boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 BF. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. In one breath you're supporting Halibut's claim that police are justified when presuming that the wearers of balaclava's, goggle jackets and hoodies are most likely "up to no good" as anyone that conceals their face with a garment that is strongly associated with previous criminal activities is likely to be viewed as being "up to no good" merely because the garment has a strong association with criminal activities. That's all fine if you're assuming I support the view that 'goggle jacket (whatever they are), balaclava and hoodie wearers' are 'up to no good'-I certainly don't share that view. Then in another breath you're defending the right for a Sikh to carry his dagger, despite it meeting the description of an offensive weapon merely due to it's religious significance and the fact that Sikhs are not associated with Knife related offences. Not defending that either, I pointed out why they and dirk wearers enjoy an exemption. Whether it's right or not is another matter. In one instance you're arguing that a Kirpan isn't an offensive weapon in the hands of a Sikh merely because Sikhs are not associated with Knife related crimes, then in the next, you're arguing that the Niqab doesn't pose a threat to security because such garments are not associated with garments that criminals have previously used to conceal their identities. I've made no representation as to whether a kirpan (or a dirk) is an offensive weapon or not. Aren't Knives associated with the the previous activities of criminals?, isn't that the reason everybody is restricted to where they can carry them............. Oh, Sikhs aren't restricted are they, they can carry their Knives whenever and wherever they choose can't they?, because this so called statistical evidence that shows knives as well as balaclava's are strongly associated with the previous criminals activities is being overlooked on this occasion isn't BF. It's hypocritical BF. It may well be hypocritical if you were accurately reflecting my views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Not everybody is restricted in where they can carry knives. Cyclone took his knife on a camping trip, I regularly carry one in my pocket. You're arguing from a false premise. Does your knife meet the description of a knife that is classified as being an offensive weapon in the legislative criminal knives act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 It becomes illegal to wear it when asked to remove it, therefore its illegal to wear it, This is a logical fallacy. It's simply wrong. you said so yourself "The offence comes from keeping it in place" Yes. But it isn't illegal to wear it, it's illegal to refuse to remove it when an S60aa order is in place and you are asked to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Does your knife meet the description of a knife that is classified as being an offensive weapon in the legislative criminal knives act? I don't think so. But if I walk into Hillsborough shopping centre carrying it I will be arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. The same could well be true if I carry a golf club, chain saw or baseball bat. On a golf course, whilst cutting down a tree or whilst playing baseball though I'd be at no risk of arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 This is a logical fallacy. It's simply wrong. Yes. But it isn't illegal to wear it, it's illegal to refuse to remove it when an S60aa order is in place and you are asked to do so. Explain the difference between wearing it and refusing to take it off, what are you doing in both circumstances, here's a clue, wearing it, sunk in yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 If it were illegal to wear it, then there would be no need to ask you to take it off, you would be arrested for the offence of wearing it. That isn't an offence and you cannot be arrested for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 None whatsoever, but what evidence do they have that a motorcycle helmet wearer actually has a motorcycle? Lordy, it could be anybody under there, even Lord Lucan, or maybe Shergar! Which presumably is the reason why police occasionally stop motorcycle helmet wearers. To satisfy their curiosity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 I've already said - there's no evidence to assume otherwise. If you have some, publish it. What evidence is that? Example: Should the police feel it necessary to carry out a random stop and search on someone walking along fargate wearing a balaclava, what evidence is there that the balaclava wearer is any more likely to commit crime than the Niqab wearing onlooker passing by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 A number of crimes committed by balaclava wearing people... And a lack of a number of crimes committed by Niqab wearing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 A number of crimes committed by balaclava wearing people... And a lack of a number of crimes committed by Niqab wearing people. So next time that burgling mugging feeling comes on dump your balaclava and get a niqab simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.