Outcome of the Police Officers selling guns.

[Greymaster]

I suppose the bent coppers would have had the book thrown at them had they stolen goods worth 37p from a skip or from a dump.

 

These were FEO's.

 

When a crooked pathologist is identified, all the convictions secured with his scientific opinion become suspect and cases re-examined.

 

What of all the rejections and acceptances of applications and renewals that these guys have processed?

[al4x]

I know nothing of this story and if truth be known I don't really care, but correct me if I'm wrong, did these guys nick firearms/shotguns and sell them on??

 

Is that not a Firearms offense, and does that not attract a mandatory 5 year jail term?

 

 

The stealing was brought as a charge but in reality what they were doing was taking in unwanted firearms meant for disposal and selling them on. As has been hinted there is more to it and its more a procedural error than intent to steal IMHO, it was something that went on for years and certainly wasn't only that force. These guys got hung out for it as much by the media as anyone. Its interesting the stealing of something destined to be thrown away and only an issue as its firearms, even though they all got sold to legitimate people and all the paperwork was correctly filled in hence it was easy to trace them all. I believe the force claimed ownership as soon as they were handed to the FEO even though it seems he did guns up at his cost before selling and the previous owner was paid for them rather than just giving them away. I may be blinkered but its rare we read the right facts about anything gun related in the press

[blunt shooter]

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.

[Highlander]

In my book policemen/women should be above reproach. It's no good saying what they did wasn't this or that as we can all try to justify our actions. If there was any doubt that what they were doing wasn't kosher then they shouldn't have been doing it. We need to have some faith in our systems for them to work properly and this is no better than the recent MPs expenses scandal. It wasn't right and who the hell trusts an MP?

[CharlieT]

I'm with you Highlander.

 

All the hogwash in the world does not alter the fact that the firearms did not belong to the individuals involved but to the nation and ultimately tax payer. No different to floating duck houses or moats, it's theft from the public purse pure and simple.

[J@mes]

I think Blunt Shooter steals guns sent for disposal and sells them, and he's out in the shooting world trying to convince everyone it's ok

[al4x]

I'm with you Highlander.

 

All the hogwash in the world does not alter the fact that the firearms did not belong to the individuals involved but to the nation and ultimately tax payer. No different to floating duck houses or moats, it's theft from the public purse pure and simple.

 

sort of ultimately I guess it is even though the police no doubt pay to have the items destroyed. I've shot with someone in Herts who used to use cartridges handed in for destruction simply because he was friends with the right person who rather than destroy them let them be used. Same person bought a very nice beretta from the same source money did go back to the police but that was a gun that would otherwise have been auctioned as even they thought it was too nice to be destroyed. If you believe some of the stories that are backed up they even paid the previous owners for guns that they sold on rather than destroy them. As shooters we should understand more not wanting to destroy all guns handed in that could be used than most but people don't. They believe the BBC's reporting and the hysteria round it because it involves guns very strange as that is unusual round here. Simple facts here are none went to anyone they shouldn't have all were fully traceable but the letter of the law says its a crime.

[Good shot?]

Police out of order,full stop.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Good shot?

[blunt shooter]

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.

[CharlieT]

Blunt Shooter

 

I do actually understand what went on, I just don't agree that it was lawful and above board.

What I fail to understand though is how one can justify the abuse of position at work on the grounds that others have been abusing their position for years so it's correct that I follow suit and if caught should not face the consequences.

 

It has been stated that because of their position they were not required to have fac's (a fact we fully understand) however I fail to understand and I can only assume it was an abuse of their position, how dealing on their own account both buying and selling precluded them from the need to have at least fac in their own right and more probably a rfd. They circumvented the system and paperwork in many ways for their own ends and got caught, a risk they took.

 

I could go on picking holes in the whole saga but I won't. What I will say though is that I think the pension business stinks. Although I am not au fait with the mechanics of police pensions I am amazed that they are not entitled to a refund of any of the monies they payed in together with interest to date. However I personally do not think that anyone who has abused their position whilst employed in public service should receive any element of their pension from the public purse and like you I am disgusted that the MP's you refer to have not lost theirs.

 

What we all must remember is that everything belongs to someone. All to often when that someone is the state the lines become a little blurred and when the balloon pops this sort of situation occurs.

Edited April 28, 2011 by CharlieT

[J@mes]

Al4x I think the outcry would be the same if the officers were selling confiscated items such as cars, plasma TV's, jewellery or anything else for that matter. It may well be common practice, it may well go on in every force across the land. Point is, it shouldn't.

Edited April 28, 2011 by J@mes

[Gordon R]

blunt shooter - you can dress this up however you chose, but they broke the law. They have been found guilty. Whether it went on before their employment, was committed by others, etc. is totally irrelevant. They knew what they were doing was wrong or they are stupid and deserve their fate.

 

If they don't know the difference between right and wrong, they are fortunate in having you diving in to defend the indefensible.

 

Why are you posting? What are your genuine motives? You say you are here to highlight a national problem. I trust you have notified all the Forces in the country about this practice. How can you personally know that each and every Force has bent employees in this particular area of work? What have you done about it, other than posting on here. Why not tip off the press? Why put this information on a shooting forum?

 

Something smells rotten in the State of Denmark, methinks. :lol:

[blunt shooter]

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

[blunt shooter]

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.

[Mungler]

Blunt Shooter - I have no idea what your posts contain because I can't be bothered to plough through a block of texts with little or no punctuation and no paragraphs.

 

From the Beano to the Times, text needs to contain punctuation and paragraphs to be easily read and understood.

 

I get the gist of it all. The law is the law. Taking out of a skip without permission is still theft.

[Gordon R]

blunt shooter - I do not need reminders to look at all the facts. I have seen sufficient. The Judge had all the facts and sentenced them. If he didn't have the full facts, why were you not there putting him in the bigger picture? Are you saying the Judge got it wrong? Write to him and tell him he doesn't know his job. I would suggest you learn to string together a cogent case, rather than the rambling diatribe which appears on here. Good luck. :rolleyes:

 

As for them being compelled to plead guilty - absolute garbage. It seems they entered a guilty plea to a "lesser" charge to avoid getting convicted of a more serious one.

 

I repeat - why are you posting this on a shooting forum? Were you expecting an outcry on their behalf? Why not post on a fishing or motorcycle forum? This isn't about guns, it's about theft.

[Vince Green]

The part of the story that I find amazing is that two established serving officers should have so little in the way of assets. Good salary, and overtime for many years should mean a comfortable lifestyle at the very least.The coppers that I socialise and shoot with appear quite well off if cars, houses, guns etc are anything to go by. Minted in fact in some cases.

That a copper should be selling his house to pay back £1300 seems very strange to me. Unless there are other factors in the story that we haven't been told like drink problems, gambling or whatever that drove them into it in the first place.

 

Any copper that is that skint is a liability in many ways, thats why they are paid a reasonable whack. If not selling off guns there are always other temptations in that job.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Vince Green

[UKPoacher]

Blunt Shooter - I have no idea what your posts contain because I can't be bothered to plough through a block of texts with little or no punctuation and no paragraphs.

 

From the Beano to the Times, text needs to contain punctuation and paragraphs to be easily read and understood.

 

I get the gist of it all. The law is the law. Taking out of a skip without permission is still theft.

 

 

Don't know what your angle is bluntshooter, but you are defending the indefensible.

[Vince Green]

I agree its not defensable but it does raise questions. These guys were acting outside of the system so they got what they deserved but police forces for many years have recycled "assets" that came into their possession. Police auctions are well known.

Years ago, when such things were legal a friend of mine bought a .455 Webley revolver through a gunshop called Empire Arms in North London. Via the HBSA and their records he found it had been sold by Cogswell and Harrison in the Strand London to a young army Leiutenant in the Royal Fusililiers in 1916. He was killed in 1917. The address given was a farm in Devon.

A couple of years later he plucked up courage and wrote to the farm asking if they knew any details. He got a letter back some time later from a great nephew of the officer who was still living in the area.

 

Following the death of the young officer all his personal effects, including his pistol had been returned to the familiy and remained in the possession of a spinster sister until her death when it was handed in to the police. The great nephew was amazed that the pistol had been resold. His letter though and the supporting documentation meant that my friend was able to sell it for more than he paid for it.

 

If a man died leaving a cased pair of Holland and Holland Royals (about £40,000) and his family handed them in to the police would they get scrapped? I don't think so.Equally though they shouldn't disappear out of the back door.

 

The police should have a legal and transparant means of reselling legal guns that are handed in to boost their funds. All this stuff about scrapping perfectly good guns only leads to abuses like this. They always used to sell them.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Vince Green

[blunt shooter]

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?

[dadioles]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this case.....

 

I have been around a bit and during my time appeared in court on jury service and also several times as an expert witness. I have also represented staff in Industrial Tribunals and been responsible for negotiating with and between various bodies.

 

The net result is that I have learned that "justice" is often not done in the way that an ordinary person would view it, indeed, natural justice often does not happen.

 

If you can afford it, pay for the lawyer with the best reputation (very expensive) who is experienced in the specific type of case that you are defending. The chances are that even if you are as guilty as hell he stands a good chance of getting you off, may even recover costs from the other side.

 

Never be a test case..... The law is a mess and absolutely full of grey areas which have so far been unproven, as shooters we know about endless examples and how different chief constables can "interpret" things differently.

 

Don't trust anyone. Get everything in writing and if possible witnessed (in writing) as well. People will tell you what you want to hear, they want to be your friend, when push comes to shove they will deny everything and lie out of their back teeth and dump you right in it.

 

I have read most of the posts here and get the impression that while the guys involved are guilty, there are also an awful lot of others who are just as guilty or perhaps more so. I know that custom and practice is not really much of a defence but when something becomes public there will always be a scapegoat - a bad place to be. Your "friends" and colleagues will all desert you and your bosses will turn the knife and drag up all sorts of half truths in order to cover their own backs. You will be dropped right in it.

 

Very very unfair, get wise..... that is life and people are not always nice. Been there done that got 47 t'shirts.

[Gordon R]

If there are other rotten apples in the barrel, they should be exposed and dealt with in the same manner.

 

Unless blunt shooter is implying that the Police force is full of dishonest officers, I totally fail to see why he has posted on what is basically a shooting forum. What purpose does this serve?

 

Is Pigeonwatch the place which will make the biggest impact? I think not.

 

Assuming blunt shooter convinced everyone on here that these two were dealt with harshly - that seems very, very unlikely - what will happen next?

 

I wait - agog. :rolleyes:

[blunt shooter]

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?

[Gordon R]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm - the media don't want to know about this fantastic case. I wonder why not.

 

 

You keep referring to others. I presume you have the courage to name and shame them or are they merely mysterious "others". Those are the ones who anyone can blame, but they don't always exist.

[blunt shooter]

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