Re: Carrying a stanley knife in public (in pocket)
Mrcheerful
> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a
> blade of less than three inches, in the UK.
>
> Does this include a Stanley knife?
>
> I ask, as where I now lives has nigger living nearby.
>
> I do not want to have to defend myself against nigger with an
> expensive Spyderco pocket knife, as any such knife used would be
> thrown away afterwards to prevent getting AIDS from nigger blood.
>
> However, I have read elsewhere that traditional Stanley knifes are a
> no-no unless they associated with a trade.
>
> many thanks
any knife may be considered as an offensive weapon, unless you can show that
you have a good reason to carry it, only a court can decide whther your
reason is acceptable, but carrying it in case of attack will not be. On
your way to fit a carpet may be .
F Murtz
> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a blade of
> less than three inches, in the UK.
>
> Does this include a Stanley knife?
>
> I ask, as where I now lives has nigger living nearby.
>
> I do not want to have to defend myself against nigger with an expensive
> Spyderco pocket knife, as any such knife used would be thrown away
> afterwards to prevent getting AIDS from nigger blood.
>
> However, I have read elsewhere that traditional Stanley knifes are a no-no
> unless they associated with a trade.
>
> many thanks
>
Roger Dewhurst
> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a blade of
> less than three inches, in the UK.
>
> Does this include a Stanley knife?
One fellow got a prison sentence when the police found one in his car
although it was an essential tool for his job.
R
Keith P
They have a 'fixed' blade
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can in fact get both.
Ian Jackson
<b3d1657f-8578-49c3...@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
harry <harol...@aol.com> writes
If the police really wanted to nick people for carrying 'offensive
weapons', they would be queuing up outside the exit at B&Q and Homebase.
--
Ian
Jeff
> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a blade of
> less than three inches, in the UK.
What is a "none locking knife"?
Perhaps you mean "non"
Jeff
A.Lee
Care to give a link for that?
I dont believe it.
There must be more to it than just having a knife in a car.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
The Peeler
Why? The knives are sold separate from the blades.
®i©ardo
LOL, especially on a Wednesday outside B & Q, when it's 10% off for the
over 60s!
--
Moving things in still pictures
A.Lee
Are you being completely thick, or just trolling?
How many knives are sold without blades in DIY shops?
I dont think I have ever seen a knife sold without its blade.
The Peeler
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:05:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >If the police really wanted to nick people for carrying 'offensive
>> >weapons', they would be queuing up outside the exit at B&Q and Homebase.
>>
>> Why? The knives are sold separate from the blades.
>
>Are you being completely thick, or just trolling?
Are you some kind of idiot? Have you ever been to B&Q?
>How many knives are sold without blades in DIY shops?
>
>I dont think I have ever seen a knife sold without its blade.
The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
steve robinson
Depends which knife you buy
A.Lee
<http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?fh_view_size=10&fh_eds=%3f&fh_ref
facet=specificationsProductType&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fca
tegories%3c%7b9392048%7d%2fspecificationsProductType%3dretractable_knive
s&fh_refview=search&fh_search=knifes&fh_refpath=facet_159016185&ts=12867
06464076>
Which of these knives comes without a blade already in place?
So, you are just trolling.
Steve Firth
> > Stanley knifes have a locking blade.
>
> They have a 'fixed' blade
Stanley knives have various blade mechanisms which the police may
consider to be:
1. Fixed
2. Gravity knife
3. Flick knife
4. Locking
Depending on what frame of mind they are in, I suspect.
The most recent series of such knives would be considered to be a lock
knife or a flick knife since they fold, are operated by a button on the
handle and spring open when the button is pressed. These are also
provided with a holster for belt attachment.
Ian Jackson
robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes
Of course it does. More often than not, there's one blade in the knife,
and a pack of spares - unless, of course, they've adopted yet another
nanny state policy!
--
Ian
Ret.
The OP is clearly a troll and I'm surprised so many people are feeding
him...
--
Kev
The Peeler
Who are you calling a troll, filth?
JohnR
"®i©ardo" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uZidnW2h0alJFSzR...@bt.com...
Ste
Actually I seem to recall that courts have found that it *may* be
reasonable to carry a knife for genuine self-defence in case of
attack, but only where there is a specific and credible threat, and
not just a generalised fear.
Mrcheerful
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nAzy$oIiPXsMFw$t...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
I think a court would find that carrying a knife home after purchase would
be a good reason to be carrying one.
Big Les Wade
>
>any knife may be considered as an offensive weapon, unless you can show that
>you have a good reason to carry it, only a court can decide whther your
>reason is acceptable, but carrying it in case of attack will not be. On
>your way to fit a carpet may be .
What about in case you feel a sudden urge to slash your own wrists in
despair at the dreadful country Britain has become?
--
Les
Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
interest to the state.
AlanG
wrote:
>Mrcheerful <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> posted
>>
>>any knife may be considered as an offensive weapon, unless you can show that
>>you have a good reason to carry it, only a court can decide whther your
>>reason is acceptable, but carrying it in case of attack will not be. On
>>your way to fit a carpet may be .
>
>What about in case you feel a sudden urge to slash your own wrists in
>despair at the dreadful country Britain has become?
Hopefully that's what the OP wants it for.
Steve Firth
> >I dont think I have ever seen a knife sold without its blade.
>
> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
If you're referring to Stanley knives then you are wrong. The blades (2
of them) are packaged in the handle.
Steve Firth
> >> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
> >
> ><http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?fh_view_size=10&fh_eds=%3f&fh_ref
> >facet=specificationsProductType&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fca
> >tegories%3c%7b9392048%7d%2fspecificationsProductType%3dretractable_knive
> >s&fh_refview=search&fh_search=knifes&fh_refpath=facet_159016185&ts=12867
> >06464076>
>
> Your link doesn't work.
Lie.
> >Which of these knives comes without a blade already in place?
>
> Can't see them because the link doesn't work.
Lie.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>> >> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
>> >
>> ><http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?fh_view_size=10&fh_eds=%3f&fh_ref
>> >facet=specificationsProductType&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fca
>> >tegories%3c%7b9392048%7d%2fspecificationsProductType%3dretractable_knive
>> >s&fh_refview=search&fh_search=knifes&fh_refpath=facet_159016185&ts=12867
>> >06464076>
>>
>> Your link doesn't work.
>
>Lie.
Look at it, grocerboi.
>> >Which of these knives comes without a blade already in place?
>>
>> Can't see them because the link doesn't work.
>
>Lie.
Look again, you dumb wop.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
Who aksed you, you dumb Afro-Italian?
Keith P
I have a lock knife in my possession now. A 15 year old lad was showing
it off to me so I asked to see it and took it off him much to his
annoyance. I told him if he'd like to get an adult to come and collect
it I will hand it over. I'll hang onto it for a couple of weeks and then
dispose of it as I can't really see an adult turning up to collect but
I'd say that I have very good reason to be in possession of the knife
right now.
The Peeler
As long as you keep it at home...
Steve Firth
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:30:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
> >
> >> >> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
> >> >
> >> ><http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?fh_view_size=10&fh_eds=%3f&fh_ref
> >> >facet=specificationsProductType&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fca
> >> >tegories%3c%7b9392048%7d%2fspecificationsProductType%3dretractable_knive
> >> >s&fh_refview=search&fh_search=knifes&fh_refpath=facet_159016185&ts=12867
> >> >06464076>
> >>
> >> Your link doesn't work.
> >
> >Lie.
>
> Look at it, grocerboi.
Looked at it, clicked on it, it works, you're fucking incompetent, this
isn't news.
Tell you what why not try a reply that doesn't make you look like a
knuckle dragging moron, Pooch.
Steve Firth
You "aksed" everyone who reads the group. If you don't want replies
you're free to fuck off. I doubt you'll be missed.
Steve Firth
> I have a lock knife in my possession now. A 15 year old lad was showing
> it off to me so I asked to see it and took it off him
Theft.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:30:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
>> >> >
>> >> ><http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?fh_view_size=10&fh_eds=%3f&fh_ref
>> >> >facet=specificationsProductType&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fca
>> >> >tegories%3c%7b9392048%7d%2fspecificationsProductType%3dretractable_knive
>> >> >s&fh_refview=search&fh_search=knifes&fh_refpath=facet_159016185&ts=12867
>> >> >06464076>
>> >>
>> >> Your link doesn't work.
>> >
>> >Lie.
>>
>> Look at it, grocerboi.
>
>Looked at it, clicked on it, it works, you're fucking incompetent, this
>isn't news.
Doesn't work here, you Afro-Italian piece of shit.
>Tell you what why not try a reply that doesn't make you look like a
>knuckle dragging moron, Pooch.
Take your own advice and try not to look so much like a dumb wop,
niggerboi.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:30:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I dont think I have ever seen a knife sold without its blade.
>> >>
>> >> The blade is not in the knife, even if they're in the same packaging.
>> >
>> >If you're referring to Stanley knives then you are wrong. The blades (2
>> >of them) are packaged in the handle.
>>
>> Who aksed you, you dumb Afro-Italian?
>
>You "aksed" everyone who reads the group.
I didn't aks you, you Afro-Italian piece of shit.
> If you don't want replies
>you're free to fuck off. I doubt you'll be missed.
I don't want replies from the likes of you. Feel free to fuck off
back to North Africa.
AlanG
<pember...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>I have a lock knife in my possession now. A 15 year old lad was showing
>it off to me so I asked to see it and took it off him much to his
>annoyance. I told him if he'd like to get an adult to come and collect
>it I will hand it over. I'll hang onto it for a couple of weeks and then
>dispose of it as I can't really see an adult turning up to collect but
>I'd say that I have very good reason to be in possession of the knife
>right now.
You mean you are a thief.
AlanG
wrote:
>Keith P <pember...@talktalk.net> wrote:
Indeed.
There is no law banning anyone 15 years old from having a knife only
from buying one. The law on possession in a public place is the same
for him as it is for an adult.
Keith P
Not at all there is no intent to deprive. He can have it back if his dad
comes to collect it.
Keith P
Theft needs an intent to deprive.
Keith P
As I have said there is no inetntion to deprive. You can do better than
that Alan.
GB
>
> Stanley knives have various blade mechanisms which the police may
> consider to be:
>
> 1. Fixed
> 2. Gravity knife
> 3. Flick knife
> 4. Locking
>
> Depending on what frame of mind they are in, I suspect.
Weren't the 9-11 hijackings done with box knives? I always assumed that is
something like a stanley knife. Clearly, it doesn't matter much what the
mechanism is. It's the intent behind carrying it that counts.
Roger Dewhurst
> Roger Dewhurst<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2010 9:42 a.m., Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a blade of
>>> less than three inches, in the UK.
>>>
>>> Does this include a Stanley knife?
>>
>> although it was an essential tool for his job.
>
> Care to give a link for that?
> I dont believe it.
> There must be more to it than just having a knife in a car.
> Alan.
It happened three or four years ago. I do not have a link. There was
quite a bit of discussion at the time. I am sure that someone else will
remember more detail.
R
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
R
Steve Firth
>
> I don't want replies from the likes of you.
Bless, it's sweet when the dumb have tantrums.
Steve Firth
> >Looked at it, clicked on it, it works, you're fucking incompetent, this
> >isn't news.
>
> Doesn't work here,
See comment about knuckle-dragging moron, you knuckle-dragging moron.
Steve Firth
> Weren't the 9-11 hijackings done with box knives?
Box cutters. They are the sort of knife that has a long blade that can
be broken off when the tip wears out.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
See comment about dumb wops, you Afro-Italian piece of shit.
The Peeler
wrote:
>The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't want replies from the likes of you.
>
>Bless, it's sweet when the dumb have tantrums.
It's simply hilarious to see Afro-Italians with delusions of adequacy.
That means you, niggerboi.
AlanG
you stole his property
AlanG
You took it without the owners consent presumably under duress.
You're a thief
AlanG
<pember...@talktalk.net> wrote:
It's theft if you take no steps to return the property
AlanG
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
It was a newspaper worker who used the knife to cut bundles of
newspapers.
The Peeler
He did take steps to return the property...to an adult. If the
15-year old wasn't able to persuade an adult to get him his knife back
(and who would be surprised?) it doesn't change matters.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>It's theft if you take no steps to return the property
>
>He did take steps to return the property...to an adult. If the
>15-year old wasn't able to persuade an adult to get him his knife back
>(and who would be surprised?) it doesn't change matters.
Tell me, if I were to take your plasma screen TV without permission,
and refuse to return it unless your ex-wife came to collect it from me
on your behalf, would you regard that as theft or not?
--
Cynic
The Peeler
Tell me, don't you see a slight difference between that scenario and
the one originally posted?
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>He did take steps to return the property...to an adult. If the
>>>15-year old wasn't able to persuade an adult to get him his knife back
>>>(and who would be surprised?) it doesn't change matters.
>>
>>Tell me, if I were to take your plasma screen TV without permission,
>>and refuse to return it unless your ex-wife came to collect it from me
>>on your behalf, would you regard that as theft or not?
>
>Tell me, don't you see a slight difference between that scenario and
>the one originally posted?
Not in principle, no.
--
Cynic
AlanG
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>AlanG <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in
>news:nik3b6h2tend46mne...@4ax.com:
>
>> Hopefully that's what the OP wants it for.
>
>No.
>
>To deal with any of the many drug dealing, incest loving, child raping,
>heroin addicted, AIDS infested niggers that roam our streets.
Suicide?
The Peeler
Well, I hope you don't get caught carrying a plasma screen TV in
public.
Ste
> > wrote:
>
> >> Keith P<pemberton5...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I have a lock knife in my possession now. A 15 year old lad was showing
> >>> it off to me so I asked to see it and took it off him
>
> >> Theft.
>
> > Indeed.
> > There is no law banning anyone 15 years old from having a knife only
> > from buying one. The law on possession in a public place is the same
> > for him as it is for an adult.
>
> Theft needs an intent to deprive.
And there is an intent to deprive here. That there is some contingency
on which you will hand the knife back does not matter, because the
owner is entitled to unconditional possession of the knife. Cf. a
burglar would be no less guilty, if he said "I'd have handed it all
back if the police had caught me".
Ste
> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:a8d4e984-2e3d-4f41-891f-
> 9a7436971...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Actually I seem to recall that courts have found that it *may* be
> > reasonable to carry a knife for genuine self-defence in case of
> > attack, but only where there is a specific and credible threat, and
> > not just a generalised fear.
>
> I live near niggers. That's enough of a credible threat for me.
But not for the courts.
Ste
It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
The Peeler
wrote:
The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>>Tell me, if I were to take your plasma screen TV without permission,
>>>>and refuse to return it unless your ex-wife came to collect it from me
>>>>on your behalf, would you regard that as theft or not?
>>>
>>>Tell me, don't you see a slight difference between that scenario and
>>>the one originally posted?
>>
>>Not in principle, no.
>
>Well, I hope you don't get caught carrying a plasma screen TV in
>public.
It is you who is arguing that it is not a crime, not I.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
>>dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
No, it is present. Any return must fairly obviously be
*unconditional* for it not to be an intent to permanently deprive,
otherwise all any thief has to do would be to make the return
conditional on something he knows the rightful owner will not be able
or willing to do in order to remain untouchable by law.
I also believe that the word "permanently" does not have its literal
meaning, but means a length of time that is unreasonable. If I were
to steal the crown jewels, I would not escape justice by leaving a
note that stated that they would be returned in 30 years' time.
--
Cynic
Ste
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:18:33 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
As I've already stated, that ingredient is indeed present. It is clear
that he intends to permanently deprive the lad of the knife if an
adult does not come to collect it. That is all that is required for
this test.
The Peeler
That's correct. And it is you who is arguing that it is.
Your point?
The Peeler
>On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:25:53 +0800, The Peeler
><peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>>>It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
>>>dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>>permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>>his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>
>>The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
>
>No, it is present. Any return must fairly obviously be
>*unconditional* for it not to be an intent to permanently deprive,
>otherwise all any thief has to do would be to make the return
>conditional on something he knows the rightful owner will not be able
>or willing to do in order to remain untouchable by law.
None of which applies here. The offer to return the knife is a valid
one.
The Peeler
wrote:
>On 11 Oct, 17:25, The Peeler <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
I don't believe that's the case. Where do you get this stuff from?
Ste
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
This is just off the top of my head, and I've explained the reasoning.
As I say, it does not matter whether the intention to deprive is
absolute or contingent; we both accept that he *does* intend to
permanently deprive the lad of the knife, if no adult steps forward to
claim it on his behalf.
That said, authority for this is clear:
Theft Act 1968, s.6
“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
—(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without
meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless
to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; [...]
Davey Crocket
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J%4so.3119$Mb2...@newsfe21.ams2...
> Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>> I understand that it's legal to carry a none locking knife with a
>> blade of less than three inches, in the UK.
>>
>> Does this include a Stanley knife?
>>
>>
>> I do not want to have to defend myself against nigger with an
>> expensive Spyderco pocket knife, as any such knife used would be
>> thrown away afterwards to prevent getting AIDS from nigger blood.
>>
>> However, I have read elsewhere that traditional Stanley knifes are a
>> no-no unless they associated with a trade.
>>
>> many thanks
>
> any knife may be considered as an offensive weapon, unless you can show
> that you have a good reason to carry it, only a court can decide whther
> your reason is acceptable, but carrying it in case of attack will not be.
> On your way to fit a carpet may be .
Purveyor of fine coonskin hats.
The Peeler
wrote:
>On 11 Oct, 18:17, The Peeler <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
As you say, if no adult steps forward to claim it on his behalf.
>That said, authority for this is clear:
>
>Theft Act 1968, s.6
>“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
>
>—(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without
>meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless
>to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the
>other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
>dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; [...]
His intention is to return it to the youth via a responsible adult,
not to dispose of it. He isn't going to treat it as his own. He
doesn't want it. All he wants is to make sure a responsible adult is
aware that the youth has it.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>>>>Tell me, if I were to take your plasma screen TV without permission,
>>>>>>and refuse to return it unless your ex-wife came to collect it from me
>>>>>>on your behalf, would you regard that as theft or not?
>>>>>Tell me, don't you see a slight difference between that scenario and
>>>>>the one originally posted?
>>>>Not in principle, no.
>>>Well, I hope you don't get caught carrying a plasma screen TV in
>>>public.
>>It is you who is arguing that it is not a crime, not I.
>That's correct. And it is you who is arguing that it is.
>Your point?
That if it were not a crime as you insist, then why would I be
concerned about carrying a plasma screen TV?
--
Cynic
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>>It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
>>>>dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>>>permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>>>his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>>>The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
>>No, it is present. Any return must fairly obviously be
>>*unconditional* for it not to be an intent to permanently deprive,
>>otherwise all any thief has to do would be to make the return
>>conditional on something he knows the rightful owner will not be able
>>or willing to do in order to remain untouchable by law.
>None of which applies here. The offer to return the knife is a valid
>one.
If I were to take your TV set and promise to return it via your
ex-wife, the offer may be equally valid, but it is still a
*conditional* return and therefore does not meet the requirements that
would exclude it from being an act of theft.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>> >It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
>>> >dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>> >permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>> >his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>>>
>>> The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
>>
>>As I've already stated, that ingredient is indeed present. It is clear
>>that he intends to permanently deprive the lad of the knife if an
>>adult does not come to collect it. That is all that is required for
>>this test.
>
>I don't believe that's the case. Where do you get this stuff from?
From the correct interpretation of the law.
--
Cynic
The Peeler
If it's the same "in principle" as carrying a blade, why wouldn't you
be concerned?
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>His intention is to return it to the youth via a responsible adult,
>not to dispose of it. He isn't going to treat it as his own.
As far as the law is concerned he is *already* treating it as his own
because he is retaining control of the the knife.
--
Cynic
The Peeler
It's still not the same "in principle".
The Peeler
No more so than if a police officer were to confiscate the knife. This
is almost like a citizen's arrest without the actual arrest.
The Peeler
You mean from a treehugger's interpretation of what the law should be.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>That if it were not a crime as you insist, then why would I be
>>concerned about carrying a plasma screen TV?
>If it's the same "in principle" as carrying a blade, why wouldn't you
>be concerned?
I would also be concerned about being caught carrying a stolen knife,
though obviously a knife is a tad easier to conceal than a plasma TV.
--
Cynic
Cynic
They are both acts whereby the owner's property has been taken without
permission, and it's return has been made conditional on being made
via a 3rd party.
--
Cynic.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>His intention is to return it to the youth via a responsible adult,
>>>not to dispose of it. He isn't going to treat it as his own.
>>As far as the law is concerned he is *already* treating it as his own
>>because he is retaining control of the the knife.
>No more so than if a police officer were to confiscate the knife. This
>is almost like a citizen's arrest without the actual arrest.
Why would a policeman be permitted to lawfully confiscate a legally
held knife?
--
Cynic
Ste
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Yes, but as I've said the intention to permanently deprive does not
need to be absolute. Otherwise, a burglar could escape prosecution, by
claiming that in the event he was collared, he intended to return all
the stolen goods at once, and therefore did not "intend to permanently
deprive".
> >That said, authority for this is clear:
>
> >Theft Act 1968, s.6
> >“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
>
> >—(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without
> >meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless
> >to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the
> >other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
> >dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; [...]
>
> His intention is to return it to the youth via a responsible adult,
> not to dispose of it. He isn't going to treat it as his own.
He is "treating it as owner" as far as the law is concerned, because
he is imposing conditions on its return that he has no legal right to
impose, and which conflict with the lad's right, as owner, to
immediate and unconditional possession of the knife.
> He
> doesn't want it. All he wants is to make sure a responsible adult is
> aware that the youth has it.
That has no legal bearing, other than on the question of "honesty".
The Peeler
The difference being that you may get nicked for carrying the knife
whether it's stolen or not.
The Peeler
But not the same "in principle", the principle here being preventing
someone being in possession of something illegal.
The Peeler
Why would the knife be legally held?
The Peeler
wrote:
>On 11 Oct, 19:02, The Peeler <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
He would then have to prove his intent. In the case in question, the
intent was clearly stated to the youth.
>> >That said, authority for this is clear:
>>
>> >Theft Act 1968, s.6
>> >“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
>>
>> >—(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without
>> >meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless
>> >to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the
>> >other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
>> >dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; [...]
>>
>> His intention is to return it to the youth via a responsible adult,
>> not to dispose of it. He isn't going to treat it as his own.
>
>He is "treating it as owner" as far as the law is concerned, because
>he is imposing conditions on its return that he has no legal right to
>impose, and which conflict with the lad's right, as owner, to
>immediate and unconditional possession of the knife.
As I've said elsewhere, it's something akin to a citizen's arrest.
>> He
>> doesn't want it. All he wants is to make sure a responsible adult is
>> aware that the youth has it.
>
>That has no legal bearing, other than on the question of "honesty".
Which will be enough to swing the case.
tim....
I would have thought "on the way to fit a carpet" *would* be.
If it did come to court ISTM the issue will be the one of fact "were you
actually on you way to fit a carpet", not one of law "is fitting a carpet a
reasonable excuse".
tim
>
>
Jeff
>>>> dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>>> permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>>> his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>>>
>>> The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
>>
>> As I've already stated, that ingredient is indeed present. It is clear
>> that he intends to permanently deprive the lad of the knife if an
>> adult does not come to collect it. That is all that is required for
>> this test.
>
> I don't believe that's the case. Where do you get this stuff from?
The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that carrying the
knife *may* be illegal, does not give an ordinary person any power under
the law to *steal* that knife; that is to take it and not return it.
You also mention "citizens' arrest", you should also brush up on the
powers of arrest a person other than a Constable actually has.
It would be an illegal arrest if the person had not actually *committed*
an *indictable* offence; a person other than a constable has NO power of
arrest "on suspicion" of committing an offence.
So not knowing if a knife was being carried legally or not would make
any arrest (of the person or the knife) illegal.
Jeff
The Peeler
>>>>> It does not matter. The ingredients of theft are straightforward:
>>>>> dishonesty, appropriation, property belonging to another, intent to
>>>>> permanently deprive. The latter three are all present here. Arguably
>>>>> his conduct may have been honest, but that is for a jury to decide.
>>>>
>>>> The critical fourth ingredient is absent, though.
>>>
>>> As I've already stated, that ingredient is indeed present. It is clear
>>> that he intends to permanently deprive the lad of the knife if an
>>> adult does not come to collect it. That is all that is required for
>>> this test.
>>
>> I don't believe that's the case. Where do you get this stuff from?
>
>The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that carrying the
>knife *may* be illegal, does not give an ordinary person any power under
>the law to *steal* that knife; that is to take it and not return it.
It certainly seemed to be illegal in this case.
>You also mention "citizens' arrest", you should also brush up on the
>powers of arrest a person other than a Constable actually has.
>
>It would be an illegal arrest if the person had not actually *committed*
>an *indictable* offence; a person other than a constable has NO power of
>arrest "on suspicion" of committing an offence.
>
>So not knowing if a knife was being carried legally or not would make
>any arrest (of the person or the knife) illegal.
Based on the OP's post, I had the impression that the knife was being
carried illegally.
Mike P
Would carrying something like
http://www.shop4gerber.co.uk/gerber_pr2_5_knife.html
be illegal?
--
Mike P
Jeff
>>> It would be an illegal arrest if the person had not actually *committed*
>>> an *indictable* offence; a person other than a constable has NO power of
>>> arrest "on suspicion" of committing an offence.
>>>
>>> So not knowing if a knife was being carried legally or not would make
>>> any arrest (of the person or the knife) illegal.
>>
>> Based on the OP's post, I had the impression that the knife was being
>> carried illegally.
>
> Would carrying something like
>
> http://www.shop4gerber.co.uk/gerber_pr2_5_knife.html
>
> be illegal?
>
Maybe, but maybe not, it is not a prohibited item, so there may be a
reasonable reason to be carrying it, and that is up to a court to decide
not you.
Jeff
The Peeler
The blade is less than 3 inches long, so generally no, but it can
still be considered an offensive weapon if used for that purpose.
AlanG
<mikewpe...@NOSOSOSOSPAM.gmail> wrote:
It is not an offence to carry any knife if one has good reason to have
it in your possession. Subject of course to the laws that make
ownership of certain items an offence anyway. Flick knives etc.
Cynic
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>Why would a policeman be permitted to lawfully confiscate a legally
>>held knife?
>Why would the knife be legally held?
Why would it not be? If you are talking about someone carrying an
*illegal* knife, then why would you be prepared to give it to an
adult, which would amount to aiding and abetting a crime, rather than
handing it in to the police?
--
Cynic
The Peeler
It's not a flick knife, which would be illegal anywhere. It's a long
bladed knife which is only illegal in a public place. You would
presumably hand it over to an adult in a private place. Someone would
risk getting nicked taking it home, though.
If you did hand it in to the police, would it not still be "theft"
according to your reasoning?