Swords not on for public practice in London

[lklawson]

And? I'm not going to nit pick about who can afford to pay for training and who can't.

And? Well to answer your specific question, the "and" is that you were apparently willing to nit pick about it earlier when it seemed reasonable to you that anyone who wanted to train could afford to rent a space. If you're willing to agree that some can't then there's no point of disagreement.

The fact is that it's illegal to have a sword uncovered on our streets, that's the way it is and if people don't like it don't come here. Simples.

I don't disagree with that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Grenadier]

Admin's note:

Some posts in this thread have been removed, due to their being either of a trolling nature, or off-topic.

If you wish to discuss what is legal and what isn't, that's fine. It is, after all, appropriate to know what the laws of the land are.

Discussion about weapons politics is not appropriate for Martialtalk.com, and should be taken elsewhere.

 

[Tez3]

The law that the chap in the OP broke isn't a specific one for swords, it has nothing to do with the legislation that was enacted a while ago because of the fake 'Samurai' swords that were flooding into the country. The original law and the one he was arrested under was passed in 1953 and has been updated slightly in intervening years. If these sword people are petitioning to have this law, The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 repealed I would be more than surprised as their attention is on the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008. Two different laws I'm afraid.

 

[Tez3]

Looking back over this thread I realise that we are talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about the law which makes carrying an offensive weapon in public illegal and Mr Lawson is talking about the law that some thought would make owning a sword illegal in the UK. Neither of these laws by the way includes firearms because they come under their own laws.
It has not been legal for over sixty years and probably before then ( I only know the more recent Acts from my work training) to possess ( which under the law actually means carry) offensive weapons in public. It doesn't specifically mean swords it can mean quite a lot of articles.

"Possession of an Offensive Weapon
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold 24-106a.)

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (Archbold 24-115)."


The chap with the sword will have been arrested but in all likelihood will either not be charged ( but be given a caution ) or will be charged only with simple possession as there was no intent to cause injury (most likely be given a community order) There is an offence committed though which ever way.

The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for having the weapon (Archbold 24-121-122). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with the police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary.
Defence
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:

• he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
• he had the article for use at work; or
• he had the article for religious reasons; or
• he had the article as part of a national costume; (Archbold 24-125).

The defendant does not discharge the burden of showing "good reason" just by providing an explanation that is not contradicted by the prosecution evidence: (Archbold 24-128). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination."


There is no public outcry about repealing this Act, if anything there are pressure groups who want it tightened up further which most people in the legal/policing business think is unnecessary as there is enough in there to cover just about every instance.

This is the law ( courtesy of someone who has written it out without the legalese) as it concerns specifically swords and which did attract petitions and protests.

Sword Legislation - Ninja Sword

 

[ballen0351]

According to the exchange rate sites I check, it fluctuates.

You'd think, but that's not necessarily so. I know some folks who have to scrimp and save for a fair period to be able to afford an entry level beater and would be hard pressed to cut an extra $5-10 every week (assuming they want to practice more than once per week) out of the family budget. Over the course of a year, that adds up to real money. I also know of a few folks who would have none at all but for loaners and gifts. I suppose that all but the most down trodden could afford an extra "couple of quid" every other month or so, but would you be willing to only train once a month?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

If they cant afford to practice their hobby legally then they need to pick a new hobby they can afford.

 

[lklawson]

Looking back over this thread I realise that we are talking at cross purposes.

What?!?! You mean that, devoid of intonation, facial expressions, and other non-verbals, while separated by several time zones, an ocean, and a <ahem> "common" language, while afflicted by the vagaries of the written word, complete with different spellings, slang, and cultural idioms with a healthy salting of nationalistic pride and emotion that we might not be communicating on 100% exactly the same wave length?!?!

SURELY YOU JEST!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tez3]

My dear chap, you just need crystal balls!

 

[PhotonGuy]

'Martial arts enthusiast arrested after training with sword in park'

"A man has been arrested after allegedly taking two swords into a north-east London park, apparently as part of his exercise regime."

Were these real swords? Taking real swords out in public can get you in trouble but if you're going to train in public you could use wooden practice swords.

 

[lklawson]

Were these real swords? Taking real swords out in public can get you in trouble but if you're going to train in public you could use wooden practice swords.

The story doesn't say but they do have a photo of the sword in a clear plastic bag. It appears to be some silvery metal. It is unknown if it is sharp steel, blunt steel, or blunt aluminum, or just a really good paint job.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

The story doesn't say but they do have a photo of the sword in a clear plastic bag. It appears to be some silvery metal. It is unknown if it is sharp steel, blunt steel, or blunt aluminum, or just a really good paint job.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Could just be a stock photo as well. I can't imagine much effort being put into a story of an arrest that I imagine wil result in a fine.

 

[lklawson]

Could just be a stock photo as well. I can't imagine much effort being put into a story of an arrest that I imagine wil result in a fine.

Maybe. Here's the first photo:

The caption for it is, "Seized: A sword that was taken into a Walthamstow park Metropolitan Police"

Here's the second photo:

The caption for it is:, "Weapon: It is thought the man may have been exercising"

The caption for the first implies that the photo is the action confiscated item but it may, indeed, be a "stock" photo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

BTW, the regular size/magnification on the first image makes it appear to have a very porous and light gray surface, consistent with cheap molded aluminum.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Were these real swords? Taking real swords out in public can get you in trouble but if you're going to train in public you could use wooden practice swords.

Doesn't matter.
1 - Most people don't know the difference between a cheap piece of crap aluminum bladed and the best hand forged pattern welded meteoric steel.
2 - The law there, as provided by Tez3, says 'anything that can be used as an offensive weapon' which would certainly include wooden swords. Hell, I could give you some serious injuries with a shinai, let alone a bokken...

 

[Tez3]

Yes, wooden swords are weapons...obviously, so shouldn't be carried or trained with in public, they are actually better weapons than cheap metal swords.
Carrying a cricket bat around in the middle of the night in winter is likely to get you stopped in certain parts of the country. Walthamstow is not known as a haunt for martial artists though, it's the centre of the 'Grime' music scene lol.

One thing to bear in mind is that while we are trying not to go overboard, and we are used to terrorist activities over the past decades we are quite careful about large edged weapons currently. There are currently several threats to decapitate military personnel and police officers as well as the general threat. The alert state is high and a man 'waving' swords around in a London park is going to ring alarm bells as well as causing a great deal of public concern and worry. This may seem trivial to some but I can assure you it isn't. Common sense should have told him this even if he didn't know the law, which actually is not excuse. there's no excuse either for stupid behaviour like this
Man who threatened to decapitate army cadets given suspended sentence

This is the awful murder that makes us shudder at the actions of the man in the OP is this

Soldier murdered in Woolwich named as Drummer Lee Rigby

 

[PhotonGuy]

Yes, wooden swords are weapons...obviously, so shouldn't be carried or trained with in public, they are actually better weapons than cheap metal swords.
Carrying a cricket bat around in the middle of the night in winter is likely to get you stopped in certain parts of the country.

So how about a cane or an umbrella?

 

[Tez3]

So how about a cane or an umbrella?

What about them?

 

[Dirty Dog]

So how about a cane or an umbrella?

The law quoted was quite specific. What part of "if you can hit someone with it, you can be arrested for carrying it" isn't clear?

 

[Tez3]

If you are using tools ie umbrellas, canes etc for the purpose they are intended for you will obviously have no problems. If you modify them to be used as weapons then you will have something that is illegal. If you use anything at all as a weapon and attack people you will have a very big problem. British policing is very much a matter of common sense and police are given a lot of leeway on how they proceed with incidents. however a great deal of common sense can also be used by the public, after a beheading incident nearby one doesn't take swords to a park to practice, leastways not if you don't want to attract police attention.
Police officer | Police Recruitment how police are trained here.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I see. Umbrellas and canes obviously have different uses aside from hitting people but they can nevertheless be used to hit people and can be quite effective at that. To say that somebody can be arrested for carrying something that can be used to hit people, that could include all sorts of stuff that people ordinarily carry on a regular basis. If that were the case, I wouldn't even go out carrying a briefcase. I scrolled up to post 24 where it states "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use" so carrying a sword obviously would get you in trouble regardless of how you're using it, but as for something such as a cane that would depend on how you're using it.

 

[Tez3]

I see. Umbrellas and canes obviously have different uses aside from hitting people but they can nevertheless be used to hit people and can be quite effective at that. To say that somebody can be arrested for carrying something that can be used to hit people, that could include all sorts of stuff that people ordinarily carry on a regular basis. If that were the case, I wouldn't even go out carrying a briefcase. I scrolled up to post 24 where it states "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use" so carrying a sword obviously would get you in trouble regardless of how you're using it, but as for something such as a cane that would depend on how you're using it.

Oh dear. Are you insinuating that that the police officers can't tell the difference between someone using an article for it's intended purpose and someone using an article to commit assault? If you have no intention of committing a crime why would you worry about carrying anything like a briefcase, umbrella or cane in public? Though very few people use canes, walking sticks or walking poles are the norm. Canes would be seen as a fashion faux pas lol as are briefcases, they are passe, it's all messenger bags now.
Really though, we carry on quite normally carrying all the things we need to live life here, we aren't bothered by the police, they only come into your life in two incidences, one when you need help and the other when you've committed a crime. Though if you need to ask the time a police officer will oblige.....