VikingRebel Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 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. Yep pretty much this. We can debate until the cows come home about who should be blamed and what should have been done with his certificates, but i doubt highly that anything the police could have done would have actually made any difference to the outcome. Those girls would probably still have ended up dead by his hands one way or another. Bad people don't magically turn into gentle, pacifists who wouldn't harm a fly just because you take away their guns. The sad thing is, had he done it with a knife, or any other non-firearm weapon, this incident wouldn't have recieved anywhere near the level of attention, such is the irrational hypocrisy of the chattering classes in this country. If a murder is commited with a gun or worse a "legally owned" gun, that seems to somehow make the crime a hundred times worse in their eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk 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. There's quite a difference between someone who's done a daft thing once or twice over 20 years and this guy who couldn't go longer than 6-9 months for him to slip back to his old ways getting plastered and attacking his wife. The man was unstable but in fairness to the police they try to work within the law trapped between two powerful lobbies and this occasion made an error giving his guns back after threatening suicide. Still its not their fault Atherton was responsible alone and I'll bet he'd have still done something nasty without his guns...how many times do you hear about some 'normal' guy killing his wife and kids with a knife? Loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Hind sight is a wonderful thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Totally agree! The rest of us need not suffer for the acts of a looney...regulation hasn't reduced legally owned gun crime and never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Hind sight is a wonderful thing Yes, it won't bring the dead back but looking back at what went wrong helps make sure it doesn't happen again. Looking at what went wrong involves looking at erm... what went wrong and given that the process under scrutiny is human driven it will involve looking at erm.... who got it wrong. Serious question, does anyone in public office ever take personal responsibility or accept blame for anything anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL 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. But he had four police calls to his house for domestic disturbances, one resulting in a caution for violence, in the very recent past at the time he made his initial application. Moreover, the police do not seem to have applied a rational assessment when coming to the conclusion that he would have won an appal against a refusual to gant his SGC. From what we know (which is not everything in the report) there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that he would have had a strong chance of winning any appeal. BASC is correct when they say that his chances would have been 'slim'. J. 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. Precisely. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikingRebel Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Serious question, does anyone in public office ever take personal responsibility or accept blame for anything anymore? Does anyone in modern society ever take personal responsibility or accept blame for anything anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 There's quite a difference between someone who's done a daft thing once or twice over 20 years and this guy who couldn't go longer than 6-9 months for him to slip back to his old ways getting plastered and attacking his wife. The man was unstable but in fairness to the police they try to work within the law trapped between two powerful lobbies and this occasion made an error giving his guns back after threatening suicide. Still its not their fault Atherton was responsible alone and I'll bet he'd have still done something nasty without his guns...how many times do you hear about some 'normal' guy killing his wife and kids with a knife? Loads. And they granted his SGC very recently having four calls for domestic incidents one of which resulted in him accpeting a caution for assault. It's not simply the case that he shouldn't have got his guns back - she shouldn't have had them in the first place! J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Totally agree! The rest of us need not suffer for the acts of a looney...regulation hasn't reduced legally owned gun crime and never will. Well, it will do if everything is banned. What I think you mean is that refluation doesn't reduce over all levels of crime and that violent people will always find a way to be violent. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 And they granted his SGC very recently having four calls for domestic incidents one of which resulted in him accpeting a caution for assault. It's not simply the case that he shouldn't have got his guns back - she shouldn't have had them in the first place! J. I'm not arguing with u but your a lawyer right? The wife didnt press charges ever...isnt that hearsay then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) I'm not arguing with u but your a lawyer right? The wife didnt press charges ever...isnt that hearsay then? No one needs to 'press' charges. It's irrelevant what the victim wants to do because the police can investigate and the CPS can charge anyone it wants to. The judicial system doesn't need permission from anyone to start legal proceedings against anyone else. The fact is that he accepted a caution so the police must have been satisfied that he did what he was admitting to. Then they granted him an SGC. J. Edited November 20, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yep that was my argument in the caution thread, that a caution is an admission of guilt. However the other three times there was no caution or prosecution so the police only have the one admitted even. The rest cant be taken in to account because the family refused to follow up their allagations. I think there were failings from the police and family but its only the family that knew him properly. The police are not mind readers nor psychologists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Yep that was my argument in the caution thread, that a caution is an admission of guilt. However the other three times there was no caution or prosecution so the police only have the one admitted even. The rest cant be taken in to account because the family refused to follow up their allagations. Sorry, you are wrong. Everything that the police have notice of relating to the applicant can, and should, be taken into account. You do not need to have been convicted or to have admitted anything at all to be refused a cert. If you are drug dealer with a totally clean record, no reports of violence or anything else against your name but the police have reason to suspect that you are drug dealer then they can, and should, refuse you. "27 Special provisions about firearm certificates.[F7(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied— (a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm; (b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and ©that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace." The words '...in all the curcumstances...' mean exactly what they say. I think there were failings from the police and family but its only the family that knew him properly. The police are not mind readers nor psychologists. The police had responded to four separate incidents of drunken domestic disturbances, one of which involved him accepting a caution for violence. The law requires the police to be satisfied that 'in all the circumstances' the applicant can be permitted to have frearms without danger to the public safety or the peace. I would like to hear an explanatin as to how they were satisfied of that in Athertons case. Would you be satisfied of that? J. Edited November 20, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 No but 99.99% of the time it isnt going to end up as homicide either. The policme shouldn't have given his guns back 3 weeks after his drunken threat to kill himself but the family knew him best...they could have have been more out spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 No but 99.99% of the time it isnt going to end up as homicide either. The policme shouldn't have given his guns back 3 weeks after his drunken threat to kill himself but the family knew him best...they could have have been more out spoken. And there you have it in a nutshell. You would not be satisfied ''in all the circumstances' that could be allowed to possess firearms safely so why were the police? Or were they actually not satisfied in that and just decided to grant the cert anyway and bank on the 99.99% chance that it wouldn't end up as a multiple homicide? If they did then they lost the bet. I fail to see what you are getting at with your '...the family knw him best' comments. Four calls of drunken domestic violence were made in relation to him recently before he got is SGC. I don't know how muh more 'outspoken' you would expect people to have been. Not it maks a lot of difference as the police had all the information they needed to have not granted his cert. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I don't get the family know best, they could have been more outspoken comment either. I get the gist of where that suggestion is going and it's at best bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Sadly I think the family would probably have been killed whether he had guns or not. The history was there, but was overlooked. Once somebody reaches that snapping point then any weapon is used, I knew a man with some "domestic" history who killed his wife and kids with a hammer. He was a policeman, from a family of the nicest people you could ever hope to meet, but something broke in his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I don't get it full stop really either he was one of the funny handshake brigade and in the same lodge as the Chief Constable or the people on the ground had more information than has been released, it would appear there must be justification for the grant and giving the guns back and that probably involves looking at the incidents in detail. If we are suggesting people should have their guns lifted on speculation and a potential spiteful ex then this thread shows most are in full approval. Its one of those cases as more comes apparent then so the reasons may be more justified, or not as the case may be. I don't get the well he would have used something else argument as the facts are he didn't and you have to work out whether something failed in the licensing process to put him in the position of doing it so easily. It looks like it did but that is only looking at the information released so far, round here if your guns get lifted to have to work pretty hard to get them back. If your other half even rings in about a domestic it instigates a FEO visit. Edited November 21, 2012 by al4x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 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 When Durham FLO visited me for my FAC, i asked if he wanted to see my sg cert for ID, he said " OH DO YOU HAVE A SG CERT?",i thought he was joking & that was in June 2012 after waiting 6mths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I don't get the well he would have used something else argument as the facts are he didn't Well obviously, because he had firearms to hand?! Thats a bit like the saying "Your keys are always in the last place you look"! After you've killed someone using a gun you're not going to then use a knife on the corpse, then a rope, then poison etc etc. I can only imagine that if you're going to kill someone logic dictates that you're going to use the most effective means to hand that you're versed in using, which is the arguement being presented. The most commonly used 'weapon' for domestic murders in men are their hands or some kind of ligature (strangulation) followed by pointed/bladed objects. It's entirely feasible that if he'd lost the plot he could have stabbed the vicitims to death (or even strangled them given that they were in separate rooms) in the absence of a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Its irrelevant though we will never know, the facts are though he had a gun. With a knife they stood half a chance of out running him or at least some of them did or even over powering him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Well then I'll expect to see more firearms being seized after even the most minor verbal domestic from now then. Why chance it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROBLATCH Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 When Durham FLO visited me for my FAC, i asked if he wanted to see my sg cert for ID, he said " OH DO YOU HAVE A SG CERT?",i thought he was joking & that was in June 2012 after waiting 6mths. i can only quote off my previous experience in sep this year and the new forms i've received for firearms renewal in feb 2013,having said that its not good if they didn't know you had an sgc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 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. Key point for me is: "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". So how experienced and knowledgeable were these people then? Just out of kindergarten where they? You keep saying "NO" to a lot of posts to people on here including me. The fact is you and I know nothing about anything to do with this other than the stuff you've read in press releases. I side with the Police who in the main do a damn fine job. We will see in time and until some clever ****** comes up with a way to stop stupid ******** killing people with guns we all live on a whim and a prayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Key point for me is: "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". So how experienced and knowledgeable were these people then? Just out of kindergarten where they? You keep saying "NO" to a lot of posts to people on here including me. The fact is you and I know nothing about anything to do with this other than the stuff you've read in press releases. I side with the Police who in the main do a damn fine job. We will see in time and until some clever ****** comes up with a way to stop stupid ******** killing people with guns we all live on a whim and a prayer. hallelujah the voice of reason, these people make the decisions based on a rule book the facts were one caution and not a lot else they could actually hold against him. We start acting on rumours and its going to get messy for a lot of people 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.