Ministry of Silly Responses

The United Kingdom gave the world arguably the greatest comedy troupe of all time: Monty Python. And Monty Python gave us one of the great satirical takes on inefficient government bureaucracy with its 1970 sketch “The Ministry of Silly Walks.”  For those unfamiliar, it presents an absurd government agency whose sole purpose is to foster the development and promotion of comedically ridiculous ways to walk.

Today’s British government seems to be taking cues from the Pythons in its response to horrific crimes.

Last July 29, a then-17-year-old male walked into a dance studio in Southport, Merseyside, UK, and began stabbing young girls with a kitchen knife. Three died—six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, and nine-year-old Alice da Silva Aguiar—and eight were injured, along with two adults. Several of the victims who survived were taken to the hospital that day in critical condition.

On January 20, the accused attacker entered a guilty plea for three counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a “bladed article”—a kitchen knife—one count of ricin production, and one “terror-related” charge. The “terror-related” charge appears to stem from the accused’s possession of a study regarding an al-Qaeda training manual.

Because this monster committed his atrocity roughly one week before he turned 18, officials initially tried to protect his identity, as he was a minor when he went on his murderous rampage, although that restriction was quickly lifted.

But the murderer’s age seems to be the primary focus for how the UK wants to respond to this heinous crime. Not to be disrespectful to the barbaric nature of this crime, nor to the victims, but the response is rather silly.

In the UK, much like with anti-gun extremists here in America, the response to violent crime often focuses on the tool used by the criminal, rather than the criminal or, more importantly, the criminal’s history. The British long ago began imposing draconian restrictions on firearms in response to firearm-related crime, and because their right to arms was virtually eliminated throughout the 20^th Century, guns in the hands of law-abiding Britons have nearly vanished.

But firearms are not the only possible tool for self-defense. Knives can, at times, help level the playing field when a person is faced with a violent assailant.  Being ever vigilant in its efforts to disarm crime victims, the UK has systematically eliminated knives as an option, too.

Beginning in 1959, British laws regulating and restricting knives became increasingly oppressive. That year, the sale and importation of many types of knives became prohibited. In 1988, the carrying of many knives in public was prohibited, although a 1953 law has also been reinterpreted in more recent years to punish those who are caught carrying knives in public. In 1996, selling knives to anyone under 16 became restricted, followed by an increase in the age restriction to 18 in 2006.

It's not just knives, though, as there are any number of restricted or prohibited “weapons” in the UK, many of which range from obscure to—again with no disrespect to victims of violent crime in Britain—silly. The listing of what appears to be many traditional tools utilized in Asian martial arts seems a bit racist, and the inclusion of what they call a “zombie knife” just seems absurd.  Apparently, a knife with both a “cutting edge” and a “serrated edge” is completely innocuous, but if words or images are added to the blade “suggesting it is used for violence,” it magically transforms into a dreaded “zombie knife.”

Also curious is the apparent exemption for any of the prohibited items if they are over 100 years old. If a newly manufactured piece of steel is too “dangerous” for law-abiding subjects in the UK to possess, what mystical transformation occurs once it passes the century mark in age?  Steel, as well as many other metals, is extremely durable. A poorly maintained blade can be quickly returned to its original effectiveness in the hands of even a novice craftsman. Again, a silly exception, although we wouldn’t suggest removing it.

Returning to the heinous crime from last July, one quickly notes that none of the restrictions on knives that have been put into place in the UK had any impact on the perpetrator. That, of course, is not surprising. Much as we know here in America that restrictions placed on guns only affect the law-abiding, deranged violent predators like the British murderer in this case don’t care about the laws that have been put in place for “public safety.”

So, how did the perpetrator procure the kitchen knife he was supposed to be prohibited from procuring due to his being just shy of 18?  He bought it online. But if it is illegal to sell that kind of knife to someone under 18 in the UK, shouldn’t the online retailer, in this case Amazon, have safeguards like age-verification? Yes, and Amazon says they do.

But this particular fiend circumvented those safeguards using encrypted software. Amazon also stated it utilizes an “Age Verification on Delivery process” for items that are restricted for purchase by age. According to Amazon, the delivery driver handed the age-restricted parcel to someone “visibly over 25 years old.”

In spite of the guilty plea, there remain many unresolved questions in this case.

In typical British fashion, though, much of the response to this despicable multiple murder has been to focus on making it more burdensome for the law-abiding to purchase knives.  The real issue, however, is the fact that the perpetrator had exhibited years of problematic—to put it mildly—behavior, and little was done to address it. This sounds strikingly familiar to any number of high-profile violent crimes that have taken place in the US over the last several years.

This British monster first came to the attention of the government in 2019, when, at the age of 13, he contacted a UK counselling service, asking, “What should I do if I wanted to kill somebody?” Later calls had him claim he was being bullied and wanted to kill the person he alleged was responsible. He was visited by police and later expelled from his school after disclosing he frequently carried a knife to school.

He was then admitted to a “specialist education centre,” and during his admission meeting, stated the reason he brought the knife to his previous school was “to use it.” He was later referred to an anti-extremism program after he researched school shootings in class. In over 18 months, he was referred to the program three times.

In December 2019, he went to his old school armed with a hockey stick, threatened former classmates and teachers, and struck one child, causing a broken wrist. He had the names of classmates and teachers written on the hockey stick.

In 2021, police got involved after he kicked his father and damaged his car. In 2022, police were called when a bus driver alleged he had not paid the fare, and a few months later, they were called again after an argument over him being denied access to his computer.

In late 2022, he was enrolled in a new school, which mostly entailed home instruction where school staff were occasionally accompanied by police—presumably for their safety. Finally, one week before his attack, he used a fake name to book a taxi to take him to his old school where he had committed his hockey stick assault. His father noticed the taxi and convinced his son to return to his home. Prosecutors seemed to believe his father stopped an attack on his son’s former school.

So, all the warning signs were there, including acts of violence, but little was done.  Instead, the UK government wants to focus on imposing additional burdens on law-abiding British subjects for purchasing common kitchen tools.

Let’s remember that this monster had likely intended to try to murder former classmates just one week before his eventual attack. The actions of his father seem to have dissuaded him from that assault, so he apparently did not mind waiting to kill. He apparently bought his knife online roughly two weeks before he turned 18, so even if more stringent restrictions or policies were in place, he wouldn’t have had long to wait before making his purchase.

And we should not forget the fact that he had manufactured his own supply of ricin; an extremely potent toxin. Who knows what he may have done with that had he run into a temporary roadblock for acquiring a kitchen knife?

As we recently reported, confidence in law enforcement in the UK is low.  Crimes regularly go unsolved, and many Britons have given up on relying on police assistance, even when the circumstances warranted a law enforcement response. To make matters worse, law enforcement appears to be focusing its efforts on investigating and prosecuting people for posting jokes or opinions online that some might find offensive.

The fact that so many glaring warning signs were overlooked, dismissed, or simply ignored in this particularly heinous crime is not likely to win over any of those who do not have faith in British law enforcement.  The silly response from the government of ratcheting up restrictions on kitchen tools will probably fail to make any converts, either.

It could be considered a Pythonesque response if it were not for the reprehensibly tragic crime.