Dead in prison

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Last year 78 men, women and teenagers killed themselves in prison in England and Wales. Half of them were on remand awaiting trial, or sentencing.

This was the case with Wesley McGoldrick, who was caught shoplifting cheese and milk from a London branch of Sainsbury's on Saturday 16 April 2005.

When he admitted also carrying a knife, the 24-year-old was arrested, charged and, after a weekend in a police station, remanded into custody at Brixton Prison.

By the Tuesday afternoon, less than a day after his arrival at the jail, he was dead, having used bed sheets to hang himself from the bars of his cell window.

He was the 21st person to kill himself in prison in England and Wales that year. Another 57 were to follow.

The Prison Service says it is "completely committed to reducing the number of such tragic incidents" but a combination of circumstances make this a difficult task.


Gina Webb and her son Wesley McGoldrick
He was a real person and was my son but while they're in prison they're nothing, they're just a number
Gina Webb, Wesley McGoldrick's mother

The set of factors that surrounded Wesley's death are "sadly all too common" according to Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, a pressure group which provides support to families in deaths in custody cases.

He was a young male who had recently been remanded into a local prison - features which "are well known to the prison authorities for being over-represented for the number of people dying," she said.

Almost a third of suicides occur within the first week of someone arriving in custody and one in seven is within 48 hours.

Remand prisoners are likely to be placed in a local jail, many of which are overcrowded and may lack the staff or resources to provide intensive support for new inmates.

'Found dead'

The first Wesley's mother, Gina Webb, knew of her son's death was when her daughter turned up on her doorstep in the early hours of the morning, flanked by two police officers and sobbing hysterically.

The only information the officers had was that Wesley had been "found dead" - at that point neither Gina nor the police knew he was in jail.

"I had nothing to go on, just that one statement thrown in my face," she said.

"'Where did it happen? How did it happen? Was it an accident? Was he murdered?' It didn't matter what I asked, the answer was 'Sorry, we don't know'."

It was another day before she found out what had happened and a further day before she could identify the body.

'Signs of paranoia'

Once a keen athlete and footballer, Wesley had drifted into homelessness in his early 20s.

He had taken catering work with live-in positions but couldn't settle and the nature of his work meant that if he lost a job he also lost his home. His mother says she begged him to come back to the family home in Ruislip, Middlesex, but he would not.


PRISON SUICIDES 2005
78 deaths in England and Wales
8 deaths in Scotland (2004/05)
37% on remand awaiting trial
12 were under 21 years of age
Youngest was 16
Four were women
80% were in local prisons
131 people resuscitated after acts of self harm
Source: Howard League

Full list of the 78 who died
He was sleeping rough at the time of his arrest and Gina suspects he "wanted to get caught so he would have a roof over his head for the weekend".

Evidence heard at the inquest into Wesley's death indicated he had mental health issues. Gina believes her son's crime and his last desperate act were "a cry for help".

Officers at Kennington police station, where he was taken on his arrest, were sufficiently concerned about his state of mind to call a doctor who noted "signs of increasing paranoia".

However, the doctor's note was not seen by anyone at Brixton prison, the inquest heard.

Brixton prison gates
An investigation recommended changes in procedure at Brixton
Staff there said they judged Wesley's mental state based on conversations with him and the answers he gave to a medical questionnaire.

Neither gave any cause for alarm, they said, even though he admitted self harming previously.

Under the prison's own procedures this meant he should have been referred for a mental health assessment but this did not happen and he was not placed on suicide watch.

An investigation by the prison ombudsman recommended that mental health assessment training at Brixton was tightened up.

The governor of the prison, John Podmore, said "all prisoners undergo a comprehensive screening process" which "examines all aspects of mental and physical health as well as drug and alcohol issues".

He added: "We are working hard... to provide the highest standards of care for prisoners and continually looking to see how that provision can be improved.

"Tragedies such as the death of Mr McGoldrick cause us to look even harder particularly in the light of reports emanating from these events... our sympathies once again go to the family of Mr McGoldrick."

Fall in suicide rate

Suicide and self harm is recognised as one of the toughest challenges facing the prison service.

The 2004-05 annual report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons observed: "The pressure of population, the reactive culture in some prisons and the vulnerability of many of those in prison, will continue to make it difficult for prisons properly to protect those in their care."

But some headway does appear to be being made: the total number of suicides fell last year from 95 in 2004 to 78, a welcome drop after three years of record levels of self-inflicted deaths.

Bar chart showing prison suicides in England and Wales 1995-2005
It comes as prisons are beginning to implement a new system known as ACCT - assessment, care in custody and teamwork - which replaces the old suicide watch forms and is designed to be more focussed on the individual.

In addition, a new health screening process has been set up that is designed to detect mental health issues on arrival into custody.

Many jails now have several "safer cells" designed to be as free from potential ligature points as possible.

And the majority of prisons also run Listener schemes in which Samaritans-trained prisoners provide 24-hour confidential support to other inmates.

Prevention measures

A Home Office spokesman said "Every death in custody is a terrible tragedy for the families left behind and also has a profound effect on staff and other prisoners.

"The government takes the issue of suicide in prisons very seriously and, in the face of population pressures, suicide prevention efforts have continued with unprecedented energy and commitment."

But Gina Webb is still angry at a system which she believes failed Wesley.

"He was a real person and was my son - they all belong to somebody, they're somebody's husband or somebody's son. But while they're in prison they're nothing, they're just a number," she said.

"What ever reason they're in there for, they're in there. The state has a duty to care for the people they're supposedly looking after and quite frankly they haven't done it."

My editorial: convicted thief who happens to have a knife on him is sent to jail. Decides to hang himself in his cell.

Obviously, this is the fault of everyone except the criminal and the family - more staff to look after these poor traumatised people!!! They are so shocked that they were finally caught they need councelling to make sure they are OK.

Has the world gone mad???


~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Obviously, this is the fault of everyone except the criminal and the family - more staff to look after these poor traumatised people!!! They are so shocked that they were finally caught they need councelling to make sure they are OK.

Has the world gone mad???

---

The state has a duty of care to those it imprisons. Or perhaps you think a return to the days of capital punishment for stealing bread would be an improvement?

:no:

I'm kind of with Rory on this one.

They're in prison to be punished, not coddled and wrapped in cotton wool, and to be perfectly honest if they can't handle being in prison they should have thought of that before.

Quote:

---

My editorial: convicted thief who happens to have a knife on him is sent to jail. Decides to hang himself in his cell.

Obviously, this is the fault of everyone except the criminal and the family - more staff to look after these poor traumatised people!!! They are so shocked that they were finally caught they need councelling to make sure they are OK.

---

Point 1: This man was not convicted at all. He was "caught" shoplifting and admitted carrying a knife. Our legal system says he is innocent until proven guilty.

Point 2: He was showing clear signs of mental disturbance, and as Huruchai says, the state has a duty of care for those in prison, whether guilty or not. He did not receive that care and this contributed to his death.

Quote:

---

They're in prison to be punished, not coddled and wrapped in cotton wool, and to be perfectly honest if they can't handle being in prison they should have thought of that before.

---

A yes, the "they should have thought of this before" argument. Trouble is that you can use it to justify any treatment once convicted: death penalty, torture, hard labour, limb amputation. All these, according to this argument, are fine because the person knew about them before. Also, how is it "punishment" to be allowed to commit suicide? As I said before, this man was not in prison for or even as punishment because he was on remand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

My editorial: convicted thief who happens to have a knife on him is sent to jail. Decides to hang himself in his cell.

Obviously, this is the fault of everyone except the criminal and the family - more staff to look after these poor traumatised people!!! They are so shocked that they were finally caught they need councelling to make sure they are OK.

---

Of course, petty theft is such a horrible crime that it deserves death penalty! :dizzy2:

As usual, I find it very strange how people can judge others when they don't know a thing about their background. Petty theft is also such a small crime that even if he was just beaten or bullied just once when he grew up he has hurt society less than society has hurt him. One might also question why greater percentages of the population commit suicide every decade, it's clear that it can't be the genes of those persons because then they would have removed themselves by evolution. So what else but society remains that could cause it?

So, the fact that he had a knife and admitted shoplifting means that he is innocent on the basis that the courts have not convicted him.

Ah, he wanted a bed, hence the knife I guess. No, that was because he was becoming increasingly paranoid.

Bloody lucky he was imprisoned before he decided to stab someone.

My background was pretty crap. I was bullied for most of secondary school and required several years councilling. Antidepresants didn't work. I was diagnosed as severely depressed and my GP documented she was concerned re my suicide risk. I'll gloss over the rest.

Through this I fought on and got a degree in Medicine. At a recent interview when I recounted some of the details the GP on the interview panel stated that she was amazed at my tenacity, and that most would have given up before now.

"Society" didn't do that to me: the bastards that made my life a living hell did, and my own genetic make up did the rest. "Society" owes me nothing because of it. It happened and I can either sink or swim.

If I fail in a job I deal with it - I don't go crying to someone saying I had a nasty time as an adolescent and therefore I should be absolved.

Personally I don't care the slightest for the shoplifing. I agree that is a small and insignificant crime. Carrying a lethal weapon isn't.

I hope you're joking with that take on genetics.

Every failing teenager gets what? More help than the ones acheiving? And if they fail more, do we increase the care? When they become criminals is it everyone else's fault but their own? I say no to all of these.

Responsibility begins at home in the family and in the individual.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

They're in prison to be punished, not coddled and wrapped in cotton wool, and to be perfectly honest if they can't handle being in prison they should have thought of that before.

---

I can understand the sentiment, but the central problem with imprisonment (leaving aside the thorny question of remand) is this: Are you ever going to let them out again?

If the state decides no, every criminal imprisoned will stay there till they die, regardless of crime committed, then you have a huge resource issue - not for 'coddling' but for enforcement against inmates with no hope and nothing to lose. Not to mention the real estate needs.

If the state decides that imprisonment will reflect the severity of the crime, and therefore some of the imprisoned will return to society, you have to decide what that society would like these people to be when they rejoin. You can brutalise them in prison via a harsh punishment regime or you can seek to rehabilitate them in a positive regime where imprisonment removes their choice to avoid such rehabilitation. The former inmates are likely to return to society as brutalised individuals, the weaker and more impressionable having hanged themselves or become broken, and the harder ones ready to make an impact on the society that imprisoned them. The latter regime increases the chances that the inmate will return to society as a positive and reformed character - unless you believe that criminals never reform, in which case they should be imprisoned forever. However, rehabilitation costs a huge amount of money to do properly, and demands that society supports both the program and the inmates in their return to that society. Trying the rehabilitation route on the cheap (which is the most common 'solution') tends to increase society's perception that no punishment is being endured, and lets loose unreformed criminals who take imprisonment as a joke.

Use of imprisonment as a punishment gives no other options, just variations on a theme. They stay forever, or you let them out. If they come out, what do you want them to come out as?

I could see a system where prisoners have effectively full time jobs in prison 6 days a week, and apart from being restricted to their grounds and a cell at night are relatively free. Up at 6.30, breakfast at 7.30, start work at 8 till 8 with a one hour lunch break. Harsh? I hope so! But everyone is kept busy, and some of the work could help subsidise their incarceration.

But what to do with the real hard core scum? The ones that break all the rules however hard or soft they are? Locking them up for the rest of their natural life is one way, but what about a stint in the armed forces? Penal Legions. That would knock some discipline into them.

rehabilitatio also requires the inmates to support it. After all, the main blue collar criminals probably have been failing for a decade and more before they get locked up. School is expensive the first time around. Should society be drained of enough money to try to get them to learn the second or third time?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

So, the fact that he had a knife and admitted shoplifting means that he is innocent on the basis that the courts have not convicted him.

---

He admitted he had a knife and was caught shoplifting according to the article. Details are important. We have no idea why he had the knife and we are not told that he used it during the theft, so we can infer he probably didn't (although we do have to be careful with newspaper articles).

Quote:

---

Responsibility begins at home in the family and in the individual.

---

In this case, how could the family exercise any responsibility? The prison were respobsible for caring for this person, and they, according to the enquiry, did not execise this reponsibility carefully enough. This does not mean they are responsible for his death, but you can't argue they have no responsibility at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Locking them up for the rest of their natural life is one way, but what about a stint in the armed forces? Penal Legions. That would knock some discipline into them.

---

Speaking as a former officer, absolutely NOT. If you want your country defended, you don't want this either. It's been a long while since Wellington won battles with the scum of the earth.

Put another way, would you want them as nurses? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, the fact that he had a knife

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Carrying a lethal weapon

---

So you want every Texan locked up in jail or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

My background was pretty crap. I was bullied for most of secondary school and required several years councilling. Antidepresants didn't work. I was diagnosed as severely depressed and my GP documented she was concerned re my suicide risk. I'll gloss over the rest.

Through this I fought on and got a degree in Medicine. At a recent interview when I recounted some of the details the GP on the interview panel stated that she was amazed at my tenacity, and that most would have given up before now.

"Society" didn't do that to me: the bastards that made my life a living hell did, and my own genetic make up did the rest. "Society" owes me nothing because of it. It happened and I can either sink or swim.

---

So if you hadn't succeeded to cope with it, maybe if it had been going on for a longer time and every time you came to a new group it repeated itself, would you still say it was your fault? And think society was so beautiful? Maybe it's the rape victim's fault she got raped too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I hope you're joking with that take on genetics.

---

Who said I was joking? And why would it be better if I joked about it? It's true, and unlike some people with fascistical social-darwinistic political agendas I'm strongly against this development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

He admitted he had a knife and was caught shoplifting according to the article. Details are important.

---

Yes, and the detail here is that in the law of the UK, until he is convicted of a crime (including pleading guilty at his hearing) he is innocent, and treated as such by the law. Remand was always supposed to be a last resort to prevent avoidance of trial. You can bet that if his family was rich enough, he would have been allowed out on bail for such an offence.

Remand does not equal conviction, whatever the defendant has said at interview. These are rights long cherished to prevent the vulnerable being unjustly accused or forced into confession by law enforcement. (You may be amazed, but it has happened once or twice ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

Yes, and the detail here is that in the law of the UK, until he is convicted of a crime (including pleading guilty at his hearing) he is innocent, and treated as such by the law.

---

And long may it continue. (It is a detail I alluded to in an earlier post). My post was correcting Rory who said he was caught with a knife and admitted shopifting, which is the wrong way round,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

And long may it continue. (It is a detail I alluded to in an earlier post). My post was correcting Rory who said he was caught with a knife and admitted shopifting, which is the wrong way round,

---

Ah, apologies then. :2thumbsup:

I'm in the UK. He was in the UK. HERE knives aren't allowed.

Society is a horrible place. But that's life. If you can't cope then you can either persevere, or give up. I persevered, he gave up.

Placing all "rape victims" in the same category is not helpful. My favourite one was a woman who invited a bloke back to her place, stripped off and gyrated naked on his body when he was on the bed - then at that point said no. Yes, she was responsible.

There isn't a "suicide" gene. Genetics isn't that simple. There are traits however. Over thousands of years brains are getting bigger and features less coarse. We are still evolving. Sure, you can make society fight for every bad trait there is going. Thankfully you're fighting a loosing battle. Species are constantly changing. In nature to be at a disadvantage is generally to die. We choose to help these unfortunates. But to do so at the exclusion of others is shortsighted and ultimately counterproductive.

~:smoking:

I don’t really have an issue with suicide. If you don’t want to be around anymore, goodbye, just don’t leave a mess. It is a sad situation and shouldn’t be encourages but if my life sucks and I got sent to prison why shouldn’t I be allowed to stretch my neck if I want.

Now if someone is mentally ill they should be looked after, but if they are of sound mind and want to hit the reset button, let um.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Placing all "rape victims" in the same category is not helpful. My favourite one was a woman who invited a bloke back to her place, stripped off and gyrated naked on his body when he was on the bed - then at that point said no. Yes, she was responsible.

---

As in what happened to her?
Are you kidding me? She was a nasty bitch in my mind, but that doesn't make ir right for the guy to force himself on her. He should have left, firing off tirades of verbal abuse to get his steam down a bit, but to rape her for that?
By condoning such acts we are being reduced to animals who can't control themselves. We must always strive to control ourselves, much like you seem to have done.

I'm in the UK. He was in the UK. HERE knives aren't allowed.

Yes they are , does the newpaper article say what knife the person was carrying and if it was an illegal knife for someone to carry ?
Carrying a knife that is not within the legal rules as which make it a legal knife is a crime , and carrying a knife with the intention of using it in a crime is a crime regardless of if it is a legal or illegal knife.

I agree that we should control ourselves.

In trial, one has the story from both sides. The accusor states that they refused sexual intercourse, and were raped. The defendant takes the line that sex was consentual.

So, she cheerfully states that she got to that position and said "no". I would find her story sufficiently unbelievable to find sufficient grounds to not convict.

But even if for the sake of argument she did get to that position and say "no" I feel that at least 40% of the blame lies with her: if you are going to get into an position where you have a firm line which you won't cross, you'd better be sure that everyone else involved is aware.

By taking the woman's side creates a situation where one would require a witnessed statement before intercourse, in case later on the women decides to cry "rape!!": "yes, officer I got into bed with him, and we were both naked, but I had no intention of sleeping with him..."

Everyone blows off steam sometimes. I broke one finger on a concrete pillar after punching it, and lost use of the same hand for about a week in another event after a "friend" told me to "pull myself together". In both cases I reacted strongly after being provoked, and only I was hurt so no biggie. It was the "animal" reaction, but one that I failed to control.

~:smoking:

Ah, but you didn't provide this kind of info... You made it sound as if the man was in his legal right (if not moral) to actually have sex with her when it had gone that far. And that is not right.

If I was sitting as a jury I would likely find her a bit unconvincing, an the case would likely in my mind no go in favour of her. But that was not the point I contested.

No matter how far you go, even if the act has started and the female wants out it is her right. If rape does happen as a cause of this, she might have part of the blame, but that doesn't change the fact that she wasn't the one who commited the crime. And it ends there...
My GF have had several issues in this regard, and we have many times been forced to call it off even after it was started. Are you saying that if I pressed on it wasn't rape? Or that I was allowed to do so? Of course not... (I hope)
That she is my GF should change the facts of the situation, I was likely just as worked up as any other guy out there.

Apologies for failing to provide info. I do have a habit of thinking I'm reminding people of facts that are only in my own head at the time...

I agree that she committed no crime. Her actions did mean that to cry rape isn't going to get anywhere.

Sorry to hear your GF is a cold fish. I don't particularly want to know what you mean by after it "was started". There is an argument that she is being very selfish in always putting her own wants and desires in from of yours. But that's in your relationship.

My ex-GF thought that it was "funny" to start saying "Rape" at extremely inoppourtune times, and thought that it was strange in that I didn't find this equally funny.

~:smoking:

Two things jump out at me on this one.

Point 1

Quote:

---

This was the case with Wesley McGoldrick, who was caught shoplifting cheese and milk from a London branch of Sainsbury's on Saturday 16 April 2005.

---

Why was he shoplifting ?
Was it to feed himself and his mother because he couldnt afford to live on his state handout or wages. Or did he not believe that he should pay for what he wanted ?

Point 2

Quote:

---

When he admitted also carrying a knife, the 24-year-old was arrested, charged and, after a weekend in a police station, remanded into custody at Brixton Prison.

---

Why was he carrying a knife. We all now they are against the law in the Uk
Was it because he felt unsafe and needed it to protect himself in 'safe' Britain, or was it that he might have the opportunity to use it at a later time to mug somebody.

This takes me back to 'personnel responsibilty' if he did not have a knife and had not stolen then he would still be alive today. He made the choice to break the law twice. He was not forced.

It kind of makes me sick, this person choose his own destiny, every action as a reaction. However, if it was a point of he stole to feed himself and family then that is a different point. Which government and society are to blame.

Why was he carrying a knife. We all now they are against the law in the Uk

Carrying a knife is not illegal in the UK:wall:
As long as it is a non-locking folding blade not exceeding 3 inches and it is not being carried with the intention of using it for criminal purposes .

An invividual's benefit is approximately £40, if not slightly more.

That's 7 breakfasts (1 box cerial with milk): £2
14 other meals. Less than £14 - doable with less than £5

So, then we've got £26
Housing benefit is seperate, and I don't know how that works.

Even so to say he can't live off the money is just incorrect.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

and it is not being carried with the intention of using it for criminal purposes .

---

So why would u be carryting a knife ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Apologies for failing to provide info. I do have a habit of thinking I'm reminding people of facts that are only in my own head at the time...

I agree that she committed no crime. Her actions did mean that to cry rape isn't going to get anywhere.

Sorry to hear your GF is a cold fish. I don't particularly want to know what you mean by after it "was started". There is an argument that she is being very selfish in always putting her own wants and desires in from of yours. But that's in your relationship.

My ex-GF thought that it was "funny" to start saying "Rape" at extremely inoppourtune times, and thought that it was strange in that I didn't find this equally funny.

~:smoking:

---

Very well...

My GF is not a 'cold fish', there are real issues that aren't so easy to fix. And by 'started' I meant 'started the fun part'.
Luckily this wasn't always, or even most often, but still something that wasn't fun.

Agreed, I would get pretty 'lax' if she did that with me.~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Even so to say he can't live off the money is just incorrect

---

So who pays.......

Council tax (I believe u get some kind of benifit)
Water
Gas
Electric

So by your calculation you have a spare £26 per week

or £26*52 = £1352

Electric = £500
Gas = £500
water = £300

Not much left to cover over....
ie TV, Car, Fuel, insurance, phone etc.... I would like to see somebody live of £40 per week and not end up either insane or sick.

Right, the unemployed don't have to pay those bills you mention, for the reason you state that they can't afford to. They are exempt from council tax for example.

TV? Phone? Since when were these items required?

Insane or sick? What about employed as then they can afford the lovely toys you mentioned like phones and TVs - although the majority of people on benefit seem to be able to have TVs, phones and still spend a fair amount of alcohol and tobacco.

~:smoking:

So why would u be carryting a knife ?
Lets see , there is one on my key ring , it comes complete with a bottle opener and a corkscrew , any criminal intent there ?
If I am going to or from work I will have a very large very sharp knife with me , if I am working in Britain I would also have a machete , any criminal intent there ?
If I still had a horse I would be carrying a knife for cutting baling twine , any criminal intent there ?

Since when dont u pay Water, Gas or Electric bills.

and as for phones not being required, if u have no phone u have no internet, hence how do u job search ? one hour a day in the library is not going to get u very far. How do u pay for the stamps and paper and envelopes, newspapers etc.... How do u travel to the interview......

Quote:

---

Insane or sick? What about employed as then they can afford the lovely toys you mentioned like phones and TVs - although the majority of people on benefit seem to be able to have TVs, phones and still spend a fair amount of alcohol and tobacco.

---

I have watched my income fall (in real terms) over the last eight years. While tax and the bills I pay increase, years on year. In some places in this country, mostly outside of London, there are just no jobs, and the jobs there are are way below any beneifts that could be paid. If you dont work in one of the millions of jobs created in local governemt then u cant get a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So why would u be carryting a knife ?
Lets see , there is one on my key ring , it comes complete with a bottle opener and a corkscrew , any criminal intent there ?
If I am going to or from work I will have a very large very sharp knife with me , if I am working in Britain I would also have a machete , any criminal intent there ?
If I still had a horse I would be carrying a knife for cutting baling twine , any criminal intent there ?

---

sorry I think u are wrong

Quote:

---

Under current laws, possessing a firearm carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but offenders could be jailed for up to 10 years.

In contrast, anyone caught carrying a knife without good reason faces a maximum sentence of four years.

If the blade is less than three inches long the punishment could be as little as a £50 fine or a caution.

Police are concerned about the number of people now arming themselves with knives.

They say that young people aged 12 to 20 are more likely to be both offenders and victims in knife crime cases.

---

Article in full - BBC website

Carrying a knife into a supermarket cannot have a good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

Carrying a knife into a supermarket cannot have a good reason.

---

What about returning the carving knife you bought from there because the blade is chipped? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

a knife into a supermarket cannot have a good reason.

---

Or what if there were zombies inside? ~D

Jobcentres offer free internet access for more than 1 hour. I am sure job centres can also help with other aspects of getting a job. Tell you what - I'll tell you after my trip on Monday, since I've not got a job.

And for those that truely can't seem to get to a jobcentre - use your feet and walk to places and ask for a job. When I was 18 it took me an afternoon to find employment. Sure, the job was not great, but it shows it is certainly possible.

~:smoking:

I will have to wait for your reply mate, until I get back off my holiday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

What about returning the carving knife you bought from there because the blade is chipped? :inquisitive:

---

Well u have just answered your own point - he does have a good reason.

sorry I think u are wrong

Really ? You think that carrying a knife is against the law , yet it isn't , and someone who says that the laws of your land state that it isn't illegal is wrong even though the laws state that it isn't illegal .
Very strange .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'll tell you after my trip on Monday, since I've not got a job.

---

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

Well u have just answered your own point - he does have a good reason.

---

No, I answered your allegation - that someone with a knife in a supermarket cannot have a good reason. I provided an example, so it appears you now agree - there are perfectly good reasons why someone might have a knife in a super market other than for evil purposes.

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

sorry I think u are wrong

Really ? You think that carrying a knife is against the law , yet it isn't , and someone who says that the laws of your land state that it isn't illegal is wrong even though the laws state that it isn't illegal .
Very strange .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Did u bother to read the link to the article. I will quote the point again

Quote:

---

In contrast, anyone caught carrying a knife without good reason faces a maximum sentence of four years.

If the blade is less than three inches long the punishment could be as little as a £50 fine or a caution.

---

Please notice two words.... Sentence - punishment.

Quote:

---

Carrying an offensive weapon in a public place "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" carries a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment

---

Link

Another story.....

Quote:

---

The use of metal detectors to catch people carrying knives is to be extended by British Transport Police across the UK, the BBC has learned.
Operation Shield was launched in London two months ago to target those carrying knives on the Tube network and trains.

Police with stop-and-search powers and sniffer dogs use mobile airport-style scanners to check passengers.

Since it began, almost 10,000 people have been scanned, 100 have been arrested and 68 knives seized.

The initiative is already up and running in Liverpool. It is due to start in Birmingham this month and in north-east England in May, and will eventually be used UK-wide.

'Extremely successful'

Detective Chief Inspector Kevin Shanahan, who has overseen the operation, said it had been a good result.

Suspects had been arrested by plain clothes officers after backing away from the metal detector, he said.

"Part of our remit is to reassure the public and demonstrate that we are challenging the knife-carrying culture," he said.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said the trials had been "extremely successful".

He told the BBC's Sunday AM programme that the technology would now be employed at stations in other cities including Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff.

"It will be across the country," he said. "It won't be there all the time. Obviously local police have to use their judgment as to when they deploy officers on the scanning equipment."

But London community worker Shaun Bailey said that many young people carried knives because they felt uneasy.

"Where the real problems start, with the young people in particular, is when they carry a knife for use of defence," he told BBC Radio Five Live.

"They're called offensive weapons for a reason - you cannot defend yourself with a knife, you can only ever attack someone - but lots of young people carry them for a fashion statement because they feel uneasy.

"What needs to be looked at is why so many people feel uneasy, and then carry a knife."

Home Office figures released in January showed violent crime in England and Wales rose 4% between July and September last year.

Conservative homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer welcomed the move but said detecting potential bombers should be a top priority.

"We welcome any attempt to lessen crime on our transport system but the fact remains that 53 people were killed in the London bombings last year and we currently have no equipment of any sort anywhere in England that can detect explosives.

"There has been one brief trial, on one line, and there are further trials planned but these are the sort of measures that should have been started in September 2001."

---

- strange, if it wasnt illegal why would they be doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

No, I answered your allegation - that someone with a knife in a supermarket cannot have a good reason. I provided an example, so it appears you now agree - there are perfectly good reasons why someone might have a knife in a super market other than for evil purposes.

:dizzy2:

---

Oh so he went into the supermarket to take his broken knife back and while he was inside decided to help himself to some cheese and milk.

Sorry Im a little confused. We are talking about a guy who has been arrested for carrying a knife as well as stealing. We are not talking about a person who has a reason for carrying a knife. If u were to search every person in a supermarket, how many of them would be carrying a knife to take it back because it was damaged. I would guess VERY few.


Why do I seem to be living on a different world to all of you. Carrying a knife or a weapon is wrong. If you are a carpenter then it is part of your tools. But how many people are carpenters. If it is a part of your job its quite obvious that u will be carrying a knife, u could argue that it should be locked away in a secure position, but I wont go into that.

But to walk around carrying a knife is wrong. Im sorry if people cant see that.

Answer me this one question. With the exception of its broke and im taking it back to be repaired. Why do you need to carry a knife ?

A guy walks into a chip shop on a friday night (11pm ish)

This guys in the queue, starts eyeballing him, he thinks he knows the guys.
Five minutes later the guy walks over and asks him what he looking at, the first guys says I thought I knew you, but I now dont think I do.
The second guy say, you look familar. My girlfriend has just ran of with a guy.

..... The next thing guy one knows is he has a knife under his throught.
Guy two starts to tell guy one that he is going to kill his girlfriend and her new man.

Ten minutes later guy two put the knife away and left the shop, saying im going to get them both.

IS THAT A GOOD REASON TO BE CARRYING A KNIFE.

Boo hoo. They're prisoners. Who cares. [is not following topic much]

“If you can't cope then you can either persevere, or give up.” How do you give up? You go to seat along the road, and you said: “Sorry, I am not playing anymore”. You commit suicide? Join a Monk order?

“I'm in the UK. He was in the UK. HERE knives aren't allowed”. I am, as well, and as you know, it is nowadays common for kids, even at school, to carry knives. Read some newspapers, there were full of details, last week.

If you want to eat cheese, better to have a knife, anyway…:laugh4:

By "give up" I mean my any method you choose. Hell, it's your life. Just don't impede others by your choice of exit.

Yes, the number of knives scares the hell out of me. Never, on any day that I was at school did it occur to me to carry a weapon of any discription. Yet as you say it is almost becoming commonplace in some areas.

The usual usual argument is to protect oneself - of course by killing someone else - is given.

Weapon detectors need to be used in problem schools. It's no use telling teachers they can ask re weapons. And when they say they've got a knife and refuse to give it up, what then?

On a completely different note, I'd much rather we imported some hard working immigrants to the UK and got shot of many of the homegrown wasters.

~:smoking:

Did u bother to read the link to the article. I will quote the point again

.....Please notice two words.... Sentence - punishment.

Please notice that it is not illegal to carry a knife , it is illegal to carry a knife with criminal intent .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

Answer me this one question. With the exception of its broke and im taking it back to be repaired. Why do you need to carry a knife ?

---

I always carry a small Swiss Army knife. A knife is a general tool for me, not that the bottle cap opener isn't also good to have. And my magic ninja skills make the thing a deadly weapon too!

Nah, I realize the guy was carrying something bigger if he was arrested for it. But he was cooperating, notifying people of the knife before being searched. Seems he wasn't about to kill people for some milk.