Britain - The Official Thread

[lancia delta hf]

Explain how me, for example, a law abiding citizen who has never been arrested or even accused of a crime, arming myself in self-defence, is like pouring petrol on a fire. How is arming myself against criminals and thugs, a worse alternative than being completely defenceless if I can't outrun what is quite often a younger and fitter opponent?

In the UK you are suposed to be attacked gracefully and hope you survive.

 

[baldgye]

Only available online for a short while, everyone should watch this;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0brzkzx/they-shall-not-grow-old

 

[Tired Tyres]

What false equivalence? I didn't say anything about Canada or U.S.A. I asked how a law abiding citizen who has never been arrested or even accused of a crime, arming myself in self-defence, is like pouring petrol on a fire? I'm not equating anything to anything.

Because arming youself is against the LAW in this country. Doing so and not adding training in the use of said weapon isn't going to magically allow you to defend yourself.

There was a report on Radio 2 stating that over 60% of stab victims are stabbed by their own knife.

 

[Famine]

Only available online for a short while, everyone should watch this;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0brzkzx/they-shall-not-grow-old

I can't, because the BBC lobbied the government to change the rules so that their catch-up service was specifically covered by the TV Licence, despite already having a total monopoly on as-broadcast television, even though nobody else's catch-up service is.

 

[baldgye]

I can't, because the BBC lobbied the government to change the rules so that their catch-up service was specifically covered by the TV Licence, despite already having a total monopoly on as-broadcast television, even though nobody else's catch-up service is.

You don't have a TV Licence?
Universal picked up the rights to it after it's one day cinema tour did so well, so it should see international release and could see a home cinema re-release. It's an amazing piece of restoration work the likes of which I've never seen.

 

[Famine]

You don't have a TV Licence?

Nope.

I can actually understand BBC being entirely behind the TV tax paywall - after all, the licence fee pays for not just the BBC's programming but all of its television development and infrastructure over the last ~100 years - even if it includes iPlayer in the mix... but it's nonsensical that I'd still have to pay the tax to watch broadcast non-BBC programming that doesn't use its technology and network.

 

[baldgye]

Nope.

I can actually understand BBC being entirely behind the TV tax paywall - after all, the licence fee pays for not just the BBC's programming but all of its television development and infrastructure over the last ~100 years - even if it includes iPlayer in the mix... but it's nonsensical that I'd still have to pay the tax to watch broadcast non-BBC programming that doesn't use its technology and network.

Don't you have to have a licence to own a TV and watch broadcast or streamed content?

 

[Famine]

Don't you have to have a licence to own a TV and watch broadcast or streamed content?

No, you have to have a licence in order to receive (watch or record) UK broadcast television, and iPlayer. You can receive any television not available to broadcast in the UK (so technically you could watch a world-feed of F1, but not the C4/Sky F1 show), any streaming content except iPlayer after the broadcast, and any on-demand streaming content except iPlayer.

Essentially:
*Watch/record BBC - licence required
*Watch/record any other UK channel (ITV, C4, C5, Sky, UKTV etc.) - licence required
*Stream from iPlayer - licence required
*Stream from any other UK channel (ITV Player, All4, 5OD, Sky Q, UKTV Play) while show is broadcast - licence required
*Stream from any other UK channel (ITV Player, All4, 5OD, Sky Q, UKTV Play) after show is broadcast - licence NOT required
*Stream from any non-UK channel while show is broadcast - licence NOT required
*Stream from any non-UK channel after show is broadcast - licence NOT required
*Commercial on-demand services (Netflix, NowTV, Amazon Prime) - licence NOT required
*Commercial streaming services (Youtube, Twitch, etc.) - licence NOT required

 

[baldgye]

No, you have to have a licence in order to receive (watch or record) UK broadcast television, and iPlayer. You can receive any television not available to broadcast in the UK (so technically you could watch a world-feed of F1, but not the C4/Sky F1 show), any streaming content except iPlayer after the broadcast, and any on-demand streaming content except iPlayer.

Huh, well TIL!

Either way that film was funded by the BBC and The Imperial War Museum and was/is a fantastic use of the licence fee.
Not only that but all the footage The Imperial War Museum has from The First World War Peter Jackson has said his team will restore to the same quality as the footage in the film (sans-colour as that work is painstaking and very expensive).

edit
@Famine why don't you have a TV Licence, out of interest?

 

[Famine]

@Famine why don't you have a TV Licence, out of interest?

There's precious little point. We tend to watch when we want to watch, so we watch what we want rather than what's on. The only thing we ever watched on BBC was Casualty (always on iPlayer), because there's an A&E nurse in the house, and that just became Corrie with blood. Not that there was any sense to paying £140 a year for one show anyway.

It also means the TV isn't "just on" playing BBC News 24 in the background while nobody actually watches it, saving a metric ****tonne of electricity a year.

 

[Dotini]

Because arming youself is against the LAW in this country. Doing so and not adding training in the use of said weapon isn't going to magically allow you to defend yourself.

Thanks for mentioning training. You can receive training in the use of the cane in self-defense. What does your law say about the cane, umbrella and stick when used in self-defense?

 

[Famine]

What does your law say about the cane, umbrella and stick when used in self-defense?

Simply put, anything that is a weapon is a weapon (and thus cannot be used for self-defence), anything carried for use as a weapon is a weapon (and thus cannot be used for self-defence) and anything carried for use other than as a weapon is not a weapon (and thus can be used for self-defence).

This applies in the home also. If you have a baseball bat by your bed, it's a weapon unless you have a reason to have a baseball bat other than because it's a weapon. Which is why I have five hockey sticks.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because arming youself is against the LAW in this country. Doing so and not adding training in the use of said weapon isn't going to magically allow you to defend yourself.

There was a report on Radio 2 stating that over 60% of stab victims are stabbed by their own knife.

So 60% of the 1000+ London stabbing victims were running around minding their own business when someone reached into their belt, grabbed their knives and got stabbed? I'd love to see a link to that stat.

Well, all I can do is refer you to my and @MatskiMonk's previous posts. If you don't want to read them there's not much I can do.

You can't carry a knife in Britain and be a law abiding citizen. Our knife murder rates are lower than another country's with a widely armed population. Breaking the law and carrying weapons is ultimately not the answer.

When non US citizens weigh in on the American guns debate they're widely rebuffed as not knowing anything about the local situation. I don't see why I can't ask that we be granted the same courtesy.

Widely rebuffed by whom? Not me. This sounds suspiciously like, "shut the hell up, you're not one of us so your opinion is meaningless".

 

[UKMikey]

Widely rebuffed by whom? Not me. This sounds suspiciously like, "shut the hell up, you're not one of us so your opinion is meaningless".

Referring to carrying a knife as being law abiding sounds like you don't quite have a grasp on how weapons are regulated under British law. I've simply pointed that out (repeatedly).

Any value judgments you wish to apply to your own opinions are entirely up to you.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Referring to carrying a knife as being law abiding sounds like you don't quite have a grasp on how weapons are regulated under British law. I've simply pointed that out (repeatedly).

Any value judgments you wish to apply to your own opinions are entirely up to you.

At no point have I said anything about arming myself with a knife.

 

[UKMikey]

At no point have I said anything about arming myself with a knife.

I was referring to @Dotini's post #7900 above. Since you objected to me criticising it I'm not sure when we made the jump to "arming" oneself with non offensive weapons.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Simply put, anything that is a weapon is a weapon (and thus cannot be used for self-defence), anything carried for use as a weapon is a weapon (and thus cannot be used for self-defence) and anything carried for use other than as a weapon is not a weapon (and thus can be used for self-defence).

This applies in the home also. If you have a baseball bat by your bed, it's a weapon unless you have a reason to have a baseball bat other than because it's a weapon. Which is why I have five hockey sticks.

This is interesting.

I used to go to a Jeet Kune Do/other martial arts class years ago and one of the martial arts styles used sticks (I think it was a Filipino one, can't remember). We would regularly go to the class with these wooden sticks in our bags for the purposes of training in class. Say I was attacked on the street while carrying these and I pulled them out to use them in self defence, what would the law say I wonder....

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is interesting.

I used to go to a Jeet Kune Do/other martial arts class years ago and one of the martial arts styles used sticks (I think it was a Filipino one, can't remember). We would regularly go to the class with these wooden sticks in our bags for the purposes of training in class. Say I was attacked on the street while carrying these and I pulled them out to use them in self defence, what would the law say I wonder....

I did some research on this for the U.K. and my impressions is that it is lawful to carry weapons that are not otherwise outlawed if you are transporting them from place to place. Canada is similarly quite strict with carrying any kind of weapon for self-defence which of course doesn't prevent the criminals from carrying guns or bowie knives. I have a bit of a backdoor being a tradesman so I'm allowed to carry "tools". I use a sawed off hickory bat for sounding out blockages in overhead or suspended pipes, for example. I can carry a slightly larger knife than the public because I need it for specific purposes that are job related. Never leave home without them

 

[Roo]

I have a bit of a backdoor being a tradesman so I'm allowed to carry "tools". I use a sawed off hickory bat for sounding out blockages in overhead or suspended pipes, for example. I can carry a slightly larger knife than the public because I need it for specific purposes that are job related. Never leave home without them

If you never leave home without a knife and bat, you might still be considered to be breaking the law in the UK. What the law boils down to is a potential weapon is only legal if you have a good reason to be carrying it. Carrying your tools to, from and at your place of work would be fine; carrying them anywhere else is not.

To give an example: I used to work on a farm, and I would carry a locking penknife, which is not legal carry without good reason in the UK. Whilst at the farm or journeying between fields, it was legal as I had a reason for having it, but if I popped into a shop to get some lunch whilst on the way, the knife would become illegal as I had no reason to carry one in a supermarket. To fully comply with the law I should've left it locked in the car, although I never did. That's not to say a police officer would be likely to give me a hard time over it if they had stopped me (depending on the reason for stopping me, of course), but if they felt the need to, they could have. I'm no authority but I doubt "self defence" would be considered a good reason.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm no authority but I doubt "self defence" would be considered a good reason.

I'm steadfastly in favour of people not carrying knives, and indeed the evidence shows that people who carry knives 'for protection' are more likely to be victims of knife crime... but it's not clear why this is. But, I would argue that 'self defence' is actually a very good reason to carry a knife - the trouble is that different people have a different understanding or definition of what 'self defence' is.

It is a vexed question, but people's daily circumstances are vastly different - there is pretty much no (legal or otherwise) reason or justification for why I may wish to carry a knife on me, for example, but I can understand why a teenager living in East London may well feel very differently.

Knife crime is a self-perpetuating loop - the more knife crime there is, the more people will perceive themselves to be at risk and thus make them more likely to carry a knife themselves. The best incentive for otherwise law-abiding people to not carry a knife is for them to know that those who do carry knives are likely to be caught, and that means more police with more power to stop and search people, and much tougher penalties for people who carry weapons.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you never leave home without a knife and bat, you might still be considered to be breaking the law in the UK. What the law boils down to is a potential weapon is only legal if you have a good reason to be carrying it. Carrying your tools to, from and at your place of work would be fine; carrying them anywhere else is not.

To give an example: I used to work on a farm, and I would carry a locking penknife, which is not legal carry without good reason in the UK. Whilst at the farm or journeying between fields, it was legal as I had a reason for having it, but if I popped into a shop to get some lunch whilst on the way, the knife would become illegal as I had no reason to carry one in a supermarket. To fully comply with the law I should've left it locked in the car, although I never did. That's not to say a police officer would be likely to give me a hard time over it if they had stopped me (depending on the reason for stopping me, of course), but if they felt the need to, they could have. I'm no authority but I doubt "self-defence" would be considered a good reason.

The law is similar here regarding tools but I have the advantage in this regard that my truck is my workplace so I carry everything with me at all times. I have a personal vehicle as well but I rarely use it since I'd have to return home to get my truck if I was out and about somewhere with my car and get an emergency call of some kind. My only real concern is the downtown area. That's where all the bad stuff happens. Lots of drug problems, petty crime, street people all over the place and the murder and OD rate and has exploded here this year. I think we had 5 OD's in 24 hours this weekend and we might be up to 10 but it's at least 9 murders. In a city of only 200,000 that's a murder rate higher than Toronto which is also going through it's worst year for homicides ever. I have to go into that area once in a while after dark because of contractual obligations so I consulted a lawyer a few years ago and figured out what I could get away with and what I couldn't and adjusted accordingly. Once I get out of my truck I'm alert, aware and as armed as I can possibly be. A surly look wards off most people from any interest and the rest I just walk around or keep a few steps away from. I don't need to worry about this stuff anywhere outside of the downtown area and a couple of other seedy neighbourhoods but I like to be prepared when I have to be.

Anyway, sorry for massively off topic

 

[baldgye]

The best incentive for otherwise law-abiding people to not carry a knife is for them to know that those who do carry knives are likely to be caught, and that means more police with more power to stop and search people, and much tougher penalties for people who carry weapons.

Unfortunately our entire political system is busy with a single issue, and thus... ...oh and...

Though personally the idea of more police on the street only sounds like a less effective police force. I'd sooner scrap the Bobbie on the beat and replace them with someone in the office trying to break up the crime gangs that perpetuate the violence and crime that the majority of knife crime comes from.
(horribly worded)

 

[MatskiMonk]

Though personally the idea of more police on the street only sounds like a less effective police force. I'd sooner scrap the Bobbie on the beat and replace them with someone in the office trying to break up the crime gangs that perpetuate the violence and crime that the majority of knife crime comes from.
(horribly worded)

My understanding (which is limited), is that a lot of those office staff are taking retirement to get their juicy police pensions, then being re-employed by the force as that's cheaper than training and developing new people. Which is fine in the short-term as it keeps the experience within the force... but what happens in 10 years when those people really do have to retire and they've not been replaced?

I'd take more bobbies on the beat where I live, we don't have a gang problem, but I don't doubt people would feel safer if they saw at least one copper for every 200 little scum bags hanging around in the underpasses setting fire to rubbish bins.

 

[baldgye]

My understanding (which is limited), is that a lot of those office staff are taking retirement to get their juicy police pensions, then being re-employed by the force as that's cheaper than training and developing new people. Which is fine in the short-term as it keeps the experience within the force... but what happens in 10 years when those people really do have to retire and they've not been replaced?

I'd take more bobbies on the beat where I live, we don't have a gang problem, but I don't doubt people would feel safer if they saw at least one copper for every 200 little scum bags hanging around in the underpasses setting fire to rubbish bins.

Bobbies on the beat are wasted money. I’d rather they be actually actively trying to prevent crime than simple wandering about waiting for it to happen.

Obviously Broad Street on a Friday and Saturday night needs to be policed, but (for example) Birmingham city centre doesn't need unmarked cars full of armed police patrolling around the literally empty city centre streets (I know, I live there) its ridiculous

 

[MatskiMonk]

Bobbies on the beat are wasted money. I’d rather they be actually actively trying to prevent crime than simple wandering about waiting for it to happen.

Obviously Broad Street on a Friday and Saturday night needs to be policed, but (for example) Birmingham city centre doesn't need unmarked cars full of armed police patrolling around the literally empty city centre streets (I know, I live there) its ridiculous

Birmingham (and most our major cities) aren't representative of most of the UK though. Higher rates of organised crime aren't going to be tackled by the Bill pounding the pavements, but the Police can't actively prevent the kind of petty crime we see around my way unless they're seen as a deterrent. How would Police actively tackle Criminal Damage and Arson for instance which are often crimes of opportunity? (Parents not being useless lazy spongers who don't give a crap what their kids are doing would be one of the first things to approach!)

This is the picture where I live, with the different demographics of Birmingham I'm sure some places are the same, worse or better...

 

[baldgye]

Birmingham (and most our major cities) aren't representative of most of the UK though. Higher rates of organised crime aren't going to be tackled by the Bill pounding the pavements, but the Police can't actively prevent the kind of petty crime we see around my way unless they're seen as a deterrent. How would Police actively tackle Criminal Damage and Arson for instance which are often crimes of opportunity? (Parents not being useless lazy spongers who don't give a crap what their kids are doing would be one of the first things to approach!)

This is the picture where I live, with the different demographics of Birmingham I'm sure some places are the same, worse or better...

View attachment 779948

I agree Birmingham is not the whole of the U.K.

...but the whole point of having a nation under CCTV is that it can prevent and or successfully charge people who commit offences.

The two high marks on your graph (anti-social behaviour and sexual assaults) are the results of other areas in British society failing. You couldn’t solve or prevent those crimes with more police on the streets.

 

[MatskiMonk]

...but the whole point of having a nation under CCTV is that it can prevent and or successfully charge people who commit offences.

In town centres it can help charge people or provide evidence, but despite a heavy CCTV presence I know where I live that a) it is not actively monitored a lot of the time so can only be used for retrieval of footage to investigate, not to provide a means for the police to actively respond, and b) once you get outside of the town centre the CCTV is patchy to non-existent. Even if something is reported in progress the response can be that long any vandal, mugger of general scumbag can be off the CCTV grid in no time. The only park here, as far as I can tell, that has CCTV, is the one behind the Police station, even there a mugger with a bicycle can be off into the night and out of CCTV range within 30 seconds or so, and where I got jumped - despite being a local centre with school and shops, there's no public CCTV (not counting the one that looks at the cash-point)... but this is all getting a bit anecdotal, my point is still that outside of big cities where organised crime and gangs are a problem, not having an active police presence won't dissuade petty crime or crimes of opportunity, or do anything to give local residents a sense of safety or comfort (even if it's a placebo).

 

[baldgye]

...my point is still that outside of big cities where organised crime and gangs are a problem, not having an active police presence won't dissuade petty crime or crimes of opportunity, or do anything to give local residents a sense of safety or comfort (even if it's a placebo).

Sorry I could be reading this wrong, but your saying that an active police presence on the streets, even if it didn't prevent crime would be a placebo to stopping it?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sorry I could be reading this wrong, but your saying that an active police presence on the streets, even if it didn't prevent crime would be a placebo to stopping it?

errr...

... No, people are more likely to feel safe with a visible Police presence, even if the bottom line crime stats didn't actually change. And, back office detectives are not going to be able to actively prevent small scale crimes of opportunity - which might not be the ones that grab headlines like inner city acid attacks, but are the ones that statistically people in towns or suburban, or even rural areas are more likely to actually be a victim of.

 

[baldgye]

errr...

... No, people are more likely to feel safe with a visible Police presence, even if the bottom line crime stats didn't actually change. And, back office detectives are not going to be able to actively prevent small scale crimes of opportunity - which might not be the ones that grab headlines like inner city acid attacks, but are the ones that statistically people in towns or suburban, or even rural areas are more likely to actually be a victim of.

Ah ok, sorry the wording threw me.

I don’t agree, acid attacks aren’t prevented by police men with acid shields waiting to protect victims. I also don’t agree with the notion that people should be able to see police officers to feel safer.

That society run by emotions rather than stats and logic.