Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About timps

  • Rank

  • Birthday December 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • From

Recent Profile Visitors

681 profile views
  1. timps

    Tommy Robinson

    According to this link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-arrest-muslims-filming-court-a7733156.html it was for contempt of court for filming. How true it is I don’t know but it is the same offence . The offence is still section 41 Criminal Justice Act 1925 however it can be charged as a criminal offence or can be dealt with by the court as a contempt in accordance with the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure. Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure says ‘(iii) (where relevant) that the court has power to order the respondent’s immediate temporary detention, if in the court’s opinion that is required,’ The above means straight to jail no representation until the trial is over if the judge feels it is required, basically it is a power to stop anyone interfering with a trial. My guess this is what has happened, and jail is usually reserved for those that don’t eat humble pie and say sorry I wont do it again your honour.
  2. timps

    Tommy Robinson

    Its ok to take a picture or film of a person away from the court however it is an offence under the criminal Justice act 1925 to take a photo of someone in court. According to section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, in court. “(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.” So filming anyone leaving court whilst a case is in progress is a big no no and will land anyone in hot water. Take a picture of them walking the streets when they haven't just left court the case is being held at and say this is them and you don’t fall foul of this law hence why your link is not in breach of the law he was arrested for.
  3. What you have to remember Home office guidance is not law and the police / courts can ignore it, the only thing that is relevant is the actual Firearms act. The problem we have is clause 27 for firearms or 28 for shotguns 28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates. [F11(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. It is such a broad brush it gives the chief officer of police the ability to refuse a grant or renewal based on whether he/she is satisfied or not which is completely subjective to the individual. Cases have gone to court on security issues and the above sections have been successfully used to win those cases for the police. All it takes is the chief of police to stand up in court and say he/she is not satisfied without a medical check and section 27 / 28 of the firearms act requires them not to grant or renew. Obviously the above is a very very oversimplification of the problem and no QC has any idea which way the judge would go on this. Judges are going to be very reluctant to give a blanket ban on a chief officer of police having a judgement call to ask for medical reports as they see fit. If this was an individual case for one shooter I would be more confident in it being successful. The issue is once a ruling is made we are stuck with the consequences which would mean every force would insist backed up with a court precedent. Changing the actual wording of the firearms act through political means would be the safest option with the least risk. Just my opinion on it for what it is worth.
  4. timps

    Proof markings and steel shot

    Most things go for type approval in the country of sale regardless of country of manufacture, cars are one for example. Regarding Beretta, Winchester or Browning they are usually proofed in Europe, Italy or Belgium which are a CIP member sates and go nowhere near a British proof house. I often worked with the American ASTM standards, some are far superior to ours, some woefully inferior so I get why we insist on our guns being proofed in a CIP member state.
  5. timps

    Proof markings and steel shot

    I have had long debates on PW in this in the past and not going down that road again but for some info. According to CIP an HP steel/steel-like shot proof uses three cartridges containing large steel pellets and generating some 30% greater service pressure (not burst pressure) per barrel than the standard PSF** 1370 lead shot test. The gun is then marked “Steel Shot” and with Fleur-de-Lys. Meaning that while the chamber pressures are the same for both steel and lead, the pressure in the rest of the barrel is some 30% greater for HP steel proof test. In the eyes of CIP a gun not subjected to the steel proof test would be deemed not to have passed steel shot proof and so not suitable/safe to fire HP steel/steel-like cartridges. That is not to say that such a gun would necessarily be damaged but CIP would maintain that the risk of its being so is increased. The proof test is designed to take into consideration if everything that could go wrong did go wrong (faulty load etc) the gun would survive. Not every gun a manufacturer sends to the proof house passes meaning that faulty guns are produced every year and the last place you want to find this out is a few inches from your face and next to your hand. The increased risk is because there is always a remote possibility that your gun could fail the HP steel proof load but would have survive the standard PSF** 1370. This mythical gun could quite happily survive on HP steel but one slightly different cart (faulty) or change in brand and there could be a failure. God knows the odds on that scenario but I thought I would point it out all the same, there is an increase in risk, if you are happy with this risk then go for it, if not then don’t. However, it is only responsible to point out the increase in risk however remote for the actual individual to decide for themselves.
  6. timps

    Muller choke issue

    I have seen forum posts and Facebook posts including pictures of the failure for Caesar Guerini, Blaser, Miroku /browning muller chokes that have split, cracked etc. They don’t seem as prolific as Beretta but still exist. Any response from Muller has been along the lines of user error (not tightened up) gun makers fault (tolerance) or an old revision number of choke so it’s no longer a problem if you get the latest revision number. I had a set, I had no issues apart from chips on the ceramic however I sold them because I’m not convinced of their durability.
  7. Regarding recoil and from a scientific perspective the equation has got to balance, energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be transferred. Therefore, if the pressure at the chamber is greater on one but the velocity out of the gun for the 2 different carts is the same then there has to be a difference in recoil. Before anyone says, this difference in recoil might only be able to be measured as a scientific exercise not actually felt by the shooter. Force =Mass x Acceleration Greater chamber pressure but same velocity means either greater acceleration of shot or increased friction of the wad/shot if they both have the same velocity out of the gun. If the initial acceleration is quicker, then the equation says the force has to be greater but over a shorter period of time (more of a thump). If the friction is greater, then the pressure is higher as it exits the muzzle to overcome this increased friction and as the ejecta has a mass and will accelerate once in atmospheric pressure creating a higher force. Or The shot has be accelerated to a higher velocity inside the barrel to compensate the added friction in the remaining barrel higher velocity again higher force. Either way the recoil cannot be the same, whether you or I can feel that difference is a whole other subject but on paper there has to be a difference.
  8. The biggest monitor of social media are the users, on Facebook even if you have it locked to friends it doesn’t stop the police being informed. I know someone who started expressing right wing views on his locked Facebook page regarding immigration, nothing to extreme or threats of violence but still over the mark for current times. He actually got phone call from the police to be interviewed at the station about his post. To this day he has no idea which of his Facebook friends informed on him but it goes to show anything put in writing can and will be used against you even if you think only friends can see and to be fair it was only his opinion. No further action was taken, but he was concerned about his job as a pub landlord so he went down to the police station with a brief, an expensive Facebook post to say the least. On a public forum the chances of offending someone must be even higher, I do wonder if any user names on here are ever put forward either out of spite or genuine concern and whether the police would bother to track down the actual name. Either way it’s the world we now live in, a certain shooting writer whose name is banned on here (for this very reason) would have you in court at the drop of his floppy hat should you write anything about him. It is certainly wise now to consider what you post as it can definitely come back to haunt you. I do think the police have more than passing interest in monitoring social media that would catch some posts but you are more likely, in my opinion, to be brought to their attention by the actual users of your chosen social media out of boredom, spite, general concern or they have a self righteous attitude and are easily concerned for public decency or safety. There are too many Reverend Lovejoy's wife's from The Simpsons with their 'Won’t somebody please think of the children!' attitude on social media now.
  9. timps

    Would the difference be noticeable...

    I have upgraded my clay gun a couple of times, the problem is no one can give you a definitive answer it is all down to personal choice. However I am so glad I upgraded each time, the caveat as already pointed out is keeping your old gun. I upgraded from a Browning ultra XS to a Beretta DT10 things were great for about a year and a half then I hit a slump and got it into my head the Browning was better and the DT 10 was the problem even though I hadn’t shot the Browning for a year and a half. I brought the Browning out of retirement to reclaim my former glory only to find out I really didn’t like shooting it at all anymore, the DT10 was better for me, I just hit a slump and it was me not the gun. The genuine thing is if I didn’t have my old gun to take out and try even to this day I would think the swap was a bad mistake, the fact I had still had it to take out made me realise I needed to go back to basics and just knuckle down on technique. The DT10 was just nicer to shoot, no idea if it actually improved my scores over the Browning had I stuck with that but I genuinely did prefer shooting it regarding recoil, swing and handling. Even though the DT10 got me into the 90’s ex 100 at registered sporting I’ve since changed to a CG summit assent and I prefer shooting that now. A change in gun is never going to take a C class shooter to AA but it might make him more consistent due to weight and balance and absorbing the recoil ..
  10. timps

    Gun cabinet change

    My original post was when you said the FEO didn’t need to “chasing up/ checking out a Storage/Security request.” I said yes, they do, it’s in the firearms act and part of the chief of police’s obligations, if they want to get shirty about they can and in my friends, experience have. I totally accept most don’t as long as you explain. You might feel you don’t have a responsibility but the chief of police has a legal responsibility to assess your security and if you have changed it in any way then they haven’t assessed it as is. After your original grant security is not solely up to you, its covered by statue law, if the police don’t think what you have done is adequate you can be prosecuted regardless of whether you think its OK or not. The chief of police has also still got to ensure public safety which means ongoing risk assessment so guns don’t fall into wrong hands even though you might not have broke the law regarding security just an increased risk. The more guns held on a premises is considered an increased risk. They have originally assessed your security and are happy for it for 5 years no need for conditions, if circumstances change such as burglary, installing new cabinets they will reassess. If you don’t want to send them an email then that’s fine but I wouldn’t move to Greater Manchester anytime soon as they say they are happy for x number of guns and will pull you should you go over. My whole point is if the chief of police is not satisfied he can and will revoke whether you agree with him or not. It was in reply to your post that they didn't need to do it and this thread has snowballed from there.
  11. timps

    Gun cabinet change

    I am not missing the point at all, the chief of police must assess your security by law that is nothing to do with your responsibilities at all it’s to do with his/hers. If he/she is not satisfied with your security arrangements then he/she by law must revoke your certificate or not grant one, that bit is the law and has nothing to do with your responsibilities or even if you have broken the law or not. The risk assessment of security differs from force to force dependent on what they deem necessary so it’s not negligent if forces do it different just as long as they do as they see fit and continue to do it while the certificate is valid. With GMP they have a note on file saying there is security adequate for x number of guns, and GMP certainly tell you at your home visit how many guns they think your cabinet holds. If these figures don’t match up by law the chief of police MUST be satisfied that the security you have in place is adequate for the increase in guns how he/she goes about that is his/her business not mine. The simple fact is if the FEO is not satisfied because they haven’t checked your new security arrangements or for some other reason (high crime area + increase in guns etc) they have to by the wording of the firearms act revoke / not grant / renew your certificate. How do you legally determine if someone’s satisfied or not, simple, if they say they are not satisfied then they are not. With what you are saying I can get approved for one gun then go out and buy 20+ without upgrading my security in anyway shape or form, just stuff them in my cabinet, which makes a complete mockery of the original FEO security assessment levels in the guidelines so not how the guidelines view it or how the act was written.
  12. timps

    Gun cabinet change

    The guidance does mention number of guns per cabinet (location) depending on level of risk, for Level 2 “Mitigating the risk by dividing up the number of guns between several secure locations” i.e. not all in one cabinet. So yes, it is a factor in the guidance depending on risk assessment my whole point. The guidance also quite clearly states the chief of police MUST risk assess your security, that risk assessment is entirely up to them and their opinion on it. The guidance says “It may also be helpful to think of security in terms of broad “levels” to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. These are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide guidance on what might be considered proportionate in each case.” If their risk assessment deems you need to tell them then you have to tell them until a judge says otherwise. The guidance is quite clear all sorts of factors are to be considered but it’s up to the force in question to do as they see fit. Simply put if they don’t think your cabinet can't hold more than 3 guns without added risk, e.g. you won’t bother cramming them in, the guns need to be split as you are considered level 2 or they THINK you can’t cram them in then that is their decision so no cert. You can certainly disagree with them and win but as I have said this means a trip to court and the associated costs to get a judgement as to who is right. My friend was slightly different in that his gun room was perfectly acceptable for years a new FEO then decided it needed to be entirely steel lined. There is also nothing in the guidance stating that gun rooms need to be steel lined however the new FEO insisted, he said no, he lost his cert then appealed and won but not costs awarded. My point being they can insist and dig their heels in if you don’t play ball. If you are happy to go to court then fair play but don’t think they can’t revoke your cert based on a risk assessment on the number of guns in your cabinet, level 2 on the guidance clearly says they can.
  13. timps

    Gun cabinet change

    No like I said and as they did with my friend revoke his certificate on a risk assessment, very easy for them to do. Then you will have to lodge your guns with someone else, for them it's problem solved.
  14. timps

    Gun cabinet change

    Unfortunately, they do have to do it it’s covered in the Home office guidance on the firearms act, while security is the responsibility of the certificate holder the chief officer of police MUST be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/ammunition in their possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Therefore, the FEO on the chief officer of police behalf must risk assess your security by law, that bit is in the firearms act and it is also mentioned in the home office guidance on it. The Chief officer of police has no choice he/she is legally obliged under the firearms act to do it if they issue you a certificate. Obviously how may guns your security arrangement can physically hold is a major part of that risk assessment. Someone somewhere has to put a figure on it and if the paperwork doesn’t match up then they will want to know why. If they feel the guns are at greater risk of not being secured due to you not bothering to cram them all in a 3 gun cabinet or that they feel you can’t cram them in they have to revoke or not grant a certificate by law. They wont charge you with any offence they will just revoke which requires no court or burden of proof just their opinion on the matter. Remember risk assessment is not black and white so open to interpretation of the individual FEO, all they have to do is show a greater degree of risk on the balance of probabilities not that you have broken any law or intend to then it's bye bye certificate till you go to court. You can then certainly disagree with their findings on your security, I personally know someone who did and won based on a gun room. However, it is open to the legal interpretation of a judge as to who is correct and this is the sticking point it would have to go to court for a ruling. Whilst waiting for your day in court they have to revoke your certificate by law. Bear in mind it would cost a small fortune as cost are not normally awarded in firearm’s licence revocation cases unless the police behaved unreasonably. Unreasonably is at the discretion of the judge and even though my friend won the judge ruled it was reasonable for the police to ask the court for a ruling on his security and reading cost guidance on firearms licences cases the threshold for unreasonable is very high bar indeed. As always, it’s your call but don’t think they are powerless to make you tow the line, my friend learnt the hard way, he won but was saddled with thousands in court costs.
  15. I’m no longer a member and haven’t been in years but got an e-mail off them on the 9th of this month. Dear Member, The majority of the ground improvements over the last 12 months are now completed. This includes; • A new toilet block • 3 new towers ( all of the old towers have been moved to increase the variation of targets available to members). • All stands have been re-built- new weather proof roof, gun racks, bins, benches • New fencing • New shelters • New traps • New equipment • The car park in front of the club house has had tarmac & stones laid. • The road approaching the ground will continue to be maintained. We are also in the process of building 2 new compac/ sport-trap areas which will soon be available to members. MCSC plan to improve the clubhouse and the corporate room in 2018. As you can see there has been a massive investment in MCSC in 2017 and this will continue in 2018. Events for 2018 • Friday 30th March 100 esp open comp • ( the first for several years). Open to members at a discounted rate • • Wednesday 4th April Young Shots day • • Friday 4th May GMP Police Openshoot I might take take a trip down again as it’s on my doorstep