marralass

Resident Members
  • Content count

    1,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

marralass last won the day on December 6 2014

marralass had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

1 Follower

About marralass

  • Rank
    Regular User

Recent Profile Visitors

10,322 profile views
  1. Law on knife sales

    That distinguishes folding knives under 3 inches for carrying, but not for sale. It is selling them where my query is. There are official sites saying they are exempt, but I want the actual legislation that says that, as I can't find it anywhere.
  2. I was just checking the law on knife sales due to my most recent training being different than previous training. Previously, I had been told that it was illegal to sell any knives to people under 18. But now certain government websites say that knives with a folding blade under 3inches are exempt from this. I can find the legislation on the sale of knives, but can't find any exemptions for folding knives. Can someone point me to where this is defined?
  3. Thanks. Does the Mental Health Tribunal just judge whether they are "cured" or "stable" with medication. Or does it take into consideration the seriousness of the offence. What concerns me is that someone might appear "normal" on medication, in a hospital but can easily regress once they are released and need to take the medication themselves (or choose not to) and also have access to alcohol and illegal drugs and members of the public to react to. It's not that I agree with locking people up for life because they're a bit disturbed, I'm just concerned about how adequately it can be judged that they are now safe. I also have concerns about where the line is drawn between someone who is a nasty person with deep prejudices and poor anger management, and someone who is genuinely mentally ill.
  4. evidence dimensions

    Thanks. That would make sense, that would make the blade about 4cm wide which is sensible. If the smallest divisions were 1cm, the blade would be 8cm wide and nearly a foot long, which sounds very unlikely.
  5. Am I right in thinking, that unlike a life sentence, a hospital order has no minimum tariff? Is there any mechanism for ensuring that someone who has committed a life threatening attack on someone isn't released in a few months because they behave normally in the controlled environment of a hospital? If they are released and start to have troublesome behaviour are there any processes for putting them back inside?
  6. evidence dimensions

    Can someone tell me what the smallest divisions are on this ruler? There were the usual fishermans tales of the size of the knife going around town when this incident happened. So I'd just like to get an actual figure.
  7. This car isn't, that is a Google street view shot to show the layout, not the parking problem itself. When it gets to three cars parked there and others at the other entrances that come close enough to the wall that a pram can't get past, then it becomes a problem. As I understand it, obstruction relates to any traffic on the highway, which includes pedestrian traffic on the pavement as the pavement is part of the highway.
  8. The local town centre has a particular problem with troublesome parking blocking a pavement on a busy road, it is also a bend so driver's visibility is limited. The thing is that bits they park on are the entrances to the old bus station which is boarded up. This is frequently forcing people to walk into the road to get around them. Whilst there is a pavement on the other side of the road at that point, there isn't further up, and it is the end of a long road with no junctions. So would this count as highway for an obstruction charge, or does it being an entrance (that isn't in use) mean it isn't. I've attached a screenshot to show the bit concerned, there are actually 3 entrances but only two are visible here. Sometimes they are parked so you can get past, sometimes they aren't.
  9. I get what you're saying but what evidence is there of intent to kill in any case, unless someone admits that is there intent you can't prove it beyond all doubt. But in my view if you've gone and got a large knife then stabbed someone in the torso with no warning, no-one is reasonably going to think they only intended to hurt them a bit so it does prove beyond reasonable doubt. There are several reliable witnesses and it is on CCTV. I'm also puzzled by the charges "wounding with intent", from the CPS page that means wounding with intent to commit GBH. The wounds were really serious, injury to an organ did occur. So does "wounding with intent" mean that they did commit GBH and intended to do that, or does it mean that they intended to commit GBH but only inflicted a lesser wound? Another thing I've seen in a number of cases around here is people being charged with possession of a bladed article when they have actually attacked someone with a knife. I thought once it was used for an attack it became an offensive weapon and the bladed article charge was just for cases were people were found carrying a knife.
  10. So is that just down to the CPS to accept the plea with no involvement from a judge? It seems staggering that someone can stab someone in the torso with a large knife, get prevented from stabbing them again by someone grabbing their arm and putting them in an arm lock and some CPS lawyer decides that isn't attempted murder. I sometimes wonder if these cases are decided with a game of golf!
  11. Threatening anyone is an offence under the Public Order Act. The problem is what exactly constitutes a threat. The law says something like, "words or behaviour that would make a person of reasonable firmness fear for their safety". The fact that it was directed at a child would make charges more likely than if the same was done against an adult. But something vague like that may not be considered sufficient, and often it is the way something is said, body language etc. that makes it threatening and that doesn't relay very well in a statement. Did anyone video the incident? The sports club should have its own guidelines on when things get reported to the police. So it might be an idea to talk to them again, but it might be that they want to brush it under the carpet. It is possible that reporting it might anger him more, but if he is acting like that due to an incident the previous week it seems like he will hold grudges whatever. It might be that your complaint is just one of several and might help the police bring a case, or the police could be investigating an attack on another child and realise that it is this man once they start looking into this. There are so many possibilities. It would be very hard for anyone else to advise you on the best course of action. At the very least, the sports club should be banning him from the ground.
  12. I'd have to wonder about who wrote the law on this, surely if it is used to make fluffy cream stuff it is being consumed? However, as others have said, it may depend on the context in which you're selling it. If you sell catering supplies then you're probably all right. But it would also help to have some written procedures that all staff are trained in to ensure that it is sold for catering use. You may decide to only sell to over 18s, I'd also suggest a limit to the number of canisters you sell to one person. If you have someone who is not in the catering business but wants to buy more than one box, it is likely that they're not making 100 cream teas for a garden party with friends.
  13. In this case, the family aren't just family of an offender though, the girls may also be potential victims. If the man had been found with videos of underage teenage girls being abused, would the police have a duty to take some sort of action to protect the girls such as only releasing him if he lived at another address, or reporting the issue to social services? I think possibly GreyDog is looking for some sort of reassurance that if the girls might be at risk, something would have been done about it.
  14. I know someone who witnessed a stabbing who has now been told that they are not needed as a witness as the defendant has pleaded guilty, but not to attempted murder. They have been told that the person's intent will be decided at a sentencing hearing. I'm confused by this. It was very clearly a pre-meditated attack, and a serious one. The witness in in no doubt that it was attempted murder. But surely if the witness has been told there will be no trial, a sentencing hearing can't decide it is attempted murder. Or am I missing something? Is it possible that they are having a sentencing hearing and could decide then that there needs to be a trial for attempted murder? How much evidence do they look at during a sentencing hearing when there has been no trial. Do they go through witness statements, view CCTV etc? Or is it just the two barristers stating their case?
  15. Accompanying violent offenders to hospital

    Many thanks for that.