T Nation

There's a Lot Wrong with Britain


Even worse.

September 08, 2009

Chad Love: Scouts Ban Knives in Great Britain

I've previously waxed poetic about my love for all things British, especially fine English doubles .

Unfortunately, however, Great Britain is also home to some of the most bizarre and draconian weapons laws on the planet. As such, many Americans like to hold up the British Isles as an example of what's on the horizon for us, but after seeing this bit of news this morning I don't buy that argument any more, because there's simply no way we could ever go as collectively crazy as this...right?

From the story:

LONDON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- British Scouts will no longer be permitted to carry knives, even on camping trips, due to an increase in fatal stabbings, Scout officials said Sunday.

Traditionally, Scouts learned to use knives properly to cut wood for fires or to carve tools. Recently, the Scout Association said parents should be the ones to bring knives to meetings or on camping trips, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

"We believe that young people need more places to go after school and at weekends, where they can experience adventure without the threat of violence or bullying and the need to carry weapons," a Scouts spokesman said. "Scouting helps to prepare young people with valuable life skills, while keeping them safe by not carrying knives."

I don't even know where to start with this one. The sheer lunacy of it has temporarily disabled my smartass commentary reflex. Boy scouts. Without knives. Because it's too dangerous..



Sort of BS.



Dammitt, Irish...!

Now you KNOW somebody is going to work Obama into this discussion!

Seriously...I think that what's going to really bite Britain in the proverbial ass is allowing Islamic LAW....let me repeat...Islamic LAW...slowly creep into their justice system.



Don't look now, but I think you just did.


I don't get it. Have the Boy Scouts been knifing one another?

I've heard the laws have had no effect because of all of the gun trafficking from Eastern Europe.


Oh, you don't know the half of it. We're royally fucked all right.

But in my line of work, I could probably get a good job anywhere in the world. And when I try to work out where I'd want to move to ... everywhere has serious problems.

That's kind-of BS. Your country has alternative dispute resolution, too, I'm pretty sure: two parties to an argument can opt for their case to be heard wherever they like. I doubt that a Sharia court is any worse than Judge Judy...

The caveat, of course, is that in family law in particular, it's not obvious that the woman has truly consented to being bound by that alternative "court".


The problem is that shari'ah law also includes beheadings for apostasy, the amputation of limbs for theft, and stoning for adultery as well as 2nd class citizenship for non-Muslims. The other problem is that those pushing for shari'ah law won't content themselves with shari'ah-lite (what they have now). They never do as things are never Islamic enough.

Case in point:

At least rifts are beginning to emerge between the Left and Islam in Europe.

Edit: I'd also welcome your comments on the latest round of Muslim rioting/intimidation in the UK:


You live there, Doc, so you would have a better "feel" for things...

Is it really THAT benign? In other words, comparing Islamic Dispute Resolution (women will almost ALWAYS lose to a man, by the way), to Judge Judy???

(Again...just trying to learn something here, and get a better feel for what is going on across the Pond).



Well, I'm kind-of torn. There's a lot of hysteria: some mis-placed, and some a justified reaction to the ambitions of those who want to re-write our system of law.

If two Muslim businesses have a contracts dispute and go to a Shaira court to resolve it, I have no problem with that. I don't even think it's the thin end of the wedge: I would see it on a par as electing to sit under Judge Judy's jurisdiction. And I think there are actually a huge number of folks in that community who are content with that.

Undoubtedly, there are a handful of people at the other end of the scale, who want to replace common law and statute law - civil and criminal - with their own system: first on a "voluntary" basis, and later through compulsion. I'd like to think that this will meet with implacable opposition by the huge majority who love freedom and democracy, but I confess that my confidence is getting shaky.

Somewhere in the middle, as I say, are things like family law - and a bunch of people who want to extend steadily the reach of these alternative courts. If people are genuinely consenting - and the judgments are consistent with the prevailing law of the land - then there is an argument for this. But that's a mighty big 'IF'. This is the area where even our socialist friends are waking up and getting worried. They don't care too much about curtailing free speech in the name of multiculturalism, but at least women's rights are still judged to trump that.

As regards the rioting and protests: that's a new-ish thing, and no one is sure what to do with it. There is a consistent pattern that the violence doesn't appear to have been initiated by the protesters (but rather, by the anti-fascist league, most often) - but getting to the truth is difficult. It strikes me that the irony is that the anti-fascists are still fighting the battles of the last century (against white xenophobes) whereas the truly dangerous modern fascism comes from those who would wish by force and not-so-gentle persuasion to establish a new Muslim world order.

I am persuaded that the latter are actually quite a small group, and that the moderates may yet manage to put them in their place. But I'm an optimist, and I could be wrong.


There is so much wrong with my country that I just don't know where to start. Living here you hear some things that don't get into the mainstream press and frankly they scare me.


In fact that is quite an interesting development.

Are other private laws also replacing the "official" law?

From a libertarian perspective all of this has some serious potential, after all if they can have separate courts because of religion why not other people for political opinions?


I'm no lawyer, and I tend to avoid them :-). But as I understood it, for a huge class of issues in civil law in America and Britain, the parties have the option of using a wide range of dispute resolution methods - with recourse to the "official" courts only if all else fails. I think this is the means by which Judge Judy can give binding decisions.


Yes, I'd say there's a healthy libertarian potential in there.

Obligatory T-Nation comment: I guess this means you can resolve property disputes by arm-wrestling, bench-pressing or pissing contests. Provided you agree to it ahead of time.


Yes, but once you appeal to the force of law no civil society can hope to avoid riotous chaos without the application of one general system for all. I can hear it comin from I know who, but this is absolutely the case.




The table has been set. The British have now been thoroughly disarmed. Panic tactics worked nicely. Fools.

Now the only people with weapons are the criminals and those in charge of the British sheep. LoL. Good for them.

Here's a snot rocket for Britain.


If obama had any balls he could keep our allies in check and they wouldn't feel the need to make such ridiculous laws.
And since obama is a muslim terrorist, he is quietly subverting the English justice system by encouraging his cohorts to slowly bleed into the system.


Well done.


I think I could take a knife wielding boy scout. Probably a couple of them. In fact, I'd say 5 might be the upper limit. They can't have much of a chin at that age, so the knockouts would come fast. True, Boy Scouts are trained and honed for survival, but with or without a blade, I'm still going to have reach advantage and a berzerker rage triggered by being cornered by evil children (they freak me out). Besides, I've seen some knife disarms on youtube.


Not true. Why should you or anyone else care what people decide about arbitration before arbitration is necessary? This is the way insurance companies already do it.

Besides this none need appeal to the force of law to seek recompense for damages. There are a few solutions that make more sense that do not punish the rest of society for something that does not involve them.

Society is not going to erupt into chaos because Judge Judy decides someone owes someone else $500 for damages to their property. In fact since most disputes only involve individual parties we can automatically exclude the rest of society.


Thanks...never let a good stereo type go to waste.