(26 Dec 2024, 12:50 pm)F114TML wrote I read it as they joined that operator before the conviction. In which case, they couldn't reject him solely on this incident as that would imply guilty until proven innocent.

That's a good point, and of course, they wouldn't even need to declare something they haven't been convicted of. 

(27 Dec 2024, 11:39 am)Shrek wrote Possibly from his bag and he was justified in having it as he was going to use it for an apple which was also in his bag? I suspect that's maybe why they've been so lenient on this.

I don't think it matters, when it's used to threaten someone. I'd have thought the minimum sentence would still apply? https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/out...e-weapons/