UK ninja sword ban begins as 1,000 weapons surrendered in knife crime crackdown
Overall, knife crime in England and Wales has risen 87 per cent over the past decade, with 54,587 offences recorded last year alone, a two per cent rise from 2023 and among the highest rates in Europe.
On July 29, 2024, a teenager attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children's dance event in the northern English town of Southport, killing three girls and stabbing 10 people in one of Britain's most harrowing knife assaults.
Since then, the government has pledged tougher age checks for knife buyers, warned social media firms they could face fines for failing to curb sales and promotion of weapons, and banned zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords.
Over the month of July this year, the government urged young people to drop off weapons, including bladed ones, at "amnesty" bins or a mobile van -- part of efforts to control knife crime, particularly when it involves youths.
The government said at least 1,000 weapons have been handed in.
A mobile van will be deployed at the Notting Hill Carnival in London later this month in response to past knife-related violence by a small number of attendees.
It is unclear whether the "amnesty" bins will stay in place once the month-long campaign comes to an end.
Charities and experts call the government's efforts a step forward but say they fail to address the root causes.
The Interior Ministry said that knife-related robberies have fallen in seven highest-risk areas, dropping from 14 per cent of all robberies in the seven highest-risk areas in the year ending June 2024 to six per cent in the same period to June 2025.
The ban on buying and selling ninja swords is part of the government's pledge to introduce Ronan's Law, named in honour of 16-year-old Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed with a ninja sword in 2022.
Campaigner Martin Cosser, whose son was killed in a knife attack two years ago, previously told Reuters that the issue was not just about the weapon itself, but about the "emotional drivers" that lead people to carry knives in the first place. — REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Asean interim observer group inspects conflict-hit areas on Cambodia-Thailand border
Police officers stand near a hospital wall damaged by shelling, on the day of an inspection by foreign military attaches from major powers and Asean member countries, along with diplomats from 23 countries, following a ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand, in Sisaket province, Thailand, August 1, 2025. -Reuters PHNOM PENH: An Asean interim observer group has inspected conflict-affected areas on the Cambodia-Thailand border after a ceasefire was reached, a Cambodian defence spokesperson said on Saturday (Aug 2). The group included the military attache of Malaysia, the current chair of Asean, as well as Vietnamese and Philippine assistant military attaches, said Cambodian Defence Ministry's Undersecretary of State and Spokesperson Maly Socheata. "Cambodia stands ready to cooperate with the observation group led by Malaysia to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire," Socheata said. On July 24, armed clashes erupted between Cambodian and Thai soldiers in border areas. The two countries agreed on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire on July 28, taking effect at midnight of the same day. - Xinhua
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Two soldiers repatriated
Gentle outreach: Assistant Military Attache Colonel Eiji Umetani talking to people next to foreign military attaches from major powers and Asean member countries and Thai military personnel, as they visit a shelter in Sisaket province following a ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand. — Reuters THE nation welcomed the return of two wounded soldiers who had been captured by the Thai army after the two sides had already implemented a ceasefire to end five days of combat over competing territorial claims. Their repatriation comes amid accusations and bickering over whether either side had targeted civilians and breached the laws of war, and sharp nationalist feuding on social media. The rest of a 20-member group of Cambodian soldiers captured on Tuesday in one of the disputed pockets of land over which the two sides were fighting remain in Thai hands, and Cambodian officials are demanding their release. The two countries have given differing accounts of the circumstances of the capture. Cambodian officials say their soldiers approached the Thai position with friendly intentions to offer post-fighting greetings, while Thai officials said the Cambodians appeared to have hostile intent and entered what Thailand considers its territory, so were taken prisoner. Cambodian Defence Ministry spokesperson Maly Socheata confirmed that the two wounded soldiers had been handed over at a border checkpoint between Thailand's Surin province and Cambodia's Oddar Meanchey province, and urged the Thai side to promptly repatriate the remaining personnel in accordance with 'international humanitarian law.' Thailand says it has been following international legal procedures and was holding the remaining 18 soldiers until it could investigate their actions. A statement issued Friday by Thailand's 2nd Army Region identified the two repatriated Cambodian soldiers as a sergeant with a broken arm and a gash on his hip, and a second lieutenant who appeared to be suffering from battle fatigue and needed care from his family. It said both men had taken an oath not to engage in further hostilities against Thailand. Neither man nor the others in Thai custody have been made available for interviews by neutral third parties. There were other peaceful activities on Friday on both sides of the border as both countries staged tours of the former battle areas for foreign diplomats and other observers, highlighting damage allegedly caused by the other side. The two countries continue to accuse each other of having violated the laws of war with attacks on civilians and the illegal use of weapons. More than three dozen people, civilian and soldiers, were killed in the fighting, which in addition to infantry battles included artillery duels and the firing of truck-mounted rockets by Cambodia, to which Thailand responded with air strikes. More than 260,000 people in total were displaced from their homes. Under the terms of the ceasefire, military representatives of both sides are supposed to meet next week to iron out details to avoid further clashes. However, the talks are not supposed to cover the competing territorial claims that are at the heart of decades-long tension between the two countries. Partisans of both sides are also waging a war of words online, with Thailand accusing Cambodia of also carrying out malicious hacking. — AP
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
The US can survive tariffs. That doesn't mean they're worth it
ON hearing of the Continental Army's pivotal victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, John Sinclair told Adam Smith, 'The British nation must be ruined'. As Sinclair recalled, the author of The Wealth of Nations (published the year before) urged him to calm down. 'Be assured, my young friend, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.' Dedicated though he was to the benefits of free trade, Smith would doubtless say the same about today's turn toward mercantilism in the United States. It's a blow, but not the end of the world. That's worth noting: Catastrophism, a popular mode of discourse these days, is usually unhelpful. But champions of President Donald Trump's approach to trade are apt to make the opposite mistake – namely, thinking that if the roof hasn't fallen in, the policy must be succeeding. If it results in slower growth and persistent under-performance, that might not be 'ruin', but it sure isn't victory. Once Trump's new system of tariffs has settled down – if it ever does – what might it cost? What might 'less than ruin' amount to? According to most estimates, the direct economic losses are certainly tolerable, especially for a huge and relatively closed economy like the US. One recent study explores the upper limit on what's at stake by calculating the benefits of liberal trade compared with no trade at all. For the US, the costs of closing the economy altogether would fall in the range of 2% to 8% of GDP. The costs of less trade, as opposed to no trade, would naturally be smaller still. Earlier this month the US Federal Reserve published a research note on the effects of specific tariffs. Its economists modelled an increase of 60 percentage points in the US tariff on imports from China, with and without a 'baseline' tariff of 10% on other trading partners, assuming for one set of scenarios that the trade deficit is unchanged and for another that it shrinks. According to their model, the 60% extra tariff on China, the 10% baseline tariff on everybody else, plus a 25% reduction in the trade deficit would cut US GDP by a little under 3%. (China's losses would be about the same; thanks to shifts in the pattern of trade, the rest of the world would come out about even.) These and other such studies reveal the complexity of the changes caused by trade barriers. For example, surely tariffs would reduce imports and hence shrink the trade deficit. Why assume, as some of the Fed's scenarios do, that the deficit doesn't change? Actually, it's far from obvious that the trade deficit will narrow. You'd expect a smaller trade deficit to make the dollar appreciate – in due course increasing imports, cutting exports, and undoing the initial effect. In any case, the overall external balance is determined by the gap between its saving and investment, which tariffs affect only indirectly. Or consider the surprisingly small estimated cost of closing the economy completely. One of the assumptions behind the estimated losses of 2% to 8% of GDP is that the ease of replacing domestic goods with imports – the so-called elasticity of substitution – can be estimated from current trade data. But as the economy approaches autarky (self-sufficiency), this elasticity might fall abruptly as certain critical foreign products prove difficult or impossible to replace. The costs of abolishing imports might then be much bigger than projected. (Granted, a rational mercantilist would be careful not to press too far: An entirely closed economy isn't the goal.) The list of other complications is endless. What's the effect of trade on competition and innovation? It depends. Up to a point, competition through trade is likely to spur innovation, but if foreign competition is severe enough to shut a domestic industry down, said industry won't be more innovative. The dynamic effects of trade – that is, the effects of trade on growth – are even harder to estimate than the static effects captured in the studies mentioned above. Amid all the uncertainty, two points seem worth emphasising. First, despite the complexities, economists generally agree that trade does deliver net gains – that, on this, Adam Smith was right. If suppressing trade is costly, then exactly how costly is not the most important question. You don't do it. To be sure, the US has a huge domestic market and is richly endowed with natural resources. These advantages mean that trade is likely to deliver smaller gains than it does for other economies. But, to repeat, small gains are better than none. Second, the costs of the new mercantilism aren't confined to the implications for GDP of moving from a settled regime of liberal trade to a settled regime of managed trade. That shift involves massive economic and geopolitical dislocations, which are likely to be costly in themselves. Economic restructuring expends resources; it creates jobs and destroys them. The 'China Shock' was disruptive – but vainly trying to reverse it will be disruptive all over again. In the first case, there were aggregate benefits; in the second, there'll be aggregate losses. Geopolitical dislocation could involve the biggest costs of all. The new mercantilism puts US-led alliances and multilateral institutions under enormous strain. The view that the US has been exploited by these arrangements isn't unwarranted – there's been some free-riding, no doubt – but on balance US global leadership has been an exercise in enlightened self-interest. Dismantling the global trading order, and casting this as overdue retaliation against selfish so-called friends, is to cast away American power. It would be bad policy if undertaken in return for small economic gains. In return for substantial, even if less-than-ruinous, economic losses, it's insane. — Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics.
