So it seems that the trading standards Institute, a government department, is calling for a ban on online knife sales. Frankly I don’t get it. Are we to believe that knives sold online are substandard? The departments remit (taken from their own website) is:
The Trading Standards Service enforces a variety of consumer related legislation as determined by central government. This legislation is vast and always evolving.
In view of this changing environment, the Trading Standards Institute is dedicated to engaging with central government and other proposals, displayed in our responses to the various consultations which concern consumer protection issues and/or the Trading Standards profession.
So how is their call to ban the online sale of knives protecting the consumer? It isn’t is it? As a consumer of knives my choice would, if their proposals are passed be limited. What consumer related legislation (determined by central government) are they seeking to enforce? No, I can’t see any either.
I can only conclude that trading standards have overstepped their brief. Their role of protecting consumers is not what this is about, it’s about a government funded body lobying the government for a change in legislature, not about something related to their remit but presumably because the government want press attention focused on the issue of knives.
Fine, if the government want a discussion about the availability of knives lets have one, but be bloody honest about the remit and stop treating us all like a bunch of morons who need to be fed propoganda through non related government outlets to mould policy.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
New blog post: Trading Standards – The new policy makers? http://bit.ly/RNRGi
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Hi Mark. Not sure I agree.
The Trading Standards Institute is actually a professional organisation promoting the interests of its members (Trading Standards Officers and equivalent – predominantly employed in local government) and not a government body.
That aside, this is developing into a serious national issue of concern.
I’ve seen several horrendous stories recently, including the online sale of a machette to a 15 year old for £1:50 (see http://digg.com/u177HF ).
If you’ve listened to the stories told by the parents who have lost children to knife crime you’d be moved I’m sure. I suspect most people would agree that some action is needed to reduce the ready availability of knives to young people.
I do understand and have some sympathy with your point about the restriction of choice but there is a balance to be found here.
Trading Standards and other local authority Regulatory Services play a key role in public protection – a role that extends way beyond basic consumer protection.
We have a number of approaches to providing these services, which include giving advice, guidance and education as well as carrying out enforcement, to ensure public safety and well-being.
We are also active in lobbying for new powers and controls, where we belive they are required. Your post follows just one such activity aimed firmly at persuading government to put commonsense measures in place to enable local authoritiues to respond appropriately to this isue of concern in many of our communities and neighbourhoods.
Ken Eastwood, Assistant Director (Regulatory Services), Barnsley MBC, South Yorkshire.
Ken, thanks for the comment.
Your point about the institute being seperate from trading standards itself is taken on board, however, the website I quoted from was a dot gov dot uk site so a government owned and operated site.
No, I disagree. Knives are readily available in every home in the country. Online selling makes availability “Time restricted” because the order needs to be processed and despatched, and so is probably a safer way to market than selling them in the kitchen section of John Lewis where they could in theory be brought (or stolen) and used in seconds
No there isn’t a balance to be struck. Freedom is absolute. The Trading Standards proposed ban removes my freedom.
Really. Say’s who? When did the remit change from consumer protection to nannying?
Government already has too many powers and controls. I am actively lobbying for you to have less. The nannying of people who you are paid to serve not nanny is now overbearing and we’re tired of it. My son goes to a school where children are searched for knives on the way in because the authorities view is that all knives are evil and kill, and then as he goes into his home education class is given a knife to prepare food with!
Knives are not dangerous, people are. I for instance carry a knife when I sail. Not because I want to cut the liver out of anyone who looks at me in the wrong way, but because with ropes all around the boat, some under tension, I may need to cut a line in a hurry. In order to do this I have to carry the knife from home, to my car to the boat. I also keep the knife in my pocket when I berth at an away marina and step ashore to visit the local bars and restaurants. I’m almost certainly braking the law, but if I am then the law is an ass. I also carry a swiss army knife in my laptop bag, which I use as a knife, screwdriver and pair of scissors. Again, I’m probably breaking the law, and again I argue that if I am then the law is an ass.
My Grandfather died three years ago in his nineties. He used to buy me pocket knives as a child and had a motto:
He used to go on to say, “because you never know when you may fall down a hole”
So, next time you lobby for controls and restrictions please give some thought to the freedoms you are lobbying to destroy, and please don’t paint knives as evil because they are not, and don’t lump all knive carriers as evil people intent on anarchy because we’re not, we’re chefs, sailors, gardeners and more.