Fergal":xvvmpcyx said:At least you got a reply from your MP. All I got was the automated response. I won't say who he is, but I guess he's too busy planning his bid to oust the PM to deal with his pleb constituents.
As MY elected representative in parliament i reasonably expect him to deal professionally with a reasonable concern - not to respond with a glib party soundbite.
so... this was my response.
Mr Hanson
Thank you for your reply to my query.
However I disagree with the tone of your reply. I am not interested in a party political stance and views on the ills or otherwise of the last 8 years. I have asked you as my representative at parliament to raise an issue based on a specific proposed change to legislation that I believe will be ineffective and will disadvantage numerous legitimate and creative groups.
The bill has a limited period of review at committee stage (until 13th September I believe) and requires our elected representatives to engage in detailed review of its contents based on the views of both experts and your constituents to create an effective piece of legislation. Not engaging in the debate but relying on soundbites about “austerity” is going to squander that opportunity and is not conducive to a meaningful debate.
I am certain that the processes of parliament will allow the wider debate over policing and resourcing to continue and that as a labour party member you will argue long and hard for the principles that you represent and were elected for. As you should.
But as my representative I would like you to address the points I raised to you in my email, and not to just respond with the party line.
The proposed Bill affects changes to the Offensive Weapons act. It is not about police resources, its about restricting the availability of certain items – many of which can be lawfully obtained and used and pose less danger than existing freely available items.
I believe some additional clarity in the current law is required and some of that is included in the Bill. For example classifying a corrosive substance as an offensive weapon in public and giving the police powers to deal with it is clearly sensible. Likewise the proposed controls on firearms seem sensible (although they do not affect me and I am no expert). Off-hand representing the entire Bill as “putting forward strongly worded documents will not help our police officers tackle this growing problem” undermines the very sensible changes that the Bill does address.
Are you suggesting to me that the labour party believes that the carrying of corrosive substances in a public place (without legitimate reason such as going about your trade) should NOT become an offence and our police force should NOT be able to deal with such incidents despite the increased number of acid attacks that have been seen? Because your blanket dismissal of the entire bill seems to suggest that is the case.
My specific concerns are the unintended consequences of the Bill as I understand them. The Bill as written would make many legitimate tools and substances near impossible for private citizens to obtain.
My understanding of the relevant sections of the Bill is:
1. All sales of bladed or corrosive substances must be made face-to-face with ID checks to confirm the purchaser is over 18.
2. On-line sales of bladed or corrosive substances may not be delivered to private addresses and must still conform to 1 above. (Requiring checks to be conducted by delivery people?? This is unclear)
3. The definitions of “bladed items” currently covers everything from chisels, plane blades, razor blades, scalpels and modelling knives, kitchen/chef’s knives, peelers and even scissors.
4. The definition of corrosive substances is less clear but appears to cover all acids and alkali. So this would include drain cleaner, degreasing agents, anti-rust products, kettle de-scaler even vinegar.
I am sure that common sense will prevail over some of my more extreme examples above (such as vinegar), but unless those challenges are made and consideration taken by people engaging in the debate then issues like this are lost.
As an example the Bill would make it illegal for me to buy a chisel or plane on-line for private use. But it has no effect on someone having access to a freely available carving knife from their own kitchen. I wonder which of these carries a greater risk to the public? The planned purchase of a woodworking tool with 3-5 day delivery, or the spontaneous ability to pick up a 10” long implement that is specifically designed for cutting flesh from one’s own kitchen?
Likewise I would not be able to buy etching acid (legitimately used to make one off printed circuit boards by those interested in electronics), or a bottle of rust inhibitor, but anyone can pick up a bottle of bleach from their own bathroom which is arguably far more dangerous.
Suggesting that such items could easily be procured face-to-face at a bricks and mortar store where an ID check can be carried out is not viable. The rise of the internet has brought the availability of otherwise scarce, specialist and hard to obtain materials in reach of many for the first time. The knock on effect is that has driven many bricks and mortar stores either out of business or to change to an on-line business model. Many of these products are simply not available in the high street anymore. On-line is the only place to buy them. Even where they are available in a physical store this requires access during opening hours, and transportation that is not universally available.
I stress that I am not against the police having additional powers to combat increasing violence in any way. Nor am I wholly ignorant of some of the issues facing them and the difficult and challenging work they do for us all. I simply do not believe that this is a sensibly worded piece of proposed legislation, or that blanket prohibition works. The unintended consequences would have a significant negative impact on a wide number of law abiding citizens for very little affect on the intended issue.
I would appreciate your views. Likewise if you wish to discuss you can get me on ##### ######
Regards and thank you for your time.
Alan
I shall keep you all informed
