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

[David BASC]

BASC will fight cases on points of law, and points of legal precedent.

 

Fighting cases simply on principle sounds great ...but I doubt members would want BASC to spend its resources fighting court cases where there is practically no chance of success- it will cost lots of money, take lots of time, and will not set legal precedent, so will achieve nothing.

[GHE]

We spoke to Bill twice at the end of Dec 2012 giving him advice

We gave further advice in May 2013 regarding the delay of the firearms after acquittal

We spoke to the FLM

We spoke again to Bill in June 2013, and confirmed by email the reasons for delay

 

I will check if there is evidence of further correspondence during the last half of 2013, before Bill lapsed if you wish

Frankly I don't care, we all know that that you did nothing, and in fact you have admitted that, and apologised for it on this forum.

If you really do want to check, you will find that you did - once - phone the FLM but he wasn't there, and you didn't try again.

 

Just to be a little provocative, am I the only one who thinks that a member of the public, who goes out purposely "tooled up" on a stakeout, is likely to have his suitability to possess a firearm brought into question.

But that isn't what happened. His mother was planning to stay there in case the thieves returned, and planned to phone the police if they did return, so that they would hopefully attend. Bill didn't go 'tooled up', he simply gave his mum a lift there, he took his shotgun because he planned to have a walk round before returning home.

It's all on www.farmerbill.info, in detail, and was posted there long before the police decided to revoke his certificates, and even longer before they started investigating whether he was a fit person.

[David BASC]

GHE, I really do not want to get into an argument with you over what we did, fact is we did speak to the FLM, and at that he made it clear as to why they did not want to release the guns at that time.

 

Yes I am sorry that there was nothing else we could do, but the police have revoked for the reasons you have stated on your blog and the judge has upheld the decision of the police, and there is nothing more we could do, even if Bill were still a member.

[Mentalmac]

Is Bill able to use a gun on the old estate rifle law? And still able to go clay pigeon shooting (if someone else brought a gun he could use)?

 

That might help for now?

[GHE]

Is Bill able to use a gun on the old estate rifle law? And still able to go clay pigeon shooting (if someone else brought a gun he could use)?

 

That might help for now?

Well, he could shoot at a range as a probationary member, if he wanted to. And he could shoot on my land (but not his own) with my gun under my direct supervision, but that doesn't help with his pest control problems.

And he can shoot clays under supervision at a licensed clay ground, but with someone else's gun. We need to make decisions about his rifles and guns, which are now all on my tickets and in my care. I suppose he might want to keep a shotgun for when he visits me. But none of this is the point - shooting was part of his job, his hobby and an important part of his social life - and it's all gone now based on nothing more than speculation put forward by police without any evidence, and believed by a judge.

[Mentalmac]

Well, he could shoot at a range as a probationary member, if he wanted to. And he could shoot on my land (but not his own) with my gun under my direct supervision, but that doesn't help with his pest control problems.

And he can shoot clays under supervision at a licensed clay ground, but with someone else's gun. We need to make decisions about his rifles and guns, which are now all on my tickets and in my care. I suppose he might want to keep a shotgun for when he visits me. But none of this is the point - shooting was part of his job, his hobby and an important part of his social life - and it's all gone now based on nothing more than speculation put forward by police without any evidence, and believed by a judge.

Oh, don't miss understand me - I feel very angry that he has been revoked considering, and feel it's a typical judge just going with the police so they don't look bad type fix again.

However, just wanted to see if he could still get the chance to shoot on occasion as a hobby.

[MartynGT4]

Really sorry to hear it didn't go the way it should..

 

As for the BASC well given the nature of this case their lack of REAL support is disgraceful, they should hang their heads in shame. I can totally understand why the lad let his membership lapse, I would have done the same. And given recent events, and the fact that it's pretty clear BASC are a ******* joke, that's exactly what I'm going to do..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MartynGT4]

GHE, I really do not want to get into an argument with you over what we did, fact is we did speak to the FLM, and at that he made it clear as to why they did not want to release the guns at that time.

 

Yes I am sorry that there was nothing else we could do, but the police have revoked for the reasons you have stated on your blog and the judge has upheld the decision of the police, and there is nothing more we could do, even if Bill were still a member.

 

Pathetic. Standing by the lad and giving him some tangible support would have at least made him and the rest of us feel BASC in some way had our backs but yet again BASC have shown the only thing they give a toss about is subscriptions..

Edited February 26, 2015 by MartynGT4

[Gordon R]

I can't understand why BASC are labelled "pathetic". Why would they back an appeal which they believed would fail?

Just to be a little provocative, am I the only one who thinks that a member of the public, who goes out purposely "tooled up" on a stakeout, is likely to have his suitability to possess a firearm brought into question.

 

 

Charlie T - "purposely tooled up" might sound a little strong, but I have to agree. If thieves were expected, then any firearm should have been left at home. The minute Bill decided to take a firearm, albeit for vermin control, his licence was at risk. That was my opinion before the case started and remains the same.

 

I might not have been the popular view, but I was at a loss to see how the appeal would succeed.

 

That said, I still feel sorry for the young lad.

[STOTTO]

Do nothing while your property is being stolen, or your family is raped/murdered or if you yourself are being attacked and the law will be fully behind you, ‘yes, and a bloody long way behind at that, especially in you are an FAC/SGC holder!!

[David BASC]

You are not aware, or are ignoring the fact that BASC did fight this lads corner with the FLD, and in the media

 

We gave this member plenty of advice over many months, including speaking with his FLM

 

You are not aware that BASC got and paid for a specialist firearms barrister to review the entire case and evidence, all at our own expense, and sent the opinion of the barrister to the lad when he was a member...

 

Hang our heads in shame? I don't think so...

[GHE]

I can't understand why BASC are labelled "pathetic". Why would they back an appeal which they believed would fail?

 

Charlie T - "purposely tooled up" might sound a little strong, but I have to agree. If thieves were expected, then any firearm should have been left at home. The minute Bill decided to take a firearm, albeit for vermin control, his licence was at risk. That was my opinion before the case started and remains the same.

 

I might not have been the popular view, but I was at a loss to see how the appeal would succeed.

 

That said, I still feel sorry for the young lad.

I accept your point, and with the wisdom of hindsight...

 

But the fact remains, he was only going there to drop his mother off. Neither of them expected the thieves to be present. Thefts were nothing new, and they had never actually met any thieves there before and had no reason to think that there would be any there this time either. Thieves have free reign there and come and go as they like, the area is very rural, 1.7 miles from the nearest real road, the police don't patrol it and, listening to the police radio traffic, none of them actually knew where it was - not their fault, too few police and too large an area.

 

There had been a few previous 999 calls over the years, one was a RTC where 2 police cars turned up - and hit each other - and they never turned up on the same day to the others.

 

The saddest thing of all is that , although the shotgun had a light fitted to the scope rail, if they had left to go there just half an hour later there would have been no point in taking the gun because of the fading light and it wouldn't have happened. And, probably, the thieves would have left by then too. If Bill had gone there expecting or looking for trouble, he would have had far more ammo and much heavier ammo.

 

Do nothing while your property is being stolen, or your family is raped/murdered or if you yourself are being attacked and the law will be fully behind you, ‘yes, and a bloody long way behind at that, especially in you are an FAC/SGC holder!!

Yes, police responses where a certificate holder calls for help are much, much slower than normal.

The only time that the police will support the use of force in self defence is when we use force to help a police officer - this happened to me many years ago and they gave me an award for bravery, even though I was at no risk whatever - the police officer was being attacked with a knife and I drove straight at his attacker, safe in my car.

Edited February 26, 2015 by GHE

[David BASC]

And I have just read further correspondence, we had the case reviewed by a Solicitor Advocate who is a Recorder of the Crown Court who has expertise in judicial review and they too concluded that the case had no reasonable prospect of success.

 

I reiterate that we did all we could, we gave our member the best and correct advice and committed significant resource to this case.

[GHE]

You are not aware, or are ignoring the fact that BASC did fight this lads corner with the FLD, and in the media

 

We gave this member plenty of advice over many months, including speaking with his FLM

 

You are not aware that BASC got and paid for a specialist firearms barrister to review the entire case and evidence, all at our own expense, and sent the opinion of the barrister to the lad when he was a member...

 

Hang our heads in shame? I don't think so...

I don't think so. According to an email, you invited him to take a look at the case, there was no payment involved. And the rest of your 'actions' consisted of nothing more than broken promises.

Anyway, I'm done with BASC now, and done with talking about them. I think that BASC is the best of a very bad bunch when it comes to representation, but it does little or nothing for individual shooters - far too close to the police and the politicians to risk actually doing anything. In my view the only real benefit for shooters is the insurance, which is much cheaper everywhere else.

[GHE]

And I have just read further correspondence, we had the case reviewed by a Solicitor Advocate who is a Recorder of the Crown Court who has expertise in judicial review and they too concluded that the case had no reasonable prospect of success.

 

I reiterate that we did all we could, we gave our member the best and correct advice and committed significant resource to this case.

Crown Court Recorders aren't allowed anywhere near firearms appeals, so have no experience to offer.

[David BASC]

He has considerable experience in appeals by judicial review.

 

To be blunt if our member had accepted our advice, after the case had been fully reviewed by our head of firearms - who also attends court as an expert witness, a specialist barrister, and a Solicitor Advocate who is a CC Recorder I accept that he would not have his certificated back, but the financial cost to you / him would have been tiny

 

There are some cases when the decision made by the licencing authority cannot be over turned regardless of how much time and money is committed to it.

[The Mighty Prawn]

Charlie T - "purposely tooled up" might sound a little strong, but I have to agree. If thieves were expected, then any firearm should have been left at home. The minute Bill decided to take a firearm, albeit for vermin control, his licence was at risk. That was my opinion before the case started and remains the same.

 

I might not have been the popular view, but I was at a loss to see how the appeal would succeed.

 

That said, I still feel sorry for the young lad.

I have to say Gordon after reading the whole blog and all of these posts that I'm inclined to side with you now, so much hangs on the original statements and like it or not (I'm paraphrasing now) but the official statement said there had been signs of burglar activity sufficient to cause alarm and knowing they were likely to return later bill chose to return with his shotgun, which as an disinterested party I would have taken as he took the gun expecting trouble.

 

I know the difficulties of rural crime and lack of a police response etc and it must be massively frustrating to repeat victims like bill but you can't go expecting trouble and carrying a gun - I don't have an alternative either but I can see the authorities point.

 

I'm really sorry how it turned out for bill and his family, if nothing else we can all take a sobering lesson from this case.

[GHE]

I have to say Gordon after reading the whole blog and all of these posts that I'm inclined to side with you now, so much hangs on the original statements and like it or not (I'm paraphrasing now) but the official statement said there had been signs of burglar activity sufficient to cause alarm and knowing they were likely to return later bill chose to return with his shotgun, which as an disinterested party I would have taken as he took the gun expecting trouble.

 

I know the difficulties of rural crime and lack of a police response etc and it must be massively frustrating to repeat victims like bill but you can't go expecting trouble and carrying a gun - I don't have an alternative either but I can see the authorities point.

 

I'm really sorry how it turned out for bill and his family, if nothing else we can all take a sobering lesson from this case.

Well, if Bill hadn't taken his shotgun his mother would have been very seriously injured or worse, so although he has paid a very high price, at least he still has his mother.

[malkiserow]

Seeing how it was likely to kick off, it shows what power a camera/recorder/trail-cam would have brought to all this and help save much grief and distress to the family.

 

I'd not plan for my old Ma to sit in a caravan watching for the thieves to return. Let a camera do the monitoring is a take away from this.

[Paul223]

Or a body cam

 

May be its the sort of thing more of us should consider

[Marki]

Just my personal thoughts, I'm pretty neutral as to the outcome.

 

I can understand why he may have used the gun in self defense, I'd happily do the same with the knowledge that my licence would be revoked. What I struggle with is why you would risk so much money when advised, several times, that they are very likely to lose? Sometimes you just have to accept what is. You can still shoot without a licence.

 

I appreciate that it has been mentioned many times that he required a gun for vermin control to protect his livelihood but when I look at the numbers on here desperate for a permission, some even willing to pay, I cannot understand why this would not have been a very easy resolution? It would also have provided an opportunity for others to have kept an eye out on his property reducing the risk to his mother.

 

There are also plenty of big anti-social dogs out there looking for a home. ;-)

[GHE]

Seeing how it was likely to kick off, it shows what power a camera/recorder/trail-cam would have brought to all this and help save much grief and distress to the family.

 

I'd not plan for my old Ma to sit in a caravan watching for the thieves to return. Let a camera do the monitoring is a take away from this.

Good in theory, no mains electricity though, and hardly any mobile phone coverage, no internet

 

Just my personal thoughts, I'm pretty neutral as to the outcome.

 

I can understand why he may have used the gun in self defense, I'd happily do the same with the knowledge that my licence would be revoked. What I struggle with is why you would risk so much money when advised, several times, that they are very likely to lose? Sometimes you just have to accept what is. You can still shoot without a licence.

 

I appreciate that it has been mentioned many times that he required a gun for vermin control to protect his livelihood but when I look at the numbers on here desperate for a permission, some even willing to pay, I cannot understand why this would not have been a very easy resolution? It would also have provided an opportunity for others to have kept an eye out on his property reducing the risk to his mother.

 

There are also plenty of big anti-social dogs out there looking for a home. ;-)

The advice against proceeding came ONLY from BASC, as it happens they were right, but because of experience with them, it looked very much

like advice that should be ignored.

 

Bill is cautious about allowing shooters he doesn't know, and having seen a few trigger happy types that think it's OK to shoot at everything that moves and who have a scant regard for safety, I can understand why.

More to the point, at lambing season there is a very real need for constant guard against foxes and crows, and as a result he has had to give up on sheep.

 

They had Bill's sheepdog with them when the incident happened, she was very nearly squashed by the van - there is nothing that a dog can do against a van, and not much that a shotgun can do either.

And there is nothing that shooters can do against the police. The big takeaway from this is to never, ever trust the police to be honest, truthful, competent or fair.

[malkiserow]

Good in theory, no mains electricity though, and hardly any mobile phone coverage, no internet

 

 

 

 

For the future, trail cams are battery operated and mobile phones record without any network.

[Marki]

 

The advice against proceeding came ONLY from BASC, as it happens they were right, but because of experience with them, it looked very much

like advice that should be ignored.

 

 

I take it then that you had advice that conflicted with BASC? Someone suggested that there was value to pursuing the case?

[GHE]

 

 

For the future, trail cams are battery operated and mobile phones record without any network.

I know. But what's really wanted in this situation is a permanent CCTV system that transmits to an iphone and sends an alert when triggered - I've got that with the camera system at our warehouse but can't do it without both mains power and internet.

 

BTW, to clarify on my earlier post, another problem with allowing other shooters on is that Bill's mum is anti gun. She does see the need to control vermin but does't like it when Bill and I do it, she would create merry hell if other people did it and would worry about her horses.

I take it then that you had advice that conflicted with BASC? Someone suggested that there was value to pursuing the case?

Yes, based on the belief that judges would look at all the evidence, not just accept the police evidence as gospel and ignore all other evidence.