Royston, just to clarify:- this was not a matter of me sorting anybody out.
My only involvement was to alert a small number of people to the fact that a review was to take place, and that our Minister for Police was very concerned about the seeming frequency of the use of swords in crimes.
I myself lodged a lengthy and comprehensive argument against the advisability of scheduling swords, and I am aware that many other individuals and organisations did likewise.
The people who conducted the review of the legislation were thoroughly professional public servants, who called upon statistical evidence, professional opinion, and analysis to gain a balanced picture of exactly what the situation was in respect of sword use in crime, and the position of the sword in the community.
When everything was out on the table, they found that the situation was not nearly so dire as the Minister had been led to believe, probably by flamboyant media reports.
The matter was handled coolly and logically, and the end result was a triumph for dispassionate professionalism.
However, the point should be made, that if the large number of people who lodged arguments against the scheduling of swords had not done so, or had adopted the tactic of abuse, rather than reasoned argument, the result of the review may have been very different.
Those whom we elect to office, and the people who work for them, need to be made aware that some of us care very deeply about some issues.
|