I would'nt advise it, mate. You would need a very sympathetic copper to turn a blind eye. IIRC, self-defense is NOT a valid reason for carrying a knife, although a knife may be used in self-defense if there was a legit reason for you having it in the first place, ie you were attacked in your own home and grabbed a bread knife. Even then, you'd have to convince some judge, who has'nt had a scrap for several decades, that your actions constituted Reasonable Force.

Nowhere near as effective as a knife, but at least it's legal, is good, solid Maglite. Six-Cell are the best(heaviest). Stick that in your bag and say it's part of your kit. Plausable, espicially if you're on your way for a weekend in the field. Even if it was a Drill Night, just tell them you were taking it to stick it in your locker at the TAC.

Kuboton's are effective - I once punched a chav from the pavement into the middle of the road Unfortunately, there was'nt any traffic at the time. Pity. The Kubaton was legal when I bought it, but it might have been banned since then.

We can't have people defending themselves from assaults, kidnappings etc. What about the human rights of the chavs, terrorists and rapists?!

Thankfully,our friend Mr Maglite makes a mini-me version that works just as well as a Kubaton. Plus, you can use the light to search his wallet after you've knocked the cnut out!

One for any coppers; what's the law on a small Swiss Army knife? Is their a minnimum length of blade that a person can carry without having to give an explanation for? Our, as I suspect are ALL kives verbottan without a valid reason?

A finely crafted and expensive pen has both style and stopping power, especially when applied sharply to the top of a head. Not heard that the rozzers are able to lift anyone for possession of a pen as yet - so today the pen may well indeed be mightier than the sword.

Heard this story on the radio this morning (I'm Downunder) and got onto the interweb when I got to work for the details.

Good, up to date reporting in The Telegraph with similar reporting on the BBC page, I thought - except as I scrolled down I came to this gem:

Earlier BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford said sources close to the investigation said the aim of the alleged plot was to kidnap a serving member of the armed forces, perhaps while they were on home leave. He stressed the arrests were based on intelligence, which could prove to be wrong. link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6315989.stm

Thanks pal.

retread2

Fair one - the old Jason Bourne special!

Evidently the UK security forces are keeping tabs on as many as 8000 people suspected of terror ties. So far they are doing a great job. I suspect that they are getting cooperation from within the muslim community.

Tomahawk:

Somehow, I doubt it.

And if you're right, why are the extermists being exposed by investigative journalists (taking risks that make Roger Cook look a bit of a nancy) rather than the community?

Originally Posted by Bert_Preast

Tomahawk:

Somehow, I doubt it.

And if you're right, why are the extermists being exposed by investigative journalists (taking risks that make Roger Cook look a bit of a nancy) rather than the community?

Because the journos are being used (knowingly) as a neutral route allowing persec to remain for the cooperating locals.

Whilst it is not at all appropriate to respond to this (if it is as it appears - remember Forest Gate/de Menez) or anything, with unthinking racism (for that is what they want), nor is it sufficient to brush it under the rather threadbare carpet of 'a small minority of troublemakers, who tar the law abiding majority'. There must be no confrontation of races - but there must be an honest assessment of how we have allowed this cancer to develop in our country. It is the old liberal dilemma - how tolerant can you be of intolerance? With all evidence (surveys on Sharia law etc) pointing towards a fairly significant group of people who define themselves by their religion and wish to bring violence on others, tolerance is not surely possibly anymore. We must work out how to surgically excise this cancer, without allowing it to spread to otherwise healthy areas. We cannot deny the cancer is there, however, or it will continue to grow of its own accord.

Originally Posted by armchair_jihad

Because the journos are being used (knowingly) as a neutral route allowing persec to remain for the cooperating locals.

We might hope so. But that bugger still got on his toes, didn't he? As Hassan Butt said, muslims have ways of entering and leaving the country - ways that are recently being confirmed by the SF.

The operators have balls like a bull, and I don't want to take anything away from them - but I suspect after the journo runs his expose they make themselves scarce. From the sound and video recordings it would be too dangerous for them to remain in situ. So it still seems the Times is doing at least as effective job as MI5.

Dilfor - Stop saying race when you're talking of religion. There will be a conflict, there is simply no other realistic outcome. It's a matter of when - a spectacular success on the part of Al Qaeda could see a civil war tomorrow that the politicians will be unable to control. If not, sometime in the next century we or our unfortunate offspring will see islamist parties winning elections and that will be deeply unpleasant too.

Blame the politicians who thought if we bent over backwards to be accommodating that everyone would learn to love us. I live in Spain where jack shit is translated - if you no speaka da lingo you pay someone who does, and you know what? Nobody complains.

Though I must admit this has created a huge middle class of translators. But we'll deal with that problem when they start bombing.