Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd like to get people's opinion on the legalisation of pepper spray to be used as a deterrent in muggings and street violence in general. Personally, I think it's a good idea. The police are having difficulty maintaining control of the streets and I think that some form of defense spray might be what's needed to even the odds. They would, of course, have to be registered and used only in an emergency or suffer the legal consequences.

Why stop at pepper-spray?


Why not arm the man-on-the-street with hand-guns that can be concealed. That would be an effective anti-crime deterrent. I mean they do it the USA and their gun crime rates are almost zero.


Oh. No. Wait.....

I don't know what the situation is now but when I lived in France during the late nineties and Holland during the early noughties it was legal to purchase and carry electric shock/stun devices (and even Tazers in France if one didn't mind registering with an authorised vendor) and tear-gas sprays along with lots of other defensive gadgets.


I don't recall any evidence that they made much difference to the crime rate except that criminals and victims were equally likely to use them.


Personally, I've been to and lived in countries where it was normal to carry a knife, a handgun and an assault rifle just to go to the local shop - I've never really gotten over that experience: just don't feel safe without an AK47!

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know what the situation is now but when I

> lived in France during the late nineties and

> Holland during the early noughties it was legal to

> purchase and carry electric shock/stun devices

> (and even Tazers in France if one didn't mind

> registering with an authorised vendor) and

> tear-gas sprays along with lots of other defensive

> gadgets.

>

> I don't recall any evidence that they made much

> difference to the crime rate except that criminals

> and victims were equally likely to use them.

>

> Personally, I've been to and lived in countries

> where it was normal to carry a knife, a handgun

> and an assault rifle just to go to the local shop

> - I've never really gotten over that experience:

> just don't feel safe without an AK47!


Hal,

I live in Holland. It is not, nor ever has been, legal for civilians to carry stun or taser devices or repellent sprays. Pepper spray is classified as a Class II weapon of the Weapons and Munition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie), putting it in the same class of regulation as fully automatic fire-arms, explosive devices and other war gasses such as organophosphate nerve gasses. It is a prohibited weapon except for police officers, who carry it as a less than lethal weapon, as an alternative for using their side-arm. It has never been for sale on the open market. The same applies to taser or stun weapons, though they are classified under a different act. Where did your info come from?


France is a different matter.

Y'man Wrote:


> I live in Holland. It is not, nor ever has

> been, legal for civilians to carry stun or taser

> devices or repellent sprays. ... Where did your

> info come from?


I don't doubt what you say about legality - I assumed they were legal in Holland as they were on sale openly.


I've just Googled Euro Spyshop of Arnhem selling a Cell Phone Stun Gun 180K volt (?299,00), Super Air Taser (? 1.259,00) and Taser Shock Gun (? 1.259,00). Looks like business as usual regarding Tasers and Stun Guns despite the legal position although the "Shockers & Sprays" section of their web catalogue no longer lists any sprays.


> Pepper spray


What I saw in Amsterdam were small, key-ring sprays promoted as anti-rape devices openly on sale. I don't know what the active ingredient was (although I can confirm its efficacy as a lachrymator): perhaps a substance that wasn't prohibited under the law as it stood at the time?


link removed - The Administrator

"Looks like business as usual regarding Tasers and Stun Guns despite the legal position"


Sorry, the shop is just a front. You can't actually visit it and purchase these items, only order online or over the phone for sale & delivery 'outside Netherlands'. Note the phone number, it's +32 prefix, that's Belgium, just around the corner.


What you may have seen in Amsterdam were like many things, on the market for a short period while laws were passed restricting them. I never saw them but that's not to say they didn't exist. The Dutch are always wheedling things out to restrict, like the most recent things outlawed, magic mushrooms.


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pepper_spray

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, the shop is just a front. You can't actually

> visit it and purchase these items ...


Are we looking at the same website? The one I cited provides addresses for shops in Arnhem and Utrecht, their Mon-Fri opening hours and four +31 (i.e. The Netherlands) telephone and fax numbers. It also features photographs of the shops' interiors.


Here's another shop (Personal Security Systems Spyshop) in Amsterdam which (at the time) sold virtually the same product range and which I visited on several occasions.


> What you may have seen in Amsterdam were like many

> things, on the market for a short period while laws

> were passed restricting them. I never saw them but

> that's not to say they didn't exist.


Fair enough.


link removed - The Administrator

My worry here is it could be used against the innocent offensively as well as used by potential victims defensively. Therefore no to legalisation because criminals could abuse it.


Having said that, my sister has carried pepper spray, legally available in France, in her handbag for many years.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My worry here is it could be used against the

> innocent offensively as well as used by potential

> victims defensively. Therefore no to legalisation

> because criminals could abuse it.

>

> Having said that, my sister has carried pepper

> spray, legally available in France, in her handbag

> for many years.



The way things are going in the UK, Silverfox, your sister is wise beyond, well, beyond East Dulwich Forum, I guess. I did say, in my original post, that they would have to be registered. I think they would also have to be properly supervised, one would be trained to use them corectly. Maybe have to do a course in self defense to get a license for one and suffer the legal consequences if used incorrectly. It's a sad reflection but it's coming to that, the police can't stop the mindless violence and the judicial system is no deterrent.


I think, maybe, people's minds are changed when they've been at the thick end of it all.

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Y'man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry, the shop is just a front. You can't

> actually

> > visit it and purchase these items ...

>

> Are we looking at the same website? The one I

> cited provides addresses for shops in Arnhem and

> Utrecht, their Mon-Fri opening hours and four +31

> (i.e. The Netherlands) telephone and fax numbers.

> It also features photographs of the shops'

> interiors.

>

> Here's another shop ((Personal Security Systems

> Spyshop) in Amsterdam which (at the time) sold

> virtually the same product range and which I

> visited on several occasions.

>

> > What you may have seen in Amsterdam were like

> many

> > things, on the market for a short period while

> laws

> > were passed restricting them. I never saw them

> but

> > that's not to say they didn't exist.

>

> Fair enough.



The site you originally linked to has addresses in Arnhem ,Netherlands and Sirketi, Turkey. It is nothing but a mail drop and front. The PSS Spyshop in Amsterdam does not sell items of self defense and never has, phone them and ask, it sells electonic defense items for the extremely paranoid.

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The site you originally linked to has addresses

> in Arnhem ,Netherlands and Sirketi, Turkey. It is

> nothing but a mail drop and front.


FYI, here are EuroSpy's Arnhem and Utrecht shops' addresses, opening times and telephone numbers.


> The PSS Spyshop ...


Given the legal position you have highlighted, it's probably best to leave it at that.

Hi Y'men,


You've said that street violence is out of control and that it's got to the stage where the police have lost control and the public now need to arm themselves for safety - your comments infer a rise in crime. Can you send me a link to the stats for this rise. Thanks

Hi Molo,

actually I said nothing quite so blatant, I merely asked for opinions on something, giving my preference and an idea of why I think that way. Since posting on EDF I've found that what some people infer from what others write is usually way off base, I do wonder why that is! It always seems to precede an argument of some kind. As far as statistics are concerned, you have the same data access as I and everyone else.


Good luck.

No, Y'man, there is no inference on my part, you said:


"The police are having difficulty maintaining control of the streets." November 27, 04:09PM


"The way things are going in the UK, Silverfox, your sister is wise beyond, well, beyond East Dulwich Forum." November 29, 09:11AM


"It's a sad reflection but it's coming to that, the police can't stop the mindless violence and the judicial system is no deterrent." November 29, 09:11AM


By using sentences like; 'The way things are going', 'it's coming to that', you are clearly suggesting that crime is getting worse. As that is your position, I would like to know which statistics have led you to that belief. If your position is not based on any data but rather your own internal state, perhaps you could be more open about that in your postings?


[sorry posted under my partner's login before]

Regarding data I have access to, the Met police site contains stats for 'serious crime against the person' which I guess covers the kind of violence you refer to in your OP.


http://maps.met.police.uk/tables.htm


The data for Southwark goes back to 2000 and the most recent figures are the same as 2003 after a continuing downward trend from a high in 2004/05. Hardly a crime wave and in no way justifying a change in the law. Perhaps the police should just continue doing what they have been doing for the last few years.


I have a solution to crime fear; how about placing restrictions on the sale of the Daily Mail?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...