BMC Founders Response to Questionnaire:

 

Q1. Do you agree that the government should take further action to tackle knife crime, and in particular the use of machetes and other large knives in crime?

It is very clear that machetes are not the problem, but the people that use them irresponsibly to threaten and intimidate. Stop the gangs, offer supportive programs for inner city youths, increase Police powers to tackle those who carry with intent ANY object deemed by a reasonable person as life-endangering. Pens, pencils, screwdrivers, kitchen knives, clubs, walking sticks, umbrellas etc.

​

I own, use, design, manufacture and have created a business to sell machetes. Neither I, nor anyone else I know have ever threatened anyone with a machete, nor thought about doing so. They are incredibly useful tools no different from hammers, screwdrivers, saws and axes. In my humble opinion, they actually would make a poor choice of "weapon".

 

Proposal 1 - Banning certain types of knives and machetes which we suggest have no practical use and seem to be designed to look menacing and suitable for combat

More should be done to tackle the criminals brandishing ANY object that can hurt other people. Banning every single object that can be used as a weapon is a ridiculous proposal too broad in it's scope and wording. Even the word "Machete" itself if a generic term used to cover multiple different bladed tools that come in all shapes and sizes from across the globe.

 

So long as people use objects to hurt other people, knife crime will exist. Banning machetes will not decrease illegal carrying of knives or killings. A small butter knife is far more deadly than a long machete. Machete's are heavy, cumbersome,possible to deflect and far less able to cause serious stabbing injuries than a common kitchen knife.

 

Q3. Looking at the common features present in the knives and machetes we are proposing to ban, do you agree that any legal description should refer to:

a) The article containing both smooth and serrated cutting edges

If a ban covering survival, forestry, internationally recognised styles of "Machete" were to come into force, then I would expect every single object that has either a sharp point or is able to be sharpened to also be banned.

​

Some machetes might look menacing ("machete" does mean "macho" after all) but that in itself should be no reason to ban Machetes. I would counter with what large knife or bladed item doesn't look menacing in the wrong hands?

​

I do not personally appreciate serrations. I would be prepared to support a ban on serrations if it achieves a ban of Zombie knives, and saves Machetes from being banned. A machete with serrations does not offer many advantages, in fact it can arguably introduce additional stress points leading to blade failure, or introduce the possibility of frequent snagging - both negatives.

​

Serration are added to a blade (normally less than 6in blade) to help with saw-like cutting. This is not what a Machete's primary role should be. Serrations can weaken a Machete by causing stress points in the steel, so any well designed, functional Machete (over 15cm blade length) should NOT have serrations.

 

Smaller hunting/bushcraft blades, including Bowie knives (not strictly a type of Machete) can benefit from a small area of serrations, usually located just in front of the handle.

 

B) The article containing more than one hole

No functional Machete would benefit from large holes in the blade. This would overly weaken the blade and reduce it's weight excessively, rendering it less effective at performing the primary tasks for which a Machete is intended. Note - lightening a very heavy blade will ordinarily be done by adding 'Fuller' grooves. These channels retain structural strength whilst removing steel and therefore weight.

​

Some cleaver style machetes traditionally have a hanging hole near the tip. So I would allow "No more than one functional hole above the cutting edge". However the handles of a well designed Machete should have at least one lanyard hole for safely attaching a lanyard to the blade for safety. Many blades will have lanyard holes at the butt and ricasso (fore of the handle) of the blade and these small (6mm dia) holes are recommended. Banning large, non-functional holes, as seen on Zombie Knives is acceptable. I support the 2019 legal update which identifies references to "Zombies" on a bladed article be illegal. We could further this to include:

"Any 'Zombie style' knife which judged by a panel of knife experts to offer no, or poor functional performance be banned."

​

C) The article being of a certain length

The current legislation forbidding the import of blade length greater than 50cm is already too strict. I would support removing any length ban. Why?

​

Machetes generally have relatively soft carbon steel blades which are necessary to make them tough (against wood) and straightforward to sharpen. They are often differentially heat treated blades. This means only the cutting edges are hardened. This is essential for cutting through softer materials - wood. It means the blades are still relatively weak if, being "used like a sword". If a blade is fully heat treated, it gets very expensive, as longer blades will invariably warp during the HT process and become rejected, so this is rarely done. Therefore, a long machete is not comparable in strength to a comparable length sword.

​

Length does not make a blade any more deadly in itself. As mentioned - a tiny, unsharpened butter knife can be used as a devastatingly effective "weapon".

​

Ultimately, we come back to the point that sometimes a task will demand a short blade, sometimes a longer blade. Limiting the users choice of tool is overly authoritarian.

​

D) Are there any other features that should be included in the legal description?

It is difficult to highlight individual features that should result in a blade being banned. When an industry expert see's a 'Zombie Knife', we will notice the excessive holes, odd angles, garish colours, unnecessary curves, uncomfortable handles, poor balance, no mention of quality blade steel and overall bad design and cheap production which all combine to clearly make it a poor functioning tool.

 

There are some perfectly functional machete designs which incorporate a few features as seen in the copy-cat "Zombie Knives". These features might include lanyard holes (near the handles used for securing a lanyard paracord to prevent accidentally losing the machete) drop-point or harpoon style spine shapes, a dual grind edge or a rust proof coating in a non-metallic colour for example. These features are perfectly justifiable and useful to the machetes safety, performance and longevity.

 

It is important to separate when the feature is useful and functional, and when it is mimicry of said useful feature. Most bushcraft experts, outdoors enthusiasts and Cutlers would easily spot the difference between a genuine tool (many Machetes) and non-functional boys-toys - known as Zombie Knives.

​

The below images were shown on the consultation page. Each of the below four items can in my opinion be classed as Zombie Knives and included in the ban. Comments describing why are found below each photo:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The above "combat" or Military inspired knife is close to being functional. The Bowie style clip point blade is fine for a knife of this size, and is complemented by a matching Bowie style cross-guard and fine looking handle. BUT... the six tear drop holes are not functional in a genuine, quality knife. They would weaken what should be a strong knife of this sort. The saw back spine on such a short blade is arguably useful for certain bushcraft knives for making notches in wood. However in this case, it is clearly added in combination with the non-functional holes and therefore tells an expert it is a knife designed to appear functional, but in reality would be weak and ineffective for hard use.

​

For these two stylistic and function-impeding features; it is a poor design aimed at unknowledgable knife fans. Out of all four examples selected by the government, this is the closest to a genuine, functional knife. I would support a ban this knife, but I do worry that non-experts would class it the same as a genuine, quality Bowie knife.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

This design again is almost justifiable, but the six holes are a very poor way to lighten or balance the knife. They would make the knife structurally weak, and therefore not intended to be used for genuine hard use. The handle guards are also reminiscent elements found on fighting knives and swords, which are NOT useful on non-fighting knives. The butt / pommel appears to be solid and aggressive looking with no safety justification and unnecessary. Finally the saw teeth on the spine swedge are odd, and would not offer much genuine functional benefits but introduce more stress points and are therefore added for aesthetic reasons only.

​

Borderline, but the pointless saw teeth six holes and lack of non-fighting knife credentials mean I would support this knife being banned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This design is ridiculous.

​

It mixes a few decent design features with a lot more absurd elements for such a large blade. The handle, actually looks rather good, and being two tone isn't the cheapest. The attached lanyard is actually a very sensible safety feature some users like.

​

Moving to the blade it becomes a hot mess. The colour for one is... attention grabbing. The dual ground primary bevels are odd as they appear to be the same angle, just separated by an unground separator. The "gladiator" dagger style tip makes this large blade very aggressive which serves no useful application other than fighting. The cut outs are huge and not rounded, so this blade will be very weak when chopping. The saw back spine is not necessary and the blade-catching cut-out beneath the thumb rise (near the front of handle) is purely used for knife/swords designed for fighting.

​

I would ban this blade.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This blade takes the cake. It is a disgusting and useless design and is the epitome of a "Zombie Knife/machete".

​

None of this blade design makes sense, it is purely made to look like some sort of fantasy blade. This blade is functionally useless for anything other than terrorising. This should definitely be banned.

​

Q5. We would like to understand whether and to what extent machetes and large outdoor knives may be needed currently in the UK.

I strongly disagree with banning machetes. This distinction from 'Zombie knives' must be made.

Machetes are extremely useful tools dating back over 10,000 years and there are several reasons why they should be legal to own and use in the UK.

 

I agree with banning Zombie Knives. The are not functional tools, they have no purpose.

​

An Agricultural or Survival Machete should continue to be deemed a legal tool.

 

"Machete" is a generic term which appears to encompass several different blade shapes from many different cultures and countries. Latin 'Machetes' are perhaps the most accurate representation and the word itself is likely a Spanish translation of "Macho". The Latins will invariably be 18" or longer. Bolos, Parangs, Goloks, Kukris, Cleavers, Choppers, Natas, Falcatas, Bowies, Seax and many, many more will vary in length, blade thickness, blade shape, handle length, material and intended use, Some will be shorter, others will need to be longer. Please do not limit the length less than the current 50cm. It would be akin to banning only Mallets but not Hammers.

 

Machetes are necessary outdoor hand tools. Not by everyone, but any Gardener, Garden-owner, Forestry professional, Land owner, Hunter, Outdoor activity enthusiast, Mountain biker, Dog walker, Builder, Farmer, Archer, Electrician, Police, Arborist, Horticulturalist, Hotel owner (this list is inexhaustible) ... anywhere that fauna/foliage is growing, a responsible person should be legally able to use a large blade such as a 'Machete' to manage it.

 

I use them weekly for tree pruning, limbing, felling hazel trees, shelter making, campfire prep, chopping wood, making kindling, clearing brambles, stinging nettles and scrub, and general bushcraft. Please remember, just because not everyone needs a machete, does not mean no one needs one.

 

Very oddly, I note that Billhook Machetes are not frowned upon. They are available for sale/purchase on Amazon (all other Machetes appear to be forbidden from sale?) and they are also widely used by many of the hobbyist and tradespeople that I mention above. A Billhook is a long bladed tool, with a rather intimidating curved point and often a double edge, with the spine also sharpened. I think it is fine and admirable that these tools are promoted and available for sale online, but I would question why these are OK but Machetes (arguably less aggressive looking and dangerous) are forbidden and stigmatised? Again, short butter knives will kill quicker, be more concealable and ultimately more deadly than any "machete".

 

Proposal 2 – Power to seize and retain/destroy certain bladed articles held in private if the police are in private property lawfully and they have a reasonable belief that they could be used in serious crime

Q6. Do you agree that the proposed new power is necessary and proportionate?

If someone is responsible, I would have no problem them being allowed to own 50cm+ machetes, swords or anything else they freely choose. If however they can be deemed as irresponsible, then their butter knife, screwdriver, fire poker and anything else more/equally deadly than a machete can be confiscated by the Police.

 

Q7. We invite views in relation to whether the powers should apply to any knife in private property or only to knives of a certain length.

a) Any knife held in private property.

​

Q8. We invite views from respondents as to whether there should be a right of appeal to the courts in order to recover an item seized or if the avenue of redress should be only through the police complaints process.

Any wrongfully seized item should of course be returned quickly and easily. Limiting complexity in this and any process is always advisable.

​

Proposal 3: Increase the maximum penalty for the offences of sale, etc of prohibited and dangerous weapons and sale of knives to persons under 18 to 2 years

Q9. Do you think that the offences of selling knives to persons under 18 and selling prohibited offensive weapons are of such severity that they should have a maximum penalty of 2 years?

No

Where there is a will there is a way. Of course no one should be knowingly selling bladed articles to under 18's. But

1.) We as a machete manufacturer and seller are already dealing with the very onerous job of validating each sale. This is changing our marketing approach to focus on selling to Europe and USA.

2.) Under 18's can easily find a large kitchen knife or bamboo chopstick in their own kitchen draw. Far more deadly than a heavy, unwieldy machete.

​

Yes there should be very harsh consequences for purposefully selling to under 18's. But, deadly kitchen knives are so common place, any additional regulations on sellers won't lower knife crime, it will just push the perpetrators to use an easily accessible kitchen knife, screwdriver or stick.

​

Proposal 4: Should the Criminal Justice System treat possession in public of prohibited knives and offensive weapons more seriously?

Q10. Should the Criminal Justice System treat those who carry prohibited knives and offensive weapons in public more seriously?

Yes - if not for a genuine use otherwise benefiting the community. An example would be a fallen tree blocking a footpath. I would support a member of public carrying a machete to remove the obstacle for the greater good of society in this situation.

​

Proposal 5: A new possession offence of bladed articles with the intention to endanger life or to cause fear of violence

Q11. Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes

​

Lock up and throw away the key. That is unless the offence is committed by an otherwise innocent or severely bullied youth who feels pressured into that position. This is a case where the youths family, place of education and local community services should be held accountable.

​

Q.12 to Q17 are business information questions.

​

Q18. Are there any further business or trade impacts of this proposal (beyond those set out in the Impact Assessment) which have not been considered?

 

Our organisation has been working for the past two years on the design, UK manufacture, marketing and website for our brand of high quality, premium British Machetes. These are "Survival Machetes", intended to be used by enthusiast from gardeners to bushcraft experts. Our costs to date are significant with the first 100 blades currently in production. Our products can be compared to many USA and Italian based competitors using the same high quality materials and manufacturing techniques.

​

Flying the flag of "British Made" has been incredibly difficult. Current anti-machete sentiment in the media is disproportionate. We view them as an essential agricultural / outdoor tool, same as an axe, hoe or billhook. In order to increase the awareness and appreciation of well made, hand finished machetes, we are willing to support the ban of non-functional "Zombie" style knives/machetes. Even low-end, poor quality machetes which are more commonly available in online retailers for <£50 are more focused towards irresponsible buyers than our BMC premium crafted blades.

​

Banning any blade is largely irrelevant, as knives are an absolutely indispensable every day item. It is not the blade that kills, it is the person holding it. As any blade is inherently sharp and normally has a pointed tip; any such knife could feasibly be used in knife crime.

 

Banning zombie knives is something I approve of seeing happen, but we must be clear of the likely outcome of doing this: It will only help prevent those minority of cases in which a mentally challenged individual purchases a zombie knife to re-enact some zombie-style action. For all other knife crime, the criminals will stick to using the common kitchen knife.

​

• Kitchen knives are essential tools.

• Folding pocket knives are essential tools.

• Fixed blade outdoor knives are essential tools.

• Machetes are essential agricultural tools.

​

• Zombie knives are NOT essential tools.

 

The root causes have to be addressed to reduce knife crime:

​

• Poverty.

• Parental responsibility.

• Education.

• Youth programs to give hope and opportunities.

• A clamp-down on those found in possession of a bladed article outside of a genuine use environment (clearance, farming, fishing, camping etc).

 

 

~ END ~