Even some who voted Yes conceded the practical objection. Those who backed an automatic five years narrowly lost, and the most-respected Yes case opened by admitting “we simply don’t have the space in prisons as it stands”.
The Yes side argued from bluntness. One of its best-rated voices held that a good reason means “a chef travelling to a new place of work or other tradespeople doing their daily jobs”, with “No exemptions for religious grounds”. Another asked what one good reason there could be for carrying a knife in public at all. A third Yes voter backed the principle but called the threat “empty & pointless” without jail spaces.
The No side split in tone. Its joint most-respected case was a dry procedural one, using existing law first, sitting beside a deliberately outrageous call for everyone to carry knives and guns. The more developed No arguments dwelt on definition: one voter asked “who decides what good a reason is?”, while another warned that a Leatherman multitool can already fall foul of the law. Others argued that prisons are full, and that automatic sentencing hands judges bad decisions.
That is the wider argument over sentencing and overcrowded prisons: both sides raised capacity, and Yes voters answered it with a shrug or a regret rather than a rebuttal. The No side, for its part, left the Yes demand for deterrence largely met with doubt rather than an alternative.
The verdict, then, is a narrow refusal in which the practical objection was shared across the vote.
97 Opinions
No. Everyone should carry knives and guns, be properly prosecuted and punished if they misuse them, and rewarded with medals for using them right.
Can we just try actually using the laws we have first?
We really are having straightforward questions today! A good reason is a chef travelling to a new place of work or other tradespeople doing their daily jobs. In which case knife should be securely stowed away (if just purchased then on original packaging). No exemptions for religious grounds. Immediate custodial sentence.
The police would be told on which demographics to enforce it and the judiciary would decide which cases would be thrown out based on their own biases. As a nation we need to start by firing, fining and jailing the leftist judiciary. Judge Ian Lawrie KC just let a 14 year old boy who stabbed a girl 10 times walk free because he was "bright". He should have been jailed for life and the judge should have lost his job and his pension. Edited
Does anyone actually serve the full sentence? Except those who tweet in anger at a massacre. Abetting a killer by hiding his weapons - out in months! Murder little girls at a dance class and move into a hospital with full support. Until we have policing and sentencing with no fear or favour this is not worth debating.
It really doesn’t take a lot of imagination to work out some of the unforeseen consequences that will come from automatic sentencing. Also: ask yourself this question. Who do you want freeing early to make space in prison for a knife carrier?
Section 139 works exactly as it is. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139 It's balanced, giving the officer discretion. You cannot legally carry a knife of any kind for defence. We should return to policing what people do, not what they might do. Otherwise every pub would have plastic glasses.
It should be legal again. The problem never came from the British public carrying them, only from allowing in immigrants who misuse them.
We should be allowed to defend ourselves, in fact I would be happy to carry a gun which I am more comfortable with .
Are we also going to ban chisels, saw blades, drill bits, files, garden shears, secateurs, screwdrivers, cars, hammers etc? This is word upside down. Knife can be a very useful tool, also for self-defence. Making carrying a too a punishable offence is another example of nanny state. People do not kill because they carry knives.