Thread: British Law?

I don't normally like to talk politics, a lack of understanding all those big words bandied about I suppose, but in this country we have to vote...No choice there. Well you could donkey vote I suppose, but if everyone did that we would more than likely retain the people already in power until another election got called. Also in this country we have only two viable parties to vote for, neither of them overly popular. We also have a few small parties who may or may not hold the sway of power (as they do right now), and who can and do push through policy that is unpopular with all but the minority groups who support them. Our government often takes away a freedom to replace with a law for our security. Most times they tell us, and regardless of how unpopular it is, it goes through. Sometimes, if they suspect it will be too unpopular they put it through on the sly. We are supposed to be living in a free democracy in this country, but it is all just a whitewash. I know I don't live in the UK, but our systems are based on theirs and we all curtsy to the queen here still.
The queen said that Australia may become a republic, but more than likely not in her lifetime. Certainly not if the models offered, are chosen by the party in power. We had a referendum back in 'Jack boot' John Howards day as PM, on a republic, and of all the proposed models of republic that we could have had presented to us, we had the two that were least popular, and would have handed over total control to the government. Needless to say it was a resounding 'No' vote on a republic, which made the monarchy loving John Howard quite happy.
So when it comes to freedom/security, we have little to no choice. Many of our laws are passed with no public consultation we are simply told what to do, and short of an armed revolt, there is little we can actually do about it.


Mick

Gugi,

Sorry for the long message. You make some interesting points which I try to address. Thank you for indulging me.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, apathy isn't any better. Election participation isn't particularly low, if it were the small single-issue minority will have its say. At the end of the day people go to the voting booth and they get to pick who to vote, 90% of the time their pick says "This guy's the best I can have", even if it's not synonymous with 'approval' it's the next closest thing to it.

Well, to be fair, Gugi, you did change the definition of 'approval' from what most people would consider as a result of approval polls to the results of an election. I admit the results of an election are where the rubber meets the road, but there is a lot that goes into who actually gets elected. Political parties wouldn't exist if they didn't have an effect on who gets elected and what they get to do once they are elected. It is an imperfect system at best; no perfect system exists.

I am always rather puzzled by this 'the government' vs. 'us the people' mentality that seems way more prevalent in US than in other parts of the world. The thing is that 'us the people' get to pick 'the government' on a very regular basis, so in reality it is much more a reflection of what we are, than our enemy.

This is the result of the history of our country and is one of the root causes of the Revolution. As colonists, we didn't trust the British to run our affairs here. The main reason the British wanted to tax the Americans so much was to pay for the French and Indian War (aka 7 Years War), but Americans felt as British subjects they should be represented if taxed. Once the U.S. Gov't was formed, people on the frontier didn't want the government telling them where they could or could not live (in deference to treaties with the Native Americans); others didn't want the U.S. gov't to tax their whiskey; the list goes on and on why that historical distrust of government got transferred from the British to the American one. It's obviously complicated, but it's part of what makes America what it is.

Then there is the whole patriotic thing that is another puzzle. It's a direct result of the increasing centralization of power ever since this country was created. Without it there wouldn't be all that much of a national identity, people would consider themselves say foremost Texans and then maybe Americans.

The American Civil War did the most to change this. Before the Civil War, most Americans identified themselves with their state first, and the national government next. The Civil War, more than anything else, changed us from The United States, plural, to The United States, singular.

As far as whether it's better to cede one's protection to a government, we have plenty of examples, historical and current. A society like Somalia where everybody is in charge of their own safety and security and don't have to rely on a government to protect them is not much fun to live in. Or the 'wild west' for that matter.

From the very beginning, the British colonists who came to North America had to make it on their own. The British ran North America very differently from the way the Spanish did. The crackdown after the 7 Years War was a paradigm shift in how the British ran their North American colonies, who were spoiled with self rule. Latin America followed the U.S. example with mixed results. The example of Somalia, which is an anarchy, is a bit unfair. I'm not advocating anarchy.

Another example again in US that people value safety above all - the government spending both in entitlements and in military. The most effective talking point in todays politics is "they want to take your retirement/medical/unemployment/etc. benefits", or "they want to cut the spending on defense'". Most people want to pay less taxes only if that doesn't affect the goodies they're accustomed to receiving. If it is a matter of paying less taxes but then having to provide for themselves, they pick the safe option.

Yes, and this is why our government is set up the way it is. Representatives of the House are supposed to be selfish. Our republic is built with a bit of fault tolerance. The idea is that one constituency won't allow another to gain too much influence. People in general are selfish and will vote that way. The Senate was designed to be a body representing the sovereign States, not the people. That was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment. Now, states have no representation in Congress except through electors to the President.

Since you mentioned money, it's no secret who funds the government, and the golden rule that the man with the gold makes the rules is still true. The only thing that slows the rate of conversion from democracy to plutocracy is that voting is still egalitarian (note that it didn't start this way), so even those who don't contribute much to the government funding have a power in determining how the government ought to behave. If they are easily bought/manipulated by those with the money, then that's their own fault.

And people are easily manipulated. That's why we live in a republic instead of a democracy. A republic has laws to protect the minority from the majority. A true democracy is rule by the majority, which is easily manipulated.

And yes, I'm rather cynical when it comes to politics/money/dark side of humans.

And that's very understandable. If you're cynical about human nature, why let it all coalesce into an all-powerful government?

-Mark

Originally Posted by HNSB

The only means to disarm an unknown sociopath is to disarm everyone on the assumption that someone is a sociopath.....

I don't buy into the idea that "no one gets hurt", but I do buy into the idea that an armed populace is a deterrent to violent crime.
That is getting away from the point I was trying to make though. My point is that deterrent or not, danger or not - it is wrong to restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong and are not infringing on the rights of others.

So you have no problem with psychos purchasing and running around with deadly weapons as long as
a) they don't have a criminal record (though no doubt they WILL kill someone with that weapon eventually)
b) the pyscho's rights aren't infringed upon
c) everyone else is packing at the same time

Enough said. That's quite the utopian scenario, great place to raise your kids.

BTW - your response will likely get "liked" by the usual suspects, but my original point was not about disarming the populace, but rather some form of - gasp - control process to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Yes, public safety sometimes trumps uncontrolled civil liberties; it's what seperates civility from anarchy.

Wouldn't society be better off trying to find ways to improve the mental health system, than to infringe upon the freedoms of the majority to protect them against a minority, such as said psycho Ryan? If we had better laws in this country regarding personal carriage of weapons I doubt we would have had so many people murdered at Port Arthur. Someone would have been able to put a stop to it in short time. As it was those paid to protect us (the police) took far too long to react. Now we have laws to protect us from gun toting nutters, by taking guns off all the non nutters who toted guns. As a result we now have much higher gun crime because only criminals choose to break the law.


Mick

We have found a way to improve the mental health system, it's called care in the community, basically close the institutions and send all but the criminally insane out into the world for the caring public to look after. The good news is that the law says they can't carry a folding knife with a blade length exceeding 3" that can be opened by the force of gravity, the bad news is that it hasn't stopped some of them stabbing the same caring public in the back of the head with a kitchen knife.

Apologies for un-hijacking the thread.

there are many threads on british knife forums. as i understand it the uk law is breifly as follows

prohibited wepons - flick knives/automatics, gravity knives(must be locking), sword sticks unless antiques etc
then you have section 139 CJA non-complient, ie locking or over 3" (or both) need a reason to carry
and sec 139 complient, ie under 3" and non locking no reason neaded to carry.

except, that if the police think that you are carrying it with the intention to use as a weapon(and possibly need eveidence) then it becomes classed as an offensive wepon and then you're down the station.
it might be added that any bladed article can be an offensive wepon.
equally popping into ASDA and buying an 8" chef knife isn't going to get you up before the beak, unless you use for something other than its inteded role in cooking!

steve

Originally Posted by stevec

there are many threads on british knife forums. as i understand it the uk law is breifly as follows

prohibited wepons - flick knives/automatics, gravity knives(must be locking), sword sticks unless antiques etc
then you have section 139 CJA non-complient, ie locking or over 3" (or both) need a reason to carry
and sec 139 complient, ie under 3" and non locking no reason neaded to carry.

except, that if the police think that you are carrying it with the intention to use as a weapon(and possibly need eveidence) then it becomes classed as an offensive wepon and then you're down the station.
it might be added that any bladed article can be an offensive wepon.
equally popping into ASDA and buying an 8" chef knife isn't going to get you up before the beak, unless you use for something other than its inteded role in cooking!

steve

Interesting, so I can legally carry a fixed blade 3" knife, I'll just mitigate by saying that I eat loads of fresh Oysters and they are buggers to open with my teeth. I will now endeavor to find an antique sword stick, if Sherlock Holmes could get away with it I don't see why I can't

Originally Posted by osdset

Interesting, so I can legally carry a fixed blade 3" knife, I'll just mitigate by saying that I eat loads of fresh Oysters and they are buggers to open with my teeth. I will now endeavor to find an antique sword stick, if Sherlock Holmes could get away with it I don't see why I can't

Nope, you can't carry any fixed blade knife of any length without a good reason and certainly not a sword stick!

Gareth

Originally Posted by Galopede

Nope, you can't carry any fixed blade knife of any length without a good reason and certainly not a sword stick!

Gareth

Oh no! I'm mortified, I thought I had a good reason, Oysters, tool for, opening of. As for the sword stick I made no mention of it containing a blade did I? An ex sword stick then, preferably silver topped, I fancy myself as a latter day Raffles, or Beau Brummel perhaps, cutting a dash along the promenade peering at the ladies through my Monocle.

A knife, regardless of the name, has mostly two intended purposes of use. One is cutting and the other is piercing. Just because it is an 8" Chef knife doesn't change the fact that those are it's intended purposes. Polite society percieves the purpose as food prep or cooking...


Mick