Highlander Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 No doubt we'll get the full (unbiased) sp from JM later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I believe that I am entitled to make my own personal observation that there are some obvious nutters on here and that Kev actually isn't one of them. You may think otherwise and you are entitled to your misguided opinion You certainly are entitled to your opinions Mungler There may be some nutters on here,but there again I haven't got your 'special' skills(Waltomiter?)which can spot them!I'm sure the Police Authority would be very interested in your 'gift' as they don't seem to be able to spot them either. Could this be because they haven't actually committed any offences to exclude them from holding firearms?But surely the camo' would give them away! :yp: If you want to discuss this on another thread Mungler,I'll happily come out to play! Don't forget the non-shooting public see us all as 'nut nuts';people who like guns and enjoy killing stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Ooooops Mung's troden on someones sensitive bits! :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy1403 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 any result on this case yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beretta28g Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I still dont understand what the case is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEREALTHRILLER Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I remember Winchester's words of wisdom shortly before he stopped posting on here, that if you are ever faced with the public (dog walkers / ramblers etc) the best thing to do is unload and walk in the opposite direction. Never engage in conversation as things can go horribly wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadkill Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Kev was one of the first chaps to take me out on here and introduce me to the world of shooting as well as Dave-g He is a very good man at heart. All the best of luck from roadkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Thanks for all the comments when i get home today from work it may even mean i will have to do it on my restday i will post the full facts warts and all with letters etc but it will take a bit of time The reason for this post in full will be how unjust the firearms legislation is and how fiction Not fact can and is used against any lawfull certificate holder I have tryed to stand up against this for the sake of yours and my chosen hobby as to stop this happening to anyone else. This has taken its toll on me standing alone dose but if one man can make a differance and stop this kind of thing all to the good. alx your comments have always been negative for what reason i dont know you must learn that everything isnt black and white so before you comment again i would advise you to be in posetion of the full facts This case dispit the fact that on the dates in question i was working (Police colated evidance for my aliby) i was still fingered for it . Put yourselfs in my shoes for one moment see how you would feel . Mung you as allways were spot on i did get a decission not justice it seems to get justice in this country you have to go to another or be from another. The truth is on its way backed by FACT not fiction till then God bless you all and stay safe Edited June 23, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Kev I wouldn't say I'm negative I just tend to read around things ok everything is conflicting in your case however the only reason I posted again was simply as something came to mind. With James Marchington having the best write up and advice on it you have to work out where to go from here. I actually know a very similar but worse case involving the landowner on the ground I shoot on, after lots of run ins with kids on trail bikes all over the farm he lost it and had an altercation where he actually shot one of their spare helmets that was on the ground. This is one of the quietest passive guys I know and it happened, his went as far as crown court before it got thrown out. Obviously he was revoked over it, the most relevant part is though he was advised to leave it a few years and re apply and if they refused it could be fought. In the end he has never shot again but have you had any advice on a way forward? rather than keeping on along the same lines as mentioned in the Marchington article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The way this works is that if you are heading to Court, unless you get good advice and early then you're screwed. Kev's not an academic but I couldn't drive an HGV and still struggle to park my Discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The way this works is that if you are heading to Court, unless you get good advice and early then you're screwed. Kev's not an academic but I couldn't drive an HGV and still struggle to park my Discovery. Agreed but it's not only getting the advice but acting on it. I am not convinced that the OP did (is the OP Kev who you refer to? Sorry I lost the thread with all the names being quoted) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Thanks alex the facts missing from the blog is 1)The whitness said the first two weeks of Feb on a sunday which made the date 3rd or 10th both these dates i was working the police went to the place where i was working and obtained the tacos timesheets and legal disclamers which bear my signiture. This corroberated my alibi then ACC B Holland decided that the whitness was wrong in his dates and produced out of thin air the last two weeks of jan or the third week of Feb. THESE dates were never mentioned in ANY statement.Nor was the whitness produced to verify the dates of his statement or the new dates .In court this is a direct violation of artical 8 of the human rights act also magnicata . Fact no 2 The aforsaid witness was in his own words 300yards away and NOT a victom.The real distance was 347.79yards and he coud id a person from that distance without binos this is beyond the scope of the human eye now can you see where i am comeing from lads. Thats why i couldnt post fully while this was continueing. more later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddan Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Good luck Kev, the legal system is uphill, unfair and expensive. Don't expect to get justice - you will get a decision and perhaps an ending. Some of us would do well to put ourselves in his shoes. For example, and it's not a difficult example to imagine, if some anti told local plod you had waived a gun in their direction, when you hadn't and it was your word against theirs, whereafter you were arrested, had your house spun and all your toys taken away <end of> and nothing to do in your free time for the foreseeable future (apart from spend more time with the missus) then you might not be so flippant. The irony is that the gent in question hasn't been on here banging on about pistols or looking to increase the ft/lbs on an airgun or looking for spurious advice on how to get a pistol for humane dispatch when he has no (and no exposure to) livestock. Accordingly, he hasn't featured on my nut nut radar, unlike some others on here who do actually posses firearms. Good post Mungler, I often wonder what would happen if someone just made something up about me out of spite. Seems crazy that one can be banned from something they love without firm evidence. Everyone should look on this situation as something that could happen to them. For all the "stick the gun in a slip and walk away" it still doesn't stop someone who has an issue with you or what you do completly making something up. Look forward to your reply Kev (also unsure if that the op) to get the full details and well done for sticking up for yourself whtever the outcome. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Thanks Dan well the next step is human rights court ironic its FREE i have them on artical 6 &8 6 is your right to a private life DNA Fingerprints retention add to that a detrimental file That judgement was 17 out of 20 deemed it a direct violation of a persons right to a private life for the police to keep a file on a person to which they have not been able to prevay a conviction upon case( M Marple v the crown 2008 ), Artical 8 your right to a FAIR IMPARTIAL Hearing( Rotaru v Rumainia )- (spelling) lol being allowed to correct evidance put against you Kavena v Chief counstable devon and cornwall states ALL EVIDANCE considered by the chief counstable shall be put before the court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Flip 6 and 8 mate. The ECtHR is a long hard road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I don't think Kev was a member of any of the shooting associations at the relevant time [a lesson for all of us to learn there]. There was a hoo ha on here, because BASC said "no" you weren't a member at the relevant time and so we can't help, then SACS made a big deal about helping out a non member and there was an issue as to how well that all panned out. Perhaps the people involved first hand can confirm and the rest of us can stop speculating, and sledging eh Alex? I was a member of BASC AT THE TIME but was told by letter they MAY or MAY not fight this case I was fuming why did i pay the £64 for if they wernt going to fight for me SACS Said they would definately fight it and their insurance would take care of it unfortunately the ink on her deplomer wasnt dry i wouldnt have kicked her out of bed as she was realy good looking lol but as a barrister as much use as tits on a fish Then the case was passed by SACS TO S.R.A asked if they could help these lads are worth their weight in gold BASC changed their policey after my kicking off on here about it it did them a lot of damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Flip 6 and 8 mate. The ECtHR is a long hard road. Tell me about it i aint getting any younger but i will keep fighting to clear my name and stop this stuff happening to anyone else if thats possable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 So have you just had a hearing..? I thought from the first post that you had a new hearing coming up. If thats how it was, I take it the case went bad or you wouldnt be talking about the Human rights act. Hope it comes good for you in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) So have you just had a hearing..? I thought from the first post that you had a new hearing coming up. If thats how it was, I take it the case went bad or you wouldnt be talking about the Human rights act. Hope it comes good for you in the end. It was bad from the start mate just made worse by the police perverting the corse of justice but hey ho they can get away with murder as well surprise surprise Edited June 23, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 At some point, after being confronted by Kevin, a couple of dog walkers talked to the country park's ranger, probably along the lines of 'that stroppy *** with a gun keeps telling us to get off the track, surely it's a public footpath. And is it safe for him to be shooting there anyway?'At the mention of a gun, the ranger will have suggested they go and talk to the police. So our dog walkers go into the local police station and say they want to complain about being harassed by a man with a gun. PC Plod pricks up his ears at the mention of a gun, writes a statement with something of an angle to it, and gets our dog walkers to sign it. The statement mentions their 'alarm' at a gun being fired, and the 'aggressive' way they were told to get off private land. Anyone reading the statement could easily get the (false) impression that Kevin roared up to the walkers and fired his gun to scare them off. Faced with a statement like that, the police couldn't do nothing. They arrest Kevin. When he is questioned, the policeman is looking for an admission that Kevin fired his gun to scare the walkers. And here's the crucial point: Kevin fails to understand what the policeman is getting at. The idea of using a gun like that is so foreign to him that it never crosses his mind the policeman would think it of him. His solicitor also seems to miss the point. They talk for some time at cross purposes (I have re-read the interview transcript several times and this is quite clear). Kev - you still appear to be missing the point. As James Marchington pointed out - you are getting bogged down with the trivia. The bigger picture is:- Did you confront the walkers and was your gun fired? Confront does not sound like "347.79yards". The rest is almost irrelevant - opinion from Mungler might assist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Gorden r sorry mate you have missed the point I WAS NOT THERE I WAS WORKING NOT EVEN IN THE SAME COUNTY people dont even know that small FACT is it only me or dont you at leaset have to be there on the time and date stated by a witness. or can the police change the alledged date to one when you can be their pick a day then pick someone to pin it on it STINKS Edited June 23, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why ? its pritty clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why ? its pritty clear Not to me it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Not to me it's not. Put down whats not clear to you and i will answer it i have pm you my number so i can answer your questions direct if you prefer 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.