TaxiDriver Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 IF 'Justintime' is indeed 'Winchester' ? Would you give a firearms certificate to someone who refers to himself in the third person sense ? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 I just don't get the referring to yourself in the third party justintime. A few times you've actually come out and said you are kevin. The marchington piece is important as he actually says why the police came to the decision they did and you don't help yourself. Its still eating you up and you still aren't looking at it from their side or a constructive side. He gave you the right advice years ago, this isn't corruption or police having it in for you it is you giving them more than a bit of concern. While you argue technicalities you aren't going to achieve anything. For those who just look at the one side think why basc couldn't help. Its too easy to say poor kevin but the facts are so murky no one police and journalist alike can work out whats truth and what isn't b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus69 Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 I have read the article in full and agree with Mungler that although a bit long it is well written and informative. I am by no means a legal bod so have always believed that to be guilty of something or innocent it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.The article and case for the defence as I read it is centered on the fact that tachograph evidence clearly shows the defendant was away at the time of the alledged incident,to me this would seem a water tight defence and there could be no element of reasonable doubt attributed to it. However in Brians post post number 40 there appears to be a letter attributed to Kevins wife in which she clearly states he was there and did confront some people who were in effect trespassing although not the people who raised the complaint which to me totaly destroys the I wasn't there defence. It is easy to see from past postings of a jumble of information (I would like to say facts but can't) why this's dragging on and is so hard to preside or make judgement upon in as much as he's innocent of any wrong doing and never confronted anyone as he wasn't there at the time, whilst conversely he was there and did confront someone whilst in the posession of a shotgun. Mike... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) The letter by Mrs Hunter was from a different post with out the rest of the posts is taken out of context yet again, So let us put it into context shall we, First Horses WERE BEING ATTACKED in the area,The police advised the farmer of this fact.The farmer whos private lane where the public had NO AUTHERISED access was declaired by the farmer/land owner as a NO GO AREA untill the perp was arrested, signes were errected stateing private property and to stay out yet Jo public took no notice.What would you say to people who were iterfearing with your horses,Thats all right carry on even though your trespassing and could be the perp of the aformentioned attacks. NO ONE WOULD THEY WOULD ASK. WHY THEY WERE THERE AND FOR WHAT PURPOUS. Then informed they were trespassing and asked to leave.Once again look up trespass law for yourself then post the afore said law here . Two, Look up country code relateing to dogs and right of ways. So lets say some people were in the middle of your field with there dog running around freely 200 YARDS from the well troden path near you duck pond or phesent pens, Would you say nothing ? or request that they go back to the path.answers here..... The alligation was that Winchester shouted to people in the middle of a field from a distance of 197 yards then discharged a double barrelled shotgun into the air,from the right hip not at the people but straight up into the air,this was reported by a man some 300yards away 59days after the alledged offence.Which was according to the witness to be The fist two weeks of Feb on a SUNDAY ,NOTE NOT THE VICTOM ,THERE IS NO VICTOM,The first two weeks of Feb on a Sun in 2008 gives you the 3rd or the 10th. Winchester was working both these dates.There were other people shot this land but not arrested or questioned.Now read the press release again with an open mind it aint rocket sience.If the witness saw someone then it was inposable that it was winchester he was not even in the same county.There are NO other witnesses to this false alligation the auther of which refused to attend court I wonder why? Some of you will never get or see what this case was about if it jumped up and bit you. The fact is find and post the relavent laws which have been broken.Answers on a post card :lol: Edited November 5, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) .. Edited November 5, 2011 by pegasus bridge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Having read the whole story it would seem like there's been a real stitch up by the police. What I don't understand however, is why Winchester/Justintime/Kevin hasn't just hired a decent brief, who would no doubt tear the police 'evidence' to pieces? There must be something else to the story? Obviously we are only hearing one side to the story, which makes it impossible to know the full facts, and comment on the situation, but if I was in the same situation my first call would be to a decent lawyer. I don't see the point of airing it on a forum, no disrespect but you won't get the advice you need on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Simple fact money there is no legal aid available for firearms How can a man who earns £9 per hour pay £280 per hour. Justice is for the rich not for all :angry:Thats why Justintime trys to sell items on here to help pay for the final fight dont forget he was on bail for 12weeks and unable to work Edited November 5, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Simple fact money there is no legal aid available for firearms How can a man who earns £9 per hour pay £280 per hour. Justice is for the rich not for all :angry:Thats why Justintime trys to sell items on here to help pay for the final fight dont forget he was on bail for 12weeks and unable to work I'm sure you'd be awarded costs against the police if it was proven they had tampered with evidence and coerced witnesses. The legal fees would come into this. Like I said if it was me, and I was 100% sure that I wasn't guilty of any offence at the time, or of any subsequent reason for the police to take my guns, then I would be down the legal route straight away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Can I get an answer to this question. Is JUSTINTIME ,WINCHESTER,and KEVIN. The same person7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 We are in due process it has taken 3 years to obtain the information from the police which should have taken 3 months this is a tactic used to run you out of time when they are hideing something,It is no good going before a court without all the info,that said we are seeking to take the perpatrators to task over their actions. The outcome will be posted that much i can say.I am raising funds by what ever means to make the final stand.The end result i hope is that this type of thing never happens again to any lawfull certificate holder without them being guilty or convicted of some wrong doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 We are in due process it has taken 3 years to obtain the information from the police which should have taken 3 months this is a tactic used to run you out of time when they are hideing something,It is no good going before a court without all the info,that said we are seeking to take the perpatrators to task over their actions. The outcome will be posted that much i can say.I am raising funds by what ever means to make the final stand.The end result i hope is that this type of thing never happens again to any lawfull certificate holder without them being guilty or convicted of some wrong doing. My point exactly. A good lawyer would have obtained that information within a few weeks, not 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Can I get an answer to this question. Is JUSTINTIME ,WINCHESTER,and KEVIN. The same person7. Why would you need to know the identity of the person ? Why dose it matter to you? are you the person thats been downloading posts and handing them to FLOS OFF THIS WEB SITE? Whats your name not advisable to say on an open forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 My point exactly. A good lawyer would have obtained that information within a few weeks, not 3 years. No he wouldnt mate trust me they do it to lawyers as well We have had to go to the information commisioners office to get the final piece of the puzle released.The police have 14 days to answer the last question that deadline was put in place by the ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) I'm sure you'd be awarded costs against the police if it was proven they had tampered with evidence and coerced witnesses. The legal fees would come into this. Like I said if it was me, and I was 100% sure that I wasn't guilty of any offence at the time, or of any subsequent reason for the police to take my guns, then I would be down the legal route straight away. Costs can be awarded but are very often UNPAID to the awardee Edited November 5, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Why didn't my post post ? My name is Joe addy. But in this mess my name is irrelevant. I had e-mailed someone that would of benefited you but my offer is now out of the window. Never bite the hand that (potentially) feeds you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Why not use pm then my comment was made for a reason mate not personal sorry if it ofended but i have to be carefull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Why would you need to know the identity of the person ? Why dose it matter to you? are you the person thats been downloading posts and handing them to FLOS OFF THIS WEB SITE? Whats your name not advisable to say on an open forum In this case it does. For no other reason than to know if the information is first hand or not, of justintime is Winchester is Kevin, then stop referring to yourself in the 3rd person, it makes you appear to have a personality disorder and discussing an ongoing case alledging police corruption and perjury on a public forum isn't a great idea either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Surfice to say the evidence is documented there for first hand, personality disorder i have none, The reason for the listing it to bring to the attention of other certificate holders how much help,or rather no help you can receve when confrunted with the unjust unconstitutionl,downright unfair,unimpartial system of firearms law devoid of fact of guilt or innocence on the ramberlings of some local aunti bird twitcher,Rest assured as god made green apples it will happen again if thats the kind of system you want your chosen hobby to be governed under then sit on your thumbs and do nothing if it aint get off your butts and do someting about it atb Justintime Edited November 6, 2011 by Justintime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 It doesn't matter who is who. Lets be honest this case stinks. It's not fair, not true, none of the evidence points towards Kevin being guilty, in fact quite the opposite. So let's stick to the point... How did this man ever lose his guns? I can understand them being removed while the case is ongoing, but once proven innocent? How can that happen? :look: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Easy mate the plod dont need a reason just have your name mentioned for an alledged offence boom guns gone simples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus69 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 The letter by Mrs Hunter was from a different post with out the rest of the posts is taken out of context yet again, So let us put it into context shall we, First Horses WERE BEING ATTACKED in the area,The police advised the farmer of this fact.The farmer whos private lane where the public had NO AUTHERISED access was declaired by the farmer/land owner as a NO GO AREA untill the perp was arrested, signes were errected stateing private property and to stay out yet Jo public took no notice.What would you say to people who were iterfearing with your horses,Thats all right carry on even though your trespassing and could be the perp of the aformentioned attacks. NO ONE WOULD THEY WOULD ASK. WHY THEY WERE THERE AND FOR WHAT PURPOUS. Then informed they were trespassing and asked to leave.Once again look up trespass law for yourself then post the afore said law here . Two, Look up country code relateing to dogs and right of ways. So lets say some people were in the middle of your field with there dog running around freely 200 YARDS from the well troden path near you duck pond or phesent pens, Would you say nothing ? or request that they go back to the path.answers here..... The alligation was that Winchester shouted to people in the middle of a field from a distance of 197 yards then discharged a double barrelled shotgun into the air,from the right hip not at the people but straight up into the air,this was reported by a man some 300yards away 59days after the alledged offence.Which was according to the witness to be The fist two weeks of Feb on a SUNDAY ,NOTE NOT THE VICTOM ,THERE IS NO VICTOM,The first two weeks of Feb on a Sun in 2008 gives you the 3rd or the 10th. Winchester was working both these dates.There were other people shot this land but not arrested or questioned.Now read the press release again with an open mind it aint rocket sience.If the witness saw someone then it was inposable that it was winchester he was not even in the same county.There are NO other witnesses to this false alligation the auther of which refused to attend court I wonder why? Some of you will never get or see what this case was about if it jumped up and bit you. The fact is find and post the relavent laws which have been broken.Answers on a post card :lol: Ok I don't care who Kevin is regarding the forum as it really doesn't matter. I agree that it would be reasonable to approach trespassers and politely ask them to rejoin the footpath, that I have no problem with, however to do it with a shotgun in plain view is probably dubious. I agree that if Mr Hunter wasn't the person involved in the alledged offence (or whatever the correct teminology is)due to the fact that it was proved that he was elsewhere then yes this whole thing stinks and he has been treated unfairly and unjustly. However I keep returning in my mind to the letter from Mr Hunters wife you say it has been taken out of context and that you would clear it up, I apologise if I've missed something and admit I can't remember any of the posts associated with Mrs Hunters statement which clearly puts Mr Hunter at the scene and he was in fact the person that the complaint was directed at. You see that post alone gives an element of doubt to the whole "I wasn't there"defence. I have an element of doubt but agree that my doubt wouldn't win a prosecution case and I believe that's why the case was dropped,but that element of doubt could be enough for the issuing authority (the police)to deem Mr Hunter as unfit to posses firearms. I really feel for the guy as he is a fellow shooter and fellow forum member but I just don't know how I'd have called it if I'd issued the licence. Mike... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 How did this man ever lose his guns? I can understand them being removed while the case is ongoing, but once proven innocent? How can that happen? :look: Very simple during the investigation and close contact with police the chief constable (most likely on a recommendation) revoked the certificate, whatever occurred must have been sufficient for the Chief to deem it necessary to take action. These are the facts which there is no access to and it does seem unfair that the person concerned was not explained the situation clearly. Perhaps they were, perhaps Kevin is a few sandwiches short of his picnic (none of us can say as we have never met him) I am naive enough to believe the police don't go around persecuting sportsmen for the hell of it and revoking certificates willy nilly. Having read the many threads, articles etc that have been posted 2 things are clear, "Kevin" was not convicted, The chief constable thought it appropriate to revoke certificate, advice on the appeals route was not acted upon in a timely and professional manner. Also Trespass is not a criminal offence it's a Tort so civil matter. ALso you cannot be prosecuted for "trespass" or arrested for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 This is the best description of whats gone on, sadly nothing has changed in rather a long time. The advice given still very much applies http://jamesmarchington.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-just-want-to-clear-my-name.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Some people wouldnt see the truth if it smacked them in the nose Mrs Hunters post most certinly DOSE NOT put kevin aT the seen of the alledged crime on any date but sayes yes my husband has asked people to leave the lane or go back to the foot path and why not they are trespassing is it against the law before you start assuming alligations where in LAW DOSE IT SAY A LAND OWNER OR AGENT CAN NOT EVICT TRESSPASSERS IF HE IS A CERTIFICATE HOLDER you miss the point its the LAW THAT HE CAN. I give up watch the press. Trying to explain anything to some of you is like teaching special needs kids. You have to read the whole story not just pick out bits like your doing,You do that with a novel and the story has changed. When it happens again to one of you just remember the backing you will get. By the way who said kevin walked up to anyone with any type of gun as none of the statements we have read say that.So thats lible!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 This is the best description of whats gone on, sadly nothing has changed in rather a long time. The advice given still very much applies http://jamesmarchington.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-just-want-to-clear-my-name.html Just a quick one for you someone will be faceing charges over this rest assured. Alot has happened evidence gathered and charges will be brought.The case has also been accepted by the ECHR For human rights abuse.So there again you are still ill informed.Marchington wrote a story that some would read but left out the jucie bits never mind you might get it one day 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.