Church of England: The UK MUST BAN “Pointy Knives”

by | Oct 8, 2019 | Headline News | 25 comments

Do you LOVE America?


    The Church of England is demanding that the United Kingdom use force and violence to ban pointy knives. A religious organization is now insisting that crime be reduced by further enslaving the population.

    Last year, London’s murder rate briefly overtook that of New York City, a feat likely to be repeated as crime continues its decline in the U.S. while the latest U.K. figures show an increase in violent crimes committed with both guns and knives. In spite of all the laws restricting ownership of anything that could constitute a weapon, violent crimes are getting much worse. Instead of giving people more freedom and the human dignity of being able to defend themselves against these attacks, religious organizations and the government want to take steps to make sure only those committing violent acts have the means to do so.

    “We the undersigned are professionals and community leaders from across the UK who call on Government to see the sale of pointed domestic kitchen knives as a thing of the past,” reads the not-a-parody open letter from the Diocese of Rochester, signed by church leaders, lawmakers, psychiatrists, academics, and the like. “Historically we needed a point on the end of our knife to pick up food because forks weren’t invented. Now we only need the point to open packets when we can’t be bothered to find the scissors.”

    When the human condition resists perfection through legislation, the answer always seems to be more—and stupider—laws. –J.D. Tuccille, Reason

    Just months ago, a Conservative member of Parliament made headlines when he took a different, but equally restrictive, approach to regulating sharp pieces of metal, reported Reason.  “Every knife sold in the UK should have a GPS tracker fitted in the handle,” insisted Scott Mann. “It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns.” Mann took a lot of ribbing for the proposal, and even admitted that it was “a bit of a shit idea.” But that’s just because he was a step ahead of the mob. If he’d stuck with grinding off the pointy bits, he would likely have been hailed as a model of responsible opinion.

    UK: Kitchen Knives Are Too Sharp! Filing Them Down Will Stop Stabbing Violence

    Knife control is supposed to be a joke—where control freaks take their next efforts when gun laws prove unenforceable and criminals decline to discontinue their efforts just because they’ve been rendered even more illegal. But British politicians took that joke and turned it into national policy. Now they want to double down on that policy because the bad guys still won’t play along. J.D. Tuccille, Reason

    Gun Control Goes Too Far In UK: Man Arrested For Having A Potato Peeler


    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles


      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.


      1. Ban all pointed sticks, Rocks, Water Hose’s are next.

        • The British Royal Family is corrupt as they come. Another reason my family left England 381 years ago back in 1638 and sailed to America for a better life. There was way too much Tyranny, Endless Taxes and Civil War. The King at the time, King Charles the 1st, was eventually be-headed for his crimes and theft in 1648.

          Its an interesting read King Charles 1st.

          Controversy and disputes dogged Charles throughout his reign. They eventually led to civil wars, first with the Scots from 1637, in Ireland from 1641, and then England (1642-46 and 1648). The wars deeply divided people at the time, and historians still disagree about the real causes of the conflict, but it is clear that Charles was not a successful ruler.

          His expenditure on his court and his picture collection greatly increased the crown’s debts. Indeed, crippling lack of money was a key problem for both the early Stuart monarchs.

          Charles was also deeply religious. He favoured the high Anglican form of worship, with much ritual, while many of his subjects, particularly in Scotland, wanted plainer forms.

          Charles found himself ever more in disagreement on religious and financial matters with many leading citizens. Having broken an engagement to the Spanish infanta, he had married a Roman Catholic, Henrietta Maria of France, and this only made matters worse.

          Although Charles had promised Parliament in 1624 that there would be no advantages for recusants (people refusing to attend Church of England services), were he to marry a Roman Catholic bride, the French insisted on a commitment to remove all disabilities upon Roman Catholic subjects.

          Charles’s lack of scruple was shown by the fact that this commitment was secretly added to the marriage treaty, despite his promise to Parliament.

          Charles had inherited disagreements with Parliament from his father, but his own actions, particularly engaging in ill-fated wars with France and Spain at the same time, eventually brought about a crisis in 1628-29.

          Two expeditions to France failed – one of which had been led by The Duke of Buckingham, a royal favourite of both James I and Charles I, who had gained political influence and military power.
          The King’s chief opponent in Parliament until 1629 was Sir John Eliot, who was finally imprisoned in the Tower of London until his death in 1632.

          Tensions between the King and Parliament centered around finances, made worse by the costs of war abroad, and by religious suspicions at home. Charles’s marriage was seen as ominous, at a time when plots against Elizabeth I and the Gunpowder Plot in James I’s reign were still fresh in the collective memory, and when the Protestant cause was going badly in the war in Europe.

          In the first four years of his rule, Charles was faced with the alternative of either obtaining parliamentary funding and having his policies questioned by argumentative Parliaments who linked the issue of supply to remedying their grievances, or conducting a war without subsidies from Parliament.

          Charles dismissed his fourth Parliament in March 1629 and decided to make do without either its advice or the taxes which it alone could grant legally.

          Although opponents later called this period ‘the Eleven Years’ Tyranny’, Charles’s decision to rule without Parliament was technically within the King’s royal prerogative, and the absence of a Parliament was less of a grievance to many people than the efforts to raise revenue by non-parliamentary means.

          For much of the 1630s, the King gained most of the income he needed from such measures as impositions, exploitation of forest laws, forced loans, wardship and, above all, ship money (extended in 1635 from ports to the whole country). These measures made him very unpopular, alienating many who were the natural supporters of the Crown.

          Scotland, which Charles had left at the age of 3, returning only for his Scottish coronation in 1633, proved the catalyst for rebellion. Charles’s attempt to impose a High Church liturgy and prayer book in Scotland had prompted a riot in 1637 in Edinburgh which escalated into general unrest.

          Charles had to recall Parliament. However, the Short Parliament of April 1640 queried Charles’s request for funds for war against the Scots and was dissolved within weeks.

          The Scots occupied Newcastle and, under the treaty of Ripon, stayed in occupation of Northumberland and Durham and they were to be paid a subsidy until their grievances were redressed.

          Charles was finally forced to call another Parliament in November 1640. This one, which came to be known as the Long Parliament, started with the imprisonment of Laud and Strafford (the latter was executed within six months, after a Bill of Attainder which did not allow for a defence), and the abolition of the King’s Council (Star Chamber), and moved on to declare ship money and other fines illegal.

          The King agreed that Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent, and the Triennial Act of 1641 meant that no more than three years could elapse between Parliaments.

          The Irish uprising of October 1641 raised tensions between the King and Parliament over the command of the Army. Parliament issued a Grand Remonstrance repeating their grievances, impeached 12 bishops and attempted to impeach The Queen.

          Charles responded by entering the Commons in a failed attempt to arrest five Members of Parliament, who had fled before his arrival. Parliament reacted by passing a Militia Bill, allowing troops to be raised only under officers approved by Parliament.

          Finally, on 22 August 1642 at Nottingham, Charles raised the Royal Standard calling for loyal subjects to support him. Oxford was to be the King’s capital during the war. The Civil War, what Sir William Waller (a Parliamentary general and moderate) called ‘this war without an enemy’, had begun.

          The Battle of Edgehill in October 1642 showed that early on the fighting was even. Broadly speaking, Charles retained the north, west and south-west of the country, and Parliament had London, East Anglia and the south-east, although there were pockets of resistance everywhere, ranging from solitary garrisons to whole cities.

          However, the Navy sided with Parliament (which made it difficult for continental aid to reach the Royalists), and Charles lacked the resources to hire substantial mercenary help.

          Parliament had entered an armed alliance with the predominant Scottish Presbyterian group under the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, and from 1644 onwards Parliament’s armies gained the upper hand – particularly with the improved training and discipline of the New Model Army.

          The Self-Denying Ordinance was passed to exclude Members of Parliament from holding army commands, thereby getting rid of vacillating or incompetent earlier Parliamentary generals. Under strong generals like Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, Parliament won victories at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645).

          The capture of the King’s secret correspondence after Naseby showed the extent to which he had been seeking help from Ireland and from the Continent, which alienated many moderate supporters.

          In May 1646, Charles placed himself in the hands of the Scottish Army (who handed him to the English Parliament after nine months in return for arrears of payment – the Scots had failed to win Charles’s support for establishing Presbyterianism in England).

          I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be

          The final words of Charles I

          Charles did not see his action as surrender, but as an opportunity to regain lost ground by playing one group off against another; he saw the monarchy as the source of stability and told parliamentary commanders ‘you cannot be without me: you will fall to ruin if I do not sustain you’.

          In Scotland and Ireland, factions were arguing, whilst in England there were signs of division in Parliament between the Presbyterians and the Independents, with alienation from the Army (in which radical doctrines such as that of the Levellers were threatening commanders’ authority).

          Charles’s negotiations continued from his captivity at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight (to which he had ‘escaped’ from Hampton Court in November 1647) and led to the Engagement with the Scots, under which the Scots would provide an army for Charles in exchange for the imposition of the Covenant on England.

          This led to the second Civil War of 1648, which ended with Cromwell’s victory at Preston in August.

          The Army, concluding that permanent peace was impossible whilst Charles lived, decided that the King must be put on trial and executed. In December, Parliament was purged, leaving a small rump totally dependent on the Army, and the Rump Parliament established a High Court of Justice in the first week of January 1649.

          On 20 January, Charles was charged with high treason ‘against the realm of England’. Charles refused to plead, saying that he did not recognise the legality of the High Court: it had been established by a Commons purged of dissent, and without the House of Lords – nor had the Commons ever acted as a judicature.

          PDF iconRead some of Charles I’s defence at his trial.pdf

          The King was sentenced to death on 27 January. Three days later, Charles was beheaded on a scaffold outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall, London.

          On the scaffold, he repeated his case:

          I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you … that I am the martyr of the people

          The King was buried on 9 February at Windsor, rather than Westminster Abbey, to avoid public disorder. To avoid the automatic succession of Charles I’s son Charles, an Act was passed on 30 January forbidding the proclaiming of another monarch. On 7 February 1649, the office of King was formally abolished.

          The Civil Wars were essentially confrontations between the monarchy and Parliament over the definitions of the powers of the monarchy and Parliament’s authority.

          These constitutional disagreements were made worse by religious animosities and financial disputes. Both sides claimed that they stood for the rule of law, yet civil war was by definition a matter of force.

      2. They are going to allow the real British people to be murdered off, so they won’t have to dare speak the truth about their imported crime wave.

      3. hahahahaha

      4. This is a Monty Python bit, right ?


      5. The UK has collectively gone literally insane.. they are not now, nor have they been free in a very long time. Very sad.

      6. I’ll never give up knives or anything else I have. LONG LIVE POINTY KNIVES! POINTY KNIVES MATTER!

      7. While they’re at it, ban strip steel, files, grinding wheels, whetstones, sandpaper and ceramic hones. Humans, ever an adaptable bunch, can be extremely resourceful when necessary and the politicians wouldn’t want the masses to have access to anything that could be used to make anything with a point or an edge. This would be comical if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      8. so whats next ??

        turn in your forks ? how about spoons
        butter knives must also be destroyed !
        so what do they use to eat with their fingers ?
        since only 30% of men wash there hands after the toilet that should really help spread disease

        england has spent the last 50 plus years selling there own people down or up the river ever since the end of WWII they have made many attempts to make the so called citizens as weak as possible. my niece had a friend from London stay for a few weeks and this girl was so full of B S it was not even funny
        she lectured us about the size of our cars home food that we ate etc
        all the while telling us how England won WWII and how the U S made them virtual slaves due too the lend lease program i told her my father who was in WWII had a different story and that included how poor the brits were and how most begged or sold their bodies ( women ) for a few pounds or even food off the ship he was on. (troop transport )

        really sad how messed up the U K is now not like the good old days .

        but maybe all those mooselems are to blame

        • Every country has its myths and lies to sustain itself. The UK’s are easy to see and why: they must keep the class system in place and hide the fact most people are very poor (and ignorant).

          Take a look at the urban population: it is now a hodgepodge from the third world. You see some whites but they are clearly the minority in urban areas.

          Britain went broke at the end of WWII having fought two catastrophic world wars to defend their empire. Exhausted and broke, they went cap in hand to America for the cash to recover. These negotiations could have been friendly since both countries had strong cultural connections. The British chose to boss the Americans around and they sent the haughty, effete homosexual John Maynard Keynes to negotiate for them, misreading American culture (which was not very LGBT at that time).

          The Brits got a deal, but instead of spending the money on rebooting their cities and industries with American know-how like Germany and Japan, they spent the money on an over-generous, over-reaching welfare state they could not afford. On top of that they made a big mistake: they let the third world trash from the collapsing empire to have free dibs on it. The feasting began and has not stopped: a national health system that is used by Africans to give birth, millions of people leaching off the public housing and benefits system etc.

          And now, even more broker, they have to crash out of the European Union so they can devalue their currency in a desperate Hail Mary to export their way out of bankruptcy.

          But it does not escape the fact they can’t sustain themselves, especially with the flood of people to come from Africa and the Middle East. Pity.

        • satan is nipping at our heels

          prep your souls

        • They are!

      9. These fools are in a race to extinction.

      10. The west will only learn it’s lesson after being defeated in the upcoming civil wars. Religion is organized crime.

      11. Mark Collet has made videos about crime in his homeland. London is now unrecognisable racially. The people we know of as British, English, Anglo-Saxon are a small hated minority in their own city of London which is no longer a Protestant’s mecca, but is home to Islamic religious who consider Christians as respectable as pigs. Muslims have molested the young Protestant girls with immunity. The Muslims taking out their jihad against the hated white Christian infidels with acid thrown into the face are not going to be stopped by laws. The only people who will dull their blades will be the people most in need of them.


      12. Your comment is awaiting bla bla bla.
        Disgusting how freedom of speech has been erased.


        • I’ve noticed the moderation of everything also.

      13. But WHAT about the SPOONS???

      14. Make mental note:
        “Must keep sharp objects away from the children”.

      15. Really ? Sprout a brain ! Why would anyone give this suggestion any press ? They oughta be laughed off as crazy.
        ( am I allowed to say that ? ). The inanimate object IS NOT THE PROBLEM !
        God help us.

      16. Pointy Mcpointpoint has spoken!

        I have a pointy butter knife here, is that OK?

      17. They tried to do this back in Robin Hoods days.
        They more less flipped the BIRD to the Sheriff of Nottingham

      18. Nowadays, The Church of England has about as much power-n-influence as Henry VIII does 🙂

      19. They want the British absolutely defenseless against the invading Muslim hordes. A client of mine recently told me her and her husband went to visit London about five years ago.They couldn’t get a cab at the airport for some reason, so they decided to walk to their hotel and take in the sights of the city as it was only a ten block walk and they had suitcases with wheels. Turns out it was a “no go” zone and she said muslims were in every doorway, of every business, with knifes, homemade weapons, bats, ect. glaring at them with burning hatred as they walked by. When they got to their hotel,the desk clerk lady couldn’t believe they had walked through the no go zone, and told them they were very lucky to be alive. She said they have no plans to go back to England, ever. I personally cant believe the majority of the British put up with it, no go zones in their own freaking country.

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.