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

[johnphilip]

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.

 

because he can not do what he was doing before he lost his ticket.he can carry on but would have to be supervised when shooting . we dont know what problems his land has apart from human scum causing the problem in the first place, it is his land and had a ticket to shoot and to carry a gun as he see fit.

you talk of other farmers not carrying or having a rifle or shotgun. maybe they have someone who does there pest control for them, from what i have read his mother did not want anyone coming on the land and doing the pest control. so this is how it was carried out .

he may have lost his ticket , but he still has his mum. how would he have lived the rest of his life knowing his mum had been killed and he did nothing about it.

i hope someday in the future he gets his ticket back, but for now carries on with his life as best he can.

[GHE]

I'm getting tired of this topic, some people seem to be very ready with opinions even though they haven't bothered to research the facts - I suppose that's the internet for you

 

But, let me try one more time to explain why I think that some people have got it so wrong.

 

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.

He did not go tooled up, nor did he go with a shotgun to patrol his farm. Even the judge, who I believe listened ONLY to the police account even when it was proved to be wrong by the actual evidence, fully accepted that it was normal for him to take a shotgun with him, and perfectly proper to do so.

 

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.

Yes, there are many farmers who don't need a shotgun or rifle to control pests, but this doesn't mean that Bill doesn't.

Farming is a business, and business is all about numbers.

 

If you have a hundred free range hens and a fox kills 50 in one hit, you've lost half your stock and so you need to protect them, If you have 16,000 hens per shed in battery production then the fox can't get to them, and even if he can get in and he kills 50, that's a tiny percentage that just doesn't matter.

 

If you have 3000 ewes and foxes and crows get a few of them, again it doesn't matter, it is very different if you only have 100 because the same number of losses amount to a massive percentage. Different farmers run their businesses in different ways. Some spend a lot of staff time looking after the sheep at lambing, others do absolutely nothing, they accept the inevitable losses because the value of the lost lambs and ewes when there are difficult births amounts to less than the cost of the labour needed to prevent those losses.

 

Same with animal feed. If it's a large farm with very good storage facilites, it doesn't matter if pigeons and squirrels eat a large quantity of animal feed that is a tiny percentage of what is there. It matters hugely when the same number of pests eat the same amount of animal feed on a small farm, because the losses amount to a huge percentage. No business can survive with huge stock losses.

 

My own business has nothing to do with farming, but the principles are the same. If we had just one dishonest member of staff, or one serious outside theft, we could be put out of business, so we need to have good physical security, good CCTV systems, alarm systems and careful watching of people to make sure this cannot happen. It isn't a problem in a big Company, they have much better security (which costs just a tiny fraction of their profits) and they can afford any losses anyway.

 

Bill is trained as an agricultural mechanic, and he's very good at it. He feels that he can make a much better living repairing other people's tractors, and without the dangers, incredibly long hours and very low profit involved in driving his own tractors. Why farm when the establishment, the police, the subsidy system and everything else is against small farmers?

 

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.

Which is exactly what BASC were asked to do.

 

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.

Bill continued to be a member until BASC told him that there was nothing that they could or would do to help him, it was therefore pointless to give them yet another year's subscription, for nothing - and especially when they were so patronising.

 

 

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.

No criminal action was taken against Bill because no crime had been committed by him. The CPS said that, in a public statement, which is a very unusual thing for them to do. So, not being convicted of a crime that had not occurred was not a bonus.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that the judge read through the papers before the case even opened and made his decision based purely on what the police said. There is simply no way that he could have accepted the police story based on the evidence - an independent witness who was sure that 5 shots were fired, but the judge agreed with the police that he had fired 8, the fact that the almost inaudible sounds of 'gunshots' on the second 999 call could not possibly have been gunshots because they were deafening, the fact that the two empties linked with these alleged shots could not have been related because they were rusty and none of the other empties were, the fact that the police had destroyed what forensic evidence there was was ignored, the fact that a senior police person made a total fool of himself in the witness box, turned bright red and had to apologise to the Court for some of the things that he had said made no difference, the judge still accepted the entire police case as gospel.

 

I've taken something away from this. I've learned that the system is corrupt, and is supported by the very people - the judiciary - who are supposed to protect us against the corrupt system.

[bostonmick]

 

because he can not do what he was doing before he lost his ticket.he can carry on but would have to be supervised when shooting . we dont know what problems his land has apart from human scum causing the problem in the first place, it is his land and had a ticket to shoot and to carry a gun as he see fit.

you talk of other farmers not carrying or having a rifle or shotgun. maybe they have someone who does there pest control for them, from what i have read his mother did not want anyone coming on the land and doing the pest control. so this is how it was carried out .

he may have lost his ticket , but he still has his mum. how would he have lived the rest of his life knowing his mum had been killed and he did nothing about it.

i hope someday in the future he gets his ticket back, but for now carries on with his life as best he can.

Back in the days of when I kept thousands of free range news I never used a gun apart from clay shooting and never needed it really foxes were dealt with by traps and rats in a similar fashion.your post shows a lack of knowledge of farming and it's practices.indeed many of the large supermarket growers allow no shooting at all over the land due to contamination.bills land will have no more of a pest problem than any other.As for his mother not wanting anyone doing pest control well maybe bill should make his own decisions on what happens on his land.As for his mother being killed well that is supposition as there is only one persons side of events known.But I can assure you that the success of a farm does not rely on a gun.atb

[Gordon R]

For what it's worth, I believe that the judge read through the papers before the case even opened and made his decision based purely on what the police said.

 

 

GHE - for someone who accuses others of passing an opinion, without knowing the facts, your statement is exactly the same. You also label the system as "corrupt - supported by the Judiciary" without a fact to support that.

 

People have passed an opinion - based on what they have read and what you posted. Many posters, including myself, have reservations about Bill having an SGC. I can easily understand why the Judge made his decision. You can't or won't.

 

I could point out my reservations about his judgement, but what would be the point. You are his father and won't hear a word against him.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Gordon R

[johnphilip]

Back in the days of when I kept thousands of free range news I never used a gun apart from clay shooting and never needed it really foxes were dealt with by traps and rats in a similar fashion.your post shows a lack of knowledge of farming and it's practices.indeed many of the large supermarket growers allow no shooting at all over the land due to contamination.bills land will have no more of a pest problem than any other.As for his mother not wanting anyone doing pest control well maybe bill should make his own decisions on what happens on his land.As for his mother being killed well that is supposition as there is only one persons side of events known.But I can assure you that the success of a farm does not rely on a gun.atb

i do infact live on a farm, not as a farmer but know what is going on have been in someway involding in farming through family and friends. on our estate this year 200 foxes have been killed , tell me how you are going to trap those . i talk to other framers at the clayshoot and they are having the same problem . on one farm a fox went through a field and killed 20 lambs and left them all laid out in the field.

[malkiserow]

Whoever in in the right here, chances are if there is an ounce of doubt, suspicion or lack of hard evidence, the probability has to be a license will be revoked on the grounds of greater public safety ..... that appears to be our current culture, the general public support this as part of our anti-gun mentality in the UK.

 

Anything not in line with this fear factor by Chief PC's and judges is very very rare is it not?

 

A positive outcome for this lad Bill was very very slim as the system is set up to do just the opposite of what he appears to have done. Ignoring the finer detail - he fetched up on some land with a shotgun in his possession to drop off his mum to watch for thieves who are targeting their land/buildings. As far as I can see, that alone will concern the authorities with the question - is any person fit to hold a licence to knowingly chance an encounter where a crime is known to be likely? In the UK, the answer is probably NO in many states of the US the opposite may well be true.

Edited February 27, 2015 by malkiserow

[Flashman]

I'm getting tired of this topic, some people seem to be very ready with opinions even though they haven't bothered to research the facts - I suppose that's the internet for you

 

But, let me try one more time to explain why I think that some people have got it so wrong.

 

He did not go tooled up, nor did he go with a shotgun to patrol his farm. Even the judge, who I believe listened ONLY to the police account even when it was proved to be wrong by the actual evidence, fully accepted that it was normal for him to take a shotgun with him, and perfectly proper to do so.

 

Yes, there are many farmers who don't need a shotgun or rifle to control pests, but this doesn't mean that Bill doesn't.

Farming is a business, and business is all about numbers.

 

If you have a hundred free range hens and a fox kills 50 in one hit, you've lost half your stock and so you need to protect them, If you have 16,000 hens per shed in battery production then the fox can't get to them, and even if he can get in and he kills 50, that's a tiny percentage that just doesn't matter.

 

If you have 3000 ewes and foxes and crows get a few of them, again it doesn't matter, it is very different if you only have 100 because the same number of losses amount to a massive percentage. Different farmers run their businesses in different ways. Some spend a lot of staff time looking after the sheep at lambing, others do absolutely nothing, they accept the inevitable losses because the value of the lost lambs and ewes when there are difficult births amounts to less than the cost of the labour needed to prevent those losses.

 

Same with animal feed. If it's a large farm with very good storage facilites, it doesn't matter if pigeons and squirrels eat a large quantity of animal feed that is a tiny percentage of what is there. It matters hugely when the same number of pests eat the same amount of animal feed on a small farm, because the losses amount to a huge percentage. No business can survive with huge stock losses.

 

My own business has nothing to do with farming, but the principles are the same. If we had just one dishonest member of staff, or one serious outside theft, we could be put out of business, so we need to have good physical security, good CCTV systems, alarm systems and careful watching of people to make sure this cannot happen. It isn't a problem in a big Company, they have much better security (which costs just a tiny fraction of their profits) and they can afford any losses anyway.

 

Bill is trained as an agricultural mechanic, and he's very good at it. He feels that he can make a much better living repairing other people's tractors, and without the dangers, incredibly long hours and very low profit involved in driving his own tractors. Why farm when the establishment, the police, the subsidy system and everything else is against small farmers?

 

Which is exactly what BASC were asked to do.

 

Bill continued to be a member until BASC told him that there was nothing that they could or would do to help him, it was therefore pointless to give them yet another year's subscription, for nothing - and especially when they were so patronising.

 

No criminal action was taken against Bill because no crime had been committed by him. The CPS said that, in a public statement, which is a very unusual thing for them to do. So, not being convicted of a crime that had not occurred was not a bonus.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that the judge read through the papers before the case even opened and made his decision based purely on what the police said. There is simply no way that he could have accepted the police story based on the evidence - an independent witness who was sure that 5 shots were fired, but the judge agreed with the police that he had fired 8, the fact that the almost inaudible sounds of 'gunshots' on the second 999 call could not possibly have been gunshots because they were deafening, the fact that the two empties linked with these alleged shots could not have been related because they were rusty and none of the other empties were, the fact that the police had destroyed what forensic evidence there was was ignored, the fact that a senior police person made a total fool of himself in the witness box, turned bright red and had to apologise to the Court for some of the things that he had said made no difference, the judge still accepted the entire police case as gospel.

 

I've taken something away from this. I've learned that the system is corrupt, and is supported by the very people - the judiciary - who are supposed to protect us against the corrupt system.

 

Rather than waste your efforts on this thread, perhaps focussing on crowd funding, etc to pay the legal fees would be a better use of your time? Shouting at the moon, spotting conspiracy theories and the like will only convince people that your argument is fundamentally unsound.

 

For what's it's worth, I would refuse to rise to the bait and work to claw some money back.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Flashman

[johnphilip]

 

Rather than waste you efforts on this thread, perhaps focussing on crowd funding, etc to pay the legal fees would be a better use of your time? Shouting at the moon, spotting conspiracy theories and the like will only convince people that your argument is fundamentally unsound.

 

For what's it's worth, I would refuse to rise to the bait and work to claw some money back.

i think you have summed it all up very well , move on and good luck in the future to bill and his father and mum

[GHE]

 

Rather than waste you efforts on this thread, perhaps focussing on crowd funding, etc to pay the legal fees would be a better use of your time? Shouting at the moon, spotting conspiracy theories and the like will only convince people that your argument is fundamentally unsound.

 

For what's it's worth, I would refuse to rise to the bait and work to claw some money back.

You're right of course, and there is no point in me continuing to explain things to people who simply won't listen.

 

Strange isn't it - there has been MASSIVE support from people who actually know Bill, but very little from people on this forum who have never met him.

 

Crowdfunding? Yes, done that, and a very small number of people have made some very generous donations. Here is the link if anyone else wants to help http://www.gofundme.com/mivt00but there is very little that I can do now to get people to look at that link - if he had won the appeal then it would have been all over the papers and this would have helped a lot.

[bostonmick]

i do infact live on a farm, not as a farmer but know what is going on have been in someway involding in farming through family and friends. on our estate this year 200 foxes have been killed , tell me how you are going to trap those . i talk to other framers at the clayshoot and they are having the same problem . on one farm a fox went through a field and killed 20 lambs and left them all laid out in the field.

There is an old saying that is still true today there is more than one way to skin a cat.Do you think there were not days when I found up to 100 hens that had been attacked by fox and left dead or dying.that is farming I am afraid.And if the only reason to give up farming is because you do not want anyone shooting pests on your behalf then I question your commitment to farming.This has all been about a court ruling in favour of the firearms department. Because someone had shown they were prepared to turn their guns on another person not once but between five and eight times.What do you think would be the public outcoutcry if the judge had returned his guns.As I and others have said it was always the only possible outcome for this case and in truth it was folly to pursue it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by bostonmick

[STOTTO]

There is an old saying that is still true today there is more than one way to skin a cat.Do you think there were not days when I found up to 100 hens that had been attacked by fox and left dead or dying.that is farming I am afraid.And if the only reason to give up farming is because you do not want anyone shooting pests on your behalf then I question your commitment to farming.This has all been about a court ruling in favour of the firearms department. Because someone had shown they were prepared to turn their guns on another person not once but between five and eight times.What do you think would be the public outcoutcry if the judge had returned his guns.As I and others have said it was always the only possible outcome for this case and in truth it was folly to pursue it.

 

‘A Rock and a Hard Place’

 

If you have a firearm for a legitimate purpose and circumstances beyond your control cause you to discharge it in your own self-defence against an aggressive intruder intent on doing you harm, if in the eyes of the law justification for the use of potential lethal force is beyond any doubt then you can rightly expect that some form of sanction will be imposed upon you.

 

If in a similar situation circumstances dictated that lethal force was actually employed then the only solace that you have would be it is far better for you, and in fact all concerned, that you serve 10 years for their manslaughter than them serve it for yours!

 

So for me the gun is the alternative of absolute last resort in any given situation, for the reasons given above.

 

Typo

Edited February 27, 2015 by STOTTO

[keg]

Whilst not justifying Bills's actions, and none us want FAC owners behaving like it was the wild west, none us would know exactly how we would behave until we are faced with that situation ourselves.

 

Secondly, if we had a system that really punished theft not just ignored it as a risk in modern life, like crossing the road, the thieving scum would not be around to create the situation that started all this.

[Thunderbird]

 

 

If we had a system that really punished theft not just ignored it as a risk in modern life, like crossing the road, the thieving scum would not be around to create the situation that started all this.

 

+1

[sandspider]

As an aside, I understand that UKIP would put the interests of victims & law abiding citizens above the interests of criminals. Sounds like a move in the right direction.

 

Sorry, don't want to drag the thread off topic, but thought I'd mention that.

[MartynGT4]

There are some genuinely helpful people on this site, unfortunately they seem to be outnumbered by holier than thou types who appear to enjoy nothing more than spouting their limitless wisdom at the expense of others...

 

Strange isn't it - there has been MASSIVE support from people who actually know Bill, but very little from people on this forum who have never met him.

[Gordon R]

MartynGT4 - perhaps you could furnish us with a list of the genuinely helpful people on this site and the larger number of :-

holier than thou types who appear to enjoy nothing more than spouting their limitless wisdom at the expense of others...

Strange isn't it - there has been MASSIVE support from people who actually know Bill, but very little from people on this forum who have never met him.

 

 

There is nothing strange at all. It would look bad if complete strangers supported him more than those who know him well. It is a rather bizarre thing to say.

 

If the support is "massive", I have no doubt that they will all chip in and pay the legal bill.

[Mentalmac]

This has turned into a real silly argument now. Think that the Mod's should shut it down.

 

Wonder how long it will be until there are no more farmers left at the rates that we can buy things from abroad and the supermarkets...

[Gordon R]

+1

[CharlieT]

This has turned into a real silly argument now. Think that the Mod's should shut it down.

 

Wonder how long it will be until there are no more farmers left at the rates that we can buy things from abroad and the supermarkets...

 

I agree entirley with you about farm incomes.

 

However, to put this thread in persective, as a sheep and beef farmer for over 50 years I can assure you I have never needed a firearm to do my job.

Infact, I have always strived to keep the odd fox on the farm to provide a little sport for the local hunt.

Let us not fall for the red herring of needing a firearm to be able to farm.

[Marki]

 

There is nothing strange at all. It would look bad if complete strangers supported him more than those who know him well. It is a rather bizarre thing to say.

 

 

My thoughts entirely, is this not the norm? Why should I care about something that has no impact on me and is of little interest?

[MartynGT4]

MartynGT4 - perhaps you could furnish us with a list of the genuinely helpful people on this site and the larger number of :-

 

 

There is nothing strange at all. It would look bad if complete strangers supported him more than those who know him well. It is a rather bizarre thing to say.

 

If the support is "massive", I have no doubt that they will all chip in and pay the legal bill.

 

I have far better things to do with my time than provide you with a list, why don't you ask the OP? I'm sure he could think of a few that fall into the latter category..