbolic/religious reasons (kirpans etc) being OK if the blade is S60 could be used but it needs to be authorised in advance by an Inspector and applied within a specified area and timeframe. An authorisation should only be granted if there was information to suggest that disorder involving weapons was going to take place.

My concern is that there are far too many innocent casualties of rapidly increasing powers brought in hand-over-fist in a panic – whether this one, or other stop and search, or SOCPA, or detention without trial, or DNA profiling of the innocent, or ID cards, or any of the other stuff – and the underlying big brother mentality that is indicated. But that is six or seven debates for another day.

They are showing that they’ve got balls. They’ve had a vasectomy of course – but at least they look like balls.

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2008/06/14/boris-sets-the-world-to-rights-pt1/
http://www.wktimes.co.uk/Boris_Jonson/part1/default.aspx

I just played through Episodes 1 & 2. Absolutely desperate for HL3 now…

Sadly, I may just live it instead. Now, if only I had me a bio-hazard suit and a crow-bar…

I may not have the quickest wit, but I am a speedy typist.