Can I carry gardening tools in public?

[RootsBooster]

Yes, you asked about the ability to immediately enter a room, I mentioned the door specifically.

 

I can immediately enter my living room, through the process of depressing the handle and pushing the door. I cannot immediately leave the house because I must unlock the door first.

So we would argue in court over what "immediately" meant.

It's impossible for us to resolve it here, I'm happy to disagree with you, we both understand the position the other is presenting, and we both continue to believe that we may have a point, shall we leave it?

 

I adopted your suggestion of having a door and made like for like comparisons, I'll list more clearly here;

 

Door = folding blade

Latch mechanism = locking mechanism on knife

Obstruction in way of door opening fully = leatherman style handle preventing complete folding of blade

 

Although you may not consider a latch "locking", it locks the door firmly in position until activated, in the same way a "lock" on a locking knife locks the blade in position until activated. After all, you don't need a key to unlock a locking knife.

[Cyclone]

True, so do you believe that you cannot immediately enter a room simply because there is a closed door?

We clearly disagree on what immediately means.

 

You also think that the emergency services CAN respond immediately, even though they have to unlock the ambulance, start it, drive it, etc... This seems to be inconsistent.

[RootsBooster]

True, so do you believe that you cannot immediately enter a room simply because there is a closed door?

We clearly disagree on what immediately means.

 

 

If we use my original example of simply entering a room ( I mentioned no doors) then a closed door would be an obstruction.

 

If we use your later example of adding a door and a latch, then it would have an obstruction and a locking mechanism.

 

If we use my example (that I adapted from yours) where the opening of the door becomes the focus, then the latch is a locking mechanism, the door is the blade and further obstruction is the handle.

 

You also think that the emergency services CAN respond immediately, even though they have to unlock the ambulance, start it, drive it, etc... This seems to be inconsistent.

That was a frivolous example by myself that I can't really see could be comparable. I also don't think they'd stop for a sandwich first. Edited October 14, 2016 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

You mentioned an obstruction, I just picked a common one to investigate the analogy a bit further.

 

It's frivolous now because you realised that immediately didn't mean in some kind of single action, but was actually a sequence of actions chained together, which is generally what doing something immediately means. It doesn't mean that it can be accomplished as a single atomic action, but that the sequence of actions will be started with no delay and with no delay introduced between them.

 

It's always dodgy ground to start looking at word definitions, but

 

immediately

ɪˈmiːdɪətli/Submit

adverb

1.

at once; instantly.

"I rang immediately for an ambulance"

synonyms: straight away, at once, right away, right now, instantly, now, directly, promptly, forthwith, this/that (very) minute, this/that instant, there and then, here and now, in a flash, without delay, without hesitation, without further ado, post-haste; More

2.

without any intervening time or space.

"she was sitting immediately behind me"

 

The action "rang" in that example is actually a sequence of actions, pick up phone, unlock, press numbers, speak to operator. (unlock doesn't apply to a landline).

The action of "enter room" is a sequence of actions.

The action of "fold knife" can be a sequence of actions (or so I am contending).

 

Would you seriously say in conversation that you cannot immediately enter a room simply because of a closed (but not locked) door? I suspect not.

[RootsBooster]

You mentioned an obstruction, I just picked a common one to investigate the analogy a bit further.

 

It's frivolous now because you realised that immediately didn't mean in some kind of single action, but was actually a sequence of actions chained together, which is generally what doing something immediately means. It doesn't mean that it can be accomplished as a single atomic action, but that the sequence of actions will be started with no delay and with no delay introduced between them.

It was frivolous from the start, I thought my sandwich comment might have illustrated that.

It's always dodgy ground to start looking at word definitions, but

 

 

 

The action "rang" in that example is actually a sequence of actions, pick up phone, unlock, press numbers, speak to operator. (unlock doesn't apply to a landline).

The action of "enter room" is a sequence of actions.

The action of "fold knife" can be a sequence of actions (or so I am contending).

 

Would you seriously say in conversation that you cannot immediately enter a room simply because of a closed (but not locked) door? I suspect not.

 

It depends, doesn't it. If we were talking casually, I probably wouldn't consider it an obstruction. If we were talking technically, such as in a physics discussion (or in a court of law), yes I would consider a closed door to be an obstruction that prevents immediate entry.

 

At the end of the day, the court found it to be an issue. It doesn't matter what you or I say.

[Cyclone]

The court didn't consider a leatherman, which is what we're discussing isn't it?

The court specifically found that a locking mechanism meant that a knife was not a folding knife. It made no comment on a device which requires multiple "folds", but has no mechanism to lock.

Your point rests on the comment of the court that it must be immediately foldable. I'm asserting that a leatherman is, because the impediment to 'immediate' that the court identified was a locking mechanism, which the leatherman doesn't have.

[Obelix]

The court didn't consider a leatherman, which is what we're discussing isn't it?

The court specifically found that a locking mechanism meant that a knife was not a folding knife. It made no comment on a device which requires multiple "folds", but has no mechanism to lock.

Your point rests on the comment of the court that it must be immediately foldable. I'm asserting that a leatherman is, because the impediment to 'immediate' that the court identified was a locking mechanism, which the leatherman doesn't have.

 

It did make a comment on them. "The Divisional Court in Harris v DPP and Fehmi v DPP 96 Cr.App.R. 235 held that to be "a folding pocket-knife" the blade has to be readily and immediately foldable at all times simply by the folding process"

 

Immediately foldable means that you can close the blade in one motion. If you have to release a catch or move something out of the way it's not immediate, as the action of folding is interrrupted

[RootsBooster]

The court didn't consider a leatherman, which is what we're discussing isn't it?

The court specifically found that a locking mechanism meant that a knife was not a folding knife. It made no comment on a device which requires multiple "folds", but has no mechanism to lock.

Your point rests on the comment of the court that it must be immediately foldable. I'm asserting that a leatherman is, because the impediment to 'immediate' that the court identified was a locking mechanism, which the leatherman doesn't have.

I think you might be reading the case comments to mean that the knife wasn't immediately foldable because of a locking mechanism, rather than as well as a locking mechanism. And what do you mean "multiple folds"? The blade is pivoted at one end, it folds once to close (and once again if you want to reopen it). The issue is that there is a handle obstructing this folding action. If anything you have to unfold the handle in order to fold the knife.

 

EDIT: As far as I was aware, the case was about a leatherman but one of the ones with a lock. I may be wrong.

Edited October 14, 2016 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

I mean that the leatherman is not locked, it can be folded immediately, but that process involves moving multiple 'folding' parts in order for the blade to reach the fully closed position.

I thought the case was about a much more traditional locking knife, not a leatherman.

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

It did make a comment on them. "The Divisional Court in Harris v DPP and Fehmi v DPP 96 Cr.App.R. 235 held that to be "a folding pocket-knife" the blade has to be readily and immediately foldable at all times simply by the folding process"

 

Immediately foldable means that you can close the blade in one motion. If you have to release a catch or move something out of the way it's not immediate, as the action of folding is interrrupted

 

You've decided that. The court did not say that.

[RootsBooster]

You've decided that. The court did not say that.

 

I'm curious, what do you think the part in bold is actually referring to?...

 

"A knife of the type with which these appeals are concerned is not in this category because, in the first place, there is a stage, namely, when it has been opened, when it is not immediately foldable simply by the folding process and, secondly, it requires that further process, namely, the pressing of the button."

 

... bearing in mind that it addresses the locking mechanism in a second, separate point afterward.