New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

By Bénédict Tarot Freeman•March 28, 2025•

15 min read

•

New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

The UK’s new "Ninja Sword" ban is pure political theatre—another useless knife law that bans nothing, solves nothing, and distracts from real crime solutions.

Post

All PostsAll PostsLATEST NEWS:Mizzy ReportsBirminghamCounty LinesDrugsAndrew TateViolent Crime LondonLord AleemDangerous DogsDrill RapLegal BreakdownSadiq KhanKhanageChild GroomingSexual Assault ConvictionsE-Scooter & E-BikeGroomingEditorial

New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

Bénédict Tarot Freeman
Mar 28
10 min read

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.No ratings yet

Ah, the noble British tradition of governing by . With the ink barely dry on the —because, as we all know, Britain’s streets have been overrun by machete-wielding reanimated corpses—the government now presents its latest masterstroke: the

One can only assume the Home Office has been binge-watching old martial arts films and decided the real crisis isn’t , but an imagined surge in lurking in alleyways with swords straight out of a mid-budget 1980s action flick.

At first glance, this sounds serious—after all, a is a ban, right? Ah, but that’s where the magic happens. Read the fine print, and you’ll find that this isn’t really a at all. The government is not criminalising ownership, nor is it introducing new measures to tackle the actual weapons responsible for Britain’s knife crime epidemic.

No, this is a , which—after a minor redesign tweak—manufacturers will simply sidestep, rendering the whole exercise . This is less about stopping crime and more about to do something, the legislative equivalent of throwing a wet paper towel at a house fire and calling it a job well done.

And then there’s the branding. . Not . Just . An ever-so-subtle linguistic sleight of hand that leaves the public under the impression that the government is actually cracking down on street possession, when—spoiler alert—. It’s like outlawing jetpacks on British roads and expecting a standing ovation for tackling dangerous driving.

What’s most remarkable about this charade is its sheer . If one were to set out to create the most knife law possible, this would be the gold standard.

But let’s not be too harsh—after all, this is the same government that introduced the and then discovered, to their apparent horror, that . And now, instead of addressing the actual 85% of weapons used in stabbings, they’ve set their sights on—you guessed it—. No doubt, next year we’ll be treated to the , followed swiftly by .

Of course, all of this political theatre is designed to distract from the issue: the government has no answer to Britain’s . There is no meaningful strategy, no real effort to tackle the , and certainly no intention of dealing with the far more reality of what’s actually being used in stabbings—because, let’s be honest, banning isn’t nearly as as cracking down on imaginary stealth warriors.

And so, once again, we are left with another , a law that bans nothing, solves nothing, and exists purely to give the illusion of action. But what makes this truly laughable is the simple reality that . Manufacturers will tweak their designs, shift a few angles by a degree or two, and—just like that—every so-called will be legally compliant once more. The government will declare victory, headlines will be written, and in a matter of months, it will be as if this law never even existed.

But don’t worry—the Home Office will surely be back soon with another , no doubt tackling the . Because, after all, when faced with a genuine crisis, why bother with when you can simply ?

So after rolling our sleeves up and getting our out we stripped away the headline-friendly rhetoric, so we where left with the actual legal text of the proposed legislation—a document that, when subjected to rigorous scrutiny, quickly unravels as a .

The wording is both and , making it clear that this is less about implementing an enforceable restriction and more about crafting something that like a ban while leaving ample room for circumvention.

The critical weakness lies in the of a "ninja sword," particularly in how it attempts to define and restrict tanto-style and reverse-tanto-style points. The relevant section states:

At first glance, this appears to be a technical and restrictive definition. However, under detailed examination, it becomes evident that the .

The key structural failing lies in the . The definition attempts to distinguish a tanto point by specifying that the transition angle between the must be , yet the final tip must be where the secondary edge meets the spine.

This creates an : if the first junction must be , yet the final angle forming the tip is , the difference in degree range is . This means that any manufacturer seeking to circumvent this restriction need only to move it the banned classification—without meaningfully changing the functionality or appearance of the blade.

Moreover, since this legislation only applies to , any design that —say, by —would instantly evade the restriction.

In essence, the government has , as even the most minor design modification will render previously restricted designs legally compliant .

The legislation is hyper-focused on —the tanto-style point—without acknowledging that possess similar structural properties. For example:

(as found on many common hunting knives) can achieve similar but remain unaffected.
, a design seen on various legal bowie knives, can be while remaining outside the new restriction.
can incorporate a reinforced edge at the tip, mimicking the tanto-style’s while staying legally compliant.

This reveals of how blade geometry functions in practice. The in whether a weapon is effective for offensive use—rather, it is the that determine a knife’s capabilities. By narrowly fixating on a single , the government has created a restriction that is not only but also .

Beyond its technical flaws, the very phrasing of this law . The use of the term suggests an outright , leading the public to believe that or that carrying such weapons in public is somehow a new offence.

In reality, . The only practical effect of this measure is a temporary —a distinction the government has by failing to use the term in its official statements.

This deliberate vagueness serves a political purpose: it allows the government to claim it is “taking action” against knife crime . The average citizen, seeing headlines about a , might assume this is a meaningful crime-fighting measure when, in practice, it is .

When analysed purely on a technical and legal level, this legislation is . It creates an easily circumvented restriction, fails to address the broader reality of weapon use in violent crime, and employs to give the illusion of action where none exists.

By crafting a definition that is , the government has ensured that within , rendering the entire regulation .

This is not —this is legislative , a measure designed not to but to .

And so, the final act of this carefully choreographed farce is revealed. It was never about public safety. It was never about tackling knife crime. It was never about preventing yet another teenager from bleeding out on a London pavement. It was, and always has been, about —about crafting a palatable, media-friendly illusion of action while deliberately .

Because here’s the inconvenient truth the government doesn’t want you to focus on: . It was developed by some of the brightest minds at , rigorously trialled, peer-reviewed, and proven to be effective. And yet, instead of implementing it, the government has chosen to —a sleight of hand designed to distract us from the fact that they lack the political will to take real action.

Cambridge researchers, in collaboration with law enforcement, devised a that is not only but . It is based not on guesswork or political ideology, but on . And, crucially, it does not waste time banning ornamental weapons with while ignoring the that actually fuel the vast majority of stabbings.

The model works in , each of which is :

– The system uses and to identify and before offences occur. This is not some half-baked, Minority Report-style pre-crime fantasy—it is a analytical system that allows police to focus resources where they are actually needed.

– Instead of blanket stop-and-search policies that alienate entire communities, officers are to at the times when knife crime is most likely to occur. This ensures police presence is where it is needed, reducing both crime and unnecessary, unfocused policing.

– The government’s insistence on is as disingenuous as it is outdated. The Cambridge model proposes a far , far alternative: . These devices are inexpensive, , and can scan a suspect without the need for physical searches—.

– Here’s a radical thought: . Under current legislation, carrying an illegal bladed weapon twice is supposed to result in a . Yet time and time again, offenders—some caught carrying multiple times—walk free on flimsy excuses.

The Cambridge model calls for , ensuring that if an individual is caught , they .

So if this system exists, has been tested, and is , why isn’t it being rolled out nationwide? Simple: —and working solutions often create uncomfortable political problems.

Here’s the hard truth: because predictive policing is based on historical crime data, it would result in focused enforcement in the areas and communities where knife crime is most prevalent. This is because of race or class—it is because the data, when stripped of political spin, . And that is precisely the problem.

Implementing this model would force the government to —to admit that violent crime is and that certain areas, certain demographics, and certain repeat offenders . This, however, is a for a government obsessed with perception. The Labour administration, already hypersensitive to accusations of discriminatory policing, would rather —even if that group is .

Instead of rolling out a crime reduction strategy, they have —one designed to while avoiding the political fallout of actual enforcement. The serves , but it allows ministers to appear on camera, looking serious, talking about “cracking down on knife crime” while carefully sidestepping the fact that they have just the that could actually reduce stabbings.

This entire spectacle——is not about safety. It is about , about ensuring that no minister ever has to .

The solution is already sitting on the table, backed by research, trialled in real-world policing, and proven to reduce knife crime. The government . They just —because actual crime prevention, it seems, is far less politically convenient than a good old-fashioned headline-grabbing ban.

And so, once again, we are left watching this , in which the illusion of action is prioritised over real results. Knife crime will continue. Young lives will still be lost. But at least the government will have a —and in the end, that’s all that really matters to them.

What we really need here is -but don't worry we are working on that!

Filed Under:

Crime

New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

Filed Under:

Bénédict Tarot Freeman

Comments

Leave a Comment

Newsletter

Got a tip or story worth investigating?

New UK Knife Ban Nonsense: Another Useless Law That Won’t Save Lives!

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type "span", specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop

Filed Under:

Bénédict Tarot Freeman

Comments

Leave a Comment

Newsletter

Got a tip or story worth investigating?