>>one is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; the operative words are 'self defence', one may have a cricket bat or almost anythlng else in one's possession<<

So what are you getting worked up about? We've established that you're allowed to own a cricket bat and that you're allowed to defend yourself with it*. Are the semantics really that important?

*Conditions apply.

Cheers,

Tony

"Tony Lavis you forgot to mention rapier wit..."

Well I kinda like "old soggy towel wit".

(Can't give quite a nasty flick if operated properly....)

That would be "Can give..."

(obviously, Poirot does not have the knack:)

Tony,

The semantics are most important, they are the difference between being charged with possessing an offensive weapon and not being so charged.

For example, if a person uses a walking stick against an attacker and when asked by the police why he/she had the stick; the answer that it was carried to assist when stepping across gutters is perfectly reasonable, but if the person answers that it was carried for defence then charges will/can follow.

>>For example, if a person uses a walking stick against an attacker and when asked by the police why he/she had the stick; the answer that it was carried to assist when stepping across gutters is perfectly reasonable, but if the person answers that it was carried for defence then charges will/can follow.<<

An obvious answer presents itself here: don't tell the police you were carrying a walking stick for self defence. Not only will they charge you, they will think you are weird and snigger about you in the police station tearoom. What sort of paranoiac roams the streets clutching a walking stick (a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW) in case they get attacked? Presumably the same ones that fret about being picked up by the police for possession of an offensive walking stick.

People like that don't need to be armed, they need to go and have a chat to their doctor about their excessive anxiety. With the right help they might achieve greater peace of mind and quality of life.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

"An obvious .... clutching a walking stick (a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW) in case they get attacked? Presumably ...."

The walking stick is a very formidable weapon and in trained hands a lethal one and not,as you say,"(a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW)".

I have trained in the Indian Police (H.G.Lang) method of stick-fighting but not in the strictly European methods.
See http://lacannevigny.wordpress.com/pierre-vigny/the-stick-fighting-method-of-pierre-vigny/

British Guards Officers in mufti carried the tightly rolled umbrella as a defence, a thrust to the throat of an attacker with the metal foot can be lethal, as in a thrust with a bayonet.

Modern Umbrellas:

Quote from: http://real-self-defense.com/unbreakable-umbrella/
"The Unbreakable® Umbrella protects against rain and everything else…. Whacks just as strong as a steel pipe but it weighs only between 1 lb. 2.8 oz./535 g and 1 lb. 13 oz./822 g (depending on the model).

Legal to carry everywhere
Never raises suspicions
Does not make you look silly (no strange looks if carried by an able-bodied person)".

Stick around and learn.