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

[al4x]

GHE you really need to learn to drop this, there is a lesson and it's a bit of scrap metal wasn't worth the amount of money that you are going to pay out on legal fees.

It's all been a sorry story I'm with Gordon and ultimately it was bad judgement taking a gun and your wife going out to tackle ******. Though you feel very wronged the key now is moving on

[notsosureshot]

Or a body cam

 

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

 

Gopro in a chest harness. I can't believe I'd never thought of doing that. Top notch idea.

[David BASC]

Its something I see quite a bit I am afraid, people who get advice, even from some of the top experts in firearms law an legislation in the UK, which they don't like, tend to ignore it.

 

Many lessons to learn from this I agree, but a key one is listen to the experts, even if you don't like the answer, its most likely to be the correct one.

 

If more could have been done at the early stages which would have had any impact on the final outcome it would have been, that's why we involved an expert barrister and solicitor advocate who has specialist knowledge in firearms law and appeals to assist in assessing the case.

 

I agree with al4x - not much more to say, time to move on

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

To the people saying he shouldn't of taken his gun with him, even though he was only dropping his mother off at the site of the thefts, then planning to go on his way. does that mean he should of never taken his gun out with him whenever he was going their 'just encase' the 'criminals' are there. Highly impractical and easy to say after the event.

 

That's the problem with some people on here. They have a magical power called 'hindsight' that the rest of us don't have. There full of the right answers after the event.

 

GHE more than likely went through all this knowing the probable outcome was bleak at best but instead of rolling over and excepting the decision he decided to fight it and stand up to the police for what he believed was right, and for that sir i applaud you for your courage. Misplaced optimism or not, having the balls to fight for what you believed in is what seperated the leaders from the followers.

 

I'm sure as this wound is still fresh you will still be seething at the deseicion but try to accept it (as hard as that is) and move on as best you can. And if lightning does strike twice and this situation or any other arises again, save yourself time and money and speak to Gordon first (he seems to know everything)

[Mungler]

Its something I see quite a bit I am afraid, people who get advice, even from some of the top experts in firearms law an legislation in the UK, which they don't like, tend to ignore it.

 

Many lessons to learn from this I agree, but a key one is listen to the experts, even if you don't like the answer, its most likely to be the correct one.

 

If more could have been done at the early stages which would have had any impact on the final outcome it would have been, that's why we involved an expert barrister and solicitor advocate who has specialist knowledge in firearms law and appeals to assist in assessing the case.

 

I agree with al4x - not much more to say, time to move on

I'm in Court, a lot.

 

In my game we have an expression "you can't beat being right".

 

If being right means telling someone they are stuffed and they should pack it in then that is doing your job properly.

 

Everytime someone tells me they want to go to Court on principle they get the picture of the litigation cow and told how solicitors love clients with principles and deep pockets.

 

Oh and incidentally I love being right, I pride myself on being right. It's everything in my game.

[Gordon R]

That's the problem with some people on here. They have a magical power called 'hindsight' that the rest of us don't have. There full of the right answers after the event.

 

And if lightning does strike twice and this situation or any other arises again, save yourself time and money and speak to Gordon first (he seems to know everything)

 

 

 

I don't know if that is an attempt at sarcasm, but if you care to read posts 10, 19, 21, 23, 36, 39, 41, 66, 70, 74, 76 and 81, you might note that my reservations were made before the outcome. It isn't hindsight - it's looking at the declared facts and taking a dispassionate view.

[bostonmick]

To the people saying he shouldn't of taken his gun with him, even though he was only dropping his mother off at the site of the thefts, then planning to go on his way. does that mean he should of never taken his gun out with him whenever he was going their 'just encase' the 'criminals' are there. Highly impractical and easy to say after the event.

 

That's the problem with some people on here. They have a magical power called 'hindsight' that the rest of us don't have. There full of the right answers after the event.

 

GHE more than likely went through all this knowing the probable outcome was bleak at best but instead of rolling over and excepting the decision he decided to fight it and stand up to the police for what he believed was right, and for that sir i applaud you for your courage. Misplaced optimism or not, having the balls to fight for what you believed in is what seperated the leaders from the followers.

 

I'm sure as this wound is still fresh you will still be seething at the deseicion but try to accept it (as hard as that is) and move on as best you can. And if lightning does strike twice and this situation or any other arises again, save yourself time and money and speak to Gordon first (he seems to know everything)

I believe the biggest mistake was using his gun in anger.I have myself been in a position where local thieves have been on one of my yards at least a dozen times I knew they were there as I have a remote alert system in place that runs off a car battery.each time I was alerted usually at night I go there on my own but have never contemplated taking a gun as I know this would be very wrong.I simply call the police on route and have up to now arrived at the same time as them.several of these scum have been in court as a result and my guns are safe.Thats foresight.I know how frustrated

The guy must have been but you simply cannot shoot at people well not in this country anyway.I doubt the court

could find in any other way.life just is not fair.atb

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

In response to Gordon, Yes but my point is your comments were 'after' the event. Comments about taking his gun to the site of the thefts and so on. All after the incident has occurred. It's not just you, but anyone can say what he should of done after it's happened. Once the op had posted his initial post everything else is 'hindsight'.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Browning 425 clay hunter

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

I believe the biggest mistake was using his gun in anger.I have myself been in a position where local thieves have been on one of my yards at least a dozen times I knew they were there as I have a remote alert system in place that runs off a car battery.each time I was alerted usually at night I go there on my own but have never contemplated taking a gun as I know this would be very wrong.I simply call the police on route and have up to now arrived at the same time as them.several of these scum have been in court as a result and my guns are safe.Thats foresight.I know how frustrated

The guy must have been but you simply cannot shoot at people well not in this country anyway.I doubt the court

could find in any other way.life just is not fair.atb

.

 

Completely agree with what your saying but you had a 'choice' to not take your gun. He was forced into a situation whilst he had his gun on his person. Very different scenario's IMO.

 

ATB 425

[Gordon R]

I believed I knew the outcome of the appeal, before the case was heard. That is not hindsight.

[belly47]

I believe the biggest mistake was using his gun in anger.I have myself been in a position where local thieves have been on one of my yards at least a dozen times I knew they were there as I have a remote alert system in place that runs off a car battery.each time I was alerted usually at night I go there on my own but have never contemplated taking a gun as I know this would be very wrong.I simply call the police on route and have up to now arrived at the same time as them.several of these scum have been in court as a result and my guns are safe.Thats foresight.I know how frustrated

The guy must have been but you simply cannot shoot at people well not in this country anyway.I doubt the court

could find in any other way.life just is not fair.atb

not often I agree with you boston but I do this time

 

I truly wanted the lad to get his guns back but never really felt he would, I will contribute some money shortly though to his cause as if no one challenged things nothing will ever change.

 

I agree that once shots were fired towards another person then the writing was on the wall with regards licences being revoked.

 

his mum is safe which is the main thing and the lads life may well take another direction as a result of his actions, but he will be okay, im sure a solution will be found to help him continue his life in farming

Edited February 26, 2015 by belly47

[400_racer]

does that mean he should of never taken his gun out with him whenever he was going their 'just encase' the 'criminals' are there. Highly impractical and easy to say after the event.

But the point is in this instance, he did have reasonable belief that the criminals would be back and there at some point later that day.

 

Horrible situation, and gotta feel sorry for the lad and family though. The police should not allow it to get to that stage re. rural crime.

[bostonmick]

.

 

Completely agree with what your saying but you had a 'choice' to not take your gun. He was forced into a situation whilst he had his gun on his person. Very different scenario's IMO.

 

ATB 425

I also cannot understand why he was going to leave his mother in what could only be a dangerous situation as once he had left for his nights pest shootings was at the mercy of whatever low life turned up.Would you put your mother in that position or would you stay there yourself if that concerned about some scrap.I am sorry to question this but there are a few holes in the story that a half barrister would tear to shred in seconds.He was leaving his mother there as they suspected the thieves may come back for the stuff they had previously laid ready so therefore must have been expecting something. So taking the gun was wrong.And also has undoing.Atb Edited February 26, 2015 by bostonmick

[GHE]

I believe the biggest mistake was using his gun in anger.I have myself been in a position where local thieves have been on one of my yards at least a dozen times I knew they were there as I have a remote alert system in place that runs off a car battery.each time I was alerted usually at night I go there on my own but have never contemplated taking a gun as I know this would be very wrong.I simply call the police on route and have up to now arrived at the same time as them.several of these scum have been in court as a result and my guns are safe.Thats foresight.I know how frustrated

The guy must have been but you simply cannot shoot at people well not in this country anyway.I doubt the court

could find in any other way.life just is not fair.atb

With respect, you just don't seem to get it.

He didn't use his gun in anger, he used it in desperation, it was the only means available to stop his mother, who was down, injured and helpless, from being crushed by a transit van.

Getting thieves into Court is irrelevant, it doesn't help because the Courts do nothing effective to deter them, and it doesn't even get the stolen property back - in this case, we lost £6000 in goods, the police seized them and none have been returned to us.

In my opinion - and I fully accept that other people may not agree - using force to prevent property theft is not justified, using force to save life IS justified if necessary, whatever the consequences may be.

 

I don't regret the appeal, all that I regret is the cost of the result.

As for moving on, yes that will happen. I have a life to lead and a business to run, this won't dominate my thoughts for very long.

Bill may not be able to, or wish to continue farming though, he may well decide to change his life and to move into an area where North Yorkshire police can't cause him problems

 

I also cannot understand why he was going to leave his mother in what could only be a dangerous situation as once he had left for his nights pest shootings was at the mercy of whatever low life turned up.Would you put your mother in that position or would you stay there yourself if that concerned about some scrap.I am sorry to question this but there are a few holes in the story that a half barrister would tear to shred in seconds.He was leaving his mother there as they suspected the thieves may come back for the stuff they had previously laid ready so therefore must have been expecting something. So taking the gun was wrong.And also has undoing.Atb

Nonsense. She had done it before and had no fear of being left alone - as a result of her experience, this has now completely changed and she has now lost her confidence, but at the time she felt safe, and probably was - she was going to stay in a caravan deep in the woods well out of sight, if she heard anything she would have kept her head down and phone the police. She also had the dog with her, Win is 'only' a border collie but she works cattle as well as sheep and is very sharp, and completely silent. Personally, given a choice of a gun or the dog against an attacker, I would choose the dog every time

[notsosureshot]

Bill may not be able to, or wish to continue farming though, he may well decide to change his life and to move into an area where North Yorkshire police can't cause him problems

 

That would be a crying shame. I hope that once the dust settles, you are all able to find some measure of peace.

[CharlieT]

This really is going round in circles. Some of us think he made a drastic error of judgement, others not.

 

However, I feel that Bill was treated fairly by both the police and the courts.

He was not convicted for the shooting incident, but because firearms licensing took the view, quite rightly in my view, that he, and I will use the term I used before, went "tooled up" with a shotgun to patrol his farm demonstrated Bill's lack of judgement and thus his suitability to hold a SGC.

 

There is no excuse for such an action. Like bostonmick, I have been in similar situations many times over the years and never once did taking a firearm with me cross my mind. My choice has been the dogs and a pitchfork and the hope that the police, who I had phoned, were there before me.

[notsosureshot]

This really is going round in circles. Some of us think he made a drastic error of judgement, others not.

 

However, I feel that Bill was treated fairly by both the police and the courts.

He was not convicted for the shooting incident, but because firearms licensing took the view, quite rightly in my view, that he, and I will use the term I used before, went "tooled up" with a shotgun to patrol his farm demonstrated Bill's lack of judgement and thus his suitability to hold a SGC.

 

There is no excuse for such an action. Like bostonmick, I have been in similar situations many times over the years and never once did taking a firearm with me cross my mind. My choice has been the dogs and a pitchfork and the hope that the police, who I had phoned, were there before me.

 

Charlie. What I can't get my head around is if the police seriously believed he had gone with the deliberate intention of using a firearm against a person, why was he not charged with anything? The findings of the judge indicate that Bill and his Mother concocted a story after the fact. The thing is, if that was what the police believed, and were prepared to stand up in court and say so (which they did), having, in their opinion, evidence to support their position, I just do not understand how a charge was not pursued by the CPS.

 

Considering people have been convicted of offences (not necessarily firearm related) on the verbal evidence of a single individual, surely the simple fact that he went "tooled up" and looking for trouble, in their opinion, would constitute conspiracy to xxxxx.

 

How is it that they have lack of proof for a criminal offence of conspiracy in some form, yet the young mans appeal failed because the judge thinks he lied. Surely, at the very least, that would be contempt of court.

 

I am absolutely sure that there are legal technicalities affecting the above, but to me it seems as though this was a whitewash to protect the police, simply because, if there was sufficient evidence against the farmer to deny his rights to his firearms with that judgement, then there was sufficient evidence for to attempt prosecution in some form. Yet there wasn't one. He was merely bailed, for four months.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

Something is very wrong with this case. It just does not sit well with me at all, regardless of guilt or innocence.

[Mungler]

What I genuinely find odd in this matter is committing to way way north of £50,000 on a legal action but not risking £50 to keep a basc membership running into the next year.

 

Even if no one liked the advice given (and believe you me I fully understand the concept of giving good advice to deaf ears) it would have made sense to renew the basc subscription if only to keep that particular horse running in the race, especially if there was even the faintest whiff that further assistance or testimony might be required.

[Marki]

This really is going round in circles. Some of us think he made a drastic error of judgement, others not.

 

However, I feel that Bill was treated fairly by both the police and the courts.

He was not convicted for the shooting incident, but because firearms licensing took the view, quite rightly in my view, that he, and I will use the term I used before, went "tooled up" with a shotgun to patrol his farm demonstrated Bill's lack of judgement and thus his suitability to hold a SGC.

 

There is no excuse for such an action. Like bostonmick, I have been in similar situations many times over the years and never once did taking a firearm with me cross my mind. My choice has been the dogs and a pitchfork and the hope that the police, who I had phoned, were there before me.

 

I agree with you CharlieT and I truly believe that Bill should have taken the decision not to convict as a bonus. Reactive shooting is one thing but admitting to reloading and firing again? People have certainly been locked up for less. The Police could not have been fairer. If that had been me I'd have taken the loss of my licence on the chin and taken up knitting.

 

Anyway. The point of the thread was not to decide if the shooting was legitimate, that had already been decided. The revocation of the licence is the only thing contended and that decision stands. I'm sure that the holes in GHEs' comments on here are simply down to the nature of the response to a forum. I'm sure the details were better put in court.

[Bitfitter]

Not wishing to be argumentative but a lot has been said about how farming relies on having a firearm well I'm sorry I know a lot of farmers some family but most I come into contact with work I have yet to see one carry a shotgun or rifle on a daily basis and one farmer I know who runs over 2500 head of sheep does not even own one so I fail to see how this unfortunate young lads career is over.

[bostonmick]

Not wishing to be argumentative but a lot has been said about how farming relies on having a firearm well I'm sorry I know a lot of farmers some family but most I come into contact with work I have yet to see one carry a shotgun or rifle on a daily basis and one farmer I know who runs over 2500 head of sheep does not even own one so I fail to see how this unfortunate young lads career is over.

+1

[Mungler]

Not wishing to be argumentative but a lot has been said about how farming relies on having a firearm well I'm sorry I know a lot of farmers some family but most I come into contact with work I have yet to see one carry a shotgun or rifle on a daily basis and one farmer I know who runs over 2500 head of sheep does not even own one so I fail to see how this unfortunate young lads career is over.

+1

[mossy835]

as above, on the button.

[Paul223]

Yep unfortunately there are some serious flaws in this whole argument

[Flashman]

It's not fair, but there's little chance of arguing the police, or anybody for that matter, into admitting a mistake. Also, BASC's legal insurance for this type of thing is laughable: no insurer will pick up the tab when the chances of success are so slim.

 

The only solution that may bear fruit is to reason with somebody at decision-making level, so the person heading up the relevant firearms team (not the administrator). They are probably fairly senior and will hopefully be responsive to reason. Court is the last, most expensive option and historically doesn't seem to work.

 

It's all a terrible shame and the court hearing reinforces the appellant's unsuitability to have a certificate.