surprise surprise......sgc revoked for farmer who was attacked.

[Malik]

Sorry but you are and many people in Northern Ireland currently have FAC's for that purpose.

The fact that you will not be granted a certificate in the rest of the UK is a different matter though. There is nothing in law which prevents and FAC or SGC being granted for such a purpose.

J.

Northern Ireland is a slightly different matter.

 

If police forces go by the Home Office Firearms Guidance - which majority do. Its highly unlikely a member of the public will be granted anything with their "good reason" as self defence.

 

 

Firearms for personal protection

13.72 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicant’s, or another’s, protection, or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

[Reece]

You're not allowed to have a FAC or SGC purely for self defence in most of the UK. But if you have one for other purposes and you happen to end up in a situation where it is needed for self defence, you can use it for that purpose if you are in fear for your life. Remember the whole "reasonable force" thing. That high profile incident in Leicester is a good example.

[Gordon R]

 

That's precisely what it means, surely?

 

 

 

Jonathan - your junior legal research needs to get a grip of reality. If CPS decide there is not sufficient chance of getting a conviction, then it is not taken to court. The suspect may well be guilty, but the evidence isn't strong enough.

[Twistedsanity]

Jonathan - your junior legal research needs to get a grip of reality. If CPS decide there is not sufficient chance of getting a conviction, then it is not taken to court. The suspect may well be guilty, but the evidence isn't strong enough.

 

Do we not have the precident still of " innocent until proven guilty" under British law? Surely that means no proof of guilt via a conviction means the person is to be seen as innocent ?

[Gordon R]

That is the naïve view, yes.

 

There must be thousands of villains - drug dealers, burglars and far worse who will be heartened to be labelled "innocent".

Edited July 16, 2013 by Gordon R

[Twistedsanity]

Is it naive or is it the law though? When did we appoint ourselves judge, jury and executioners and deem ourselves above the law Gordon ? That's what it sounds like you are implying or am I mistaken?

[Gordon R]

You are mistaken - I suspect almost deliberately. I don't really know why you are attempting to split hairs.

 

Are you seriously telling me that you would be happy for known drug dealers to be granted an SGC? By your logic, they would be innocent under the law - having possibly never being convicted.

[Twistedsanity]

Not at all Gordon, but he law says we are innocent until proven guilty and its a very dangerous thing when people choose to subvert the law for their own purposes and means , I'm not trying to split hairs at all but we can't go round deciding off our own backs who we think are criminals and why , that's the point of the law and legal system and its there for our own benefit , I don't agree with half of the stupid laws we have in this country but to decide who is innocent and who is not without allowing the law to run its course seems a little silly and would probably lead to lynch mobs, vigilantes and hangings , I take it that innocent until proven guilty is still legal precident in this country ? I'm not up on legal matters but thought that was the foundation stone of our legal system?

[JonathanL]

Northern Ireland is a slightly different matter.

 

If police forces go by the Home Office Firearms Guidance - which majority do. Its highly unlikely a member of the public will be granted anything with their "good reason" as self defence.

 

 

Firearms for personal protection

13.72 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicants, or anothers, protection, or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

I know what the guidance says. The point I was replying to was specific though. The poster said that we are not allowed firearms for personal protection. That is not correct. We are allowed firearms for personal protection it's just that a certificate would never be granted for such a purpose due to policy reasons. There is no piece of law which says we are not allowed firearms for personal protection, if there were then the guidance would make mention of it.

 

Policy aside, if you can show a court that personal protection constitutes "good reason" then it must order a certificate to be granted.

 

Whether it's something that should or should not be allowed is a different debate but currently it is.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

 

 

Jonathan - your junior legal research needs to get a grip of reality. If CPS decide there is not sufficient chance of getting a conviction, then it is not taken to court. The suspect may well be guilty, but the evidence isn't strong enough.

Still feeling the need to put others down Gordon?

 

Read what I responded to. If you have been "cleared of wrong doing" then you have been declared innocent. Not taking something further because of an unrealistic prospect of conviction is a different matter and isn't the same as someone saying that you didn't do it.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Twistedsanity - Innocent until proven guilty is the law - which I agree with.

 

I trust you would agree that it would be unwise to grant an SGC to a person known to the Police, to be involved in robbery, burglary, drug dealing etc. Despite nil convictions, Police will have intel about them. I would appreciate a non-evasive answer.

 

My point is that no-one on this Forum has full knowledge of why the Police revoked the SGC, but some rush to support this lad. I honestly hope he was totally innocent in his intentions with the shotgun - and, as such, gets his SGC back.

 

Al4x hit the nail on the head - which no-one seems to want to debate. This lad was expecting to be visited by thieves - why take his shotgun with him? If it is as simple as he thought he might encounter thieves and later carry on to do his normal shooting round, then I worry about his judgement. I suspect the Police are similarly worried - hence the revocation.

 

Debate all you want, but it will be settled in court. I hope there is a happy outcome.

 

Jonathan - any answer about school?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Gordon R

[Twistedsanity]

Yes Gordon, of course I agree that it would be unwise to grant drug dealers firearms certificates , but in the same manner I deem it wrong to grant firearms to the police who publicly assassinated Mendez on the train for the crime of overstaying his visa , the law is an *** but I didn't make it ,I don't enforce with or even agree with it in many cases , but its the law nevertheless . Have you ever considered that the polices " intel" could often be wrong though about people which is why we have legal process? Was that non evasive ?

[al4x]

licensing does seem to have a remit to go on a little more than pure convictions which is why if your other half accuses you of hitting them etc your guns will get lifted. In this case I can't see how they can do anything other than revoke there are too many iffs and buts, however that them means it can be challenged and a court will look at the facts. If you are an FEO would you give him the guns straight back without a proper backside covering exercise? We don't know all the facts but the iffy ones from my perspective would be they were going to check if the thieves were there or had come back and he took a shotgun, and the shot at the back of the van. Both those are factors that are slightly iffy in the eyes of the law and self defence

[Gordon R]

Twistedsanity - sorry, although you agree about using Police Intel, you then ruin your point with an ill-advised rant about the Mendez - so I do consider it evasive.

 

He was not publicly assassinated for overstaying his visa. That is nothing but absolute garbage. I thought you had a bit more about you - obviously I was wrong.

 

None of which addresses the point of a person taking a shotgun when expecting to confront thieves.

 

I still can't comprehend why some posters ignore the facts, but pass an opinion on facts they don't know.

 

PW at its best.

[SirDread]

Twistedsanity - sorry, although you agree about using Police Intel, you then ruin your point with an ill-advised rant about the Mendez - so I do consider it evasive.

 

He was not publicly assassinated for overstaying his visa. That is nothing but absolute garbage. I thought you had a bit more about you - obviously I was wrong.

 

None of which addresses the point of a person taking a shotgun when expecting to confront thieves.

 

I still can't comprehend why some posters ignore the facts, but pass an opinion on facts they don't know.

 

PW at its best.

 

Even taking the gun as a deterrent it is still taking it with intent which I would expect the police to action with the revoke of a license.

[Gordon R]

SirDread - I think al4x and myself think along the same lines as you.

[CharlieT]

SirDread - I think al4x and myself think along the same lines as you.

 

You may also add me to the list.

Edited July 16, 2013 by CharlieT

[GHE]

I'm sorry, but some of you have gone off at a bit of a tangent here.

 

Firstly, my son Bill didn't go there with a gun with the intention of meeting thieves. He gave his mum a lift there, she was planning to stay the night in case the thieves came back, neither of them expected the thieves to be there in broad daylight. Bill was going to have a walk around with his gun, as he usually did, and then go off to his other farm.

 

Secondly, he fired multiple shots because there were multiple attacks on him and his mum. Each time, he fired until the attack stopped. On the final attack he didn't fire at all, because by this time his mum had reached a place of safety and he was able to get behind a tree himself. He stood and fired to save his mother's life, the only choices he had were to either shoot the man dead or destroy the van that he was using as a weapon. It does him enormous credit that he only shot the van.

 

Thirdly, although we don't know why the police have revoked his certificates (they still haven't given their reasons) we believe it to be because they say that a PCSO found 3 empties outside the farm, on the bridleway. They didn't, it's a lie. They may or may not have found one, because although he doesn't remember doing it, he must have cleared his gun before getting into his car. The police have no photographs of these alleged empties, they have ignored requests for DNA and he was never asked about them when he was interviewed - work it out for yourself.

 

Fourthly, this was by no means the only lie. A very senior police officer told the police & crime commissioner that he had put the public in danger during the chase that followed and that his mum had told him to shoot out the tyres, total ********, as proved by the recording of the 999 call. It is clear from the recording that his mum didn't say anything of the sort, that it was Bill that was driving and that there were no shots fired. Impossible anyway, as Bill is blind in his left eye, he couldn't have shot from the passenger seat.

 

The appeal is set down for hearing at York Crown Court on Friday. However, as the police have failed to do their paperwork, the date will have to be set aside for now.

 

For the full story (but not completely up to date) read www.farmerbill.info

Edited July 16, 2013 by GHE

[brett1985]

I for one am 100% behind your son. Imho, he did the exact same thing that alot of us would have. I will be following this case with great interest...

[Twistedsanity]

I wish you and your son all the best , as I have said previously in this post we are all deemed innocent and its up to the authorities to prove our guilt , and the police lying? That's nothing new I'm afraid , happens way to often , good luck

[stavvy]

Well I've just read the blog and it just proves what a lot of folk on here have been saying, not just on this thread but on many. There is no point discussing/arguing the merits of a post unless you have the full knowledge of what's actually happening. Best of luck from me.

[Sprackles]

GHE....I wish your son well in his quest.

100% behind you.

[JONAH898]

+1 with the above message 👍

[GHE]

Thanks for your support gents.

 

We have a battle on our hands here, it started as a fight for justice but it's a big, expensive battle now.

The problems have come from senior police officers and very senior civillians connected to the police, the front line officers have been fine. They, and Bill, have been let down by the people in charge.

 

Police officers aren't allowed to lie but some do, and then they cover up their lies expertly. The revocation of Bill's FAC & SGC is just part of it. He was also libelled on a radio broadcast, after the police & crime commissioner was fed "incorrect" information by a senior police officer and failed to check that information properly or at all. As a result, Bill has gone from local hero to local villain and can't get work.

 

That person is now being sued for libel, which she denies even though her words are a matter of public record. She is being represented by the police legal department, at public expense, and no doubt the damages and court costs will be at public expense too.

 

This is what we are up against. We have a police force that does it's best, but they are "managed" by people who, in my opinion, are not fit for purpose.

[Penelope]

Managed??? by politically motivated senior officers.

Thanks for your support gents.

 

We have a battle on our hands here, it started as a fight for justice but it's a big, expensive battle now.

The problems have come from senior police officers and very senior civillians connected to the police, the front line officers have been fine. They, and Bill, have been let down by the people in charge.

 

Police officers aren't allowed to lie but some do, and then they cover up their lies expertly. The revocation of Bill's FAC & SGC is just part of it. He was also libelled on a radio broadcast, after the police & crime commissioner was fed "incorrect" information by a senior police officer and failed to check that information properly or at all. As a result, Bill has gone from local hero to local villain and can't get work.

 

That person is now being sued for libel, which she denies even though her words are a matter of public record. She is being represented by the police legal department, at public expense, and no doubt the damages and court costs will be at public expense too.

 

This is what we are up against. We have a police force that does it's best, but they are "managed" by people who, in my opinion, are not fit for purpose.