Knives, lyes and motorbikes

Let’s imitate God and ban knives

Ban them all – and I’m petitioning the government to that effect. You’ll definitely join in once you’ve learned these harrowing facts.

But first a fact to be proud of. As a passionate Londoner, I take pleasure in every achievement of my city, even those that might strike some as dubious.

Thus I’ve long found it annoying that, though London has for years led New York in most crime categories, those brash New Yorkers could still boast a higher murder rate.

I’m happy to report that this is no longer the case. Ever since handguns were banned in 1996, the murder rate in London has been climbing steadily, until our capital has finally pulled ahead of New York.

We now have Johannesburg in our sights, so those South Africans don’t have long to rest on the laurels of their wreaths. The murder rate in London is growing at 12 per cent a year – take that, New York and J’burg.

Now that getting a firearm has become harder (though buying a South London barman a pint is a good start), knives have moved to the forefront of killing implements.

In the year to March 2018, 40,147 people were stabbed in Britain. Cold steel has thus replaced firearms as a means of controlling inordinate population growth. And there I was, thinking that banning handguns would enable every Briton to die a natural death.

One’s pride in such achievements is slightly dampened by the realisation that shivs are rather old hat. People have been using them since time immemorial, at least since Abraham pulled a knife on his son.

On the other hand, disfiguring attacks with household detergents, such as lyes and acids, are rather new, at least when launched on the present British scale.

Britain comfortably leads the rest of the world in the rate of acid attacks and, much as one sympathises with the plight of the mutilated victims, this is yet another glorious achievement.

Many of such attacks are launched from motorcycles. Ride-by splash-ups have become popular, which is good news for the manufacturers of both motorcycles and domestic cleansers.

The rest of us, however, may regard such statistics as lamentable – that is, once we’ve contained our pride in our country’s accomplishments. For it’s sometimes disconcerting to see so many people disfigured with chemical compounds, stabbed, slashed or disembowelled.

One might think we have a bit of a social problem there, further augmented by a lamentable failure of our law enforcement.

If so, how do we solve such problems? The short answer is, we can’t.

The longer answer is that any attempt to do so would run into the stonewall of accusations of racism, xenophobia, elitism and possibly even Islamophobia (I’m not sure where homophobia fits in, but it must somehow).

For, it pains me to report, such acts aren’t typically committed by tweedy, clubbable gentlemen. Most of them are perpetrated by young chaps securely protected by the above-mentioned stonewall.

Hence the solution offers itself: ban the items in the title. Admittedly, there will be some practical hitches to overcome, but that’s nothing that British ingenuity, honed by decades of progressive legislation, can’t handle.

How, I hear you ask, will it be possible to cook without easy access to knives? I had to think about this long and hard, but then – Archimedes in his bath, Newton with his apple – the solution came to me in a flash.

The purchase of kitchen knives must require a professional licence, only available to purveyors of food: chefs, butchers and fishmongers. Knives not in use must be kept in padlocked cabinets.

When buying a piece of silverside at, say, Tesco’s, a customer can tell the butcher how the meat will be cooked. The licensed professional will then cut up the beef to the specified requirements. The resulting meal may then be consumed using plastic cutlery or, better still, fingers.

How, I also hear you ask, will people be able to clean their floors and other dirty surfaces if household detergents are banned? By posing this question you’ve instantly branded yourself as a hater of tradition.

For the answer is: the same way your grandmother (okay, great-grandmother) did it: tucking the hem of her skirt into her belt, getting down on her hands and knees in front of a bucket of soaped water and scrubbing the floor. Then getting up and using the same liquid to clean the kitchen counter and, while at it, house pets.

As to motorcycles, banning them is even easier. Who needs personal transportation anyway when Britain boasts such an advanced system of public transport?

Our trains, for example, are justly famous for encouraging a relaxed attitude to getting to work on time, while our buses vindicate the Roman injunction festina lente (make haste slowly).

Obsession with punctuality is a major source of stress, and curing this problem is yet another area in which Britain excels.

The aforementioned petition is available on the website of The Charles Martel Society for Multiculturalism, of which I’m the founder, president and so far the only member. Or rather it will be available there once I’ve got around to registering the website.

8 thoughts on “Knives, lyes and motorbikes”

  1. Why is it that the whole fabric of society has to be destroyed before some action can be taken to put the country back on a sane footing? Working within the two Party system is currently a waste of time because neither of them represents the interests of the British people, and a choice, one could argue, between May and Corbyn is really no choice at all. Taking the law into your own hands may, in certain cases, be morally defensible but I doubt that vigilantism would work on a national basis, probably leading to anarchy and who knows what else. Does that mean we are condemned and have no further say in the future of this country?

    1. The phrase “taking the law into your own hands” always amuses and deflates me, at the same time…

      …whose law is it?

      A major cause of the problems we have today lie in the abandonment of Peel’s nine principles of policing – especially the seventh:

      “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

      The law and its enforcers, the police, used to belong to us all equally and we all had a duty to uphold and enforce it. Now the law is used as a tool to manage the population and the police (formerly one of our independent institutions that really were the ‘envy of the World’) have become politicised enough to be divorced from the public they were formed to serve. They are now the enforcers of the state’s law.

    2. “represents the interests of the British people”

      There is the crux – when you import 3rd worlders who vote left, you are no longer hamstrung by having to cater to the wants and desires of indigenous Brits

  2. Anyone know the racial make-up of the perpetrators and victims of the latest stabbing incident? Four cut up bad at one time. As reported by the English tabloids.

  3. In all seriousness, the 1996 ban on handguns must have done some good. I imagine that if one is of the right background and knows the right people in south London, then acquiring a firearm is perfectly doable. But really, imagine the white-collar chap who fancies opening fire on his office floor in a fit of nihilism, it’s going to be rather difficult for him to acquire anything more powerful than a BB or pellet gun.
    Unlike gangsters, spree killers seem to depend on legally available firearms. For example, the perpetrator of the 2010 Cumbria shootings used his own legally owned hunting rifle and shotgun. True, Derrick Bird could have used a knife, but I imagine it would have carried much less appeal, too up close, to intimate, the inability to ‘shoot and scoot’ might have made him call off the idea altogether.

    1. Spree killers also rely on either a gun control zone – like a school or college, in the US – or the biggest gun control zone of them all – the disarmed population of Western Europe.

      When I asked a police SO19 operative what effect the 1996 handgun ban had on his call out statistics (this was in the year 2000) he replied: “It’s made the situation much worse. The only people who are now armed are the criminals – and they know it.”

  4. “the police (formerly one of our independent institutions that really were the ‘envy of the World’)”

    Prior to 1939 British justice the BEST in the world. MOST uniform and most fair. The BEST. I say that not even being an Englishman. Credit due where credit due.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.