The Mighty Prawn Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Two separate events involving disputes with the police and violence, seems quite a character doesn't he? Glad I'm not in his club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I see that he was sentenced to 8 months, and although the sentence is suspended, it still counts and so makes him a prohibited person for the next 5 years. Purely out of interest, is that right? Yep, the 8 months fell into the 3 months to 3 year bracket. The 5 year prohibition starts from the date of release from prison. So, in a suspended sentence the offender did not get released never actually having been 'inside'. I haven't a clue one way or the other; interesting point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Two separate events involving disputes with the police and violence, seems quite a character doesn't he? Glad I'm not in his club [/quote In mitigation, the first was 33 years ago when he was 24. Worth remembering perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Purely out of interest, is that right? Yep, the 8 months fell into the 3 months to 3 year bracket. The 5 year prohibition starts from the date of release from prison. So, in a suspended sentence the offender did not get released never actually having been 'inside'. I haven't a clue one way or the other; interesting point though. Apparently yes. As per the Derrick Bird case, where the police issued him with, and allowed him to keep, certificates despite various criminal convictions including theft, handling, drunk driving, and despite reports of assaults and an arrest on alleged sexual offences abroad. The police said at the time that they thought that his suspended sentence didn't make him a prohibited person, they were investigated by a friendly different force who found that they had done nothing actually wrong (partly because some of the paperwork had mysteriously disappeared) but the Commons Select Committee report subsequently made it clear that suspended sentences count when it comes to qualification as a prohibited person. The release date in a suspended sentence is the date of sentence, i.e. the Court date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Apparently yes. As per the Derrick Bird case, where the police issued him with, and allowed him to keep, certificates despite various criminal convictions including theft, handling, drunk driving, and despite reports of assaults and an arrest on alleged sexual offences abroad. The police said at the time that they thought that his suspended sentence didn't make him a prohibited person, they were investigated by a friendly different force who found that they had done nothing actually wrong (partly because some of the paperwork had mysteriously disappeared) but the Commons Select Committee report subsequently made it clear that suspended sentences count when it comes to qualification as a prohibited person. The release date in a suspended sentence is the date of sentence, i.e. the Court date. Nice one. Many thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 He clearly knows someone in the know. Don't worry though, everyone can blame the police when he goes and shoots up his club. “He had strong character references who said he was helpful, calm, honourable and honest, including one from a retired police officer who said the incident was completely out of character.” I think this is the obvious clue, however how was it “completely out of character” if a similar event had happened in his past?? This to me has echoes of similar lack of appropriate action by the police that have led to several complete disasters in the past, for God’s sake will they never learn??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidawson Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 you beat me to pointing that bit out about the charater reference stotto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
la bala Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Funny handshake brigade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Is there some bull in the Hereford Times? I can only assume there is much that was not reported, as on the face of it, from the article, it seems highly unusual for him to retain his licence. What was the judge thinking? Maybe the Chief Constable will see things differently and this fella will be taking up golf shortly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 You have to feel sympathy with GHE and his son, when this sort of thing crops up. Whether it was out of character - twice he has threatened or assaulted the Police, plus made threats to other shooters. I trust his FAC will be revoked asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 absolutely no way could he be considered a fit person to hold an FAC. Another prime example of inconsistent approach to firearms laws, you have to wonder what the judge was thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Is there some bull in the Hereford Times? I can only assume there is much that was not reported, as on the face of it, from the article, it seems highly unusual for him to retain his licence. What was the judge thinking? Maybe the Chief Constable will see things differently and this fella will be taking up golf shortly? He probably already plays a round or two and who would be surprised if the Judge and the Chief Constable were not his golfing partners, would certainly be no handicap when in a bind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 He probably already plays a round or two and who would be surprised if the Judge and the Chief Constable were not his golfing partners, would certainly be no handicap when in a bind? How very masonic of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 How very masonic of you Sorry to disappoint, for me for better or worse, no ‘nod and a wink’ or funny handshakes just, ‘wing-a-ding-ding right on the chin’ every bloody time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangey Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 http://m.herefordtimes.com/news/11813287.Man_sentenced_for_affray_after_rifle_club_dispute/?ref=mr Seems affray, ABH against police officers and making threats to kill are not considered enough reason for a FAC revoke. Supprised the national papers / antis haven't got hold of this. seems to me the old bill overstepped the mark again and they were the aggressors,fair play to him for standing up for himself.just because you have a fac doesn't mean you have bow down to everyone and not stand up for yourself...imo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deershooter Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 This stinks of the funny hand shake brigade Deershooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I see that he was sentenced to 8 months, and although the sentence is suspended, it still counts and so makes him a prohibited person for the next 5 years. Are you sure. What makes me prohibited from possessing a firearm or explosives? Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits a person from possession of any type of firearm if they have been given a custodial sentence when convicted of a criminal offence. If you have received a custodial sentence of 3 months but less than 3 years then you are prohibited for a period of 5 years from the date you are released. If you have received a custodial sentence of 3 years or more then you are prohibited for life, from the date of release. The prohibition may be lifted on application to the Crown Court, for advice please consult a solicitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyb79 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) If you think Freemasons have any influence over such things, you would be more accurate stating that David Cameron is in fact Bigfoot in disguise! On another note, the prohibition that he is now by law under starts from the day after sentencing, not after release. He wI'll lose his guns regardless, which may explain (more rationally), why the court didn't grant the order...simply because it didn't have to as it would be done automatically. Suspended sentences do now count for prohibition of possessing firearms. Read S110 of the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Police Act Guidance from the Home Office. Bloody conspiracy theorists! Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmyb79 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 poor old freemason get the blame for everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 If you think Freemasons have any influence over such things, you would be more accurate stating that David Cameron is in fact Bigfoot in disguise! On another note, the prohibition that he is now by law under starts from the day after sentencing, not after release. He wI'll lose his guns regardless, which may explain (more rationally), why the court didn't grant the order...simply because it didn't have to as it would be done automatically. Suspended sentences do now count for prohibition of possessing firearms. Read S110 of the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Police Act Guidance from the Home Office. Bloody conspiracy theorists! Which is what I said in post 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyb79 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Which is what I said in post 24 Everything except the Bigfoot reference! Apologies, only just jumped into this and scanned through the comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 seems to me the old bill overstepped the mark again and they were the aggressors,fair play to him for standing up for himself.just because you have a fac doesn't mean you have bow down to everyone and not stand up for yourself...imo.. I'm not sure how you're getting that out of the link you posted? The article implies he was the aggressor. I can't see how police are overstepping the mark in wanting to talk to him, what should they have done, used the phone? Hand signals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 If you think Freemasons have any influence over such things, you would be more accurate stating that David Cameron is in fact Bigfoot in disguise! I can't prove of course that freemasonry had anything to do with the topic of this thread, but I can (and did) prove that it has had a lot of influence in matters around here while I was growing up, including one firearms case, an incidence of criminal damage, a drink driving offence and one persons enrolment in the police force despite being far too old to be eligible. Wheels within wheels, nudge nudge wink wink. I had a most entertaining childhood, enlivened by many a brush with the law, and have first hand knowledge of such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyb79 Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I can't prove of course that freemasonry had anything to do with the topic of this thread, but I can (and did) prove that it has had a lot of influence in matters around here while I was growing up, including one firearms case, an incidence of criminal damage, a drink driving offence and one persons enrolment in the police force despite being far too old to be eligible. Wheels within wheels, nudge nudge wink wink. I had a most entertaining childhood, enlivened by many a brush with the law, and have first hand knowledge of such things. I'm not disputing anything you're saying, but the only thing I would add is anything like that goes against everything Freemasonry stands for. No different to corrupt politicians or bent police officers. It's the person and their lack of integrity rather than the organisation. I'd be amazed if it had any connection to this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm not disputing anything you're saying, but the only thing I would add is anything like that goes against everything Freemasonry stands for. No different to corrupt politicians or bent police officers. It's the person and their lack of integrity rather than the organisation. I'd be amazed if it had any connection to this story. Agree entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.