Clegg-finishing off the Lib Dems?
 

The Tories want a mandatory 6 month custodial sentence if caught with a knife for the second time. Clegg says he would veto it.

Even Millipede agrees with the Tories on this matter. Of course he did nothing about the matter whilst in power for ten years, at least he has seen the light now.

Today Hogan-Howe has publically said he fully supports the idea.

The Lib Dems are going to be decimated come the general election.

Their would be know one left in Glasgow if this law was to take affect.

Your getting witty :D :D

You mean like a life sentence for murder, when nobody gets life.

Lib Dems?

I honestly forgot they existed.

"You're getting witty :D :D"

Is it really that hard?

Well I'm not convinced that Clegg is wrong on this, mores the point Cameron made a promise on knife crime that he failed to implement; remember the claim about custodial sentences for anyone found carry a knife?
I think Clegg is right this is a headline grabbing gimmick - and do we really want to institutionalise potentially large numbers of kids?

Education has to be the answer - not more kids in jail, learning how to be proper criminals.

As above, (Good heavens, am I agreeing with Martin???), I seem to remember we were promised that anyone caught carrying a knife would get a custodial sentence.

So THAT worked then......

Sort of, "No, please, we REALLY mean it this time........"

You could say the same about London? Have you seen the statistics?

Wasn't there a similar fuss about gaol for guns?

As a kid I always carried a penknife around for all sorts of reasons (but not for killing my peers!)

As a grown up I usually have a Stanley in my jacket for trimming the odd rose or cutting something in the house. So I probably should be in pokey :)

dl

Martin, Cameron has failed on lots of promises. The excuse always is that it's a coalition government and not a Tory one. Sometimes this is probably true but obviously not always.

I get Clegg's argument about criminalising youngsters but I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. Perhaps the Tories are using the tide of public opinion after the teacher being stabbed but it is still a real issue.

Imho it's not just trying to play on people's fears. Knife crime is a real issue in London (and I'm sure other places).

It seems reasonable to give people one chance to reconsider their behavior. If they still insist on carrying something that could easily kill somebody a 6 month custodial sentence seems reasonable.

We can't carry on giving people who insist on carrying a lethal weapon a stern talking to and expect them to stop.

Hmmmmmm.

I sort of agree with you, but carrying that to it's extreme, we should imprison anyone who drives a car...which cann kill the driver and a few others.

And what of train and aeroplane drivers?

Silly? Yes........but knives don't kill, the person wielding it does the killing. A knife on it's own is safe.

[QUOTE=scunnered;11424297]You could say the same about London? Have you seen the statistics?[/

Glasgow has the highest rate for knife crime in Europe if I remember correctly .

Yes I'm sorry to say it is silly. You must read and understand the detail and not just the headline. You won't get convicted of carrying a knife as an offensive weapon in the first place if you can prove it was for a lawful purpose.

So to get convicted twice means that you can be very very certain that you are only carrying it for one purpose ie to use as a potential weapon.

So your analogy doesn't work at all.

How so? just because I carry one twice, I'm going to use it as a weapon?

What if I were a fisherman? Or an electrician?

I'm sorry, but if we get into the realms of locking people up because they MIGHT do something, we are into the realms of 1984.

Anything can be used as a weapon, not just a knife.
Any object deliberately used as a weapon to injure, maim, or kill, will carry the same punishment.
Knives are the weapon of choice for the discerning street scum. These are the people being targeted, as they are unlikely to have a legitimate reason for carrying one.
Merely carrying something does not make it a weapon so long as you have a legitimate purpose/reason for carrying it.

Even a newspaper when rolled up a certain way can seriously injure or kill you if beaten about the head.

You will only be convicted if you can't prove a legitimate use for the knife.

It's all very well saying what if what if but how many fishermen or electricians have been arrested, tried and then convicted or carrying a knife?

You honestly think we can't differentiate between the tradesman with a bag of tools that happens to have a knife in it and the unemployed guy who has a machete inside his hoody??

By your argument I presume you would be happy for everybody to carry a concealed shot gun on the streets? After all it's not the gun that kills people it's the person behind the trigger.....

A friend of mine is a chef and not unlike any other chef he quite often can be carrying his knifes about with him. They are very big and in the wrong hands would be a deadly weapon but there kept in a appropriate way .His job gives him a reason to carry them.

I have asked if he as ever been stopped by the police with said knifes which he has and it was a none issue due to the fact he could explain him self.

I myself when I was younger and the laws towards knifes were a bit more relaxed got arrested for carrying a knife. The knife it self was legal ie below a certain length and not a lock knife(Swiss army knife) but I was seen to be carrying with intent or some s**t.

I was on some waste ground carving sticks and making things as kids do. The police were looking for someone who had just robbed a house and I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I had no intention to use the knife in a aggressive way but still found myself getting arrested.

It seems to me that if you get the wrong copper on the wrong day that miss reads you twice then you could be facing something very serious.

There's a difference between a chef carrying his knives, which are normally in a knife roll or case and therefore not immediately accessible, to someone who has a flick knife in his trouser pocket.

Yes that's what I was saying, but also some people can be in a situation that warrants an arrest but are doing no wrong ie me just thinking I am Ray Mears. Although maybe technically against the law,in reality,harmless.

No, that's not how it works is it? The copper would have to arrest you, the CPS consider it worth prosecuting you and then the judge convict you.

This would have to happen twice.

It's not just about coming across a copper who is having a bad day and caught you 'whittling'

That depends how you interpret "doing no wrong" and "technically against the law".

Possession of Blades/Points

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits having with you, in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches) (Archbold 24-125).

Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.

For the purposes of sections 139 and 139A of the Act:

a butterknife, with no cutting edge and no point is a bladed article; (Booker v DPP 169).P.368, DC);
a screwdriver is not a bladed article; R v Davis [1998] Crim L.R. 564 CA);
a "lock knife" doe not come into the category of "folding pocket knife2 because it is not immediately foldable at all times; (R v Deegan [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. 121 CA).

How does a police officer stopping you in a public place and finding you in possession of a bladed/sharply pointed article know whether your intentions are harmless or not?

His only course of action is to arrest you in order to perform a swift and effective investigation of the offence.

The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:

he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume; (Archbold 24-125).

The defendant does not discharge the burden of showing "good reason" just by providing an explanation that is not contradicted by the prosecution evidence: (Archbold 24-128). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination.

A chef has knives for his job.
A Sikh can have his ceremonial dagger on him, if he is in religious dress.
Good reason? What is a good reason to have a knife in a public place? Thinking you are Bear Grylls or being forgetful does not give you a good reason nor lawful authority.