Penelope Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Heard this on R4 today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30573417 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) nothing wrong with that anyone with violent tendencies should have their certs revoked and guns removed. Edited December 22, 2014 by bostonmick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 For me the key part of the write up is: "If there were concerns, we took steps to remove guns, ammunition and certificates where we believed there was a danger to public safety," said Chief Insp Tom Simons from Essex Police. Well done Essex police. The thing that makes me wonder is how these people are allowed to hold licensed guns in the first place? Is it that their situations deteriorate and there is no sure fire way to pick this up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedster Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 How many of these concerns were based on hearsay and innuendo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sle Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 If there is evidence of need to be concerned then it make sense but questioning the supposed victim is going to give a totally biased report. Sounds like another knee jerk reaction a bit. I bet the majority of removals would be returned if the licence holder went to court about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 It would be interesting to know whether the hand gun is a picture of one of the guns actually involved, or whether it is just a library picture of " a gun". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derfley Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Looking at the article; Of the 24,500 licensed firearms holders in Essex, 777 were visited by Essex Police to check if it was suitable for them to own guns. Fifty people gave up their licences or had them revoked, and 86 people were given warnings about how they stored their guns. So it sounds like fairly small numbers, but a few things strike me; 777 visits out of 24.5k licensees 3.17% a fairly small percentage 50 licenses revoked off 777 visits is 6.4% a fairly small percentage 86 storage issues out of 777 visits is 11.4% is quite a large percentage Food for thought either way Edited December 22, 2014 by derfley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 BASC should be flat out then over the next few months then . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 The BBC article makes interesting reading; "Operation Wishbone" was launched by Essex Police in the wake of several high-profile domestic-related murders around the UK involving weapons. Of the 24,500 licensed firearms holders in Essex, 777 were visited by Essex Police to check if it was suitable for them to own guns. A total of 220 shotguns and firearms were seized. Earlier this year, licensed shotgun holder Christopher Parry was convicted of murdering his wife by shooting her in the back near her home in Wales. In October, puppy farmer John Lowe was found guilty of murdering his partner and her daughter in Surrey. His shotguns and licence had been seized by police but were returned several months later. Essex Police checked details of licence holders to see if they had ever been the perpetrator of domestic violence, even if they had not been arrested, charged or found guilty. They prioritised cases, focussing on the highest-risk first, and visiting the holders. The force's approach was "victim-based", so people could say if they believed their partners or family members should be allowed to keep guns. "If there were concerns, we took steps to remove guns, ammunition and certificates where we believed there was a danger to public safety," said Chief Insp Tom Simons from Essex Police. Fifty people gave up their licences or had them revoked, and 86 people were given warnings about how they stored their guns. Insp Neal Miller, who led the operation, said in future, any incidents where there is a suggestion of the involvement of a licensed firearms holder would be "assessed at the earliest opportunity". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepThought Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I see their reasoning here but doesn't this open up a really easy means by which disgruntled ex (or indeed current) partners can royally screw over innocent certificate holders out of sheer spite? I'm happily married now but I can think of at least one break up from my own experience in which the other party would have said virtually anything to stitch me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?-these guns have been removed on a suspicion and not a fact. And what gives family members the ability to judge a relative's suitability to hold a gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Hmm 777 visited in the vast majority no action taken in a small % Certs were revoked (under 10% of those visited, another small % ~11% had a warning about storage.... Result being 95% all fine ~5% some issues subject to appeal..... In short a none story had they picked the same % of driving liscence holders and subjected them to a driving test far more would have failed....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casts_by_fly Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Looking at the article; Of the 24,500 licensed firearms holders in Essex, 777 were visited by Essex Police to check if it was suitable for them to own guns. Fifty people gave up their licences or had them revoked, and 86 people were given warnings about how they stored their guns. So it sounds like fairly small numbers, but a few things strike me; 777 visits out of 24.5k licensees 3.17% a fairly small percentage 50 licenses revoked off 777 visits is 6.4% a fairly small percentage 86 storage issues out of 777 visits is 11.4% is quite a large percentage Food for thought either way If they were randomly selected then I would agree with you. However, I suspect they were chosen from a 'suspected' pooling in the first place so the percentages will be higher. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?-these guns have been removed on a suspicion and not a fact. And what gives family members the ability to judge a relative's suitability to hold a gun? "Essex Police checked details of licence holders to see if they had ever been the perpetrator of domestic violence, even if they had not been arrested, charged or found guilty." How can you be the perpetrator of a crime if you have not been found guilty, or even charged, or EVEN arrested?!!? Innoncent until proven guilty, unless you've got a SGC/FAC it would seem Thinking of splitting up with your missus? Make sure its an amicable split or you're going to get shafted almost as badly as when there's kids involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 I wonder if certain members balls would still be as big if it were their head on the chopping block?Would you allow guns to remain with a person following even a verbal domestic to which police were called, like **** you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 What has 'balls' go to do with anything?! It's called Due Process and it's what makes us different from ****holes like North Korea, China Palestine etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 What has 'balls' go to do with anything?! It's called Due Process and it's what makes us different from ****holes like North Korea, China Palestine etc etc So you as a senior police officer would be happy to leave firearms with a couple following a domestic? I'm not talking about revocation there and then, I'm talking about removing an element of risk from a situation. Whatever happens after that will determine if they are returned. I very much doubt any police officer from the bottom rung and up would risk it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Every situation is different. If it was obvious to common sense that it was a violent household then the police would have a duty to act on attendance. The problem is, where does it end? If a spouse rings the FLD and just says their partner/ex-partner "is violent and shouldn't have guns" should their word be taken as gospel and the persons guns are taken off them for however many months/years it takes the police to decide the accusations were groundless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Good to see the police are pro-active in this respect. I fully support their action. It doesn't seem to be a knee jerk action. I see it as a measured and proportionate response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 This is far too open to abuse and arbitrary revocations based purely on historic cases that were dealt with at the time or plain hearsay just isn't on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debaser Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 The police don't need to achieve the criminal or civil burdon of proof, they need to show reasonable grounds to believe (note believe, not suspect). Anyway here is the big that covers revocation : (1)A firearm certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (2) to (5) below. (2)The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police has reason to believe (a)that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm; or (b)that the holder can no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition to which the certificate relates in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. ATB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longspoon Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 The bottom line is one day not so far away, no one will be able to own a gun, period. The inexorably march has started ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 The bottom line is one day not so far away, no one will be able to own a gun, period. The inexorably march has started ....... Perhaps but we can do what we can to slow tge progress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longspoon Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 By all means, but I don't think private ownership of guns will ultimately survive in this country.....let's enjoy it whilst we can.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 So you as a senior police officer would be happy to leave firearms with a couple following a domestic? I'm not talking about revocation there and then, I'm talking about removing an element of risk from a situation. Whatever happens after that will determine if they are returned. People are murdered in some domestic disputes. To me its the person's intent to commit murder that is the problem. In most cases firearms are not used knives blunt instruments etc. So will removing firearms stop these incidents happening, or will people be murdered anyway just that they won't use a firearm. The ones that support the police removing firearms with no evidence or the person never being arrested or charged with an offence, might think differently if the police arrive at their door to remove their firearms. 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.