Impending machete ban.

[Unlucky4Sum]

I really suggest a read of this https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-04-18/debates/856B1916-C50C-42E8-9224-650176B31877/CriminalJusticeAct1988(OffensiveWeapons)(AmendmentSurrenderAndCompensation)Order2024

The new rules were needed because the old rules had a massive loophole.  A Zombie knife or machete was only banned if it had writing or images on the blade.

Yes that was a stupid screw up by the previous drafters but the right thing was to close that loophole.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Post a link to a case where someone was freed because a case failed through a loophole.

Well I could challenge you to deliver a time machine.  Setting impossible challenges is not debate.

There would be no case to find a link for if the police or CPS decided not to proceed with taking it to court would there.

[cromwell]

Now assure us you've looked at all the cases where either the police or CPS abandoned it because they knew the defendant was clearly pointing out a loophole.

Post a link to a case where someone was freed because a case failed through a loophole.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Wait, so you don't actually know but want to lecture us on it anyway?

Good grief, there's been no cases where judges found anyone not-guilty for carrying such weapons but they're criminalised even though in all likelihood a judge would already lock someone up for carrying them . .

Now assure us you've looked at all the cases where either the police or CPS abandoned it because they knew the defendant was clearly pointing out a loophole.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Which is what I said in the fist place,this is an unnecessary law it's already covered by offensive weapons........blimey

But are you as certain that people weren't getting through the loopholes?  Do you really think the government spent all that time - and notably with wide support across the whole house - on something that wasn't needed.

I don't

[cromwell]

Which would be illegal to carry unless you had a good reason.

Herberts will generally not be able to claim a good reason.

Cabbage harvesters etc will.

Which is what I said in the fist place,this is an unnecessary law it's already covered by offensive weapons........blimey

[Borg Refinery]

I have no idea of any cases, but currently a zombie knife is not illegal to own a sell (but will be soon)

Wait, so you don't actually know but want to lecture us on it anyway?

Good grief, there's been no cases where judges found anyone not-guilty for carrying such weapons but they're criminalised even though in all likelihood a judge would already lock someone up for carrying them

The crims will just find new legal loopholes for new weapons, there are many ways to disguise a weapon as something you need for something else and there are many things you can carry that work perfectly well as a weapon

Some old Irish guy in London carried a blade in his cane, others carry all kinds of extremely dangerous weapons concealed and carefully disguised in all kinds of ways

Good luck banning all them too

[Borg Refinery]

Which would be illegal to carry unless you had a good reason.

Herberts will generally not be able to claim a good reason.

Cabbage harvesters etc will.

^ Said Herberts will find another legal loophole to find and carry weapons if they really want to. And Cabbage harvesters if that's your thing..

Your point is ridiculous and as I said earlier (I was actually agreeing with crom's point against yours, despite the misunderstanding) has this bizarre legal theory been tested out in court?

Has it actually happened that a judge found someone not-guilty by way of using a machete or zombie knife? I'd really like proof this actually happened as opposed to internet conjecture.

[BeElBeeBub]

This is all ridiculous

I'd like to know if an actual judge upheld the law and said "you're carrying a zombie machete - that doesn't qualify as an offensive weapon so the charges are bogus and you are acquitted"

If so, the judges must be completely retarded and have serious brain damage, if not, then the govt are just pushing irrelevant claptrap legislation that does nothing and adds nothing that doesn't already exist, as I suspected was the case and most of the laughable arguments in its favour (laced with trolling I add) can be safely ignored

I have no idea of any cases, but currently a zombie knife is not illegal to own a sell (but will be soon) 

Given that above, it is not illegal to carry it in public *for a good reason*. Given the design of the things, there aren't many good reasons for carrying one eg going to gardening. A good reason may be transporting it to a post office etc for delivery. The person claiming that reason would have to show it was real eg had invoices,. Knife was packed, they ran a shop etc.

This thread started with a post worrying that machetes will be outright banned even though there are many legitimate uses for them. 

That isn't the case because the defintion change doesn't include actual working machetes. 


What would change is that having zombie knives in private will no longer be possible and selling them will no longer be possible. The loophole of "collectible item" etc will be closed (genuine collectables are exempt, but a mass produced item on ebay for £20 won't qualify) 

[BeElBeeBub]

And crucially said herberts will then switch to agricultural machetes,.

Which would be illegal to carry unless you had a good reason. 

Herberts will generally not be able to claim a good reason.

Cabbage harvesters etc will. 

[Nick]

And agricultural machete with an 18 inch blade is as likely to prove fatal.

I remember being taught about the Geneva Convention during my basic training, you were only allowed a bayonet with one blade, so after you impaled someone you could only slash in one direction. I remember thinking at the time, who sits and makes these rules? Also you weren't allowed rusty barbed wire around a base in case someone got tetanus. 

[patman post]

So what's the problem?  London has a particularly serious problem with knife crime, so I would expect more stop and search.  In London, white people are about 57%, so they are over-represented.  Is that a problem for you?

There's no doubt that overall knife crime throughout most of the UK is high and increasing. Stop and search and other measures like airport-style scanning frames need to be rapidly assessed and implemented — concentrating on whatever groups are thought most likely offenders. But pre-conceptions shouldn't dictate ideas of where knife crime is worse.

Recent surveys have shown some surprising figures...:

West Midlands consists almost entirely of Birmingham, Coventry, and Wolverhampton, has a knife crime rate of 17.7 per 10,000 residents.

Cleveland pole area (which now covers parts of North Yorkshire and the county of Durham) has a knife crime rate of 17.0 per 10,000 people.

London's knife crime rate stands at 15.6 per 10,000 residents.

https://www.churchillsupportservices.com/resources/news-insights/the-worst-knife-crime-hotspots-in-the-uk/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce7r36rrezjo
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-crime-up-7-per-cent-map-b2534853.html

[cromwell]

The unique features of those zombie style weapons are designed to cause massive internal ripping or organs and arteries.

And agricultural machete with an 18 inch blade is as likely to prove fatal.

[Unlucky4Sum]

And why is that?

The unique features of those zombie style weapons are designed to cause massive internal ripping or organs and arteries.

[cromwell]

Maybe but they are less likely to cause a fatal injury

And why is that?