blunt shooter

Big pete for your information weapons handed in during an amnesty are checked to see if they have been involved in crime to take them out of any enquiries . ALL weapons unless of specific historic /antique value regardless of condition or value should be destroyed. The weapons in these cases were not subject of an amnesty but voluntarily surrendered.If of any worth a value is obtained and any subsequent monies re sale etc given to previous owner if known if not to police funds for charities? As for Gordon R (spell check now working)these officers were named in media and on a BBC documentary "Inside Out", I know this media coverage seemed to be restricted to North East & Cumbria so depending on your vicinity you may not have seen said coverage. Again I make the point not to name shame as media has done so and I do not know if in doing so if I commit any offence?Also again I reiterate why 2 to court and others internal discipline for same thing?

A while since Ive looked at this thought that it wouldve gone away but obviously still a talking point (by the way now have spell check working to please all those who crticised my condition) Charlie T refers to fiction- the media lapped up when the prosecution went on about a bespoke service, it was not that at all but as stated a common sense approach to inform Durham Firearms Licensing of what was happening to weapons in their possession. As was said in the BBC documentary on this case ALL guns and their sale /acquisistion/transfer from police property was logged by these officers and the Dept were INFORMED IN ALL CASES , the question was asked if the Head of the Dept knew it was going on and if it was wrong why was it not stopped and was not her position as Dept Head in question. Well in a nutshell it wasnt stopped or questioned , the Dept knew it was going on and the Head of the Dept (by the wasy called by the Judge a LIAR and proved to be so) is still Head of the Dept ? As for lurchers if the police wanted staements it wasnt necessarily because offences were committed but perhaps to rule out offences, if your mate kept the guns more than likely all was above board. As for Dekers if you hade read all the forum the question of the 5 yr sentence has already been covered And to keep all updated both officers lost all their pensions despite the fact that prior to this Allen had paid into his pension for 26 years of a previouilsy exemplary career and Cpbain pension the majority of which was paid by his previous employers so how these can be seized is beyond me. If they were in private industry they would still get their pensions. #Al;l; the senior cops like Dieal (doing time) have still got heir pensions as have all the convicted MP s and they didnt even pay for their paension we pay towards the Mps pensions. Surely thesde officers should get their own contributions as they beleived they would when becoming cops?? I know all you do gooders will think differently but look at yourselves how would you like your pension you have paid towards for years seized??? differnt now isnt it?

No the others weree named and shamed in local North Esat papers and in the BBC documentary BUT and this is what I cant undersatnd they were dealt with by internal means and subsequently disciplined, no criminal proceedings but same offences ? Thats why I say this wasa one sided ( or 2 officers sided) investigation As I have always sed all or none not just the 2 maned and convicted( Cobain and Allen) wehen others weere obvioulsy doing the same amd were exposed by the TV and Papers but only dealt with by internal disciplin HOW COME? Any way this could drag on for eva in my opinion if cops wre doing wrong then they should be dealt with harshly aS they should not be above the law, BUT all of the Dept shuld have been at court not just these 2 or if some can be dealt with internally why werent these 2 dealt with like thgat? No dowt the debate will go on

To Gordon R and others I DID NOT START THIS TOPIC it was started in both cases by Bazooka joe, all I did was to add extra fuwell to the fire and to keep the discussion going, if the media don't want to know and the Force is one sdided in how they have dealt with these too and not the others where else can it bee talked abowt?

For all those who have complained about my grammer and spelling etc I'm sorry but I have dsylexia and can't get my spell check to work on this forum however re Mungler , refering to taking out of skip , they never did that these were guns handed in as no longer wnated, the owners were contacted and the guns sold on there behalfs, this included serving cops, but the Force deemed that once ion police propertty they belonged to the Chief so even with owners permission theft, despite the fact the owners were paid, surely that cant be right? other none gun property is sometines returned to the owners without the cheifs knowledge so why should guns be different? Gordon R was the Judge wrong NO not the way the case was presented to him.My arguement was not meant to defend but as I point out again to show that these 2 were singled out as before all or nione. As for a lesser charge they pleaded to youre wrong Misconduct carries up to a life sentence theft max 10 year so I can't see how its a lesser sentence? Vince Green as for assest and the amounts cops earn etc not all are well off some are divorced and have lost everything yes some have other problems( not the case here) the reasons for not much realisable assets may never be known Your comment re they always sell them is totaly incorrect, each force has handed in and destroys £1000's worth of property including guns every year, yes if of historic or antique value you would advise previous owners against destruction but if thats what they want thats wat happens,I personally know of a valualble Purdy been smelted/ Uk Poacher defending the indefensible not the case they were advised to plead to misconduct which they did on reflection after Cobains court hearing and after Durham were called liars and fools I think if they had no pleaded and had gone to trial the verdict may have been different. Never the less they did plead and were convicted and have decided not to appeal? I am not defending there actions but trying to make others understand more to this than was rep[orted. Hope my grammer etc is better?

forgot to say re Charlie T comments the misconduct was that they sold /transferred weapons on behalf of revious owners to new owners with the knowledge of the old, new owners and ADurham but as old and new did not or may not have known each oither that was the misconduct as you say dealing without an RFD certificate even though they thought that werre actions were above board as all parties knew what they were doiing. In fact these both had their own FAC nd SGc's so they were licensed and their certs have been revoked on the grounds they weree a danger to the public althought he Judge state categorically they were never an danger had never put any one in danger and all guns went to registered licensed people. They did sometimes buy weapons themselves and did them up and sold them on but all cert holders can and somew do that sort of thing, yes they were on the ground floor with inside knowledge in a better posistion tham most to buy guns fore this purpose but its no different to the traffic cop who buys cars does them upo and sells them on.

Well I thought that this was ended but obviously not I agree that wrong doing shjould be punished and been a common preactice does not make it right or above the law My point or the point I was trying to highlight was that Durahm knew it went on but did not stop it or do anything about it, the Judge agreed that all paperwork was transparent and these 2 had not tried to hide or conceal what they were doing SO why all of a sudden come down on them like a ton of bricks, they were not as has been assumed and made out by the press make fortunes again the Judge confirmed this at ciourt, this if wrong should have been stopped but agin ALL not just 2 it could quite easliy have been dealt with without all the expense of courts and investigation with the same end result. Yes they pleaded guilty to misconduct BUT they were told plead guilty get 1 to 2 yrs HMP plead not guilty looking at 8yrs HMP a no braqiner there then? When later the cased and Durham were made to look fools at court they couldnt un plead the Judge realised that hencd the way he sentenced them *** for the pensions I still feel they should get what they paid with interest gained. As for Gordon R I am not defending them pursay I am pointing out this was wrong to be dealt with this way again all or noine. As for other Forces and media been informed this was/has been done but they have dealt with their problems internally. Rember the BBC did a national documentary on this so no one can say in Durham or other areas thaT they did not know about this?As for personally knowing other forces did this a-it came out in the enquiry which lead to persons all over the country haing been interviwed and giuven statements b-its refered to more than once by users of this forum c-as said the BBC highlighted it Suggets Gordon you read all including the prior forum re the arrests before you pass judgement I am not thier perotector or guardian angel I just feel that it was unfair to single them out again I say all or nione

I wish to comment on somne of your comments J@mes seems to think that I Blunt Shooter am one of these cops WELL I can assure you thsat although I have a good knowledge of the case and enquiry I AM NOT one of the 2 involved. so please keep comments re me to yourself. I am only on this forum to highlight a national problem but unfortuenately these 2 were the ones who suffered for a long term common practice not only in Durahm but elsewhere in the country. Heres another ember to fan the flames why if the previous owners knew and were paid is it theft from the Chief Constable?the theft referered to that was never followed up as serving cops had sold their guns via these and other officers in the same way was "thfet contrary to the police property act" not theft contrary to the theft act, therefore dealt with in an entirely different ,rather convenient way for Durham? As for Highlander and Charlie T you both refer to MPs and thgeir expenses scandal , well heres 1 to stick in your pipes. The MPs who fiddled expenses and either resigned or were prosecuted and imprisoned etc have ALL kept their state funded pensions. These 2 officers who paid for their pensions (not us the tax payer) have lost theirs. Surely this again is different standards, besides why werent the MPs done for Misconduct in Public Office the offence covers ALL people in office including MPs but somehow they were dealt with by lesser legislation. Again only AL4X sems to hvae fully underrstood what went on with these 2. I feel its wrong that these 2 were singled out it should have been all or none and if it was to be dealt withg by the courts why not go the whole hog and involve ALL including those retired (on pensions) who also did this and it should have also involved all forces countrywide not just Durham.

in reply to Diceman I do have an interest and inside knowledge , however I am not prepared to ID myself (self preservation and all that ) for obvious reasons BUT it did come out during the enquiry thaqt this had gone on for years even before these 2 became FEO's and continued after they ceased to be FEO's This also appears to have been common in other forces.At Durham this practice was carried out in full and open forums with these 2 never trying to hide or disguise their actions (that was verified by the Judge at court) yet instead of all involved in the past during and since only these 2 have been brought to boot.The Dept Head was called a liar by the Judge she knew this went on and never queried it, shed has not been disciplined she still heads the Dept. The practice did not stop after the arrest of Allen but continued to go on(remember when he was arrested he had not been an FEO for over 2 years)the pracvtice ONLY ceased when Durham did something about it after the BBC documentary this was after they were sentenced and some 18months after Allen was arrested, WHY? if the system was so corrupt and wrong was this not stopped on the arrest of Allen and Cobain? As for the comment re forgery etc been proved that is incorrect as that line of enquiry was not pursued hence never proved even if there were forgeries and as stated all thefts were dropped at court. Also everyone seems to think Misconduct is a let off , it's not Misconduct is a common law offence and carries up to LIFE whereas theft is a max 10 years , so looking at the facts thgey pleaded to a heavier offence. Also remember the N/bria WPC who was chartged with theft of police property (designer clothes worth £1000's)BUT got off at court when the Judge applied the rational that property handed in for destruction was of no vlaue , therefore no theft as you CAN NOT steal nothing , why was this not applied in this? Was it because the police leaked it to the press and it made such headlines that there was no going back??? The comment on nicking and selling guns "is not a firearms offence" not necessarily as serving officers they would not need a licence to handle firearms so no breach FA regs etc , therefore other legislation has to be applied. As for Grayman their enquiries into grants rejections etc was never and has never been in question ALL their such enqs were above board and done correctly with the correct eveidence to back up there actions. IT would seem that AL4X is the only one who has actually grasped what went on, these were hung out to dry , a massive unecessary amount of time and money was spoent on this enquiry, was it really in the public interest? Allen even has references from ex Senior Police officers from Durham who stated that it was common knowledge that this went on a dn if they had still been serving it would have been dealt with internally and not at Court. It still gripes me that only these 2 have been dealt with by the court system but others past present no long serving and still serving have had nothing done to them. This came out not only in the enquiry but in a documentary by the BBC. Why only the 2 all or none should be the way to go, they did what they were taught to do by predecesors BUT for what ever reason they will regret it for the rest of their live no doubt.

Jackinbox99 has made a comment without been privy to all the facts, unfortuneately another one who believes all the media print, he didnt make nearly 10 grand, if it is to be attached to future earnings why should any one convicted get a job just stay on benefits and never pay it back , after all this act was made for the big criminals not really for this type of case. The reason no prison was covered several times previously but mainly no prison as other officers not charged for this common practice, no one ver in danger and all weapons accounted for and in hands of authorised persons. Before jumping in head forst get ALL the facts

Bazooka Joes article is a tad misleading I will cover the points he/she has raisewd in cronological order First "sdhamed officers having to pay back ill gotten gains" A fuller understanding of the proceeds of cime act is needed to understand how/why they have had to pay the court money. The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)is a very draconian act and seeks to punish criminals making vast sums not really appropriate in this instance BUT never the less was used. The POCA goes back 10 years and aANY cash amounts paid into an account which can not be traced are deemed subject of POCA. The sum relating to Allen £9970.88 IS NOT money made BUt money in his account over 10 years, this was actually a joint account with his wife BUT POCA does not allow for this so sums she paid in as well become part iof the equation.Also POCA states that if the sum is over £5000 then a criminal lifestyle has been lead. As Allen continued to work as a cop for several years after he ceased to be an FEO and during this time and his time as an FEO he received several awards and commendations I fail to see how he lived the live of a criminal?The sum of money (nearly £10000) was made up of £5000 he had made from the legitimate purchasae restoration and sale of guns over a 12 year period( REMEMBER his misconduct as stated by the Judge was 3 year 2003 to 2006)the othe £4000 odd was sums paid into previsouly mentioned joint account over 10 years , these include ridiculous sums like £33.17 in March 2003 ands £17.50 in May 2002( you go back over your accounts for 10 years and try to remember where all those little amounts of cah came from? bet you can't & they all soon add up. So when tyaking this awful POCA and how the sum was reached not really a criminal is he? AQs fro realisable assets he has lowered the price of his house several times to try to sell it BUT can't if he did sell it this is all the profit he would have so his asset as for the private plate he doesnt even own it this belongs to his son also of the same name BUT the police wouldn't accept this so he got stung for that as well. *** for the 30 days in prison if he doesnt pay well he will still owe the money plus interest when he gets out. As for Cobain the police did not even check his bank accounts hence why he got such a low sum to repay. As always throughout this it was a very one sided investigation, with the BBC proiving this was common practice with other officers doing the same BUT they are still empoloyed and will retire on full pensions. Depite paying 13.% of his wage into his pansion for 29 1/2 years Allen has lost his pension , not really fair when it was his money. BJ also states that FEO's processed guns handed in on amnesties and from operations this is only partly true, the main bulk of weapons handed in are handed in voluntarily by licensed holders and actions after that were with their knowledge,The soc alled 4 year racket was in fact 3 years . As for Allen forging letters etc this was never poved and he was NEVER charged with forgery or theft, he did give handwriting samples to the police BUT for some reason they never used them so forgery not proved and the theft charged he plead not guilty to at Crown Court and they were dropped. Agin the mewntioned bespoke service was the officers informing people who had purchased guns that as they had done so from Police Property and as they would have to inform HQ anyway of their acquisition of said weapon they need not as would normally be required to by law inform HQ as the FEO would do so, hardly a bespoke servicer but a common sense approach saving the public time and cost, and obviously NOT the action of someone trying to cover up what he had done as he thought he had done wrong MORE like the actions of a manm beleiveig he was doing nothing wrong? IF HE WAS doing WRONG hwne he sent such letters to HQ why was it not questioned and why was it alloweed to continue? As for selling the same gun twice agian not ptoved the gun sold twice was 1st sold by the owner then at a later date the new owner asked Allen to sell it for him whiuch As for allowed to keep their freedom, the Judge took into account that ALL weapons were accounted for and went to authorised licence holders, the public were never in danger, and the fact that Durham were called by the Judge liars, complacent and shambolic and it was proved that the Head of the Dept did know this practice went on but she did NOT stop it, she is still somehow dept Head. I am neither against or for them BUT it still seems to me that these 2 were singled out for what was obviouslyt a common working practice, they have lost everything whilst the others have lost nothing, Surely it should have been all or none at court. I can't begin to imagine what they are going to do to rebuild their lives , would you employ a man with 30 years a s a cop who was required to resign?

I have heard that the police are not taking any actions for thefts against Allen but he is going to court for misconduct sometime in July, apparently part of the reasons for this is he sold guns for serving cops who got paid in full and as he was charged with theft of some of these it was pointed out that these serving cops MUST have recieved the proceeds of stolen goods BUT WEREN'T done for anything so Misconduct only for gun brokering??? Cobain has elected to go for trial some time later this year? I think they are both still out on bail till after the trial because neither of them can be sentenced till the end of Cobain's trial, So I'm sure it will be in the papers and on Tv at some time after its conclussion Can I also take this chance to apologise to BZ and GH if I have misquoted them and got comments mixed up with the incorrect people , I like you have no axe to grind but am not on a 1 man crusade to prove them innocent or guilty more to prove not just they did this but it was common practice in Durham and other Forces and I feel they have been singled out It should have been ALL done or NONE done? Lets just keep an eye on the media to see what ther result is?

I think £50 for a semi auto was a bargain, as for scrapping it for a snapped ejector that was foolish its a cheap and fairly easy reapair, rather than scrap it you could have pt ex it at a gun dealer and got your mmoney back. Needless to say the fact no more people visited is probably because no offences as to this gun(yes BZ & GH I'm just summising that) But when buying any secondhand gun from anyone it may work when we buy it but it could also break on 1st use ,it's a risk we all take . The comments have been madfe from several of us MAYBE THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT MAYBE IT WILL NOT but whatever these I don't envy what these 2 cops will have to go through???