1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How did the UK become totalitarian police state?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Paul_cz, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. nox_uk

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 12, 2006

    Posts: 626

    Lots of things don't make sense, but allowing guns makes even less sense. Guns were designed as an offensive weapon, which is a good enough reason for me to make sure there is very tight legislation around ownership. Also consider the very small chance of it being needed and the equally small chance of it not being 'at hand' if it were needed (presumably you would want to keep it in a secure location)
     
  2. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 10,857

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Maybe we should allow guns to be carried by the disabled and small women. I'd imagine we wouldn't get any complaints about that.
     
  3. nox_uk

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 12, 2006

    Posts: 626

    That could be considered discriminatory by some - it's almost presuming the disabled and small women are incapable of commiting crimes with those guns.
     
  4. Donnie Fisher

    Gangster

    Joined: Jun 22, 2018

    Posts: 210

    If its a taser type device ( which it was ), then it falls under being a S.5 firearm as it 'discharges a liquid or other noxious substance' ( paraphrased ) ... in this case, the noxious substance is electricity.

    The 5 year sentence comes from 5 years being the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a concealed firearm. Disguised as a torch, its concealed. As a teaser, its a firearm. Possession = 5 years minimum.

    It may well have been the case that a lesser sentence would have occurred if the device was not like a torch and clearly branded as a taser type device.
     
  5. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    UK has been a police state for a long time, "hate crime" prosecutions, obscene publications acts censoring the Web, banning acids etc that people use for home chemistry hobbies and cleaning. "Extreme porn" banning videos of legal consensual acts because of some nutjob called Liz Longhurst.

    If you aren't using a vpn to obscure your Internet activity you're a fool.

    In the case of stun guns, it is really trivial to make them using common electronics components and AA batteries. 5 years in prison is absurd for wanting to defend yourself with a non lethal weapon.
     
  6. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,353

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    Trivially easy to make a stun gun?
    Maybe, but you'd then be facing charges in relation to the manufacture of the weapon as well as posession, and I suspect the average drug dealer scum isn't going to have the ability to make one.

    Also IIRC the "ban on acids" is much more a ban on having them in something other than the proper containers or in public without a good reason - basically the same rules that have applied to knives for years and yet doesn't seem to stop anyone with a legitimate use from having them.
     
  7. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    Take a look on youtube, it is a very trivial circuit to make with very cheap components you can buy on the high street, no real experience required.




    The ban on acids I am referring to has nothing to do with having them in public, I am referring to this https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rs/supplying-explosives-precursors-and-poison

    Which bans possession of battery acid (sulphuric acid), drain cleaner (sodium hydroxide), patio cleaner (hydrochloric acid), ammonia (cleaning chemical) or mercury (used in thermometers) without a licence for example, ridiculous.

    Even I have these chemicals in my basement and could be prosecuted under such a law.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  8. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,770

    Location: Vvardenfell

    But you wouldn't be, as long as they were in household product containers. If you have a 1kg pot of Sigma-Aldrich NaOH however, you would need to explain it. And S-A wouldn't sell it to you either. Nor do the police (or anyone else) give a **** about an old mercury thermometer. Or battery acid in a Halfords container. But try to buy any of these from a chemical company and you can expect some interest. The law is reasonable, but you appear not to be.
     
  9. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    I bought 1.5kg of 99% NaOH, and 5L of 37% HCL off ebay because it was cheaper than buying a branded cleaning product. The police state going after me for that is not reasonable because the container has a different brand name on it, the law is not reasonable, neither do you appear to be. Heil Theresa right?

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1500g-Ly...=item3b2312e9ff:g:T34AAOSwIbtb9Aqv:rk:14:pf:0

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hydrochl...h=item1ebb561eb1:g:j4cAAOSwX9FZHEd8:rk:6:pf:0

    Your attitude is unfortunately typical of the uneducated, naive, fearful citizen who has no chemistry knowledge and does not understand that these chemicals are ubiquitous and readily available and assumes someone who owns a test tube is manufacturing nuclear weapons or methamphetamine. It's a sad sign of chemistry education in this country. :(
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  10. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 29,383

    how often do you find yourself needing to defend yourself on a weekly basis?

    in my whole life neither my home or families have ever been broken into. outside of that it's easy to avoid conflict by not hanging out where idiots like to hang out. if i do ever get broken into my house is alarmed downstairs and i have a baseball bat in the corner and a cutting knife on the bedside table which i use for opening parcels/packaging.
     
  11. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,770

    Location: Vvardenfell


    You know I've been an analytical chemist for twenty-five years, right? First in forensics, then Tox, now environmental. I do have a little chemical knowledge thank you.
     
  12. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    I find that hard to believe considering you seem to think that NaOH is hard to come by when it's commonly sold on ebay, and the fact that any self respecting chemist supports citizen science. But let's say for the sake of argument I believed you. It still would not change the fact that the attitude you display is typical of the uneducated hysterical masses.
     
  13. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,770

    Location: Vvardenfell


    At what point did I say either of those things? Would you care to actually read what I said, not what you think I said? What I said was that the police are generally not going to care about hobbyists buying chemicals which are packaged up for clearly intended purposes. I'll admit that I had thought of Fleabay because I try to avoid thinking about them, but the point still applies. I should also point out that using sodium hydroxide to clean drains is a silly idea. A better idea would be to think through what you are putting down your drains that blocks them anough that you need a strong base to clear them, and stop doing it. And who on earth buys sulphuric acid for car batteries? It's 2018, not 1958. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg that's that's old-fashioned. "For my car battery" is usually only used as an excuse by people who bought it throw at people. Which is why we have this law in the first place. But yes, if to buy certain chemiclas the law will take an interest. But just an interest. I will remind you I wa s aforensic drug chemist, so one of the people the police went to when they wanted to ask: "what would someone do with xxx?". And I am more than happy with that approach, as a sensible compromise. Allowing people to buy whatever chmmicals thay want is sillier than allowing them to buy none. And neither of those extreme describes the current law.
     
  14. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    You said sigma aldrich would not supply you with NaOH as if to imply chemical suppliers would not supply a private citizen with 99% NaOH which as ebay shows is completely incorrect.

    And I have to disagree with your position, you need a very strong reason to interfere in someone's personal life, the fact that something which has a very useful everyday purpose may be misused is not a valid reason to ban it, it's like banning cars because they have been used in terrorist attacks.

    I have made my own batteries with sulphuric acid because I enjoy chemistry and have a passion for it, I should not be persecuted by the government for it.

    Your position is a very dangerous one indeed, instead of relying on the law you are relying entirely on the discretion of the police force.
     
  15. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,770

    Location: Vvardenfell

    So the weird bloke living next door to you should be allowed to buy a cylinder of ClF3 because he claims that he is an amateur chemist and hasn't actually been convicted of an offence? You'd have no problem with this? Because not letting him buy it would interfere with his freedom?

    Because some people may misuse something may indeed not be a valid reason for banning something, but somehow that's how the law has operated for a long time in this country. Usually for good reason, whatever you might think. Of course there have been some silly over-reactions - the Dangerous Dogs Act is still the worst law passed in fifty years - but this law is not particularly onerous. Of course there's a balance to be struck. A hobby which might only harm the partaker should probably be allowed some leeway. A hobby with a good chance of killing or maining non-participants is completely different. I also used to shoot. When Balir more or less destroyed shooting in this country I thought it was an over-reaction. But I also accpet that it worked. Going your way would leave us like the US: you can have a gun right up until you do something bad with it. Which is too late for hundreds, nearing thousands, of people a year.

    If your response is: chemicals don't kill many people, then my response is: no, but they are just as dead, and would you like to explain your theory to their relatives? Or the people blinded with acid or alkali?
     
  16. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    I would in general allow the possession of a quantity of chemicals that are not going to endanger other people, such that homeowners can perform everyday tasks like cleaning their patio and unblocking their drains, chemicals like NaOH and HCL which have many legitimate home uses and are not going to realistically harm someone unless thrown in their face would be a no brainer. Having a kilo of nitroglycerin which is likely to blow up your neighbours house would not be allowed. That would be a sensible policy to adopt.

    Banning every single chemical that could be used to harm someone on the other hand is not a sensible approach.

    What theory? You are going all appeal to emotion on me now.

    Numbers don't factor into my argument, it's as you yourself put it "A hobby which might only harm the partaker".

    If you want to play the numbers game however, you might want to take a look at banning knives, they kill far more people than are blinded by acid. I just find it such a weak argument.
     
  17. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 17,492

    I mean to be fair banning acids and alkalies is kind of pointless, anyone can go to a shop, buy bleach or 200 proof alcohol to throw at people. It's entirely right for the police to ask someone why they're visibly carrying it, but that's as far as it can really go.
     
  18. Poneros

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2015

    Posts: 2,425

  19. C.R.A.Z.Y

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 21, 2010

    Posts: 4,476

    lawl
    Spot the OC's who have bought stun gun's off the deep web! (Better not upset anyone you showed it to :p)

    Of course the idiot deserves jail time, stun guns like standard guns have no place in a civilised society!
     
  20. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,563

    Unfortunately society isn't civilised which is why people feel the need to buy self defence weapons.