Danger in England!!!

[Fit2BKilted]

I would really appreciate seeing that written apology you recieved, Tom!

[Mike_Oettle]

Well done, Tom! Pernicious officials of that type deserve the public embarrassment they are so fond of handing out.
And at a game fair, too! What could he have been thinking?

Canuck of NI wrote: “ ‘Citizens’ can carry a sgian dubh, ‘subjects’ cannot?”
Until relatively recently, British nationals were invariably referred to as British subjects (subjects of the Queen/King). Perhaps somebody in the UK can give me a date, but there is now an Act of Parliament which specifically describes such “subjects” as citizens.
Having been born a subject of King George VI, and grown up as a subject of Queen Elizabeth until I was 11, I objected to having my subject status arbitrarily removed by the government of my country.
This is especially so because the referendum which decided that South Africa should become a republic was actually illegal.
The country’s electorate comprised white people (countrywide) and Coloured people (only in the Cape Province), but the Prime Minister of the day, Dr H F Verwoerd, arbitrarily announced that only white people would be able to vote, and that South West Africans would also be able to.
This despite the fact that South West Africa (now Namibia) was never incorporated into South Africa.
Had South Africa then had a Constitution like the one it has now, the courts would have overruled this decision.
But already in the mid-1950s the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled (in a judgment originating with a National Party-appointed jurist) that Parliament was sovereign, and could pass any legislation it wished.
That judgment was against the spirit of the Constitution of the time, but it was supported by the National Party, and became a standard by which later law-making and executive decisions would be measured.
In fact Parliament never did pass an Act authorising Verwoerd’s arbitrary change in the electorate, but the decision was allowed to stand, and has bedevilled the country’s history ever since.
And getting back to the topic under discussion: South African citizenship already existed in law in 1961, which meant that when I came of age I was automatically a citizen. But I have nonetheless been deprived of my subjecthood.
Regards,
Mike

[Tobus]

Well done, Tom! Pernicious officials of that type deserve the public embarrassment they are so fond of handing out.

Hear, hear!

Sadly, though, in this day and age if a police officer sees that you are armed (even if it's a wee sgian dubh) and decides to confront you, he will likely already be expecting trouble. Any back-talk or response other than complete submission will result in a tasing, followed by an arrest on charges of "obstructing justice" or even "assault on an officer". It happens every day, at least here in the States.

Leaving aside my personal opinion on such behavior by the police toward those they are supposed to "protect and serve", suffice it to say that one should think twice when confronted by an officer over a weapon, before deciding to attempt to publicly reprimand him.

[Foxgun Tom]

Tobus say's "Leaving aside my personal opinion on such behavior by the police toward those they are supposed to "protect and serve", suffice it to say that one should think twice when confronted by an officer over a weapon, before deciding to attempt to publicly reprimand him."

I appriciate your comments but here in the UK the police are here to serve first and foremost! They are paid servants of the public, and none of them are above the law or immune from being criticisedby denying my rights under current legislation here in the UK, police officers here can't do as they please and escape the consequence's of their actions, thank God! they can't taser you first here and then ask questions

This officer had no right or cause under current UK legislation to confront me over my wearing traditional dress, sporran or or sgian dubh My rights as a citizen of the UK were being questioned by a public servant who's main duty is to enforce the law not make them up to suit his situation and here in the UK and Scotland the public and citizens have every right to reprimand an officer in public or private (were' still democratic countries) as far as I'm aware? This constable overstepped the mark by threatening to lay criminal charges against me, for legislation that does'nt exist or he interpretatated as wrong

Overall cop's are well meaning individuals who deserve a lot of credit for doing a difficult, dangerous and sometimes thankless job, but any cop that abuse's his posistion through ignorance of the law and make's threats should'nt in my opinion be in the job?

You also can't compare like for like ie: American law enforcement with British, we have different social issues, different arm's weapons legislation!

Tom

Ps: will post my written apology shortly as my office in the attic is being refurbished and files and paperwork are everywhere I've been unable to find anything at the moment!

[Lallans]

I think both of the posted points of view about arguing with the police are correct in their own way. Often, when an officer challenges a citizen on an unimportant matter, it's to size up their reaction and is done because the person is suspected of committing or plotting some real crime. This is very commonly seen at border crossings, for instance. The other, and completely unacceptable, sort of scenario is seen when the officer is just throwning their weight around for some personal reason and that sort of thing should be challenged by a citizen- with judgement. And with a really bad officer it might be best to do it with the person's superiors, after the fact if necessary (unfortunately a lot of criminals and people with personality defects have figured this out also). In the scenario described in Foxgun's posts, it seems clear that the young j--k o-f was outraged for anti-hunt PC reasons which are all too well known in the UK.

But ayuh, in all cases when arguing sgians with the police, it is well to remember the North American adage about not bringing a knife to a gun fight....

[Tobus]

Foxgun Tom, of course I agree with your comments. I only stated what I stated earlier as a reminder to some that the reactions can be completely different when a similar situation occurs in different places. In general, citizens should ALWAYS stand up for their rights. But those in authoritative positions don't always take kindly to being told they're wrong, and the evidence shows that one's attitude has a lot to do with how the message is received. In a perfect world, a citizen should be able to confront a police officer when he is in the right, and be able to get an apology. But that's a dangerous game, so I simply wanted to remind everyone that when you have a weapon on you and you are confronted by a police officer, be smart!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This whole issue is a nonsense! they're are numerous exemptions in law throughout the UK for carrying knive's, one is cultural ie: the wearing of a sgian dubh as part of national dress, religous ie: a member of th Sikh community carrying a karpa as a matter of religous observance and also another catagory of carrying a knife for good reason ie: a tradesman/journeyman or sportsman (fishing/hunting) who uses knive's in conjunction with work!

A short story to illustrate! I attented a game fair in England, a police officer objected to my fox-mask sporran and told me if anyone else found it offensive he would charge me with a criminal offence under Englands public order acts, He also intimated that my carrying of a Dirk and Sgean Dubh was also illegal under the aforementioned acts?

I pointed out the exemptions but! he was determined to carry on with his ludicrus actions, I had to supply my name and address, as that a legal requirement when asked for by the police here in the UK

I then asked the officer concerned for his personal details including full name, his senior officer on duty's name at the event and the name and contact details of his Chief Constable. I then told the officer in front of the assembled crowd that I found his behaviour deeply offensive and demeaning to me a a Scot for wearing my full national dress as I'm entitled to do anywhere in the UK

I also made it clear that I would seek legal advice, sue him personally, his superior officer on duty, the Chief Constable, and the local police board in respect of racial harrasment and discrimination!, his senior officer appeared took the constable aside to ask what the sitation was! as the story enfolded I saw the duty inspector;s face go from a dull ashen grey to marble white and then red with rage and embarrasment! He instructed his officer to apologise immediatley for any distress caused? he himself apologised on behalf of his force and the Chief Constable and would I accept and leave it at that? I replied no! I wanted a full written apology from the Chief Constable as a record that the incident happened, was recorded and an assurance under no circumstances would it happen again!

Guess what??recieved a full apolgy!!

Tom

Like I said above... reason # 73....

[Foxgun Tom]

Tobus thanks for your response's I have to say I think I was the one being smart rather than a smart - ***. As you say the Sgian Dubh is indeed a weapon (knive) but it is construed here as something rather more, its percieved as a fundamental part of a Scot's national dress! rather than something to be used as offensive weapon its recognised as being more decorative than offensive! I know of no incident in recent history in the UK where anyone has been injured as the result some-one wearing Scotland's national dress or a Sgan Dubh as part of?

All the officer in question had to do was contact the data-base at the PNCR (Police National Computer Records) as soon as I gave my personal details, Officers here can do that instantly!

He would have been given information regarding my status confirming my age (53), address, the fact I have never been in trouble in my life eg: no criminal record! and that I've held a fire-arm cerificate for 35 years! You don't get issued with one of those if your an idiot?

The event that I was attending and the situation I and the public were in no-one was in the slightest danger from anything? this cop just took a dislke to my national dress, my fox-mask sporran and my Sgian Dubh His manner and comments I found personally deeply offensive and very insulting and he was acting outwith his remit he then compounded the situation that I might be charged with criminal offence's that don't exist

He did'nt misconstrue anything he was ignorant of the law and my rights, part of his duties are to respect and uphold them!

That's why he was censured by his Duty Inspector and why I was given a personal written apology by his Chief Constable.

This thread was started by a newspaper article that was also ignorant of current legislation in the UK and was out to sensationalise a non story that fuels peoples misconceptions

All the best

Tom

Ps: If I was wearing jeans and a zipper jacket rather than my kilt, carrying a Sgian Dubh? and I did not have a valid reason for it being in my possesion?, and a valid reason would be! "that I had just purchased it and was taking it home and intended to wear it as part of my national dress

If I did not have a valid reason? the cop would be in the right and I would truly deserve all I get, charged, monetary fine or even prison?

Pps: I just looked at the link in your previous post with the greatest of respect that's from an American perspective, Here in Scotland if challenged by a police officer we don't have to make make any comments statements or reply to anything that may incriminate us! You must by law provide details of identity ie: name , address and birthdate! You can be held while those details are verified and obviously if your suspected of a crime

The Scottish legal system is also different from the rest of the UK and there is a difference in some rules of evidence