Ships Nostalgia banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As a father and Grandpa myself, I was deeply saddened to learn of yet more deaths and injuries to young people, particularly in London due to knives. I heard somewhere that there had been something like 265 deaths or serious injuries caused by knives in the UK since the first of January 2018?
I was doing some work in my kitchen yesterday and my wife had the programme, "Loose Women" on in the background and the general consensus of opinion seemed to be that we should have more social workers dealing with the poor loves who carry the knives, after all they have had tough upbringing and this is just their little way of expressing themselves. Well I nearly hit my thumb with a hammer!

My view is that we have a Home Secretary, sitting in Whitehall with his thumb up his bum working out how he can further reduce our overloaded police force when he could invoke "Special Powers" to stop and search anybody at any time. I know that they all ready have these powers but they are scared to use them for fear of claims of racism or discrimination. It needs to be re-enforced. If any knives are found, the carrier goes straight to prison for 10 real years, no discount, unless they are a butcher or some other bona fide trade. No money wasted with trials and an end to this Namby Pamby cosseting of s***.

I don't buy this "We had a tough upbringing" garbage. We all came from an era of "tough upbringing" and "character building" post war but we didn't go stabbing people. What do all you lads and lassies out there think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
Quote [ It needs to be re-enforced. If any knives are found, the carrier goes straight to prison for 10 real years, no discount, unless they are a butcher or some other bona fide trade. No money wasted with trials and an end to this Namby Pamby cosseting of s***.] Quote.

Do you not realise that British Justice, indeed all Western Justice, is there to provide well paid jobs for Solicitors, Barristers and Judges. No trial, no pay day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
A friend found a report on line that a carpenter on his way to work was arrested for carrying a Stanley type knife. He was fined £400 in a magistrate's court. It was cheaper to pay than to fight the case i9n a higher court, which was apparently his only recourse.

If this is true I feel I'm lucky to live in another country. As a boy scout I was expected to carry a knife, a shilling and a length of twine. At a later stage I heard a man who later became the high sherrif of a part of the UK tell someone, "A sailor without a knife is like a woman without a fanny."

The ills of the modern world are not quite so upsetting in someone else's country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Quote [ It needs to be re-enforced. If any knives are found, the carrier goes straight to prison for 10 real years, no discount, unless they are a butcher or some other bona fide trade. No money wasted with trials and an end to this Namby Pamby cosseting of s***.] Quote.

Do you not realise that British Justice, indeed all Western Justice, is there to provide well paid jobs for Solicitors, Barristers and Judges. No trial, no pay day.
Good points well made. I guess we will just have to carry on listening to everyone on telly and radio waxing lyrical about how awful it all is whilst nobody does anything about it, a bit like the Emperor Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
carried a pocket knife (usually a swiss army) since I was 14, too old to change now. some of your laws are truly retarded. blame an inanimate object instead of the person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
carried a pocket knife (usually a swiss army) since I was 14, too old to change now. some of your laws are truly retarded. blame an inanimate object instead of the person.
I thought I was targeting the person John, it is no good arresting the knife John. Instead of knocking my suggestion what would you do?After all if we had arrested their van at Borough Market rather than shooting the occupants there would have been even more dead than there was. As for your story about the Swiss Army knife, we all carried a pen knife but it is a bit like Alf Garnett, the character would be grossly offensive and unacceptable in today's world but we all laughed our **** off at him back in the day. People are killing other people with knives on our streets almost every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,858 Posts
A friend found a report on line that a carpenter on his way to work was arrested for carrying a Stanley type knife. He was fined £400 in a magistrate's court. It was cheaper to pay than to fight the case i9n a higher court, which was apparently his only recourse.
Was this in the Daily Mail? Sounds like something they might have dreamed up.

The police (and presumably the courts) regard knives with a locking blade, where the blade is normally hidden (flick knife or switch-blade) and shoots out at the press of a button, or with a cutting edge longer than 3 inches, as not allowed to be carried in public. The seaman's Green River would not be permitted to be carried ashore into the pub nowadays but the Stanley knives I have owned are not in either of those prohibited categories. There is no law against owning long knives or even swords, but you may not take them on your person in a public place, unless they are a work tool. That allows butchers, chefs and other professional users to carry them but only when travelling to or from work.

Carrying other, smaller, knives even though they may potentially be offensive weapons, is not normally considered a crime but using a knife, of any size, to threaten another person, of course is not permitted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Was this in the Daily Mail? Sounds like something they might have dreamed up.

.
What have you got against the Daily Mail, of all the National Daily Newspapers I have written to over many many years about our Merchant Navy not being recognised and for the sacrifices made and their importance both in war and peacetime; the Daily Mail was the only National Newspaper who over some years has telephoned me, visited me and published my letters about our MN, the last one being published on 22nd August 2018.

Our local newspaper has also been very supportive, publishing my letters on MN history and the 3rd September.

Whilst I don't believe everything I read in newspapers, I read all types, I will support the Daily Mail as they have supported me and our Merchant Navy. Having travelled the world for 60 years and visited over 90 countries in my seagoing and shore career (and lived in some) I am well able to sort the wheat from the chaffe and don't agree with everything they publish, but will give credit where credit is due.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,858 Posts
What have you got against the Daily Mail, of all the National Daily Newspapers I have written to over many many years about our Merchant Navy not being recognised and for the sacrifices made and their importance both in war and peacetime;
Well apart from its record of regularly presenting incorrect and fabricated stories, it was the only one of the existing crop of British newspapers that enthusiastically supported Hitler and the Nazis during the 1930s. The policies of that combination did not work out too well for the British Seaman in the early half of the 1940s.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Well apart from its record of regularly presenting incorrect and fabricated stories, it was the only one of the existing crop of British newspapers that enthusiastically supported Hitler and the Nazis during the 1930s. The policies of that combination did not work out too well for the British Seaman in the early half of the 1940s.
Eighty-eight years ago when Hitler seemed to be transforming Germany from a basket case? Were they still supporting him when he launched Blitzkrieg? Incorrect and fabricated stories? I doubt if any national newspapers did that, but they might publish according to the information that they have at the time because there are press deadlines to meet.

Then, newspapers are commercial enterprises with owners and shareholders. Who owned the Daily Mail in the nineteen-thirties as distinct from who owns it now? Should we visit punishment upon the children for the sins of their fathers?

I am not an apologist for the Daily Mail since I never read it, but I don't blame someone for a position their earlier generation took eighty years ago. (Whaaa)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Well apart from its record of regularly presenting incorrect and fabricated stories, it was the only one of the existing crop of British newspapers that enthusiastically supported Hitler and the Nazis during the 1930s. The policies of that combination did not work out too well for the British Seaman in the early half of the 1940s.
I cannot believe that you believe that the Daily Mail was responsible for Hitler invading Poland and others and that the Daily Mail was responsible for the Battle of the Atlantic, but I suppose it takes all sorts to make a world(Read)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
I have had my Green River knife to hand most of my life. My grandson (6) lives in a big city, I have re-thought the wisdom of having it stuck between two books in the bookcase, it is now in a drawer. It is better that he doesn't see a knife as being something Grandad has. It seems sad, I always had a knife (usually fairly small) and matches in my pocket when I was out playing as a kid, but the world has changed.

Leave the Daily Mail alone, I don't think they are listening. An odious paper, but then which ones aren't? Most of them are written by journalists, and, after politicians, they say what they feel like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I cannot believe that you believe that the Daily Mail was responsible for Hitler invading Poland and others and that the Daily Mail was responsible for the Battle of the Atlantic, but I suppose it takes all sorts to make a world(Read)
You are all wrong, it was Basil Fawltys fault, he blamed the Germans for starting it by invading Poland.(Thumb)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,858 Posts
I cannot believe that you believe that the Daily Mail was responsible for Hitler invading Poland and others and that the Daily Mail was responsible for the Battle of the Atlantic
You are correct, I do not believe that the Daily Mail was responsible for those German actions.

In the 1930s, the Daily Mail, which at that time was owned by the 1st Viscount Rothermere, a fervent supporter of the politics of Hitler and Mussolini, ran active campaigns in support of those politics. It was strongly anti-semitic in nature and supported Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts and encouraged the UK government to adopt an appeasing stance to Germany's re-armament.

The non-acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles by the USA and the reluctance of the UK (amongst others) to enforce the limitations under Part V of the Treaty on such re-armament, allowed Germany to become sufficiently powerful militarily to undertake WW2. The lobbying of appeasers and right-wing sympathisers, including the many articles published by the Daily Mail, played a significant part in preventing the UK from intervening.

The present Daily Mail, owned by the 4th Viscount Rothermere, is also strongly supportive of right-wing politics and was a firm promoter of the 'Leave' campaign (even though he is domiciled in France and is rumoured to be pro-EU). The newspaper is strongly xenophobic and constantly publishes trumped-up attacks on asylum seekers, benefits and other disadvantaged sectors of the public. Its claims and articles are so untrustworthy that last year Wikipedia banned its use as a source on the grounds that it was "generally unreliable".

So I don't trust it. Not because of the owners and their views, but because of what the newspaper has, and does, publish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
You are all wrong, it was Basil Fawltys fault, he blamed the Germans for starting it by invading Poland.(Thumb)
I'm not fully up to date on the start of WW2 but I know how WW1 started and I'm sure they had similar valid reasons:



The Causes of WWI



Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?



Edmund: Do you mean "Why did the war start?"


Baldrick: Yeah.


George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.


Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.


George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!


Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.


Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.


Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.


Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.


George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...


Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.


Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?


Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.


George: What was that, sir?


Edmund: It was boll0ckks.


Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Brilliant Engine Serang, and probably true(Thumb)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
(i)You are correct, I do not believe that the Daily Mail was responsible for those German actions.

(ii) Wikipedia banned its use as a source on the grounds that it was "generally unreliable".
(I) Glad to hear it Ron, as I believe there were numerous other newspapers available at the same time, some with the same views and some (as today) with opposing views : You pays yer money yer takes yer choice. Being born before the start of WWII I do remember reading some of them during WWII when I was old enough to read.

(ii) I think that may be a case of the kettle calling the pot black, as Wikepedia's information has been called into question many a time

Rgds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,858 Posts
....I think that may be a case of the kettle calling the pot black, as Wikepedia's information has been called into question many a time Rgds
That is exactly my point .. when even the dubious Wiki rejects you as a source of reliable information, you are most definitely not to be trusted.

I am not sure what support you feel is provided to your argument in favour of the Daily Mail by the fact that you were born pre-WW2, during which event you read newspapers, but if there is any such support, I would claim my share of it. I too was born (just) before the start of WW2 and, being my mother's only companion (my father was overseas with the British Army for the duration), I received her full attention and was taught by her to read fluently, well before starting school shortly before my 4th birthday. When relatives visited, my party trick was not to sing a song, or recite a poem but to read out an article from that day's newspaper - the Daily Dispatch of course, never the abhorrent Daily Mail, which would not have been permitted anywhere in the house, not even torn into squares and hung up in the lavatory.

Not only the relatives were impressed by my ability to read the newspaper, so were the teachers at my primary school. That stood me in good stead and I sailed through as a star pupil, a real teacher's pet. After passing my "scholarship" (became known as the 11-plus) exam I had to remain in the primary school for a further year because I was under-age for acceptance into the grammar school.

On progressing to the grammar school I received a rather rude awakening - everyone else could also read and there were other smart kids around, some much smarter than me.

Such is life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,418 Posts
It occurs to me that the catholic reader of newpapers has the pleasure of disposing of the ones with which he disagrees in the smallest room. The more partisan have no choice but to offend their prophets by hanging their gospel on the nail.

(It also occurs to me that, innate intellect aside, your mother was an excellent teacher and this was a competence absent from your primary school).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,050 Posts
From ES's post:

'But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.'


Pretty much seems to sum it up to me!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top