British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested

[BurfordTJustice]

British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested

A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.

London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.

Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.

The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

The assaults follow a spate of high-profile attacks, including one in which
a man is accused of throwing acid at an aspiring model and her cousin as
they sat in their car. A 25-year-old man has been charged in that case.

London police say the number of reported attacks with corrosive liquids rose
from 261 to 454 in 2016. Some of the attacks appear to be related to gang
activity of the theft of cars and motorbikes.

The spike in attacks has prompted some lawmakers to call for restrictions on
the sale and carrying of corrosive liquids such as sulfuric acid.

London police chief Cressida Dick said officers were concerned by the
increase in the "completely barbaric" attacks.

"We will arrest people, we will enforce the law as we can, and we are
working very closely with the (government) to try to see if there is any
changes in the law required," Dick told LBC radio.

[The Todal]

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

[The Todal]

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

no...i've always found i could get what i wanted/needed or go anywhere
or meet any person...however much some interest tried to block...

as a senior police person said to me...'all criminals are stupid'...
a comment that highly correlates with my experience

the purpose of locks is to inhibit...and send the crim to a
less protected target!
mostly it doesn't actually stop them thieving...

no guns...get knife...no knives....get acid...no acid....
use you imagination...

humans are very creative and slippery

i believe in franchise by examination!

[Byker]

Post by abelard
the purpose of locks is to inhibit...and send the crim to a
less protected target!
mostly it doesn't actually stop them thieving...
!

The only thing locks keep out are honest people...

[BurfordTJustice]

Indeed!

Post by Byker

Post by abelard
the purpose of locks is to inhibit...and send the crim to a
less protected target!
mostly it doesn't actually stop them thieving...
!

The only thing locks keep out are honest people...

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by The Todal
Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

How many acid attacks are there? What is the cost of implementing a
licensing plan or other restrictions? Would it be effective?

It is not legal to bu a lot of things but they are readily available if
you really want them. Restrictions just make a black market.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <4b5aB.57793$***@fx24.iad>, Ed Pawlowski <***@snet.net>
writes

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by The Todal
Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban
the sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require
people to obtain some sort of license?

How many acid attacks are there? What is the cost of implementing a
licensing plan or other restrictions? Would it be effective?
It is not legal to bu a lot of things but they are readily available if
you really want them. Restrictions just make a black market.

There are already calls to ban the sale of sulphuric acid and other
corrosive substances - and it's only this afternoon that some of the
phoners-in are pointing out that most vehicle batteries are full of it -
just like most kitchen drawers are full of knives. Normal life will be
impossible without ready access to the countless things that we use
every day.

[Graham T]

Post by Ian Jackson
There are already calls to ban the sale of sulphuric acid and other
corrosive substances - and it's only this afternoon that some of the
phoners-in are pointing out that most vehicle batteries are full of it -

And if you want to increase the strength of H2SO4 you just boil old
battery acid which removes the H2O. You'll know when you're there as it
starts giving off white clouds.

[Mark Storkamp]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars? And then it will need to be kept in a locked box
that only a government approved agent has the keys to. Those government
jobs, just like the TSA, will be filled with people you wouldn't trust
to leave alone in a room in your house for 5 seconds.

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Storkamp

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars? And then it will need to be kept in a locked box
that only a government approved agent has the keys to. Those government
jobs, just like the TSA, will be filled with people you wouldn't trust
to leave alone in a room in your house for 5 seconds.

I thought modern car batteries are sealed - or if any still aren't, they
could be.

If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive the
latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be made
unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate reason for
doing so.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Storkamp

Post by The Todal
Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars? And then it will need to be kept in a locked box
that only a government approved agent has the keys to. Those government
jobs, just like the TSA, will be filled with people you wouldn't trust
to leave alone in a room in your house for 5 seconds.

I thought modern car batteries are sealed - or if any still aren't, they
could be.
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive the
latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be made
unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate reason for
doing so.

Batteries are sealed and it would take 15 seconds to open all the cells
with a drill.

You can make it unlawful to carry in public. It works well for guns and
knives that is why they are never used to commit a crime.

[BurfordTJustice]

Not true!

Post by Ed Pawlowski
You can make it unlawful to carry in public. It works well for guns and
knives that is why they are never used to commit a crime.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by BurfordTJustice

Post by Ed Pawlowski
You can make it unlawful to carry in public. It works well for guns and
knives that is why they are never used to commit a crime.

Not true!

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

[jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:28:53 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"

Post by BurfordTJustice
Not true!

Duh!

Post by BurfordTJustice

Post by Ed Pawlowski
You can make it unlawful to carry in public. It works well for guns and
knives that is why they are never used to commit a crime.

- -





"We CAN hide forever."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he will
NEVER prove where he infests or give his real jew name

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

Illuc nisi Dei gratia vadam.
- Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe (? - )

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:40:44 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'

Post by BurfordTJustice
Not true!

Duh!

Those three letters sum up your entire "life", poor dumb anal Razovic!

[Graham T]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Storkamp

Post by The Todal
Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars? And then it will need to be kept in a locked box
that only a government approved agent has the keys to. Those government
jobs, just like the TSA, will be filled with people you wouldn't trust
to leave alone in a room in your house for 5 seconds.

I thought modern car batteries are sealed - or if any still aren't,
they could be.
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Batteries are sealed and it would take 15 seconds to open all the cells
with a drill.
You can make it unlawful to carry in public.

I can't think of any container that I would be happy carrying H2SO4
about in my pocket or putting myself at risk by throwing it at someone
else and copping the stray acid.

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive the
latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be made
unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate reason for
doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?

Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.

And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how you
might do that?

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how you
might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.

Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place without
a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could reasonably
add cans of spray paint to that list.

A bottle of bleach in a shopping bag with a load of other items bought
at the same time might indicate a lawful excuse, but exact context and
demeanour would be crucial.

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how
you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place without
a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could reasonably
add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could
be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so
how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea
how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

Easy.

There are laws about being in possession of a knife in a public place.
See eg https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/

It would be very easy to apply similar laws to "a corrosive substance"
and have a schedule defining these substances.

The police stop and search anyone who looks as if they are planning to
cause trouble and commit an offence.

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could
be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no
legitimate reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so
how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any
idea how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

Easy.
There are laws about being in possession of a knife in a public place.
See eg https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/
It would be very easy to apply similar laws to "a corrosive substance"
and have a schedule defining these substances.

The difficulty comes, as I said, in defining such 'corrosive
substances'. Got any idea how you might do that?

Post by The Todal
The police stop and search anyone who looks as if they are planning to
cause trouble and commit an offence.

I suggest they might carry knives as a matter of habit, but 'corrosive
substances' only when they're going out to do something specific, in
which case stop and search is most unlikely to pick them up before they
actually do so.

[BurfordTJustice]

and then some wonder why the Empire is dead and freedom
is a distant memory.

You are the perfect example.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how
you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place without
a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could reasonably
add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

Easy.
There are laws about being in possession of a knife in a public place. See
eg https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/
It would be very easy to apply similar laws to "a corrosive substance" and
have a schedule defining these substances.
The police stop and search anyone who looks as if they are planning to
cause trouble and commit an offence.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could
be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so
how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea
how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

I don't think that would be difficult.

The only reason I put it that way was because I was trying to cover
several different areas of concern with one sentence.

An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase. What
possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of spray
paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were taking it
home? And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong alkali
is easily understood, along with even more stringent requirements for
proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was introduced,
the wording was very straightforward. I had expected complexity, but
none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of the word "smoking"
in context.There has never been a reported case of any dispute over what
it means.

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could
be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no
legitimate reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so
how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any
idea how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how you
might do that?

I don't think that would be difficult.
The only reason I put it that way was because I was trying to cover
several different areas of concern with one sentence.
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase. What
possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of spray
paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were taking it
home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong alkali
is easily understood, along with even more stringent requirements for
proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?

If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on you
in public that the police take a dislike to.

If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was introduced,
the wording was very straightforward. I had expected complexity, but
none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of the word "smoking"
in context.There has never been a reported case of any dispute over what
it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

[Bod]

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on you
in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

[Bod]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

I don't think that would work and it smacks of a nanny state.
I would think that at least 50% of ordinary shoppers carry home some
sort of acidic product on at least a monthly basis.
Possessing is one thing, intentionally disfiguring or blindly someone
with acid should carry a very harsh sentence without question, by
introducing a specific law for that offence.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

If the last attack is anything to go by, would making possession of a
motor scooter an offence have made any difference?

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on you
in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was introduced,
the wording was very straightforward. I had expected complexity, but
none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of the word
"smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of any
dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic life
sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate laws
against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new law on
possession in a public place, if so of what,

ISTM that the prohibition of "carrying of acid in an "unsealed " container",
would be sufficient means to distinguish between people, carrying it for
nefarious means and people with a valid reason for needing it just
transporting it from point to point.

Obviously there needs to be some sort of strength qualification to avoid the
need to sell vinegar in sealed containers.

and whether it stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

well apparently acid has become the weapon of choice because of the laws on
possessing knives, so they have worked (sort of)

tim

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

[Bod]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

[Bod]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal. Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of the same value.

Ok, so there's 4 laws:

Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

[Bod]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

First thing I said, it's a kind of assault. Why have a law for rape, punching, kicking, baseball batting, kneecapping, blah blah, blah. Just make assault illegal. Then give the number of years in jail according to how much harm was done.

[Bod]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws.
Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

First thing I said, it's a kind of assault. Why have a law for rape,
punching, kicking, baseball batting, kneecapping, blah blah, blah. Just
make assault illegal. Then give the number of years in jail according
to how much harm was done.

Rape is in a category of its own.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws.
Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

First thing I said, it's a kind of assault. Why have a law for rape,
punching, kicking, baseball batting, kneecapping, blah blah, blah. Just
make assault illegal. Then give the number of years in jail according
to how much harm was done.

Rape is in a category of its own.

No it isn't. It's the same kinda thing as being beaten up. It's assault.

[Meanie]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 09:45:17 +0100, Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too?
Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about
is a
new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws.
Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the
ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

First thing I said, it's a kind of assault. Why have a law for rape,
punching, kicking, baseball batting, kneecapping, blah blah, blah. Just
make assault illegal. Then give the number of years in jail according
to how much harm was done.

Rape is in a category of its own.

No it isn't. It's the same kinda thing as being beaten up. It's assault.

Damnmit! I have to agree with you. Rape is technically a separate
category because the system wants to emphasize it's effect. The reality
is still an assault.

You categories would contain sub-categories such as

1) Assault
A) Aggravated assault
B) Simple assault
C) Sexual assault
D) Etc.

2) Theft
A) Petty theft (under a specified amount)
B) Robbery (over a specified amount)
C) Embezzlement
D) Etc.

Each crime category would then be subject to the same punishment.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 09:45:17 +0100, Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too?
Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having
anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real
effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about
is a
new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws.
Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

Rape falls under assault. Libel and harassment shouldn't be illegal.
Damaging property is a type of theft - you're removing the ownership of
something from somebody. You smash my car up, I no longer have a car of
the same value.
Killing, injuring, stealing, lying.

Rape?

First thing I said, it's a kind of assault. Why have a law for rape,
punching, kicking, baseball batting, kneecapping, blah blah, blah. Just
make assault illegal. Then give the number of years in jail according
to how much harm was done.

Rape is in a category of its own.

No it isn't. It's the same kinda thing as being beaten up. It's assault.

Damnmit! I have to agree with you. Rape is technically a separate
category because the system wants to emphasize it's effect. The reality
is still an assault.
You categories would contain sub-categories such as
1) Assault
A) Aggravated assault
B) Simple assault
C) Sexual assault
D) Etc.
2) Theft
A) Petty theft (under a specified amount)
B) Robbery (over a specified amount)
C) Embezzlement
D) Etc.
Each crime category would then be subject to the same punishment.

Agreed. A handful of crimes with a scale to advise the judge on the sentence.

[facist 'new' labour rules the world]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill.

What if you are in a bunker piloting a drone?

Is remote killing exempt?

Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Don't injure. Don't steal. Simple

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword
wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid is the
same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

Of course there can be different degrees of those simple laws. Killing
three people gets a longer sentence than killing two. Emptying a bank
vault gets more time than stealing a kit kat.

You see, it's not as simple as just having a few laws. What about
perjury/rape/libel/harrasment/damaging property etc etc.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid
is the same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

It's only a matter of degree, but the principle is still the same.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid
is the same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

It's only a matter of degree, but the principle is still the same.

Degree is not something understood in today's fucked up society. If I shove you, you don't even fall over, you receive no bruise, etc, they still call it assault. Assault should require you to experience pain or damage.

[Meanie]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid
is the same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

It's only a matter of degree, but the principle is still the same.

Degree is not something understood in today's fucked up society. If I
shove you, you don't even fall over, you receive no bruise, etc, they
still call it assault. Assault should require you to experience pain or
damage.

Spitting on a person is considered assault, over here.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts'
understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

You've got to catch them first. And when you do, we've got adequate
laws against GBH to deal with them. What we're talking about is a new
law on possession in a public place, if so of what, and whether it
stands any chance of being effective in terms of prevention.

We don't need more laws that mean the same thing. We need a single
digit number of laws. Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't steal.
Simple wording, covers everything. Squirting you in the eye with acid
is the same offence as punching you on the nose. Assault.

Not if it leaves you blind.

It's only a matter of degree, but the principle is still the same.

Degree is not something understood in today's fucked up society. If I
shove you, you don't even fall over, you receive no bruise, etc, they
still call it assault. Assault should require you to experience pain or
damage.

Spitting on a person is considered assault, over here.

How absurd. Just wipe it off.

[Jimbo]

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accurate
lie detector and the death penalty.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Jimbo

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accurate
lie detector and the death penalty.

Agreed. Putting someone in jail long term just costs money.

[Meanie]

Post by Jimbo

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accurate
lie detector and the death penalty.

Until they find the 100% lie detector, I opt for 100% death penalty.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Meanie

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything o=

n

Post by Meanie

Post by Norman Wells
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have=
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding=
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic=
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accurate=
lie detector and the death penalty.

Until they find the 100% lie detector, I opt for 100% death penalty.

What, every single person on the planet?

-- =

=E2=80=9CLosing one glove is certainly painful, but nothing compared to =
the pain of losing one, throwing away the other, and finding the first o=
ne again.=E2=80=9D -- Piet Hein, Danish Mathematician.

[Meanie]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Meanie

Post by Jimbo

Post by Bod

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore have
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accurate
lie detector and the death penalty.

Until they find the 100% lie detector, I opt for 100% death penalty.

What, every single person on the planet?

Come on..... murders, attempted murders and attempt great bodily harm
which means the acid perp would be executed, IMO.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells
Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything=

on

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that,
unlike knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a
particular job was intended. Any such law would not therefore ha=

ve

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells
any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected=
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understandi=

ng

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
of the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported=
case of any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though=

,

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Norman Wells
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomat=

ic

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

Life sentence is a joke. The world needs two things; a 100% accura=

te

Post by Meanie

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

lie detector and the death penalty.

Until they find the 100% lie detector, I opt for 100% death penalty.=

What, every single person on the planet?

Come on..... murders, attempted murders and attempt great bodily harm
which means the acid perp would be executed, IMO.

I'm for the death penalty for severe crimes (only those that kill or sev=
erely harm someone, or deprive them of a large amount of money). And on=
ly if you're at least 99% sure they did it.

Punching me in the face should not get you the death penalty. Breaking =
both my legs on purpose should. Stealing =A320,000 from a bank should, =
stealing my TV set shouldn't.

-- =

Intercourse prevents divorce.

[rbowman]

Post by Bod
The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

From what I can glean from the fake news, the acid attacks are often
tied to 'moped gangs'. The press is strangely silent on what the makeup
of the gangs is. Is any of the British press more forthcoming or a they
faceless, generic, youths? (in the US, 'youth' has the implied adjective
'black').

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vigilante-motorcycle-groups-forming-in-london-to-combat-moped-crime-wave_uk_5919ba16e4b0fe039b36329a

I like this approach. Maybe it's time for the Hells Angels to change
their summer vacation plans.

[Bod]

Post by rbowman

Post by Bod
The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

From what I can glean from the fake news, the acid attacks are often
tied to 'moped gangs'. The press is strangely silent on what the makeup
of the gangs is. Is any of the British press more forthcoming or a they
faceless, generic, youths? (in the US, 'youth' has the implied adjective
'black').
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vigilante-motorcycle-groups-forming-in-london-to-combat-moped-crime-wave_uk_5919ba16e4b0fe039b36329a
I like this approach. Maybe it's time for the Hells Angels to change
their summer vacation plans.

I hadn't seen that article, but thanks for the info. I can understand
their frustration, but vigilantes aren't the answer. Revenge breeds
revenge and the problem can easily escalate into a small war.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Bod

Post by rbowman

Post by Bod
The only way to greatly reduce acid attacks is to give an auotomatic
life sentence to the perpetrators, IMO.

From what I can glean from the fake news, the acid attacks are often
tied to 'moped gangs'. The press is strangely silent on what the makeup
of the gangs is. Is any of the British press more forthcoming or a they
faceless, generic, youths? (in the US, 'youth' has the implied adjective
'black').
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vigilante-motorcycle-groups-forming-in-london-to-combat-moped-crime-wave_uk_5919ba16e4b0fe039b36329a
I like this approach. Maybe it's time for the Hells Angels to change
their summer vacation plans.

I hadn't seen that article, but thanks for the info. I can understand
their frustration, but vigilantes aren't the answer. Revenge breeds
revenge and the problem can easily escalate into a small war.

Fun though.

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest,
or sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to
survive the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public
place could be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was
no legitimate reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by
the police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid,
so how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any
idea how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how
you might do that?

I don't think that would be difficult.
The only reason I put it that way was because I was trying to cover
several different areas of concern with one sentence.
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase. What
possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of spray
paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were taking
it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and so
could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

Oh, come off it. A butcher or chef carrying a knife is likely to give a
satisfactory explanation to the police and not be prosecuted or
alternatively his explanation is likely to be accepted by a jury.
Likewise with spray paint or with corrosive chemicals. If you're roaming
the streets of Hackney at 1am you may find your explanation is less
convincing.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?

You haven't really looked this up, have you?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a14

"...any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the
discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns
or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends
on type..."

Post by Norman Wells
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on you
in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

Better to have flexibility than rigidity. We don't want all those boy
scouts being arrested for possession of a swiss army knife.

Post by Norman Wells
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

You're too defeatist.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

Try spilling Toilet Duck or Domestos on your fingers and marvel at how
your fingers don't smoke and bleed.

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest,
or sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to
survive the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public
place could be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there
was no legitimate reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by
the police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of
acid, so how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any
idea how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how
you might do that?

I don't think that would be difficult.
The only reason I put it that way was because I was trying to cover
several different areas of concern with one sentence.
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase.
What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of
spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were
taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and so
could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

Oh, come off it. A butcher or chef carrying a knife is likely to give a
satisfactory explanation to the police and not be prosecuted or
alternatively his explanation is likely to be accepted by a jury.
Likewise with spray paint or with corrosive chemicals. If you're roaming
the streets of Hackney at 1am you may find your explanation is less
convincing.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?

You haven't really looked this up, have you?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a14
"...any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the
discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns
or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends
on type..."

Then whatever you regard as a strong acid or a strong alkali is already
covered by the existing law. Why do we need a new one?

If you say because we don't have a law that makes possession of such
things in a public place without good reason illegal, why don't you
include *all* the things you list above, not just strong acids or alkalis?

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

Better to have flexibility than rigidity. We don't want all those boy
scouts being arrested for possession of a swiss army knife.

So, you want loopholes. Since you do, you have to define what those
loopholes should be, otherwise any law you propose will be simply
arbitrary.

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

You're too defeatist.

If any law won't have any desired effect, perhaps you'd tell us what the
point would be in passing it.

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

Try spilling Toilet Duck or Domestos on your fingers and marvel at how
your fingers don't smoke and bleed.

There are lots of dangerous things that could be sprayed on people that
will harm them in all sorts of ways. Do you want specific legislation
to outlaw just some of them or all of them? If just some of them,
define where the line is to be drawn.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest,
or sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to
survive the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public
place could be made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was
no legitimate reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by
the police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid,
so how many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any
law, like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any
idea how you might do that?

Relatively easily, I'd suggest.
Make it an offence to possess [such an item] in any public place
without a credible and lawful reason for having it there. You could
reasonably add cans of spray paint to that list.

The difficulty comes in defining 'such an item'. Got any idea how
you might do that?

I don't think that would be difficult.
The only reason I put it that way was because I was trying to cover
several different areas of concern with one sentence.
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase. What
possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of spray
paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were taking
it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession of a
can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is going and for
which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA search easy and
definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and so
could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other legitimate
use he had been planning to make of it.

You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal damage
and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as important as
the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in a pocket and
with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said so" - smirk on the
face.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on you
in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The courts
are not unreasonable in these matters.

Post by Norman Wells
Besides, stop and search is unlikely to reveal such items that, unlike
knives, would not be routinely carried but only when a particular job
was intended. Any such law would not therefore have any real effect.

Post by JNugent
An analogy: when the ban on smoking in public buildings was
introduced, the wording was very straightforward. I had expected
complexity, but none arrived. Much hinged on courts' understanding of
the word "smoking" in context.There has never been a reported case of
any dispute over what it means.

When you're talking about carrying normal household items, though,
perhaps like Toilet Duck, I think you're entering a quagmire.

There's nothing more "normal" than a cigarette.

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase.
What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of
spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were
taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession of a
can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is going and for
which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA search easy and
definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and so
could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other legitimate
use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not for
the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite arbitrary.

If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And since
they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be rather wider
than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising possession when
some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal damage
and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as important as
the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in a pocket and
with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said so" - smirk on the
face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to care
about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The courts
are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts know
what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the phrase.
What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing a can of
spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought it and were
taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession of
a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is going and
for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA search easy and
definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and so
could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other purpose
than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not for
the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And since
they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be rather wider
than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising possession when
some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in a
pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said so" -
smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to care
about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The courts
are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote)
off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably.

There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol can
of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car repair
materials or similar). I say that there is no such good purpose in
general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary (and causes
the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be explicable to a
police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the job at hand wouldbe
a start.

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing
a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought
it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is going
and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA search
easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is still
sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always
on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be rather
wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in
a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said
so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to care
about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The courts
are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote)
off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.

What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause unlawful
harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.

Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol can
of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car repair
materials or similar). I say that there is no such good purpose in
general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary (and causes
the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be explicable to a
police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the job at hand wouldbe
a start.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing
a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought
it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is
going and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA
search easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is
still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not
always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be rather
wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in
a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said
so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to care
about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything
on you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The
courts are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the
(remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose
which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause unlawful
harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance
that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs unpredictably"?

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the environment
as a gross infringment of mine.

Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it is
to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol
can of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car
repair materials or similar). I say that there is no such good purpose
in general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary (and
causes the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be explicable
to a police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the job at hand
wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?

Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket
for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

[Incubus]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for
possessing a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had
just bought it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is
going and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA
search easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is
still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not
always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be
rather wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint
in a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells
said so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to
care about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything
on you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The
courts are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the
(remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose
which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause
unlawful harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance
that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably"?

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the environment
as a gross infringment of mine.
Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it is
to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol
can of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car
repair materials or similar). I say that there is no such good
purpose in general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary
(and causes the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be
explicable to a police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the
job at hand wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket
for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used
against another person can count as an offensive weapon.

We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.

[Ophelia]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for
possessing a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had
just bought it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is
going and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA
search easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is
still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not
always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be
rather wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint
in a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells
said so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to
care about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything
on you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The
courts are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the
(remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose
which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause
unlawful harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance
that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably"?

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the environment
as a gross infringment of mine.
Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it is
to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol
can of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car
repair materials or similar). I say that there is no such good
purpose in general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary
(and causes the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be
explicable to a police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the
job at hand wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket
for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used
against another person can count as an offensive weapon.

We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.

==

Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

[Bod]

Post by Incubus

Post by JNugent
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back
pocket for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used
against another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

Lol. First time I've seen you post in this NG, Ophelia :-)

[Ophelia]

Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray paint
(or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket for no
particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used against
another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

Lol. First time I've seen you post in this NG, Ophelia :-)

==

I am in uk.legal where are you? I have been here for years:)

[Bod]

Post by Bod

Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray paint
(or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket for no
particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used against
another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

Lol. First time I've seen you post in this NG, Ophelia :-)
==
I am in uk.legal where are you? I have been here for years:)

Ah, just realised it's been crossposted.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Bod

Post by Bod

Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray paint
(or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket for no
particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used against
another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

Lol. First time I've seen you post in this NG, Ophelia :-)
==
I am in uk.legal where are you? I have been here for years:)

Ah, just realised it's been crossposted.

The enormous newsgroups line at the top of the message didn't give it away?

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for
possessing a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had
just bought it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in
possession of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain
where he is going and for which vehicle the paint is intended
(making a DVLA search easy and definitive). This will be much
easier if the tin is still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used
(and so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not
always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray
paint, it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what
isn't. And since they're not only used on cars, your definition
has to be rather wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be
criminalising possession when some in possession have no criminal
intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint
in a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells
said so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to
care about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or
strong alkali is easily understood, along with even more
stringent requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it
in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything
on you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The
courts are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose
might feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on
the (remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful
purpose which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause
unlawful harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything
at all without good reason, or even, as you say below without
'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance
that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably"?

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the
environment as a gross infringment of mine.
Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it
is to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol
can of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car
repair materials or similar). I say that there is no such good
purpose in general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary
(and causes the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be
explicable to a police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the
job at hand wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back
pocket for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used
against another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

He should be arrested for Criminal Damage.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Incubus

Post by Ophelia
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

He should be arrested for Criminal Damage.

Isn't there an exemption for criminal enhancement?

[Ophelia]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for possessing
a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had just bought
it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is going
and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA search
easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is still
sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not always
on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be rather
wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint in
a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells said
so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to care
about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything on
you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The courts
are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the
(remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose
which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause unlawful
harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance that
it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs unpredictably"?

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the environment
as a gross infringment of mine.
Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it is
to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol can
of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car repair
materials or similar). I say that there is no such good purpose in
general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary (and causes
the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be explicable to a
police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the job at hand
wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray paint
(or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket for no
particular reason is one that must be upheld?

To my knowledge, as has been discussed, anything that can be used against
another person can count as an offensive weapon.
We also have offenecs like 'Going Equipped for Theft'. There is also a
potential civil liberties argument with that law but, in reality, one
doesn't see electricians or mechanics being arrested for walking around
carrying toolboxes.
==
Whatever will 'Banksy' do if it becomes illegal to carry spray paint ...:)

He should be arrested for Criminal Damage.


==

But, but what about the people who tear down a wall he has painted and
charge a fortune for it?

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
An aerosol can of spray paint could be simply described. Courts
know what they are. There is no difficulty in interpreting the
phrase. What possible good reason could anyone have for
possessing a can of spray paint in a public place unles they had
just bought it and were taking it home?

Because legitimate uses of them are not always at home.

If that is so in a particulkar case, the person found in possession
of a can of paint will be able to crfedibly explain where he is
going and for which vehicle the paint is intended (making a DVLA
search easy and definitive). This will be much easier if the tin is
still sealed, of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
And if they didn't even have a car on which it would be used (and
so could not identify such a vehicle), that would be a QED.

You mean a total ban on possession of them then for any other
purpose than spraying a car? legitimate uses of them are not
always on cars.

The suspect could always make a fist of explaining what other
legitimate use he had been planning to make of it.

It's the law that has to define what 'legitimate use' is. It's not
for the police on the streets to decide, since that could be quite
arbitrary.
If you want a law criminalising the carrying of cans of spray paint,
it's for you to say what is a legitimate use and what isn't. And
since they're not only used on cars, your definition has to be
rather wider than you've proposed, otherwise you'll be criminalising
possession when some in possession have no criminal intent whatsoever.

Post by JNugent
You sound as though you are not in favour of preventing criminal
damage and graffiti. Freedom from the risk of that is at least as
important as the freedom to walk aboiut with a tin of spray paint
in a pocket and with a "You can't touch me for it - Norman Wells
said so" - smirk on the face.

It's your proposal. It's for you to defend. You do not seem to
care about criminalising the innocent.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Similarly, a container whose contents are a strong acid or strong
alkali is easily understood, along with even more stringent
requirements for proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place.

Pepper spray is OK then? Other irritants? Glues too? Poisons?
If so, it seems what you want is a general ban on having anything
on you in public that the police take a dislike to.
If not, it seems to leave quite a lot of loopholes.

"proof of the reason for possessing it in a public place". The
courts are not unreasonable in these matters.

Possessing *what* exactly? Define what you mean.

Anything which can cause unlawful harm or damage and which is by no
stretch of the imagination something which any ordinary purpose might
feel a need to carry about on their person pre-emptively on the
(remote) off chance that it might be needed for some lawful purpose
which occurs unpredictably.
There is no difficulty in recognising a bladed weapon as being among them.

That's because the law defines exactly what they are.
What you're still avoiding is defining what, in your law, would be
illegal to have in your possession. 'Anything which can cause
unlawful harm or damge' merely means 'anything'.
Your proposal would make it illegal to be in possession of anything at
all without good reason, or even, as you say below without 'necessity'.

What about the fursther limitation: "and which is by no stretch of the
imagination something which any ordinary purpose might feel a need to
carry about on their person pre-emptively on the (remote) off chance
that it might be needed for some lawful purpose which occurs
unpredictably"?

Far too vague, especially the bit about 'by no stretch of the imagination'.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells
I regard that as a gross infringement of civil liberties.

Maybe you do. I regard graffiti and other degradation of the environment
as a gross infringment of mine.

It ought to be stopped or at least seriously discouraged. But not by a
measure that criminalises carrying anything about your person whatever
it is.

Post by JNugent
Then we could consider how great an infringment of civil liberties it is
to administer powerful corrosives to oter humans.

It's already illegal. But criminalising possession wouldn't do anything
to stop it. It won't be discovered because it's not something anyone
carries as a matter of routine but only on the isolated occasions they
go out to do a specific job.

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
Please explain what lawful purpose one could reasonably anticipate
arising spontaneously which necessitates the carrying of an aerosol
can of paint (other than, eg, in a van used for the delivery of car
repair materials or similar). I say that there is no such good
purpose in general, and that the rare case where it proves necessary
(and causes the item to be bought or rescued from stock) will be
explicable to a police officer or a court. Matching the paint to the
job at hand wouldbe a start.

Nothing in response to that?
Would you argue that the right to "innocently" carry a can of spray
paint (or a squueze-bottle of causic soda solution) in one's back pocket
for no particular reason is one that must be upheld?

The problem comes in drawing the line between what can be carried as a
matter of course without interference from the police and what can't.

I would have no objection to a law concerning aerosol paint cans similar
to the knife law we have. That may be effective. Some people may well
be found in possession. It's very unlikely anyone would be found in
possession of corrosive liquids however. They're not carried as a
matter of course, or in particular locations.

Anything else needs a proper definition.

[Graham T]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how you
might do that?

I keep an old washing up bottle full of Ammonia behind my front door
'just in case'.

[Col]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive
the latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be
made unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate
reason for doing so.

Perhaps you can tell us how many people who have been stopped by the
police have been found to be in possession of a bottle of acid, so how
many would have been prosecuted?
Unlike knives, it's not something ordinary hooligans carry.
And then you'd have to include bottles of other things too in any law,
like bleach, or sodium hydroxide, or pepper spray. Got any idea how you
might do that?

That at least is easy.
The original container will carry this symbol.

https://www.pvcsafetysigns.co.uk/products/corrosive-coshh-sign?gclid=CJXTwq2KjdUCFe4Q0wodpjkFNg

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Storkamp

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old
boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then
jumped
on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars? And then it will need to be kept in a locked box
that only a government approved agent has the keys to. Those government
jobs, just like the TSA, will be filled with people you wouldn't trust
to leave alone in a room in your house for 5 seconds.

I thought modern car batteries are sealed - or if any still aren't, they
could be.
If thugs want to rob you, which is better? A knife in the chest, or
sulphuric acid in the face? I suppose you're more likely to survive the
latter. But carrying a bottle of acid in a public place could be made
unlawful if in the opinion of a jury there was no legitimate reason for
doing so.

I've sometimes wondered why the carrying of a can of spray paint
(intended for small repairs on motor vehicles) is not an offence if the
carrier does not have a credibly plausible excuse for having it about him.

[Byker]

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London.

Sleazy riders: http://tinyurl.com/y88j8jp8

[Graham T]

Post by Mark Storkamp
Now we'll need a license and a waiting period to buy a replacement
battery for our cars?

My latest motorbike battery came with the acid in little capsules
which you fit to the battery to empty into it.

[7]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery
and grievous bodily harm. Police have appealed to the public for more
information on the suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped
tossed noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver,
then jumped on his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one
victim, a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police
said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

What is important is to ban carrying of acids as an offensive weapon
and any other corrosive chemicals - plenty around including bleach
to vinegar.

That way people that need to use it in every day formats are not
targets of police action.

If you threaten people with it like brandishing it or using
it or merely mention to use it (and it is in your possession),
then it is deemed to be offensive weapon.

[Norman Wells]

Post by 7

Post by The Todal
Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

What is important is to ban carrying of acids as an offensive weapon
and any other corrosive chemicals - plenty around including bleach
to vinegar.
That way people that need to use it in every day formats are not
targets of police action.

You're very trusting.

Post by 7
If you threaten people with it like brandishing it or using
it or merely mention to use it (and it is in your possession),
then it is deemed to be offensive weapon.

Then you don't actually need it to be harmful, do you? Nor do you need
to define what it is.

[saracene]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

i'm not publicising what, but i have used stronger acid for
drains than anything being mentioned
there are other legitimate uses which also i won't specify...

Would you be greatly inconvenienced if the government were to ban the
sale of sulphuric acid on the open market and were to require people to
obtain some sort of license?

We use it to clear blockasges from the bathroon sink which happen every few months or so. Caustic soda is an alternative but that can be used in assaults too.

[The Todal]

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

it breaks down rapidly...

'there is no such thing as a poison...only a poisonous dose'

[Incubus]

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

it breaks down rapidly...

...breaking down everything it comes into contact with.

Post by abelard
'there is no such thing as a poison...only a poisonous dose'

Caustic soda is pretty much as corrosive and is similarly easy to get
hold of.

[Basil Jet]

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Hahahaha. No, none at all. Hahahaha.

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

It won't stay concentrated for long.

[abelard]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Hahahaha. No, none at all. Hahahaha.

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

It won't stay concentrated for long.

just so...the more 'active' a substance, the quicker it breaks down

part of what confuses people about radiation

[The Todal]

Post by abelard

Post by Basil Jet

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Hahahaha. No, none at all. Hahahaha.

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

It won't stay concentrated for long.

just so...the more 'active' a substance, the quicker it breaks down
part of what confuses people about radiation

If you wanted to carry with you a suitable chemical to neutralise a
sulphuric acid splash on your skin, what would that chemical be?
Something like baking powder mixed with water?

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by Basil Jet

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Hahahaha. No, none at all. Hahahaha.

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

It won't stay concentrated for long.

just so...the more 'active' a substance, the quicker it breaks down
part of what confuses people about radiation

If you wanted to carry with you a suitable chemical to neutralise a
sulphuric acid splash on your skin, what would that chemical be?
Something like baking powder mixed with water?

just water...

but i'm prepared to suffer the uncertainties of life...

if i were neurotic enough to carry (even) water...and some
loon attacked me, i'd start with being confused...and by the
time i realised i had a problem i'd have been distracted...

maybe i'd have drunk the water in a fit of thirst last week!
or i'd have gotten fed up with the nuisance of extra weight...

of course a tin foil beanie would be a useful precaution...i would
hide in under my hat so's you wouldn't laugh...and that would
fool the thrower into believing i was unprotected...

if only i could buy a force field shield

of course you'd better hope the loon wasn't throwing alkali
or you may even add to the nuisance

no, a beanie is obviously prime

[Incubus]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by Basil Jet

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Hahahaha. No, none at all. Hahahaha.

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

It won't stay concentrated for long.

just so...the more 'active' a substance, the quicker it breaks down
part of what confuses people about radiation

If you wanted to carry with you a suitable chemical to neutralise a
sulphuric acid splash on your skin, what would that chemical be?
Something like baking powder mixed with water?

Sodium hydroxide would neutralise it very quickly. You'd better make
sure you only apply it to the sulphuric acid, though...

In terms of moles, you'd require twice as much sodium bicarbonate but
given the concentration of H2SO4, you'd need a lot of bicarb.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

This is Britain. It will soon get diluted.

[7]

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous
bodily harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on
the suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid. The reviews seem favourable and people seem to buy it to clear
drains. But it surely can't be good for the environment to pour
concentrated acid down the drain.

Lots of acids in the environment - including rain water which
is mild carbolic acid.

Its used to dissolve dead rats stuck in drains.

[Graham T]

Post by The Todal
Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric
acid.

I doubt that it is 98% as H2SO4 is hygroscopic.

[Incubus]

Post by Graham T

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Amazon offers something called 98% sulphuric acid.

I doubt that it is 98% as H2SO4 is hygroscopic.

Could it not be contained in an air-tight bottle?

[jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)]

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the 16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.

Of COURSE he was fucking Asian...see below.

Post by The Todal
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid?

Well, yes...sulphuric acid is the electrolyte in conventional lead
acid car batteries and is used to revive failing batteries...it is
also used by Muslimes for 'honour splashings'.
- -
"We CAN hide forever."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he will
NEVER prove where he infests or give his real jew name

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

[The Peeler]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:52:58 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
Shein's jew aliash)", farted again:

<FLUSH the poor psychotic idiot's inevitable idiotic & psychotic BULLSHIT>

...and nothing's left ...as usual! LOL

[Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"

Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Well, yes...sulphuric acid is the electrolyte in conventional lead
acid car batteries and is used to revive failing batteries...it is
also used by Muslimes for 'honour splashings'.

And by yourself, for fumigating your mother's snatch before
the customers arrive.

[INRI]

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery
and grievous bodily harm. Police have appealed to the public for more
information on the suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped
tossed noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver,
then jumped on his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one
victim, a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police
said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Car batteries.....loads of them

[Ted]

Post by INRI

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery
and grievous bodily harm. Police have appealed to the public for more
information on the suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped
tossed noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver,
then jumped on his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one
victim, a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police
said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

Car batteries.....loads of them

What happened to the poison register, does it still exist?

[BurfordTJustice]

The Islamic Caliphate took over the Middle East and Central Asia during the
Muslim conquests of the 7th century. The Mongol Empire conquered a large
part of Asia in the 13th century, an area extending from China to Europe.
Before the Mongol invasion, Song dynasty reportedly had approximately 120
million citizens; the 1300 census which followed the invasion reported
roughly 60 million people.[


"The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

Asian perpetrators.

[dvus]

Post by The Todal

Post by BurfordTJustice
British teen linked to spate of acid attacks in London arrested
A British teen was arrested Friday in connection to five acid attacks
conducted over a span of 90 minutes by men on mopeds in London. Several
people were injured in the incidents.
London's Metropolitan police did not immediately release the
16-year-old boy's
name but said he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and grievous bodily
harm. Police have appealed to the public for more information on the
suspect.
Police said the spree began late Thursday when two men on a moped tossed
noxious substance into the face of a 32-year-old moped diver, then jumped on
his vehicle and drove away.
The pattern was repeated across a swath of east London. At least one victim,
a man in his 20s, was left with life-changing injuries, police said.

You normally look for crime reports that involve Asian perpetrators. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that this 16 year old was Asian.
Apparently it's far too easy to acquire bottles of acid. Does anyone
know what the legitimate domestic uses are for acid? I doubt if
drain-cleaning preparations are strong enough to cause the sort of
damage that is described.

It's used to clean and etch concrete and to etch glass but I don't know
which acid or how strong it is.