Anonymouslemming Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21715622 It's not pleasant reading... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glb8686 Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Shoulnt have got his licence with the history of domestic abuse. Although, if he didn't use a gun, he'd have used something else as he was clearly a messed up individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Dear All, This is an important issue and I can update you as follows: BASC has issued a statement which says Durham police must take direct responsibility for allowing a killer to keep his guns despite a history of violence, threats and alcohol abuse. The statement is being carried by the country’s main news wire service – the press association - which is used by newspapers. Simon Clarke was on BBC Radio 5 live at lunchtime to make our point and will be on Radio 4’s PM programme at 5.25 tonight. Mike Eveleigh is being interviewed for BBC television news this afternoon Our media statement is on the home page of our website. If you feel the BBC coverage was biased, please make a formal complaint to the BBC. This can be done by calling 03700 100 222 or online at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorpeet Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Listening to the report it sounds like the current rules, if applied in a competent manner, would have been fine. Changing the rules won't help if the police can't manage the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Once again it is a case of the perfectly adequate existing legislation regarding gun ownership not being followed properly by the issuing authority but why waste an opportunity to have a bash at the UK gun owning fraternity ??!!! What the hell were Durham police doing issuing licenses to somebody with known, serious problems?? From one of the BBC reports: "A police officer who illegally sold guns to the public played a part in granting a gun licence to a man who shot three members of his family". If this is factual what was he doing having any involvement in the licensing process? It appears that his actual crime was: "Mr Cobain left the force after his conviction in 2010, when he was given a suspended sentence for selling on guns due to be destroyed after being surrendered by the public". Another story entirely perhaps but it shows the underlying will to destroy as many guns as possible, some of the guns surrendered to police could be used perfectly legitimately by others and revenue raised by their sale but I have it on good authority from a gun dealer friend that they are all indiscriminately destroyed. Edited March 8, 2013 by old rooster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 The police had numerous opportunities to remove this persons firearms and shotguns and not hand them back,given his background it is incredible they returned them.The police have made a grave error of judgement and should be brought to task over this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouslemming Posted March 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 The issue I see is that certain sections of the public will leap upon the following statements: "A coroner has called for "root and branch" gun licensing reform" and "Mr Tweddle said the way police handled applications for shotgun and firearms licences was so inadequate it was "fortuitous" there had not been more such incidents." It seems that this has already had a negative impact on the sport with the local force saying "... it had since put in place a number of improvements to its system and was now setting a higher bar for approval than required by national guidance." Because they screwed up in one case, they are now stating that any future applications will not just be reviewed in line with the law and home office guidance, but will be subject to more requirements or scrutiny. That's already a problem right there. They should follow the guidelines of the law, no more, no less! The police had numerous opportunities to remove this persons firearms and shotguns and not hand them back,given his background it is incredible they returned them.The police have made a grave error of judgement and should be brought to task over this incident. The are being, but we are the ones who will be paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Listening to the report it sounds like the current rules, if applied in a competent manner, would have been fine. Changing the rules won't help if the police can't manage the process. Listening to the report it sounds like the current rules, if applied in a competent manner, would have been fine. Changing the rules won't help if the police can't manage the process. Oops Just wanted to agree 100 percent Edited March 8, 2013 by pontbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouslemming Posted March 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Dear All, This is an important issue and I can update you as follows: BASC has issued a statement which says Durham police must take direct responsibility for allowing a killer to keep his guns despite a history of violence, threats and alcohol abuse. The statement is being carried by the country’s main news wire service – the press association - which is used by newspapers. Simon Clarke was on BBC Radio 5 live at lunchtime to make our point and will be on Radio 4’s PM programme at 5.25 tonight. Mike Eveleigh is being interviewed for BBC television news this afternoon Our media statement is on the home page of our website. If you feel the BBC coverage was biased, please make a formal complaint to the BBC. This can be done by calling 03700 100 222 or online at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints That's great to hear. But please can some of your comments focus on the fact that the force has now said that they will remove people's rights by ... it had since put in place a number of improvements to its system and was now setting a higher bar for approval than required by national guidance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glb8686 Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 What good is a higher bar of approval when they couldn't even meet the current one. I do feel sorry for the granting officer as he's gonna be feeling pretty bad right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Shoulnt have got his licence with the history of domestic abuse. Although, if he didn't use a gun, he'd have used something else as he was clearly a messed up individual +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Another story entirely perhaps but it shows the underlying will to destroy as many guns as possible, some of the guns surrendered to police could be used perfectly legitimately by others and revenue raised by their sale but I have it on good authority from a gun dealer friend that they are all indiscriminately destroyed. Not in this case,apparently it was common knowledge that the guns in for destruction were being sold on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Blimey, it's who you know not what you know. What do you have to do to get a refusal? Oh don't tell me, blame the lawyers because the police are too scared to say "no" incase it ends up in Court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Indeed, our position that we will focus on is this: It is clear from the evidence presented by firearms licensing staff that Durham police must bear responsibility for the fact that Michael Atherton had access to guns. The police had the legal power and should have acted to permanently remove those guns on reports of Atherton’s violence, alcohol abuse and threats of suicide. There were several clear opportunities for this tragedy to have been prevented. Durham police have broken the bond of trust which exists between the public and the police in the administration of the UK’s firearms law. After this tragedy we have to ask ourselves if 43 different police forces operating different systems with no common training or standards and varying interpretations of government guidance is the right way to protect public safety and ensure efficient licensing David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouslemming Posted March 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Indeed, our position that we will focus on is this: It is clear from the evidence presented by firearms licensing staff that Durham police must bear responsibility for the fact that Michael Atherton had access to guns. The police had the legal power and should have acted to permanently remove those guns on reports of Atherton’s violence, alcohol abuse and threats of suicide. There were several clear opportunities for this tragedy to have been prevented. Durham police have broken the bond of trust which exists between the public and the police in the administration of the UK’s firearms law. After this tragedy we have to ask ourselves if 43 different police forces operating different systems with no common training or standards and varying interpretations of government guidance is the right way to protect public safety and ensure efficient licensing Nice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 very clear he should not have had his guns back, now we are the ones that will suffer again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Another story entirely perhaps but it shows the underlying will to destroy as many guns as possible, some of the guns surrendered to police could be used perfectly legitimately by others and revenue raised by their sale but I have it on good authority from a gun dealer friend that they are all indiscriminately destroyed. Not in this case,apparently it was common knowledge that the guns in for destruction were being sold on Absolutely but outside the law, which demands that they are all, indiscriminately, destroyed. Not the crux of the issue here but an interesting sideline debate perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 What good is a higher bar of approval when they couldn't even meet the current one. I do feel sorry for the granting officer as he's gonna be feeling pretty bad right now. Why if he allowed this ******** with a history of domestic violence to access firearms? strangely it seems not to be an isolated case for Durham FLD as they have revoked 100 licenses since this case why is that? perhaps at the time they were more interested in getting a decent price from surrendered firearms than checking background status adequately, no sympathy whatsoever, all they have done is throw more ammo out to the anti gun brigade. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 now we are the ones that will suffer again. I don't think so. The fact that law enforcement was the problem here and not the law itself is obvious to most people. I believe poor enforcement played a part in other shootings but was not reported much, but I could be wrong on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) The actual (non)enforcement was the problem but the tabloids and news headlines are all saying, "Coroner calls for gun reform after Horden shootings" and "A coroner has called for "root and branch" gun licensing reform" Not "Police Force fail to apply existing adequate firearms legislation" The BASC statement should also go further than it does to highlight this fact. Edited March 8, 2013 by phaedra1106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Dear All, This is an important issue and I can update you as follows: BASC has issued a statement which says Durham police must take direct responsibility for allowing a killer to keep his guns despite a history of violence, threats and alcohol abuse. The statement is being carried by the country’s main news wire service – the press association - which is used by newspapers. Simon Clarke was on BBC Radio 5 live at lunchtime to make our point and will be on Radio 4’s PM programme at 5.25 tonight. Mike Eveleigh is being interviewed for BBC television news this afternoon Our media statement is on the home page of our website. If you feel the BBC coverage was biased, please make a formal complaint to the BBC. This can be done by calling 03700 100 222 or online at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints David Do you have any links to these interviews? I'd like to listen/watch. Edited March 8, 2013 by Reece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) The actual (non)enforcement was the problem but the tabloids and news headlines are all saying, "Coroner calls for gun reform after Horden shootings" and "A coroner has called for "root and branch" gun licensing reform" Not "Police Force fail to apply existing adequate firearms legislation" The BASC statement should also go further than it does to highlight this fact. coroner may not have reported specifically on forces failings but the IPCC did and it has been clearly reported, and its the IPCC that want things toughening up and that Durham are acting upon them rather than the coroners findings. KW "The IPCC criticised Durham for its “reprehensible” response to Mr Atherton’s case and “woeful record-keeping” regarding firearms licences. It made five recommendations to the force ahead of releasing its report into the case next week, including systematic identification procedures for licence-holders, proper documentation of decision-making processes and better communication between the firearms and domestic violence units. IPCC commissioner Nicholas Long said: “Had just one person obtained a complete picture of Atherton’s history as a perpetrator of domestic violence, many incidents occurring whilst he was under the influence of alcohol, then it may have alerted police to a pattern of behaviour which required far greater scrutiny. “It is beyond doubt that Durham Constabulary missed valuable opportunities to assess his suitability to be granted a licence and remain a gun owner.” Michael Banks, deputy chief constable of Durham Constabulary, said the force accepted the coroner’s findings and had acted on the recommendations of the IPCC to toughen up its licensing procedures." Edited March 8, 2013 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 It's worth remembering that the guy who signed the certificate bares sole responsibility. Assuming a deputy can deputise in this situation, then that makes just one person plus x number of deputies are the only people who can authorise the issue of any CGC or FAC which is why his signature is on it - The Chief Officer Of Police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 The coroner is quite correct here. It's not a problem with the legislation but how its provisions are carried out by the licensing authorities. We have 40 odd forces carrying out licensing in 40 differing ways. There is no national standard of any description and not even any standardised training for licensing staff. Every single job anyone undertakes these days comes with some form of traning; if you are employed to clean floors you would get some form of traning - but not when it comes to firearms licensing, it seems! There needs to be a nationally standardised system of firearms licensing. The best way to achieve that is to remove firearms licensing from the hands of the police and place it under the control of a nationan firearms licensing agency. The police do not grant driving licenses or register vehicles so why are they licenisng firearms? To be honest, I can't understand why they even want to keep doing it after events like this. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard V Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 What gun reform do he propose? A complete ban? being refused a SGC/FAC as you've had a speeding conviction? I agree with JohnathanL about a national agency for firearms licensing. A national agency will apply the law in a uniform way, and have uniform lead times. IMO it's rediculous that if you live in Manchester you only need to wait 10 days for a SGC but if you lived in Hampshire then you have to wait 6 months for the same thing, it is well and truly a postcode lottery to what service you get! If you feel the BBC coverage was biased, please make a formal complaint to the BBC. This can be done by calling 03700 100 222 or online at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints David IMO the BBC is biased, instead of complaining which will get filed in B.I.N, I simply never paid for the TV licence. Vote with your money. 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.