A stinking D lock

[Jude]

The Skunklock is "an innovative security device that promises to make anyone
attempting to make off with your bike vomit".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recreational-cycling/the-bike-lock-that-stops-thieves-by-making-them-vomit-uncontroll/

It's a D lock that contains within it a pressurised noxious chemical
deterrent. If the lock is forced open by a would-be thief they would find
themselves sprayed with noxious chemicals. These chemicals "are so disgusting
they induce vomit in the majority of cases, and elicit an instinctive response
to run away immediately."

I would be amazed if such a device turns out to be legal in the UK.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <580ae1cb....@news.eternal-september.org>,

noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:

> I would be amazed if such a device turns out to be legal in the UK.

How is it illegal? Remembering that commission of a lesser offence to
prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Jude]

From agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins):

>In article <580ae1cb....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:
>
>> I would be amazed if such a device turns out to be legal in the UK.
>
>How is it illegal?

I was just meaning that I think it is very probably going to be illegal.

>Remembering that commission of a lesser offence to
>prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.

Given that pepper spray is classed as an offensive weapon here in the UK, I
don't see why this lock would be any different.

Admittedly, I can hardly see how the lock could be used as a toxic weapon, and
neither can I see how anyone would end up exposed to toxic chemicals by
accident. Still, I would be reluctant to risk an incident with the law by
owning and using such a lock... you go on ahead if you like, I'll wait and see
how you get on.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:21 +0100 (BST), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <580ae1cb....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:
>
>> I would be amazed if such a device turns out to be legal in the UK.
>
>How is it illegal? Remembering that commission of a lesser offence to
>prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.

I'm not that attempting to nick a pushbike counts as a greater offence
that causing someone physical harm.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <akfk0cddjdbc5h04t...@4ax.com>, pe...@wpp.ltd.uk

(Peter Parry) wrote:

> >How is it illegal? Remembering that commission of a lesser offence
> to
> >prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.
>
> I'm not that attempting to nick a pushbike counts as a greater
> offence
> that causing someone physical harm.

If the lock is being damaged or broke, then the theft amounts to robbery.

Even if it doesn't, theft is 7 years maximum, assault and criminal damage
is 5 years.

Maliciously Administering poinson with the intention to injure, aggrieve
or annoy - 6 months.

Significantly lesser offence.

[Jude]

From agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins):

>In article <akfk0cddjdbc5h04t...@4ax.com>, pe...@wpp.ltd.uk
>(Peter Parry) wrote:
>
>> >How is it illegal? Remembering that commission of a lesser offence
>> to
>> >prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.
>>
>> I'm not that attempting to nick a pushbike counts as a greater
>> offence
>> that causing someone physical harm.
>
>If the lock is being damaged or broke, then the theft amounts to robbery.
>
>Even if it doesn't, theft is 7 years maximum, assault and criminal damage
>is 5 years.
>
>Maliciously Administering poinson with the intention to injure, aggrieve
>or annoy - 6 months.
>
>Significantly lesser offence.

Although possession of an offensive weapon could bring it somewhat closer at 4
years maximum.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <580a60a3....@news.eternal-september.org>,

noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:

> Although possession of an offensive weapon could bring it somewhat
> closer at 4
> years maximum.

Still a lesser offence, so still a statutory defence to any charge.

[Jude]

From agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins):

>In article <580a60a3....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:
>
>> Although possession of an offensive weapon could bring it somewhat
>> closer at 4
>> years maximum.
>
>Still a lesser offence, so still a statutory defence to any charge.

Nevertheless, Section 5(1) (b) of the firearms act 1968 prohibits any weapon
of any description, designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious
liquid, gas or other substance.

If the Skunklock is classed as an offensive weapon and someone is found in
possession of it and their bike has not been involved in a theft, or attempt
thereof, what defence do they have?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <580b895f....@news.eternal-september.org>,

noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:

> If the Skunklock is classed as an offensive weapon and someone is
> found in possession of it and their bike has not been involved in a
> theft, or attempt thereof, what defence do they have?

Lots of if's there...

If I know my brother is pissed, and I punch him to take his keys away
from him, knowing that he's never killed anyone driving home yet, what
offence have I committed?

[MrCheerful]

On 21/10/2016 23:14, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <580b895f....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:
>
>> If the Skunklock is classed as an offensive weapon and someone is
>> found in possession of it and their bike has not been involved in a
>> theft, or attempt thereof, what defence do they have?
>
> Lots of if's there...
>
> If I know my brother is pissed, and I punch him to take his keys away
> from him, knowing that he's never killed anyone driving home yet, what
> offence have I committed?
>
>

actual or grievous bodily harm (assuming he is still alive after the
attack)

[MrCheerful]

‘We have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the SkunkLock is
legal and compliant with US laws and regulations,’ the team shares in a
newly opened Indiegogo campaign.

So why UK papers are reporting this is beyond logic.

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3856664/The-bike-lock-stinks-SkunkLock-spray-thieves-noxious-chemical-makes-vomit-ruins-clothes.html#ixzz4NlMGLPSp

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[JNugent]

On 21/10/2016 23:14, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <580b895f....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) wrote:
>
>> If the Skunklock is classed as an offensive weapon and someone is
>> found in possession of it and their bike has not been involved in a
>> theft, or attempt thereof, what defence do they have?
>
> Lots of if's there...
>
> If I know my brother is pissed, and I punch him to take his keys away
> from him, knowing that he's never killed anyone driving home yet, what
> offence have I committed?

Robbery.

Assault.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:26 +0100 (BST), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <akfk0cddjdbc5h04t...@4ax.com>, pe...@wpp.ltd.uk
>(Peter Parry) wrote:
>
>> >How is it illegal? Remembering that commission of a lesser offence
>> to
>> >prevent the commission of a greater is as absolute defence.
>>

>> I'm not [sure] that attempting to nick a pushbike counts as a greater

>> offence >> that causing someone physical harm.
>
>If the lock is being damaged or broke, then the theft amounts to robbery.
>
>Even if it doesn't, theft is 7 years maximum, assault and criminal damage
>is 5 years.

"Pedal cycle
The taking of a pedal cycle or the riding of pedal cycle, knowing it
to have been taken without the owner's consent, is not within the
provisions of section 12(1) of the 1968 Act, but is covered by section
12(5) of the 1968 Act - the penalty for this offence is a fine not
exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. " (Level 3: £1,000)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_act_offences/

[Jude]

From MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>:

>On 21/10/2016 10:38, Jude wrote:
>> The Skunklock is "an innovative security device that promises to make anyone
>> attempting to make off with your bike vomit".
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recreational-cycling/the-bike-lock-that-stops-thieves-by-making-them-vomit-uncontroll/
>>
>> It's a D lock that contains within it a pressurised noxious chemical
>> deterrent. If the lock is forced open by a would-be thief they would find
>> themselves sprayed with noxious chemicals. These chemicals "are so disgusting
>> they induce vomit in the majority of cases, and elicit an instinctive response
>> to run away immediately."
>>
>> I would be amazed if such a device turns out to be legal in the UK.
>>
>>
>‘We have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the SkunkLock is
>legal and compliant with US laws and regulations,’ the team shares in a
>newly opened Indiegogo campaign.

In America it seems anything goes, just look at their gun laws.

>So why UK papers are reporting this is beyond logic.
>
>Read more:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3856664/The-bike-lock-stinks-SkunkLock-spray-thieves-noxious-chemical-makes-vomit-ruins-clothes.html#ixzz4NlMGLPSp

It's all a bit irresponsible, I think, if not mentioning the questionable
legality of the ownership and use of such devices over here.

[Jude]

From Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>:

>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) considered Fri, 21 Oct 2016 21:32:54

>That the "weapon" as designed, is entirely and intentionally only
>DEFENSIVE by it's very nature, so cannot be an OFFENSIVE weapon.

The pepper spray rape alarm is classed as a "weapon" as designed, although it
is intended to be entirely and intentionally only DEFENSIVE by it's very
nature - the UK authorities have deemed it to be an OFFENSIVE weapon. Why
should the ScunkLock be any different?

[Jude]

From Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>:

>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) considered Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:38:36

>GMT the perfect time to write:
>

>From the Guardian article on the subject:
>
>"Idzkowski said their chemical had passed compliance tests and was
>legal, and that its variants were designed to be compliant according
>to the varying rules of 50 states, major cities and EU nations."
>
>So that answers that potential objection.

Idzkowski would say that, wouldn't he?

Go ahead and buy one then. If all goes well after others have taken the
potential risk, I'll reconsider... it's a bit like immediately updating to a
newly released Windows OS: I don't like the idea of being a guinea pig.

[JNugent]

On 23/10/2016 18:53, Phil Lee wrote:
> noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) considered Fri, 21 Oct 2016 21:32:54

> GMT the perfect time to write:
>

> That the "weapon" as designed, is entirely and intentionally only
> DEFENSIVE by it's very nature, so cannot be an OFFENSIVE weapon.

Is that your definitive judicial decision, M'Lud?

[JNugent]

The so-called peper rape spray is an offensive weapon by design and purpose.

That it may be used for defence is irrelevant.

A Browning automatic pistol may also be (ostensibly) carried for
self-defence, but...

[Jude]

From JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>:

In which case, could not the ScunkLock be termed an offensive weapon by design
and purpose? It is a booby-trap: it functions unexpectedly.

There can be no doubt that the ScunkLock is a weapon because it is "a thing
designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage". It is a
weapon disguised as a lock. If that doesn't make it offensive... how about we
all go out and buy one?

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 24 October 2016 08:15:05 UTC+1, Jude wrote:

>
> In which case, could not the ScunkLock be termed an offensive weapon by design
> and purpose? It is a booby-trap: it functions unexpectedly.
>
> There can be no doubt that the ScunkLock is a weapon because it is "a thing
> designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage"

I am worried about my garden gate now!
Those spikes look nasty.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvhEU1fXYAA9Q4W.jpg

[Jude]

From Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com>:

Nah, they are clearly visible for what they are: a simple deterrent. Connect
them up to the mains electricity supply, however, and you may be able to turn
them into an effective booby-trap!

[soup]

Those aren't spikes they are cat pricklers

[MrCheerful]

On 21/10/2016 10:38, Jude wrote:

a radio report this afternoon said that a man had been arrested for
using a noxious substance to cause damage. Sounds exactly like the
description of what a skunklock does.

I also wonder about the transport of such an item (the skunklock) I am
sure that airfreight would look dimly on something with explosive
capabilities, so export, presumably from the US would be tricky.

[Alycidon]

That's why I put them up, but our new cat has found a way out of the garden by finding a foot long section elsewhere with no spikes, so we let him use it.

[JNugent]

That depends on how booby-trap weapons are classified.

> There can be no doubt that the ScunkLock is a weapon because it is "a thing
> designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage". It is a
> weapon disguised as a lock. If that doesn't make it offensive... how about we
> all go out and buy one?

What about if we all don't?

[JNugent]

On 24/10/2016 17:38, Phil Lee wrote:
> noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) considered Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:46:59

> Because it is physically incapable of being deployed except when it is
> being attacked - you have to hack through several millimeters of
> hardened steel to release the stink-bomb (which is what it is best
> described as).

If that is ALL it is (a specially-protected locking device deployed to
help prevent theft of the machhine to which it is attached), then it
doesn't sound any more harmful than this:

http://www.gehrersharp.co.uk/cash-valuable-carrying

[Jude]

From JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>:

I guess we'll have just have to wait and see how it goes then.

>> There can be no doubt that the ScunkLock is a weapon because it is "a thing
>> designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage". It is a
>> weapon disguised as a lock. If that doesn't make it offensive... how about we
>> all go out and buy one?
>
>What about if we all don't?

I don't see that there's any need to rush. We only have the word of the guy
who's flogging them that they work and they're legal. You know what they say
about something that sounds too good to be true...

[Jude]

From Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>:

>noti...@mailinator.com (Jude) considered Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:46:59

>Because it is physically incapable of being deployed except when it is
>being attacked - you have to hack through several millimeters of
>hardened steel to release the stink-bomb (which is what it is best
>described as).

The SkunkLock, so the claim goes, is "pressurised inside with a noxious
chemical deterrent that slams the would-be thief with noxious chemicals. The

chemicals are so disgusting they induce vomit in the majority of cases, and
elicit an instinctive response to run away immediately."

If it's just a difficult to get at stink-bomb then it is not worth the time we
are spending discussing it, let alone £88.

[Jude]

From MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>:

I don't think this device is going to fly, in more ways than one. If it came
up on Dragon's Den I bet no-one would want to touch it.

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:38:14 +0100
Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> Because it is physically incapable of being deployed except when it is
> being attacked - you have to hack through several millimeters of
> hardened steel to release the stink-bomb (which is what it is best
> described as).

I thought shackle locks were mostly defeated with a jack or hammer
rather than cutting, which is more applicable to chains and cables.