How can we keep our children safe while caring a knife has become decriminalised?

[happydappy2]

David Lammy has decriminalised carrying a knife for under 17s...What kind of deterrent is that? https://x.com/BROKENBRITAIN0/status/2021956880223158539?s=20
Only recently there was a stabbing in a school in Guildford....knife crime in London is terrifying, WTF is he thinking? As a Mother I find this utterly ridiculous and recklessly dangerous-he is just so out of touch with reality. If only women ruled the world.....

Complete rubbish, the, it does the opposite: it strengthens enforcement while adding mandatory intervention.

Stop spreading misinformation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/11/children-who-carry-knives-to-get-support-earlier-in-england-and-wales

@happydappy2 Please check your sources

He hasn’t done that. “Every child caught carrying a knife in England and Wales will be given a mandatory targeted plan to stop them reoffending and protect the public.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/every-child-caught-with-a-knife-to-get-tailored-support

Do you get all your news from Twitter?

I'm not sure this is a wise plan tbh.

Diverting all to Youth Justice Services sounds good, but in practice, I'm not so sure. 'Mandatory targeted plan'. Yeah...

Young people are likely to consider this exactly as the OP has IMHO.

We shall see...

It's a very serious subject that needs discussion, but why is it on the "sex and gender" thread?

There is scant 'support' or intervention for kids now. Where is this coming from? What resources are being put in? How is it enforced given kids dont turn up to YOT appointments and breaches are put (eventually) to the court and nothing happens?

Last year, not many miles from some of my family, a 15 year old was stabbed to death in school. At what point are the interventions?

www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/03/harvey-willgoose-mother-too-many-red-flags-missed-school-stabbing

Well I think the devil is in the detail here. From gov announcement...

'The plans announced today will be backed up with a first of its kind three-year wider funding package for Youth Justice Services, worth over £320 million, giving them more certainty to invest in the future, and roll out longer-term programmes to help even more young people. '

So it's more money for YJS. Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but I think the underlying focus is to lower the number of kids in custody. Again, not necessarily a bad thing. However, some young people need to be in custody because they are dangerous. And knife carrying is very dangerous...

Previously all kids carrying a knife would go through court and if found guilty community order / custody. This appears to bypass this, and is being used like a caution with conditions, in effect.

There's a number of things in the gov statement that are political swerve imho. All kids coming into contact with criminal justice system are already mandatorily known to YJS. That's not new.

Overall, my initial impression is that this is financially driven and a way to justify managing knife crime out of custody.

Knife crime in London has gone down, although even one child killed is one to many.
I think finding out the best solution that works is the most important thing. And part of that is finding out the reasons young people are carrying knives and adapting the solutions accordingly. Early intervention seems like a good idea in theory. It's better than leaving it to late to the point either someone gets seriously hurt, or a child gets a prison record. Whether the early intervention and the resources put into place is sufficient is a matter of debate. How the "Mandatory" support works in practice and is actually enforced is a big question as others said. But at least in theory its good they are trying to get to grips with it..i dont think Dappys characterisation is accurate.

The problem with mandatory prison sentences for carrying knives is that, if you found out your small, skinny 13 year old nephew was carrying a knife because he said he was scared of walking home alone you might hesitate to tell the police because that's his whole future over. And he's "not a bad kid, just scared". So people are less likely to report. There needs to be a way for people to get support for children (under 17s are children) before it reaches the point they are doing something terrible. (And yes, you might well say people should be prepared to set the police in their nephew in those circumstances but the fact is they often aren't. Not because they are criminals themselves.) There needs to be an off ramp for children

This won't do much to deter the actual psychopaths. That needs a different approach as someone can be showing worrying behaviour but never carrying a knife/breaking the law right up until the point they decide to put a plan into action.

Can't both happen simoutenously ?

@BettyBooper i agree that some young people need to be in custody. The problem is I think identifying those young people. Maybe "all young people found with knives need to be in custody" is wrong. The risk with blanket processing all of them the same way is you risk overwhelming the system with "noise" and the ones that do need custody don't get the attention. So yeah, it probably is about finances/targeting of finances. But that's not necessarily a bad thing in itself.

The who,e political narrative has been for many many years is that young people shouldnt be criminalised. So Im not convinced this will change anything anyway, kids were not being banged up for carrying knives. Very little happened.

Yes I don't disagree. Blanket sentences are problematic for sure.

I think my concern is that the government is doing here what has been done for a number of years, which is reducing convictions for young people by diverting them from court and then saying - tada! Crime rates have fallen! And in the meantime dangerous kids roam large.

I'm not convinced that these interventions actually impact on the ones who need intervention. The skinny 13 year old doesn't need intervention, he just needs a telling off and he'll not do it again. The main players, the ones who are actually the problem, will play lip service and carry on regardless because it's cultural, social etc most of the time rather than a 'psychopathic individual '.

Yeah, I'm sceptical...

Move your DC away from areas where this is likely to be a thing, influence situations where they don't socialize with such children

Sounds like it’s another, “they can’t be blamed for having a knife and stabbing/killing someone poor lambs!! Clearly this is someone else’s fault!! They can’t be told it’s wrong to have a knife, that would be horribly upsetting for them!”

But one person's skinny 13 year old nephew, is another persons "teenager in a hoody in a gang with other teenagers in hoodys". The same skinny teenager could easily wind up being in an alteration and lashing out, or giving the knife to someone else on impulse. Or he threatens someone and it goes round school that he's tough and he gets all cocky and leans into the persona and suddenly he's a 14 year old with a knife. Teenage boys are very very stupid, much more so than their family members appreciate. So quite possibly a telling of would be sufficient, but also possibly he needs more intervention that isn't custodial. There need to be more levels of escalation basically.
I agree that most of those committing knife crime aren't psychos. But I think catching and intervening early is the best way forward. So in theory its a good idea. But the proof is in the pudding.

Oh I completely agree. Absolutely assesment and the right level of intervention early is key.

But what you're essentially saying here (I think) is that anyone with a knife is a danger because for anyone a situation can get out of hand. True. I agree with that (and teenage boys with knives is an obviously awful mix) But that tends to lend towards mandatory sentences because that underlying risk remains.

I think my cynicism is that I'm not convinced that this is coming from what you rightly suggest as good practice, but rather a further effort to keep kids out of custody for financial reasons rather than protecting the public.

As you say, proof is in the pudding.

So it is correct that they won't be charged and going through the court system if they're under 17?

As usual, I'm finding it hard to get facts. That government information doesn't really tell me anything.

If it's correct that they will no longer face court, that's a problem.

Another stabbing today. Girl stabbed at school.