New Laws vs Mail Order Tools

[Brandlin]

At least you got a reply from your MP. All I got was the automated response. I won't say who he is, but I guess he's too busy planning his bid to oust the PM to deal with his pleb constituents.

As MY elected representative in parliament i reasonably expect him to deal professionally with a reasonable concern - not to respond with a glib party soundbite.

so... this was my response.

Mr Hanson

Thank you for your reply to my query.

However I disagree with the tone of your reply. I am not interested in a party political stance and views on the ills or otherwise of the last 8 years. I have asked you as my representative at parliament to raise an issue based on a specific proposed change to legislation that I believe will be ineffective and will disadvantage numerous legitimate and creative groups.

The bill has a limited period of review at committee stage (until 13th September I believe) and requires our elected representatives to engage in detailed review of its contents based on the views of both experts and your constituents to create an effective piece of legislation. Not engaging in the debate but relying on soundbites about “austerity” is going to squander that opportunity and is not conducive to a meaningful debate.

I am certain that the processes of parliament will allow the wider debate over policing and resourcing to continue and that as a labour party member you will argue long and hard for the principles that you represent and were elected for. As you should.

But as my representative I would like you to address the points I raised to you in my email, and not to just respond with the party line.

The proposed Bill affects changes to the Offensive Weapons act. It is not about police resources, its about restricting the availability of certain items – many of which can be lawfully obtained and used and pose less danger than existing freely available items.

I believe some additional clarity in the current law is required and some of that is included in the Bill. For example classifying a corrosive substance as an offensive weapon in public and giving the police powers to deal with it is clearly sensible. Likewise the proposed controls on firearms seem sensible (although they do not affect me and I am no expert). Off-hand representing the entire Bill as “putting forward strongly worded documents will not help our police officers tackle this growing problem” undermines the very sensible changes that the Bill does address.

Are you suggesting to me that the labour party believes that the carrying of corrosive substances in a public place (without legitimate reason such as going about your trade) should NOT become an offence and our police force should NOT be able to deal with such incidents despite the increased number of acid attacks that have been seen? Because your blanket dismissal of the entire bill seems to suggest that is the case.

My specific concerns are the unintended consequences of the Bill as I understand them. The Bill as written would make many legitimate tools and substances near impossible for private citizens to obtain.

My understanding of the relevant sections of the Bill is:
1. All sales of bladed or corrosive substances must be made face-to-face with ID checks to confirm the purchaser is over 18.
2. On-line sales of bladed or corrosive substances may not be delivered to private addresses and must still conform to 1 above. (Requiring checks to be conducted by delivery people?? This is unclear)
3. The definitions of “bladed items” currently covers everything from chisels, plane blades, razor blades, scalpels and modelling knives, kitchen/chef’s knives, peelers and even scissors.
4. The definition of corrosive substances is less clear but appears to cover all acids and alkali. So this would include drain cleaner, degreasing agents, anti-rust products, kettle de-scaler even vinegar.

I am sure that common sense will prevail over some of my more extreme examples above (such as vinegar), but unless those challenges are made and consideration taken by people engaging in the debate then issues like this are lost.

As an example the Bill would make it illegal for me to buy a chisel or plane on-line for private use. But it has no effect on someone having access to a freely available carving knife from their own kitchen. I wonder which of these carries a greater risk to the public? The planned purchase of a woodworking tool with 3-5 day delivery, or the spontaneous ability to pick up a 10” long implement that is specifically designed for cutting flesh from one’s own kitchen?

Likewise I would not be able to buy etching acid (legitimately used to make one off printed circuit boards by those interested in electronics), or a bottle of rust inhibitor, but anyone can pick up a bottle of bleach from their own bathroom which is arguably far more dangerous.

Suggesting that such items could easily be procured face-to-face at a bricks and mortar store where an ID check can be carried out is not viable. The rise of the internet has brought the availability of otherwise scarce, specialist and hard to obtain materials in reach of many for the first time. The knock on effect is that has driven many bricks and mortar stores either out of business or to change to an on-line business model. Many of these products are simply not available in the high street anymore. On-line is the only place to buy them. Even where they are available in a physical store this requires access during opening hours, and transportation that is not universally available.

I stress that I am not against the police having additional powers to combat increasing violence in any way. Nor am I wholly ignorant of some of the issues facing them and the difficult and challenging work they do for us all. I simply do not believe that this is a sensibly worded piece of proposed legislation, or that blanket prohibition works. The unintended consequences would have a significant negative impact on a wide number of law abiding citizens for very little affect on the intended issue.

I would appreciate your views. Likewise if you wish to discuss you can get me on ##### ######


Regards and thank you for your time.



Alan

I shall keep you all informed

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I too got only an automated response from my reality TV "star" MP. I've also e-mailed the HCA (Heritage Crafts Association) and am told Robin Wood is on to it - as a woodworker and seller of tools mail-order, I guess it rather matters to him. It will b****r up a lot of heritage crafts that are kept alive by hobbyists and small businesses working as sole traders from home. I posted on the APTGW (Association of Pole Lathe turners and Green Woodworkers) site, and got surprisingly little interest - 0 responses. It is pretty quiet on there these days though.

Weekend before last was our town festival. My contribution is to drive a decorated up truck in the parade with some kids on the back to the park. To take off the decorations to avoid them getting lost on the bypass on the way home, I took my Swiss army knife. Going into the music arena at the park I walked past the desks where they were searching handbags for knives in as part of new heightened security measures. Only when I was in did I stop to think what I had in my pocket !

 

[Tasky]

I took my Swiss army knife. Going into the music arena at the park I walked past the desks where they were searching handbags for knives in as part of new heightened security measures. Only when I was in did I stop to think what I had in my pocket !

As long as the blade is under 3", and folds without locking it should be perfectly legal, no?

At any given time, I have a Leatherman Squirt on my keys, a Swiss Army card in my ID wallet and a 1" micro version of a larger lock knife. The latter two are a matched set and was very first thing I bought from the NAAFI back when I joined up - Good luck taking those off me!!

 

[Brandlin]

I've never understood the non locking bit. A lock knife that prevents folding up by accident in use or being carried is far safer for the user. Or am I misunderstanding the term 'lock'?

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Perfectly legal does not necessarily imply acceptable in a music venue, I suspect.

I do use a couple of locking knives, on a "Swisstool" multitool, and a flexcut carving jack. They are much safer for the user. I suppose the reason they are prohibited is that they are also safer to the user when stabbing people. Mind you, when I have one of those in the car with me, I usually also have a choice of three or four axes ...

 

[Tasky]

A lock knife that prevents folding up by accident in use or being carried is far safer for the user.

You assume the user is not doing anything wrong. As mentioned, it also means it won't close up on your hand if you try and stab someone, which is why a non-locking one is deemed to be so risky that no-one will try stabbing with them.... or fewer people, anyway... whatever drives the crime stats down and makes the party look good.

 

[Harbo]

I got pulled up by the police for carrying a tiny locking Al Mar knife which had a 35mm Blade.
It was attached to my key ring and I’d forgotten all about it.
My 75mm folding Swiss Army penknife, which I’d left at home, would have been ok!
It was in the Houses of Parliament, escorted to a side room, lectured, warned and sent on my way.
Luckily they didn’t confiscate it.

Rod

 

[colonel-cueball]

No shock given that ALL political parties parachuted in those who have ZERO life experience, ALL of them now did politics at university, became paid activists, then researchers, aides, candidates and often parachuted into safe seats where they burble the party line - That goes for the Tories, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid, DUP etc etc etc.

The days of political candidates coming from a military or senior management or senior trade position are long gone, libertarianism is seemingly a dirty word, and successive home secretaries (probably egged on by the civil service) have become increasingly authoritarian in viewpoint. I'm seriously wondering why I left Ontario to come back here....with this nonsense we are well and truly heading for the nanny state.

Its a socially unacceptable term but I'm going to say it anyway "profiling" - PACE needs to be binned and something that sits between it and the old Sus laws needs to be instated, with the law quite clear that those most likely to commit an offence are to be stopped and searched, along with the riot act being brought back into force. Letting the great unwashed riot because one of their wannabe dealers/yardies/jihadis etc was stopped and searched by the police, pulled a weapon and was shot dead should never have been tolerated.

The 2011 riots should have resulted in the Army being deployed in a public order role (they are trained in that role) to quell the riots with live ammunition being issued, along with watercannon (Refusing to have them is handwringing of the worst sort).

Instead we had the Vicar's daughter who was too worried about losing her chance to do a poor impersonation of the Iron Lady (more like the Zinc Lady - soft as soap and ultra reactive). Resulting in hooligans being allowed to run riot for days on end while the police and politicians wrung their hands over what to do that wouldn't be seen as being "nasty to the poor deprived souls", many of whom were and are part of a criminal underclass.

Of course though, they have to be "seen to be doing something - its all over the papers and facebook, must do something to keep the 'people' happy, election could be any minute"

Also the demand for "women only" candidate lists has made the issue far worse, nearly all of them are vapid brainless fools, whose view of tools and making things is "filthy dirty activities done by pervy old men in smelly, dirty sheds, better with all that old rubbish tossed in the bin and turn it into a lovely floral summerhouse that the baybeees can play in"

Anyways rant over.....

 

[sammy.se]

I disagree with the live ammunition part though.
You mentioned America - a very 'law and order' country, with liberties, yet ridiculous crime rates.

Also, people assume crime only comes from knives/yardies etc. But never call out all the middle class, rich white people buying weed, cocaine and fueling these crimes... When was the last time they were stopped and searched and read 'the riot act'?

And all the legal loop holes (that, let's face it, rich white people use) which fuels injustice in society? And reduces the number of police in our streets. In Walthamstow, north east london, there's been two shootings in the last week. One was at 3pm. No fear of police catching them and no fear of significant jail time.

That said - there is a big problem with people having a sense of entitlement, something for nothing, in this country, and nobody has a solution.

We need technocratic politicians, not career ones.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[colonel-cueball]

I didn't actually mention USA, I mentioned Ontario, meaning Ontario Canada, Which despite being adjacent to the USA has vastly different gun laws, closer to ours pre-Dunblane with differences. They have similar issues with inner city shootings and knifings, yet their politicians don't dream up these half baked authoritarian schemes.

I'm firmly of the opinion that everything bar Heroin and Crystal Meth should be legalised and taxed accordingly, meth and heroin dealing even at low levels should incur a whole life sentence - ideally on the island of South Georgia

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

The 2011 riots should have resulted in the Army being deployed in a public order role (they are trained in that role) to quell the riots with live ammunition being issued

Also the demand for "women only" candidate lists has made the issue far worse, nearly all of them are vapid brainless fools, whose view of tools and making things is "filthy dirty activities done by pervy old men in smelly, dirty sheds, better with all that old rubbish tossed in the bin and turn it into a lovely floral summerhouse that the baybeees can play in"
.

OMFG, so in order for me to get my chisels posted we need the army shooting civilians on the street, make sure "brainless" women have no power and even hate babies???? Well I was hoping for some sensible amendments to the proposed legislation, but if that's the trade off I'll drive to the shop to pick up my chisels.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Back on tack - I suspect the way couriers treat any legislation will cause as many or more problems than the legislation itself, they will try to safeguard themselves from any prosecution and overkill will be rife.

 

[colonel-cueball]

The 2011 riots should have resulted in the Army being deployed in a public order role (they are trained in that role) to quell the riots with live ammunition being issued

Also the demand for "women only" candidate lists has made the issue far worse, nearly all of them are vapid brainless fools, whose view of tools and making things is "filthy dirty activities done by pervy old men in smelly, dirty sheds, better with all that old rubbish tossed in the bin and turn it into a lovely floral summerhouse that the baybeees can play in"
.

OMFG, so in order for me to get my chisels posted we need the army shooting civilians on the street, make sure "brainless" women have no power and even hate babies???? Well I was hoping for some sensible amendments to the proposed legislation, but if that's the trade off I'll drive to the shop to pick up my chisels.

Few points -

1) Rioters who were started at least one massive building fire and placed a lot of innocent people's lives at risk (would you still have been so defending of them had large numbers of innocent people been killed if that blaze had spread to neighbouring properties?), were running completely feral and had no regard for the rule of law and were attacking police, I didn't say shoot, but put the option on the table - having squaddies point loaded weapons at a mob tends to clarify the situation quite well.
Are you suggesting we deal with large rioting mobs by sending the Army/Police in unarmed and unable to defend themselves?
Also you do realise that the govt had an army unit on 12 hours notice to move if the police had not been able to quell the riots? That the army's default public order weapon was and still probably is pickaxe handles and then live ammunition if the situation gets out of control?
You do also realise that the police were using vehicle at speed to chase pedestrian rioters down streets - which if someone had fallen would have resulted in them being run over? - Jankel vehicles, that they were discharging CS riot gas that can and does kill anyone with a respiratory condition in an extremely painful manner? Personally the bullet sounds more effective.

2) I disagree with "positive discrimination", I fully believe in a meritocracy, the problem with all women candidate lists is that they do not have enough decent candidates so whoever gets parachuted into a safe seat, resulting in a large number without a clue and ready to support whatever halfbaked idea they see on Facebook, Mumsnet and any other "social media" with no critical thinking of its enforceability, impact on those obeying the law etc

3) It was a dig out about the brainless nonsense some witter.

4) People have been having children for thousands of years, yet some think it entitles them to special treatment and immunity from criticism. Along with "think of the children" being their reason to justify anything authoritarian that stops adults from pursuing a legititmate activity.

My last on that

 

[thick_mike]

My last on that

Thank God for that!

 

[mrpercysnodgrass]

just received this email from the Home Office which clarifies the situation a little more.

Dear Paul Davis,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Remove article 15 of the Offensive Weapons Bill (HC Bill 232)”.

Government responded:

The Bill prevents knives which cause serious harm from being delivered to residential addresses but does not stop delivery of bladed items and knives to business premises or businesses run from home.

Retailers online and offline are prohibited from selling knives to under 18s. Evidence from online test purchase operations conducted over the last decade, where online shopping has become increasingly common, shows that the majority of sampled online retailers failed to have effective age verification procedures in place. The failure rate for online test purchases of knives has not significantly improved over this period.

The Government has therefore sought to improve these outcomes by conducting a public consultation and introducing legislation that will place more stringent controls on online sellers of knives.

Following concerns expressed in the consultation, certain defences were introduced into the Bill that has been published. The prohibition on the delivery of knives to residential addresses is now limited to those knives that can cause serious injury. If ordered online these knives will need to be collected from a place where age verification can take place, either by the purchaser or their representative.

In respect of other bladed items and knives, the Bill provides a number of defences around the prohibition of delivery to a residential address. For example, deliveries to business premises, including where a business is run from home, would not be affected by the prohibition placed in the Bill on delivery to a residential address. Other items that would be exempt from the prohibition on delivery to a residential address would include encased razor blades; knives with a blade of less than 3 inches; knives that cannot cause serious injury, for example table knives; bladed products designed or manufactured to specifications from the buyer such as bespoke knives. There are also exemptions for bladed products that are used for sporting purposes, such as fencing swords and bladed products that would be used for re-enactment activities.

Home Office

 

[Rorschach]

Seems like there is an exemption for everything there.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Which
1/ will make it unworkable in reality, and
2/ leave couriers not knowing whether they're coming or going.

 

[Sawdust=manglitter]

What would stop anyone just making up a company name and get anything delivered to home, I can't see couriers checking whether the company is legitimate or is based at that address!?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

What would stop anyone just making up a company name and get anything delivered to home, I can't see couriers checking whether the company is legitimate or is based at that address!?

:lol: see 1/

 

[ScaredyCat]

with live ammunition being issued

Never going to happen.

All they need are water cannon with dye packs. Round them up later.




.