# New "anti-knife" powers for Brit. police



## KenpoTex (May 29, 2008)

> Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick said officers' work was intended to make young people feel safer, as well as actually making them safer.
> 
> Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, *officers can search people without reasonable suspicion* under Section 60 of the Public Order Act.
> 
> "I know that's a problem - *but until we make them all realise they have to get rid of all their guns and knives we wont find a solution to this problem.*"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm

no comment


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7418134.stm
> 
> no comment


 
and your solution to cut deaths would be?


----------



## Ahriman (May 29, 2008)

Interesting idea. I'm waiting to hear how many cops they lose... y'know there are guys out there who should be searched, their appearance gives enough suspicion, yet our policemen_ (and women)_ don't really search them. They want to live, which is a hard thing to do with a bullet in your digestive system. Simple thugs are one thing, people caring about SD is another but members of criminal organizations and "professional criminals" are a very different thing.
Now policemen there either understand this as well as their Hungarian colleagues did or they'll lose a few when learning it.
...
Other thing is they won't ever get rid of all those bad things and even if they *do* manage somehow... broken bottles, anyone? Baseball bats? Hammers? Axes? A bicycle chain? You can't ban these... you can confiscate some of these items, but how would you confiscate a bicycle chain for example? What do you say, "give it to me, you don't have to lock your bicycle" or what?
Someone intent on killing or committing a crime will most likely succeed. The less tools and training the average folk has, the more chance of success the bad guy has. Even more if the victim is always told to leave these things to the police.
And as usual, I do not aim to attack anyone, so even if some parts of my post could be interpreted that way, blahblahblah.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2008)

I understand where *Tez* is 'coming from' with her point above and I also understand that without draconian infringements of personal freedoms there is no really effective way of removing arms from the general populous that wish to carry them.  However, I, for my sins, am still of the mindset that allowing us to be bowed, without oversight. to the whim of Officers of the Law, is not a good thing.

I know and gladly accept that we are subjects and not citizens but this 'search without cause' attitude cannot lead to a good place in the hands of government.  Hopefully Mrs Queen will have something to say if 'excesses of zeal' get out of hand.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> and your solution to cut deaths would be?


 
well...not crucifying people when they exercise their _natural right_ to defend themselves might be a step in the right direction.

I realize that our cultures are different.  Based on your comment above, it seems that you have no problem with the notion of the police conducting searches without the requirement for even "reasonable suspicion," (in other words, "we're searching you just because we feel like it").  
This type of police power does not sit well with me.  But then again, some of us on this side of the pond have weird notions about individual liberty and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> and your solution to cut deaths would be?



Do you really think completely unfettered police search powers are the way to go about it?


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Do you really think completely unfettered police search powers are the way to go about it?


 
What I'm asking for here is what people see as solutions to the problem not just criticisms. We've had several threads now pulling up British news stories about the police and we've had lots of comments about how people believe in freedom and democracy and not being searched etc but not one has laid down a plan of action which will stop the problem of knife crime.*I would like people to also stop assuming I'm in favour of all these procedures as well. * England is looking for answers, solutions and ways to stop and no one, other than criticise what has been proposed has come up with anything else. Saying _and stop crucifying people when they exercise their natural right to defend themselves _is *not *a solution. The knife crime is youth and gang based, we aren't talking your average everyday person being threatened, we are talking of young people carrying knives to go out and stab other young people. So, I reiterate, what's your solution to this problem?


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

Bythe way it's English police not Brit, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own laws.This article specifically refers to to the Metropolitian Police force's actions not others.


----------



## shesulsa (May 30, 2008)

I'd link directly to the movie "V for Vendetta" right now if I could.  To reduce the number of deaths? People need to be able to defend themselves within the protection of the law.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.


----------



## Ahriman (May 30, 2008)

Hm, if knife crime occurs mostly in gang problems, a possible solution would be giving them free firearms with a bit of explosives in it with a remote controller. Let gangs kill each other as fast as possible, then blow up the guns to eradicate the remaining few. They just don't deserve to live.
...
Ok, now seriously. Police should identify gangs, economists should identify reasons of the existence of given gangs. They should remove all removeable reasons of their existence, for example those who "surrender" should get jobs, amnesty, social support and the like for giving up their weapons and lifestyle, while maintaining constant surveillance to avoid their return to crime and giving them protection from earlier "colleagues".
Now this removes those from crime who do it for logical reasons. The rest should be exterminated, their criminal connections tracked down and killed, their gathering places if possible torn down or burnt up, if this is not possible simply give that area or building a use which directs a lot of people there making it an unsafe location.
This would both pull and push them out of crime. Who are willing to give it up get the chance of a new life, those who aren't willing will lose the chance of *any* life. Those between will likely go legal either because living legally becomes safer and more attractive or because living illegally becomes a *lot* less safe.
...
Now these are simply my ideas. Vote me for dictator and I'll try them. :wink2:
...
shesulsa: that's what some of us keep on ranting about...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 30, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> I'd link directly to the movie "V for Vendetta" right now if I could. To reduce the number of deaths? People need to be able to defend themselves within the protection of the law.
> 
> That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.


 
I agree.

Tez, personally I feel that in your country the citizens are giving up alot of their rights and that is a problem.  First guns were the problem so they are gone, now knives have replaced guns and they are gone.  Since it was so hard to find the knives now police can search at will.  What is next?  Honestly, even with this search at will policy it will not stop knife crime just maybe slow it down a tiny bit.  In the meantime you have lost some more rights in the process.  Just my 02.

Effective education and teaching at an early age can help.  But..........

As to a solution?  Well at some point you need to create an atmosphere where any group that is doing this violence becomes successful enough within societies norms that they will no longer want to do these acts because they have too much to lose.  Now guess what that is a really hard task.  Good luck as every society throughout time has been unable to do this.  There are always going to be criminals.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> and your solution to cut deaths would be?


 
"*He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither*."-Ben Franklin



What happens when they go back to rocks and sticks? Focus on people not objects...criminals not weapons.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> So, I reiterate, what's your solution to this problem?



I don't run the government, so I don't need to have a solution.  They wouldn't listen to it anyways.  I am fully qualified to speak my mind however and criticize what any government comes up with.  Receive enough criticism, and perhaps they will go back to the drawing board and brainstorm another solution that doesn't violate fundamental human rights to which England is a signatory.

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UK voted for:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

Firstly I should point out that there are no new laws coming out,the article cited in the OP is misleading. The law being used is an old one, it became law in 1994. The searches are being intelligence led as is usual ie known gang members, drug dealers etc. The difference this time is that technology will be used to search suspects rather than the police using their hands plus the Met are putting extra officers on to the iniative.
Stop and search has been with us for 14 years, it's not new and it takes no rights away from anyone (apart from the fact we have no rights being subjects not citizens, we have no constitution only the Magna Carta and thats biased towards the Earls lol) 
The spin on this article makes it read differently from what is actually happening. It's very slanted as being anti police and also misleading.
_"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act"_ As I said police have had this power for 14 years but you wouldn't think so the way this is written. It's also not carried out lightly I can assure you.

*Powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence. *
*Section   60.*(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that 

(a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and
(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,
he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours.
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised by a chief inspector or an inspector if he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence are imminent and no superintendent is available.
(3) If it appears to the officer who gave the authorisation or to a superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any incident falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further six hours.
(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power 

(a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;
(b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.
(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.
(6) If in the course of a search under this section a constable discovers a dangerous instrument or an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be an offensive weapon, he may seize it.
(7) This section applies (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as it applies to vehicles.
(8) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.
(9) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (3) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
(10) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped and similarly as respects a pedestrian who is stopped and searched under this section.
(11) In this section 

"dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;
"offensive weapon" has the meaning given by section 1(9) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and
"vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the [1960 c. 62.] Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
(12) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to and not in derogation of, any power otherwise conferred.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 30, 2008)

You beat me to it Tez.  I tried to post the act earlier, but my computer was playing up.

Nothing has changed has it?  A senior officer still needs reasonable grounds.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> and your solution to *cut deaths* would be?



A deliberate pun?


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 30, 2008)

> I don't run the government, so I don't need to have a solution.



Just as an aside but anyone else struck by the problem in that statement?


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> You beat me to it Tez. I tried to post the act earlier, but my computer was playing up.
> 
> Nothing has changed has it? A senior officer still needs reasonable grounds.


 
Absolutely! the article is a piece of spin by the BBC and some people have fallen for it hook line and sinker I'm afraid.
By the way a PC playing up can be great fun rofl. It's the sussys and black stockings that does it you know (now that is going to confuse our American cousins lol)


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> A deliberate pun?


 
Afriad so, I love puns, sad individual I am!


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> A senior officer still needs reasonable grounds.



How does that gel with "(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit *whether or not he has any grounds* for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind."


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Just as an aside but anyone else struck by the problem in that statement?



Why don't you clue me in?  You must know that "well, you don't have a solution!" is a very common debate tactic to try and shut down criticism, no matter how legitimate.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I don't run the government, so I don't need to have a solution. They wouldn't listen to it anyways. I am fully qualified to speak my mind however and criticize what any government comes up with. Receive enough criticism, and perhaps they will go back to the drawing board and brainstorm another solution that doesn't violate fundamental human rights to which England is a signatory.
> 
> From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UK voted for:
> "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."


 
I agree with what you are saying but in this case there are no arbitary arrests nor does it violate fundamental human rights. The searches have to be authorised by a senior officer who_ has reasonable grounds_ for suspecting an act of violence may take place, it is only for a period of 24 hours at a time and is not done lightly.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Why don't you clue me in?  You must know that "well, you don't have a solution!" is a very common debate tactic to try and shut down criticism, no matter how legitimate.




Just thinking... wondering... if there are realms of solutions that do not involve the government having to fix it.

Looking at the US.  Through the 'war on drugs' and through smoking, societal pressure has been much more powerful than government regulation.

Wondering why whenever we see a problem, we assume the solution is through government intervention, through law or occasionally tax policy, when there are many other ways to change the world around us if we are willing to.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> and is not done lightly.



Part of the concern is the slippery slope, I imagine..every time it's done it gets easier to justify the next one. But, this hardly seems an overly harsh law...if used judiciously.

Still, I think the U.K. is going a bit overboard w.r.t. knives.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I agree with what you are saying but in this case there are no arbitary arrests nor does it violate fundamental human rights.



It is an arbitrary detention however, which is one of the listed rights.



Tez3 said:


> The searches have to be authorised by a senior officer who_ has reasonable grounds_ for suspecting an act of violence may take place, it is only for a period of 24 hours at a time and is not done lightly.



I saw those sections in the beginning.  However, beginning with section 4, it only describes what a constable is, and the power of a constable to make searches "whether or not he has any grounds".  I see nothing that directly connects the authorization sections starting with section 1 with the constable sections beginning with 4.  Could you help?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Just thinking... wondering... if there are realms of solutions that do not involve the government having to fix it.



Sure, but we are specifically discussing governmental response and police powers, not discussing how I will pay for lunch today or how to raise my kids.  My statements should not be seen as all-inclusive.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

You must understand that us Americans have our 4th Amendment to our Constitution that we closely defend and cherish. This law, as well intended as it my be and as controlled as you can make it would be a blatant violation of our 4th Amendment and would cause a political backlash of biblical proportions if attempted here.


----------



## tellner (May 30, 2008)

The reasons for Britain's violent crime problems are many and deep. Reductions in family wage jobs, demographic changes, the unravelling of social cohesion, epic alcoholism, a very high teen pregnancy and birthrate and any number of other factors.

It isn't that the UK's knife laws are particularly lax or permissive. They are neurotically strict. When the BMA seriously floats the idea of banning cooking knives you know that you've entered The System of Doctor Tar and Professor Feather. 

A lot of the flailing about is a subconscious realization that the big problems may not have solutions. In such cases people tend to obsessively control the things they can. So we see the British equivalent of SWAT teams called out when kids are legally shooting BB guns and 150 year old trees cut down because the leaves have prickles. A quarter of the world's CCTVs haven't put a dent in crime according to law enforcement. But that's no reason to abandon them. We need more. Lots and lots more to make us *feel* like we're doing something. The prisons are full while aggravated assaults, habitual theft and chronic vandalism can and are "cured" with ASBOs. 

If there were no cost associated with the craziness it wouldn't be a problem. But there's a hefty price tag. 

All of the infrastructure costs money. It will take officers to carry out the plans. Every innocent stopped - and rest assured that almost all of them will be - will be time that could be spent on more productive policing. And some fraction of them who were willing to go along will grow to resent the police and the Law in general. Some will say "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". 

I know that the UK isn't terribly fond of civil liberties. The Brits seem more eager to give them up than anyone except Americans. But there is a cost to maintaining that sort of social control. It isn't always obvious, but it's there. 

Oh, I'm sure they'll catch a few people for simple possession. But it will end up being a very high price for a tiny reduction in crime. The overall cost almost certainly drowns the benefit. When it doesn't work there will be another round of increasingly restrictive laws with draconian penalties which will, once again, not work. Every penny spent on the miniscule marginal benefit could be spent on, say, the decrepit Tube system or NHS hospitals or alcohol education and treatment or repairing a bridge or something else that would measurably improve life and indirectly go to reduce the causes of crime. 

But that isn't sexy enough for most politicians. And it doesn't help police administrators' budget requests. So the blood and money will be wasted. But that's OK. Nothing is more important than "feeling safer" even if it is pure Security Theater.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2008)

A view from outside is always illuminating, even when you don't agree with some of the observations :tup:.

Some points are very ... er ... pointed .  The one about CCTV is particularly so.  

The rising level of discontent with policing is also true.  Those here who know me in a more than passing fashion have heard me express my admiration for and acceptance of our police force and the vital role they play.  However, the excessive pressures of silly monthly 'targets' has caused a style of policing that has actively alienated a significant proportion of what should be the consensual 'support group' of the Force i.e. well-off, law-abiding, middle-class.  There is a recognition of this but whether anything will change is a good question.

I have to disagree with regard to "epic alcoholism" tho'.  As a society, we've always drank like fish over here - we built an empire on 'rum and gunpowder' after all.  That hasn't changed (we're not as bad as the French, the German's or the Dutch tho' ).  

What has changed is that young heavy drinkers have become more prevelent and the marketing change to larger measures has meant that even seasoned drinkers (used to 'counting' by the glass) are getting more than they think.  There has been some dramatic language in the news about a 'doubling' of alcohol related hospital admissions, as if there is a tide of suppurating livers flooding the NHS - in reality, a lot of these numbers are drunken 'teens falling over and hurting themselves or getting into fights.  Also, the numbers, when given, are small - if it was something that the current Pressure Group In Favour didn't care about then we wouldn't hear a word.

Also, we had "Civil liberties" to give up?  I must've missed the memo.  I know we Limey's keep mentioning it here at MT but we're subject to the whim of the Crown.  Those of us of the peasant classes have certain obligations owed us by our betters but that's about as good as it gets .

Anyhow, I have to get back to my wine (as opposed to my whining ... not really a pun but close enough ) ... which shows pretty clearly where my sympathies lie in the 'alcoholics' side of this debate :lol:.


----------



## tellner (May 30, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Some points are very ... er ... pointed .  The one about CCTV is particularly so.



Sorry, they've always creeped me out, especially with the "Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes" campaign you had a few years back. 



> However, the excessive pressures of silly monthly 'targets' has caused a style of policing that has actively alienated a significant proportion of what should be the consensual 'support group' of the Force i.e. well-off, law-abiding, middle-class.  There is a recognition of this but whether anything will change is a good question.


One of the problems is that there as well as here the middle class is shrinking, undoing most of the benefits and basic social stability of the past seventy five years. If the police are accustomed to treating working class people automatically as suspects there's a problem. I also see a hint of British class consciousness at work which you can scarce avoid; no more than I could see a king without envisioning a pike and noose. And here we come to one of my perennial themes - 
*It's All Magic*​The Law, government, society, social order, stability - every single one of them is an illusion, a trick we play on ourselves. They're magic in the purest sense because they only work as long as almost everyone believes in them. When we stop believing they go away as surely as dew in the hot desert sun. They're even more fragile than that; you can be sure that the dew will return some day.

Great civilizations have fallen and whole pantheons have gone to whatever awaits a deity with no worshippers because they passed that critical point where enough people stopped believing. We saw it in Russia when Boris Yeltsin briefly raised himself to greatness and the people and the Army decided that the fiction of a Soviet Union had come to its final chapter. Scandinavia wasn't converted at the point of the sword like other places, at least not as first. It was just that the old ways stopped providing the answers people needed and were abandoned. 

Every people thinks that it is immune. Their Reich will last a thousand years. All the world will tremble at the words of the Great Prophet Zoroaster. 

Or rather, we will "look upon my works, ye Mighty and despair". Nothing is forever. There are no permanent winners, only civilizations which have not yet fallen, species which have not yet gone extinct or evolved to the point where they no longer resemble their ancestors. 

This relates to the police, and I thank you for going along with me this far. The simple fact is that there can never be enough police with enough cameras and enough guns to keep things together if the majority or even a significant minority stops believing and listening to them. We see it when riots break out. We see it when there are "no go zones" in major cities and the police only go in groups of three or more.

An old Colorado sheriff said it best. "I uphold the peace. Don't make me enforce the Law." As long as most want the peace to be upheld the officer walks cloaked in the Majesty of the Law. The respect that protects him is entirely in the imagination of the people. When they lose it it can not be recaptured no matter how many guns and how few restraints the police are given. There can never be enough if the vast mass of people want to decorate the streets with constables' heads. 

It's the same thing that any sergeant or classroom teacher knows. If they believe you are the one in charge they will follow your direction. If they don't or if you ever lose that certain fraction of regard you are not the one who leads them, no longer the man in charge.

And that is the most dangerous part of the current mess in law enforcement on both sides of the Pond. When Vietnam was winding down a bunch of officers and men realized that they were up for honest work. And so they made themselves an industry like G-Men fighting bootleg liquor turned to drugs the better to ensure their pensions and their rank. We got SWAT and military weapons where traditional policing had so far been enough. And as the officer evolved to something else, to some sort of soldier counterfeit clad all in black behind a blank reflecting mask we went astray. It was not the only thing that went wrong then. But it was bad, and we compound that greedy mistake by further turning our police to something not respected, merely feared. 

How can we change that? I don't know. It's hard enough to clearly look and see diagnose the patient's illness well enough. Wiser heads and long dispassionate debate will both be needed to effect a cure.​


> I have to disagree with regard to "epic alcoholism" tho'.  As a society, we've always drank like fish over here - we built an empire on 'rum and gunpowder' after all.  That hasn't changed (we're not as bad as the French, the German's or the Dutch tho' ).



According to your own health service it's gotten worse and shows no sign of improving. By some measures Britons drink more than any of the rest. And they, especially the young are more likely to drink in quantity, to start while not yet teens and lose whole days from bingeing. It's not a fact to be ignored or put down as "just something that we do". 



> What has changed is that young heavy drinkers have become more prevelent and the marketing change to larger measures has meant that even seasoned drinkers (used to 'counting' by the glass) are getting more than they think.  There has been some dramatic language in the news about a 'doubling' of alcohol related hospital admissions, as if there is a tide of suppurating livers flooding the NHS - in reality, a lot of these numbers are drunken 'teens falling over and hurting themselves or getting into fights.  Also, the numbers, when given, are small - if it was something that the current Pressure Group In Favour didn't care about then we wouldn't hear a word.



Again, it's not just the numbers ending up in wards. When the BBC says one in six below sixteen gets regularly drunk that's bad. I wonder if the end of closing time and serving liquor round the clock has made it worse or not. I think it's more a symptom of a deeper thing at work. Its something that requires deep analysis by someone skilled, not just a guess or two by random martial artists on the Internet. 



> Also, we had "Civil liberties" to give up?  I must've missed the memo.  I know we Limey's keep mentioning it here at MT but we're subject to the whim of the Crown.  Those of us of the peasant classes have certain obligations owed us by our betters but that's about as good as it gets .



A lot of Americans believe that the Constitution is some sort of Sacred Word that guarantees that nothing bad can happen. The truth is that it's more and less. When folks believe in what it represents and that belief includes the ones who make the rules, then they have rights. When they no longer so believe the fantasy is gone, and everything is at the whim of the one who has the guns. The English have no such document, but the Rights of Englishmen have been assumed and enforced in other times. Read _Taking Liberties_, the one on Tony Blair. He only followed Thatcher's lead, but he's more recent and more fresh. You'll see the process dissected.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

As Sukerkin commented it's always interesting to see how others see us even if it's not how it is in real life, of course you realise how superior and smug everyone sounds when criticising us poor down trodden drunken Brits?
It's something I don't think Americans realise they are doing when they start comparing what happens in their country to the rest of the world, that they come over as sounding as if they are denigrating the rest of the world. It's the one quality of Americans that has annoyed the rest of the world for a long time. You think you are always right. It's part of the problem in Iraq. Ask any non American.
Most of you are slamming our laws and our country without actually having lived here or having much knowledge of us and it's based on what you read and see on the television. The article in the OP was a case in point, no one checked to see what the law was , you all assumed it was a new one.
You've seen things about CCTV but have never seen it at work, you talk about our class system but don't actually know what it is other than from the media.
How can an a non British person tell us what our problems are when they've never experienced them and it's based on media reporting? I for one don't post up about America's laws, problems and my solutions for them. I have no experience other than from the media and if I were to believe that dear me what a god awful place America would seem to be!
so thank you for all your opinions on how we can sort our lives out, I bleieve though it's a Native American expression that states you should walk a mile in a mans shoes before criticising him!
Yes this country has it's share of problems but we'll sort them out as we have done for millenia without the benefit of superior American minds.
perhaps now we can start a thread criticising all that is wrong with America and all non Americans can join in? No? I didn't think so.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

As Sukerkin commented it's always interesting to see how others see us even if it's not how it is in real life, of course you realise how superior and smug everyone sounds when criticising us poor down trodden drunken Brits?
It's something I don't think Americans realise they are doing when they start comparing what happens in their country to the rest of the world, that they come over as sounding as if they are denigrating the rest of the world. It's the one quality of Americans that has annoyed the rest of the world for a long time. You think you are always right. It's part of the problem in Iraq. Ask any non American.
Most of you are slamming our laws and our country without actually having lived here or having much knowledge of us and it's based on what you read and see on the television. The article in the OP was a case in point, no one checked to see what the law was , you all assumed it was a new one.
You've seen things about CCTV but have never seen it at work, you talk about our class system but don't actually know what it is other than from the media.
How can a non British person tell us what our problems are when they've never experienced them and it's based on media reporting? I for one don't post up about America's laws, problems and my solutions for them. I have no experience other than from the media and if I were to believe that dear me what a god awful place America would seem to be!
so thank you for all your opinions on how we can sort our lives out, I blieve though it's a Native American expression that states you should walk a mile in a mans shoes before criticising him!
Yes this country has it's share of problems but we'll sort them out as we have done for millenia without the benefit of superior American minds.
perhaps now we can start a thread criticising all that is wrong with America and all non Americans can join in? No? I didn't think so.


----------



## kidswarrior (May 31, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Also, we had "Civil liberties" to give up?  I must've missed the memo.  I know we Limey's keep mentioning it here at MT but we're subject to the whim of the Crown.  Those of us of the peasant classes have certain obligations owed us by our betters but that's about as good as it gets .


OK, good friend, I've seen you say something similar before, so I'm gonna just show my ignorance and blurt it out: Aren't you a _Constitutional _Monarchy, as in the crown is reigned in by a constitution? And if not, I want a refund on all the books I had to buy at university in which the Magna Carta was mentioned, up to and including British history to the mid-17th century. :idunno:

And Tez, this is by no means a slight. I just genuinely don't quite grasp how it works (stunning to be my age and realize you're still ignorant, eh?).


----------



## kidswarrior (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> perhaps now we can start a thread criticising all that is wrong with America and all non Americans can join in? No? I didn't think so.


Actually, I'm game. :bangahead:Especially since I wouldn't have to actually...well...do anything. :rofl:


----------



## Empty Hands (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> ...perhaps now we can start a thread criticising all that is wrong with America and all non Americans can join in? No? I didn't think so.



It never stopped anyone before.  I have seen posters of several nationalities contributing to threads dedicated to some stupid law or other problem in America.  I have never seen someone's nationality become an issue.

Perhaps instead of taking criticism of your country personally, you could see it as constructive?  Wanting the best for the good ol' UK?  I for one would never invest too much of myself in the actions of my government, I would be bound to be let down.  Constantly.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> OK, good friend, I've seen you say something similar before, so I'm gonna just show my ignorance and blurt it out: Aren't you a _Constitutional _Monarchy, as in the crown is reigned in by a constitution? And if not, I want a refund on all the books I had to buy at university in which the Magna Carta was mentioned, up to and including British history to the mid-17th century. :idunno:


 
.  That's what happens to me when I try to pass over a complex socio-political issue in a sentence or two  .

The Magna Carta is a much talked about document and snippets of it have been used to support this, that, or the other position with regard to the rights of the 'people'.  

The purpose of Magna Carta was basically to curtail certain actions of the monarch with reference to the powerful Earls, who were a bit fed up with having their status eroded.

The principles writen within it have been used in other places but, for the peasant classes {that's us by the way :lol:} it made little, direct,  measurable difference.

Since that time, much has been passed into law and even more has passed into tradition and altho' the Crown has the theoretical right to refuse Royal Assent, preventing proposed legislation from being enacted, it has not been done for hundreds of years.

The upshot is that when I exaggerate for effect by saying we are "subject to the whim of the Crown", that isn't really the case any more as 'modern' legislation has superceded the older powers ... but they are still there.

The book mentioned here (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18395586.html) sems like it could be a good read for those seriously interested in this area.

Also, I've only scanned this site briefly but no major 'falsehoods' sprang out at me (doesn't mean there aren't any mind you ROFL):

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/moncst.html

When I draw attention to the difference between _citizen_ and _subject_ I am perhaps a little out of date these days in terms of what Johnny Chav in the Street thinks are his rights but it is still the case that the Government runs the country for the Crown and that Government exists at the Crowns discretion ... and guess who controls the military ?


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Yes this country has it's share of problems but we'll sort them out as we have done for millenia without the benefit of superior American minds.
> perhaps now we can start a thread criticising all that is wrong with America and all non Americans can join in? No? I didn't think so.


 

What? Like that would be something "new"? We Americans should be pretty darn used to European criticism by now dontcha think?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2008)

Coming back on topic............


Earlier the methods described were met with opposition, and in return thew question was asked, "What would your idea to solve the problem be?"

Before we can even answer that we must first agree on what the definition of "solve" is, and we haven't done that yet.

If by "solve" you mean "get rid of", then I cannot help but smile: At least some other person in this world is crazier than I.

I do have a solution but, suffice to say it would never be adopted within the United Kingdom, and I understand this, and will not pass judgment on the fact,  and i will leave it at that.


----------



## dart68 (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> It's the one quality of Americans that has annoyed the rest of the world for a long time. You think you are always right. It's part of the problem in Iraq. Ask any non American.


 
What an asinine statement.  OF COURSE WE THINK WE'RE RIGHT!  Just as YOU think you're right and THEY think they're right.  Right or wrong is more often than not just a matter of perspective.  But when you post a question or make some statement on a world wide format and get differing ideals that you don't agree with, your own bigotry rears its ugly head.

United Statesians (won't speak for Canada or Mexico) believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all the civil liberties that go with that.  We believe that for ALL mankind.  I personally don't believe in trying to force those ideals onto others.  If you believe that searching someone without probable cause is the way to go about solving your problems, go for it.  But don't cry when we _Americans _think that you're wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

To be honest I haven't seen any threads on here where a non American posted up anything criticising American laws. I would also take criticism as being constructive if it were in fact based on truth. The OP posted up that  there were to be new anti-knife powers for Brit police. As I pointed out that's not the case yet people were saying how draconian this new law was and how we were giving away our liberties. People are basing their criticisms on what they think they know and what they read about us.
Tellner's comment _"One of the problems is that there as well as here the middle class is shrinking, undoing most of the benefits and basic social stability of the past seventy five years. If the police are accustomed to treating working class people automatically as suspects there's a problem. I also see a hint of British class consciousness at work which you can scarce avoid; no more than I could see a king without envisioning a pike and noose." _
I'm sorry but you are so far away from the truth here I can only sit speechless with amazement. Firstly at being lectured at about my own country and secondly at the hilarity of it! The middle class shrinking, I'm afraid it's not it's actually expanding, they are the biggest class in the UK now.
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/class.htm

The police accustomed to seeing the working class as suspects? That's far fetched to say the least as the British working class has traditionally been the law abiding class and the police are traditionally working class themselves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2052629/Police-punishing-middle-classes-to-hit-targets.html
Stability over the past 75 years? No I don't think so, in those years we've had national strikes, hunger marches, riots, sieges, numerous wars, major civil unrest etc. Britain isn't the peaceful place you perhaps think it is?

  If the UK was a martial art would everyone be rushing to criticise it? would all the tournament rules be pulled apart, it's instructors accused of alcoholism and it's practioners labelled as having major issues?
Whether any of you like it or not and whether it's right or not in the long run, the British public wants something done about knife crime, there's major petitions asking for bans on knives, it's what people want and believe it or not they more often than not get what they want. This is what happens when the people don't like something lol!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/31/newsid_2530000/2530763.stm

The thing about the government in our country is that we actually don't want any other way of doing it, we want the National Health Service, the police to sort out crime,we want the government to 'do something about it' as far as we are concerned it's the governments job to do something about things, it's what we pay them for. It's nothing to do with giving up civil liberties or being put under the thumb, we pay the government to sort things out and if it doesn't we'll kick them out and get a government who will. Why do you think British political parties spend so much time campaigning on issues like law and order, the health service and education? It's because we expect them to be able to run these services and iron out problems. Ask any person in the street who's responsiblity it is to sort out these things and they will look in amazement at you and say the government of course! That's why we pay our taxes, we pay them to work for us, we aren't their slaves, they are ours! Look at any government in the UK and you will see them falling over themselves to please the electorate,us.      
The truth about knife crime in the UK and a lot of British people don't want to or can't believe it, is that it isn't actually a huge problem. It's not widespread and it's contained in certain areas. Young people are wielding the knives and are killing other young people, that's emotive and catches the big headlines in the media. Of course innocent lives lost is tragic but the police can cope with the problem if they are allowed. However there is a big public outcry and uproar, people are demanding knives be banned so the govenment will, even against it's own better judgement and advice from the police ban knives, so who is wagging what dogs tail here? The government isn't trying to keep the people down, they are trying very hard to keep themselves in office. A government will perform a big U turn if they think it will please us and keep them in. The govenment relaxed the laws on cannabis but again there was a big outcry so they changed the laws back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/31/newsid_2530000/2530763.stm

CCTV, despite what people think the police aren't totally in favour of CCTV, money is spent on putting systems in that could be better spent on real police work. However as this shows the public's demand for CCTV is rising.
_""The demand for CCTV from the Leeds *public* is insatiable. Every community in Leeds seems to want it but cost is a factor. It costs £20,000 just to install one camera." 
Housing associations are also increasingly turning to CCTV as a means of keeping their tenants safe." _

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Huge-demand-for-CCTV-in.3782653.jp

More and more people want CCTV on their houses, down their streets and in schools. You can chunter about civil liberties all you like and I'd agree with you on many points but the fact is, again, this is what people want. they will badger their local councils and MPs until they get it too. Is it right, who knows but it's what the tax payers in the majority want so they get it. that's British politics for you,


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

dart68 said:


> What an asinine statement. OF COURSE WE THINK WE'RE RIGHT! Just as YOU think you're right and THEY think they're right. Right or wrong is more often than not just a matter of perspective. But when you post a question or make some statement on a world wide format and get differing ideals that you don't agree with, your own bigotry rears its ugly head.
> 
> United Statesians (won't speak for Canada or Mexico) believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all the civil liberties that go with that. We believe that for ALL mankind. I personally don't believe in trying to force those ideals onto others. If you believe that searching someone without probable cause is the way to go about solving your problems, go for it. But don't cry when we _Americans _think that you're wrong.


 
No what I think is wrong is that you believe what was written in the article is true. We don't search people without probable cause. There has to be a reason for the search written down on the forms we fill in when searching a person, a copy of this form is then given to the person we've searched and they can read for themselves what our probable cause is.
Tha's my beef, that you think you are right from reading the wrong information.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/n..._procedures/pdf/stopandsearch_intermanual.pdf

Enjoy!


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

So how has that all been workin for ya so far??? Violence been on the decline?


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> No what I think is wrong is that you believe what was written in the article is true. We don't search people without probable cause. There has to be a reason for the search written down on the forms we fill in when searching a person, a copy of this form is then given to the person we've searched and they can read for themselves what our probable cause is.
> Tha's my beef, that you think you are right from reading the wrong information.


 
Really?



> (5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit *whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons* or articles of that kind.


----------



## dart68 (May 31, 2008)

_*"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act. "*_

Tez3...can you find a copy of what this refers to?


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Really?


 
Funnily enough yes we do have to write down the reason for stopping someone, on my last I wrote "because I didn't like his shoes" I then proceeeded to emulate the American police I'd seen in a recent video and beat the guy up.

If you are going to copy bits out of a document copy all of it.


The recording of stops​*1.2*​​​PACE code A states that a record must be
given to the individual stopped.The recording
requirements for stops are slightly different to
those for searches. In the case of a stop, the police
must record:
> the date, time and place of the encounter;
> if the person is in a vehicle, its registration
number;
> *the reason why the officer questioned that*​
*person;*

This is your probable/reasonable cause part.

*1.16 *​​​*For a search to be authorised under **section*
*60 **of this Act, the authorising officer (at the rank*
*of inspector or above) must have reason to*
*believe that incidents involving serious violence*
*may take place in their police area and that it is*
*necessary to authorise a search to prevent them.*
*These powers should not be used to avoid using*
*the normal powers or dealing with routine crime*
*problems. Authorisations must be made on the*
*basis that exercising the power is a proportionate*
*and necessary response to achieve the purpose*​
*for which Parliament provided the power.*


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

dart68 said:


> _*"Under the Metropolitan Police's plans announced this month, officers can search people without reasonable suspicion under Section 60 of the Public Order Act. "*_
> 
> Tez3...can you find a copy of what this refers to?


 

As I said before section 60 of the Public Order Act has been law for the past 14 years so I have no idea why the reporter should think that the law is a new one, the Met has been stop and searching all that time.
The law refers to the fact that a police officer can search anyone in the vicinity of where his senior officer has reason to believe an act of violence may or has taken place, intelligence would be given to the senior officer and he will act on it. The senior officer has to take responsibilty for having reasonable cause, there is an oversight committee for the police in the UK which investigates and complaints btw.
This is an example of why a senior police officer will give permission for a stop and search operation and you will see the point of it when you see the crowds involved in the violence and the difficulty of finding who is carrying weapons and who is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvBtZXTw6E&feature=related


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

Say what you will...at the heart of it a person can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion simply because he/she is in an area that an officer believes may be dangerous. It says so in the statute. No suspicion an individual person is armed...period. Hey its your country and Im shure the cops in the US would love to be able to toss a crowd of people to see whos armed. We just cant do it w/o reasonable suspicion an INDIVIDUAL person is armed. We could "terry frisk" a group of people if we had some articulable reason for detaining them. But absent more than them just being there we cant do a complete search. If we did whatever we found would be suppressed.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Say what you will...at the heart of it a person can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion simply because he/she is in an area that an officer believes may be dangerous. It says so in the statute. No suspicion an individual person is armed...period. Hey its your country and Im shure the cops in the US would love to be able to toss a crowd of people to see whos armed. We just cant do it w/o reasonable suspicion an INDIVIDUAL person is armed.


 
I see you didn't watch the video then where the police were the ones being beaten up ? So much for 'tossing' a crowd ( you do know btw what tossing means in England and why we call someone a tosser as an insult?) we don't have the benefit of being armed or of getting away with beating people up so hey ho we just have to do the best we can in our own little way.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

Gettin free with the insults eh? We are comparing written statutes not police actions (justified or not) last I thought.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Gettin free with the insults eh? We are comparing written statutes not police actions (justified or not) last I thought.


 

Hardly an insult to point out that what you mean by a word isn't what we mean by it.


----------



## Ahriman (May 31, 2008)

:semi-off:

Just adding a little "bonus" meaning to perception of right and wrong.
We idiots revolted in 1848 and 1956 against foreign rule and tyranny, both riots were destroyed ruthlessly by our favourite Russians, even as in the first case we revolted against Austria. Now the second one is the important here, where Soviet forces entered Hungary without ahem, proper invitation. We Hungarians used quite much of guerilla tactics, those of us fallen were "heroes", dead enemies were "sadistic Russkie bastards". Now Hungarians serve their times in Iraq, being there without ahem, proper invitation. And guess what, who become heroes in my nation's eyes? I'll help a bit, in this case NOT those who defend their lands. They're always terrorists, even when not all of them are suicide bombers.
So even as don't really agree in some_ (in fact quite many)_ things with Americans, I DO understand why they think they're always right. Humans, be them American, English, Hungarian or Iranian_ (or anything)_ don't really like admitting that they aren't always on the "good side". And even doing so is a very bad idea... our prime minister admitted that they lied and screwed things up and it'd be time to do something, and what's the result? Riots, "Gyurcsány must die", "f....ng communists" etc. :frown:

:semi-off: 
: on:
I read through the article you posted, Tez3. I'm still dizzy a bit, reading and interpreting in English after a day of hard work is... hard.  It does have weak spots and potential areas where the laws can be misused by the police. Actually there are far less of both problems than in Hungary, so even as I understand why Americans frown on these, I'd still envy you if I'd know it for sure that police only does what's allowed.
But from the "summary findings" it seems that the UK's population doesn't really support the idea.
Enough of me.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2008)

Ladies and gentlemen, it might be an idea for a few calming breaths to be drawn and for those participating to actually absorb both what is being said and what is being referrenced.

Hotness and asperity are fine arguing around the table with real, 3-D people that you know and get along with.  The same does not apply here in Interweb-land and it is all too easy to not say what you think you are in the manner in which you would wish it.

As it stands, here we have someone whose job it is to enact the legislation.  Don't you think she might know what she's talking about?

When we touch on American law in our numerous discussion here, I am always careful to note that I'm adding my _opinion_ and that what I think from 'outside' should be considered in that light.  When LEO's add their opinions into such discussions then that's a whole different thing - it's Expert Testimony (to steal the phrase) and carries due weight.  So it'd be polite to proffer *Tez* the same courtesy.  You don't have to agree, just give her credit for knowing what she's on about.

I could understand her getting a little annoyed under the circumstances and I'm sure that if all contributors take a moment to 'wear each others shoes' we can return to intelligent debate.

Otherwise ... well you know the consequences of too much friction ...


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> :semi-off:
> 
> Just adding a little "bonus" meaning to perception of right and wrong.
> We idiots revolted in 1848 and 1956 against foreign rule and tyranny, both riots were destroyed ruthlessly by our favourite Russians, even as in the first case we revolted against Austria. Now the second one is the important here, where Soviet forces entered Hungary without ahem, proper invitation. We Hungarians used quite much of guerilla tactics, those of us fallen were "heroes", dead enemies were "sadistic Russkie bastards". Now Hungarians serve their times in Iraq, being there without ahem, proper invitation. And guess what, who become heroes in my nation's eyes? I'll help a bit, in this case NOT those who defend their lands. They're always terrorists, even when not all of them are suicide bombers.
> ...


 
I sypmathise with you translating into English! As you can see American English is different from British English.

Whipped up by the media there is a lot of support for having anti knife laws here. 
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/campaigns/080527knives.shtml
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1213430.ece

And the politician recently voted in as Londons mayor on these policies.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1805_save_our_streets_boris.shtml


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)




----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 31, 2008)

Pheeeew have things changed here fast.

I am very concious of civil liberties to a degree.  What I see see as New Labour's move towads the Big Brother state bothers me a great deal.

So do new laws.  A lot of the new alleged counter terrorism powers trouble me a great deal.  Having managed pretty well at dealing with Irish Repuclican terrorism over the years, I find it very difficult to accept that the threat we now face from AQ and the like is any greater.

I do think however that the search powers detailed in this thread are not unreasonable.  I have seen mass violence and its not good.  Football violence used to be rife over here and these powers would have certainly been of great use then.  A senior officer has to give his go ahead before the individual officer can excercise his (or her) discretion.  Its a useful power to protect the public.  This is coming however from someone who would likely get a right ****** on if searched.

I dont think anyone has any business carrying knives.  The problem is of course that only the law abiding will care and stop carrying them.  Certain times/locations then these powers are definately worth having.

I dont agree with all of what Tez has said regarding what the British public want, although I do some of it.  I am concerned that she seems to be getting an unfair amount of incoming.


----------



## Ahriman (May 31, 2008)

"I dont think anyone has any business carrying knives."
I took out 2 guys out of "business" for a little time with knives and a bit more unarmed but we're talking knives here. Nothing serious, but that was because I was in control of those given situations, NOT because the attackers and absolutely not because the police. In both cases I got home about 2-3 hours after the incidents and didn't see a single officer.

If you have an omnipresent police with competent officers then I agree with you. If only one of these is missing, I don't. I accept and understand your views, I just don't agree.
What I do agree with is that these laws are potentionally very useful. In the most recent riots here a lot of officers were badly injured as they didn't have enough rights_ (and honestly because their superiors screwed it up a bit)_, so something like these would've been very useful. But a law is good only as long as it's not misused... and these can be misused, but I say it again, to a lesser extent than Hungarian equivalents.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

It would be a truly boring place if we all agreed with each other wouldn't it, those of us who love debating would have to take the dog for a walk instead!
However, it's good to argue from facts not news articles that are spin and slanted politically.
Whether you agree or not about legislation to stop knife carrying, the facts of this thread is that there is no new law at this point in time. The Act quoted is 14 years old not a new move by the Met. All the Met are doing is bringing in is mechanical means to search for weapons.
Please argue by all means about the rights and wrongs of whether there should be stop and search, whether it works and whether we should ban knives but please do us the courtesy of not stating that we have a new law when we don't. The present law isn't specifically for anti knife use, it's also for anti terrorism and general violence such as breaks out around football matches.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 31, 2008)

Ahriman, I understand what you are saying.  

The problem I see with carrying knives, is that the people who tend to feel the need to carry them, are the people who feel unable to fight without them.  Unfortunately for them, they are usually correct and end up getting their knives taken off them, and stuck in themselves instead.  Happened right outside my door last year.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Ahriman, I understand what you are saying.
> 
> The problem I see with carrying knives, is that the people who tend to feel the need to carry them, are the people who feel unable to fight without them. Unfortunately for them, they are usually correct and end up getting their knives taken off them, and stuck in themselves instead. Happened right outside my door last year.


 
My instructor when doing knife defences always makes you stab yourself with your knife! (He says that way only your fingerprints are on the knife not his) He also grips you so when he says drop the knife, your hand is seized and you can't so he puts the pressure on harder, ouch!


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 31, 2008)

I hope he's good!


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I hope he's good!


 
Scarily so! he got stabbed in the back a few years back when he was out on a call during the amby strike and he was dealing with a patient. Didn't know until he got to the hospital and a nurse asked him who's blood was on his back - his!
He's of the Geoff Thompson school, trained with him. He's best mates with Ian Freeman too.


----------



## Ahriman (May 31, 2008)

FieldDiscipline: those who carry knives for self-reassuring are usually in the ranks of thugs, or are simply so stupid that their removal from the gene pool is not a loss.
We can handle things unarmed, but that has numerous disadvantages... and in a fight I want all the possible advantages on MY side. A previously planned surprise attack, certain drugs, alcohol under certain levels, certain mental disorders, having "friends" are all possible advantages on the "bad guy" side even if he/she is unarmed and when they're combined it becomes even worse. I try to be constantly aware of my surroundings, but it's impossible to be always alert. I know what I'm able to achieve by speaking, by my unarmed skills or by my weapons and I always try to use that skill which has the least legal problems while solving the given problem, but there are situations where I don't really want to rely only on my unarmed training.
And there are situations where I know that I will either cooperate or I will likely die. Fortunately I didn't yet have to be in such a case.
...
Tez3: whoa, that's truly scarily good! Good luck for you all...


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> FieldDiscipline: those who carry knives for self-reassuring are usually in the ranks of thugs, or are simply so stupid that their removal from the gene pool is not a loss.
> We can handle things unarmed, but that has numerous disadvantages... and in a fight I want all the possible advantages on MY side. A previously planned surprise attack, certain drugs, alcohol under certain levels, certain mental disorders, having "friends" are all possible advantages on the "bad guy" side even if he/she is unarmed and when they're combined it becomes even worse. I try to be constantly aware of my surroundings, but it's impossible to be always alert. I know what I'm able to achieve by speaking, by my unarmed skills or by my weapons and I always try to use that skill which has the least legal problems while solving the given problem, but there are situations where I don't really want to rely only on my unarmed training.
> And there are situations where I know that I will either cooperate or I will likely die. Fortunately I didn't yet have to be in such a case.
> ...
> Tez3: whoa, that's truly scarily good! Good luck for you all...


 
I'm sorry I should have explained a little more I think, my instructor was a soldier ( did 22years) and a few years back the ambulance workers went on strike here so the military did their job, he was in a military ambulance. We also had a couple of firemens strikes too where the military covered.
My instructor is a close protection officer, he's also done the doors (bouncer/doorman) in some rough areas. He doesn't carry a knife but has a gun license. He also believes in using whatever is to hand to defend himself with.


----------



## Adept (Jun 7, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> I'd link directly to the movie "V for Vendetta" right now if I could. To reduce the number of deaths? People need to be able to defend themselves within the protection of the law.


 
That would imply that the lack of ability for a 'victim' to defend themselves is a factor in the 'offenders' decision making process.

While that may be true in some cases, it certainly isn't in the problem cases being discussed.

These problem cases are mostly instances of gangs of youths going out deliberately to fight other gangs of youths, which is why I use the terms 'victim' and 'offender' lightly. Most of the time there is no such distinction.

Allowing more relaxed self defense laws isn't going to change that kind of crime one bit (although it would hopefully make life more bearable for that non-criminal element of society). Banning knives, or giving the police the power to search without due cause isn't going to change it either. Although at least it might give the police the ability to lay some charges and get these scrotes off the streets more quickly.

It's important to remember that the target of these laws isn't the regular folks in society, nor is the target crime the old 'criminal vs civilian' mugging, theft or assault. It's inter-criminal, inter-gang crime which is effected by legislation differently.


----------

