Katzenjammer Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-tees-20316578 As touched on in other topics recently - we are aware of police failings (again) and this report confirms it. Edited November 19, 2012 by Katzenjammer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Thank god we have the Police eh, without them there'd be no one to blame! He made the decision to kill those women, him alone. If he didn't have access to firearms then he may well have used a knife, a bat, his car. But anyway it's the fault of the Police again clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katzenjammer Posted November 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I agree he made the final decision but given the mans history a little bit more diligence and application of rules and commonsense might have prevented the wholesale slaughter with guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Does PW stand for pigeon watch or police winge? confused fudd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I thought the police were there to stop nut nuts getting tickets and taking tickets away from nut nuts. Silly me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 "The report highlighted Durham Police's assessment of Atherton for his first shotgun certificate in 2006, in which a member of staff added a handwritten post-it note to his file which read: "4 domestics - last one 24/4/04 - was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse - have we sufficient info - refuse re public safety." But the recommendation was overruled by two more senior members of the Firearms Licensing Unit, who, the report said, feared the force would lose any subsequent appeal by Atherton as he had never been convicted of an offence". Say's it all,Police got it right but the law and court are off the pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 So it's don't hate the players, hate the game? I don't get how is 4 domestics and a caution for assault is not enough to say "no". Whilst the force may have "feared" that Atherton would have won on an appeal, we will never know because they didn't stick their necks out and go with public safety first and pull his ticket. The post it note called it right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) "The report highlighted Durham Police's assessment of Atherton for his first shotgun certificate in 2006, in which a member of staff added a handwritten post-it note to his file which read: "4 domestics - last one 24/4/04 - was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse - have we sufficient info - refuse re public safety." But the recommendation was overruled by two more senior members of the Firearms Licensing Unit, who, the report said, feared the force would lose any subsequent appeal by Atherton as he had never been convicted of an offence". Say's it all,Police got it right but the law and court are off the pace. No, the police got it wrong. People have had their tickets pulled for less and the police are rarely worried about losing an appeal as they aren't spending their own money. The police know fine well that you do not need to have a conviction in order for them to refuse to issue a cert. I can't see any reason as to why they would worry about Atherton winning an appeal given that there were four incidents of domestic abuse and he'd accepted a caution for violence. There is no guarantee, of course, but they would certainly have a very good chance. .J. Edited November 19, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROBLATCH Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 durham police have since tightened up their application process in all ways, house move , renewal's etc i know this first hand the flo,s from durham are now prety thorough beleive me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 It's called slamming the stable door.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remy 700 Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Well said Mungler and another great post from JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) No, the police got it wrong. People have had their tickets pulled for less and the police are rarely worried about losing an appeal as they aren't spending their own money. The police know fine well that you do not need to have a conviction in order for them to refuse to issue a cert. I can't see any reason as to why they would worry about Atherton winning an appeal given that there were four incidents of domestic abuse and he'd accepted a caution for violence. There is no guarantee, of course, but they would certainly have a very good chance. .J. I disagree with you. Maybe your point of view is lost, it doesn't help because I have no idea what "The police know fine well that........" means. Edited November 19, 2012 by Whitebridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I disagree with you. Maybe your point of view is lost, it doesn't help because I have no idea what "The police know fine well that........" means. It means what it says. There is no requirement for someone to have a conviction before the police can safely refuse their application and that is a very well known fact, especially among licensing staff. If the licensing staff don't realise tht then it suggests a serious failure to understand some very basic points about how the system works. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 It's called slamming the stable door.... ... God forbid it happens again, but if it does, which door do they slam then...re post 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 So just like like with Dunblane/Hamilton rank officers recommended a revocation but the management were scared of losing an appeal, and now it'll be us paying for it, again, brilliant(!) :mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 At a vague guess they will look at the facts of why they thought an appeal would be lost? the fundamentals are if charges can't be brought then their hands are fairly tied. Domestics happen police get called and it all calms down and no charges because no offence was commited. As far as I know having a ruck with the missus isn't illegal so all they could really go on was the caution for assault. Now a member on this thread has been arguing for days that that doesn't even need to be declared on the application form. With those facts were there a thread to go up by him saying I've been cautioned everyone would suggest getting BASC to fight it etc and although the view is the police have an unlimited budget for these things they are accountable for their actions so refusing a ticket on the basis they would loose suggests with the guidelines in place that they had to issue it. Why he got his guns back later on must be along the same lines. What happens afterwards is quite scary and more so if you live up there as it would appear have a ruck with the missus and the opinion is take your guns and they may have to after this, whether she is being malicious or not. What we don't know is whether BASC etc have been involved as its quite possible, one things sure if you have a ticket up there and cautions etc in the past I guess it will all be up for review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 We have been involved - see here: http://www.basc.org....A1B27FF99714C70 Best wishes to all David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 We have been involved - see here: http://www.basc.org....A1B27FF99714C70 Best wishes to all David Don't suppose you've got a link to the BBC Documentary have you? I'd be interested to see it...through gritted teeth of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Don't suppose you've got a link to the BBC Documentary have you? I'd be interested to see it...through gritted teeth of course! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nytn1/Inside_Out_North_East_and_Cumbria_19_11_2012/ Its bog standard fare, people looking for somewhere to pour their anger/grief/frustration and the nephew has picked gun legislation, despite acknowledging that it was his uncle was a heavy-drinking, short fused, wife beater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) The original BBC inside out film we were involved with was broadcast on the 16th January - unfortunately it’s been taken off the BBC site so can’t be viewed. But here is pretty much a write up of what we said in the film: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16578676 David Edited November 20, 2012 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Cheers guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) At a vague guess they will look at the facts of why they thought an appeal would be lost? the fundamentals are if charges can't be brought then their hands are fairly tied. Domestics happen police get called and it all calms down and no charges because no offence was commited. As far as I know having a ruck with the missus isn't illegal so all they could really go on was the caution for assault. Now a member on this thread has been arguing for days that that doesn't even need to be declared on the application form. It doesn't need to be declared on the form as you are not asked to declare it. This thread actually proves that having to declare anyting on the form is pretty pointless as they know it all anyway, as they did with his caution and domestics. It certainly wouldn't have made any difference if Atherton had to declare all this stuff as the police clearly thought that he would win an appeal anyway - which, I think is unlikely. They can go on anything they please. Having had four recent domestic issues with one resulting in a caution for violence is very much 'something to go on. We don't know the specifica circumstances yet. If the police have simply taken the view that they would have lost at court then I don't think that that is good enough. If someone wrote up an opinion for his fole as to why they would have been likely to loose at court then that would have been far preferable. We don't know that they didn't though. J. Edited November 20, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk...ria_19_11_2012/ Its bog standard fare, people looking for somewhere to pour their anger/grief/frustration and the nephew has picked gun legislation, despite acknowledging that it was his uncle was a heavy-drinking, short fused, wife beater In fairness to him though, it wasn't really 'legislation' he was focused on. More on how the system is administered. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 How many times have we had people post on here that they are worried they will loose or not be able to obtain a certificate because of a similar background of misdemeanour's. How many times do we read the subsequent posts in outrage that this is not correct the police are unfair etc. Seems to me we have a number of folk arguing both sides. In hind sight the police were wrong in not keeping his guns when he had a domestic but who on here would have argued for him, saying it was a minor thing and he shouldn`t be victimised, quite a few I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 How many times have we had people post on here that they are worried they will loose or not be able to obtain a certificate because of a similar background of misdemeanour's. How many times do we read the subsequent posts in outrage that this is not correct the police are unfair etc. Seems to me we have a number of folk arguing both sides. In hind sight the police were wrong in not keeping his guns when he had a domestic but who on here would have argued for him, saying it was a minor thing and he shouldn`t be victimised, quite a few I think. I can't remember a single time when anyone on here has asked about the chances of getting/keeping their certificates after they've brayed their wife and kids. 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.