"Knife Crime" in Britain

Allowing yourself to be an unarmed victim through government restrictions is the ultimate chimpism. "Keep" means it's mine and you can't have it. "Bear" means it's right here with me. "Shall not be infringed" means **** you and drive safely.

"Stupid" means one doesn't know the difference between the US and Britain.

The US constitution doesn't apply to Britain.

A multi-bit screwdriver is a useful tool.
A pair of scissors is a useful tool
A roll of duct tape is amazingly useful

That argument is flawed.

Is someone actually advocating giving any policeman the right to stop any citizen on the street and perform a warantless search of his person?

It's the law here. The police can do that, without "suspicion" being necessary. They can do random searches.

These laws were brought in after Mr Bush's recent adventures in the Middle East, his "war on terror".

Indeed, and long may that continue! The day anybody tries to make it apply, I'll be rigging up the IEDs to waste them.

Erm....your Prime Minister at the time (and, sadly, mine) were an apparently eager part of this self-same "war on terror".

I think there's enough blame to go around on this one.

Sorry; I cannot envision an urban or suburban environment where older people, and ladies must be armed to protect themselves from criminals that can pass undetected amongst the populace, because everyone is allowed to carry a weapon.

If everyone was allowed to carry a weapon then we would be heading back to an earlier age; a less civilized one, I believe.

cj, I'm with you all the way on this one, bucko. This really is a terrible infringement on your rights and those of every Briton. I really think you should act on your outrage. You MUST go to London, and walk up and down in front of 10 Downing St., waving your knife, and telling everyone just how outraged you, as an American citizen are. That'll show 'em you mean business.

With any luck it'll also buy us, what? 2 to 4 years or so of sanity here on a2k.

Do it, boy, we're with you.

Here no policeman or government representative may search you without valid probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present, because our Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Also, searching homes or businesses requires a warrant issued by a judge in accordance with the passage above. Evidence found in violation of this is inadmissible in court.

Oh, brandon, sometimes you're just so 20th Century. The government doesn't need probable cause anymore. They don't need to tell you they're doing it. They can do it based on what you read, or what you post on the internet (there goes the first amendment). They don't need court approval beforehand anymore (There goes the fourth amendment). They don't need the Constitution since they got the Patriot Act.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html
And conservatives wonder why three quarters of the country think the Bush administration is the next thing to pondscum.

First, your suggestion that the 4th amendment simply doesn't exist anymore and anyone's person or house may be searched at any time for any reason is nonsense.

Second, I'm comparing the American situation to a system in Britian in which apparently any citizen may be searched at will as he walks down the street by any policeman. Are you suggesting that this is happening in the US? If you are, show me a specific account of that happening to someone.

Now, as to specific illegal searches of homes or businesses related to the Patriot Act or under the present administration, please post a few examples of it happening to people, rather than just a link to some left-wing rant.

I insist that you give an example or two to support your thesis.

With a few found items in just about any park I can make a quite deadly bow and arrow in about an hour.

Or I could just push you into traffic. Of course, that would be murder, but should they ban arms and hands?

cjsha look who is using knifes as a weapon in Britain. take a look on those murdering savages and you will find out not what shuld be banned, but who should be banned.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44641000/jpg/_44641667_kodjo_defendants226.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44792000/jpg/_44792714_morrison_brothers226.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41414000/jpg/_41414261_preddie_brothers.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44754000/jpg/_44754928_dosunmu_defendants226.jpg

Blackskin homo-erectus bipeds should be banned from comming to Britain.
And those who are already there should be send back to Africa, where they can run naked and freely in their natural habitat.

p.t. And a few craters of knifes send as a gift from me would followed them to Liberia.


(Sorry for mistakes. English is not my ethnic language)

She's your kind of woman, cj.

The fact of the matter is, the chimps are gonna riot/shoot/knife each other because it's what they think they should do, no matter the color of their skin.

Banning objects instead of addressing a behavioural issue is a retarded approach to the problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7525004.stm



Isn't this a proof that smoking is bad for one's health?

How are you going to do that with no knife?





Fear and loathing

* The Guardian,
* Friday July 18 2008

It is not always foolish to be afraid, but nor is all fear rational. As much as governments might wish otherwise, people will always judge risks in society on what they hear and what they feel, as well as what happens to them. That is why, although overall crime dropped 10% last year, and has been falling since 1995, it matters that yesterday's British Crime Survey showed that 65% of people believe that it has gone up. Anxiety can be an imprisoning thing, sometimes as pernicious as crime itself. It can also lead to bad policy - a race to severe punishment that neither reassures the public, nor reduces the risk, but instead only fuels a (false) sense that society is under siege.

Politicians, afraid of looking weak, or dismissive of real dangers such as the recent spate of knife crime (and the reporting of it) have not done as much as they should to explain the reality of crime in Britain. It is also true that this is not a wholly peaceful society. There were two murders a day in England and Wales in 2007-08, an increase; 15,094 recorded incidences of serious wounding; 595 recorded incidences of child abduction and - according to the British Crime Survey - almost a quarter of people can expect to be the victim of some sort of crime each year. Nonetheless, the trend is clear, impressive and little recognised. The country is getting safer. Crime has fallen by 48% since 1995 and the most common crimes also tend to be the least significant. Vandalism accounts for 27% of BCS crime. The data can be disputed, and is in conflict: the BCS, based on 47,000 interviews, does not mirror recorded crime figures, also issued yesterday, which are a reflection of what the police are told, rather than what happens. But on any measure, people should be getting more confident about their security, rather than less so. The central puzzle of yesterday's crime statistics is why, as crime falls, fear of it seems to grow.

One answer might be that crime is not falling at all: that some incidences of it, such as drug use or knife crime, have simply become so common in some parts of the country that it is never counted. Some researchers suggest that data from accident and emergency wards, which is not properly collected, shows knife crime rising; yesterday's figures also show gun and drug crime have gone up. Children are not interviewed by the BCS. Even when the overall trend is down, there will be visible episodes that run the other way. It is true, too, that dangers are not shared equally: knife crime is concentrated in five big cities, led by London and inside each the main victims are young men in particular areas. For them, fear is rational.

Politicians will be tempted to blame anxiety on the media ("Knives: why no part of Britain is safe", exclaimed yesterday's Daily Mail). But they exploit it too. Both Labour and Tory politicians are guilty of offering instant fixes to problems that are complex and sometimes do not exist at all. People in all parties have become better, however, at recognising that one of the reasons people are afraid of crime is that they think it is not taken seriously and that criminals are mostly not caught. Crime has not fallen, primarily, because the police have prevented it, but because society has got richer and older - which is why it has gone down almost everywhere else in Europe, too. Young men remain violent, but there are fewer of them.

Yesterday's policing green paper is a response: it recognises that people will feel safer if they think that their fears are known. The proposal to allow elected mayors control over policing (and the Tory plan for elected chiefs that came before it) has its difficulties. Logic may be lost to popularity. But as things stand, the police appear to be a distant and inadequate force: only 53% think they do a good or excellent job. People do not think they are being protected from risks they believe to exist. Until that changes, fear of crime will remain high - however reassuring the reality.

It ain't hard. A blade helps, but it isn't necessary.

Have you ever done it? It takes a lot more skill and knowledge than you probably have. You might be able to produce a toy bow and arrow in an hour, but they'd probably be more effective if you just took the bow and clubbed someone over the head with it. You might be able to make an atlatl in an hour. Of course learning the skills to use either one effectively is gonna take a long time too, which is why English longbowmen had to practice continually. You'd probably be more effective, and more accurate, if you simply took your arrow and ran toward your victim with it in your hand.