jimmydean Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Following the inquiry into the Dunblane Massacre by Hamilton, a large amount of the evidence was not released publicly but was made subject to a non-disclosure order for 100 years. If that evidence which we cannot see, cast sufficient doubt on people and process, it might make the case for a continued ban on handguns, challengeable. In a hundred years we will all be dead and so the evidence will be academic. I have never ever heard of evidence etc being 'hidden' from the public and in these times of establishment 'cover up', maybe one of our shooting organisations could challenge, or at least research the case to challenge, the gagging order. I would like to know the detail of this case before I die, as there has always been something clandestine about it, some 'covering up'. Anyone else feel like they want to know ? Are we all children that we should not know all about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think we all know that we were well and truly stitched up. The problem is the reason given for the hundred years was to ensure the children were protected. Clever move because it'll take a brave man to argue the toss over that reasoning. However, it does rumble on - the donkey is not dead yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Its all connected with protecting high profile Paedo rings and 'important people' which Hamilton was involved in up to his neck. It was never about protecting the names of dead children who we all know the names of anyway. That was then, this is now, back then, although it was only a few years ago, the Establishment closed ranks and covered it all up. Eventually, the ripples from the Westminster investigations will hopefully spread north of the border and questions will start to be asked again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It should never of happened, if tbe people or person involved in tbe licencing process had done what they were supposed to do, Hamilton shouldn't have been allowed to own a blow pipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) It suggests to me that the handgun ban was on a false premise and that to obtain disclosure of the real reasons would potentially allow the handgun ban to be reconsidered. I would also like to know who has the right to seal up the truth for 100 years when the chance to revisit the circumstances will be lost - it must be unreasonable and the children's names are a matter of record elsewhere. It was Blair that did it - the same for the law to placate. Smells badly to me, almost as badly as the Weapons of Mass Destruction - how much has that man hidden and why are we still not allowed access to the full findings, can it be worse than WMD ? No subsequent withdrawl from the war or those hundreds who died. Edited March 30, 2015 by jimmydean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Its all connected with protecting high profile Paedo rings and 'important people' which Hamilton was involved in up to his neck. It was never about protecting the names of dead children who we all know the names of anyway. That was then, this is now, back then, although it was only a few years ago, the Establishment closed ranks and covered it all up. Eventually, the ripples from the Westminster investigations will hopefully spread north of the border and questions will start to be asked again. Yep. All it's going to take is a 'name' from the current investigation to be connected to the Queen Victoria School. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It should never of happened, if tbe people or person involved in tbe licencing process had done what they were supposed to do, Hamilton shouldn't have been allowed to own a blow pipe. Actually, I believe blow pipes are illegal, full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbust Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yep. All it's going to take is a 'name' from the current investigation to be connected to the Queen Victoria School. What has the Queen Victoria School got to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat g Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 The whole episode left a bitter taste in my mouth. I like many others lost a part of shooting that i loved and left me out of pocket too. A mass cover up imo. A totally pointless exercise that achieved nothing other than needlessly punish genuine law abiding shooters. Disgusting really. The same can be said for the semi auto ban in 1988 as well. Again that left me and many others out of pocket. Again that achieved nothing. Just a knee jerk reaction, ATB, Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Jimmy Dean dont just blame Tony Blair for the handgun restrictions. The restriction on hand guns were first introduced by John Major's Tory govenment , Blair just tighted up the restrictions. So both major parties had a hand in the ban. Quote from wickipedia In response to this public debate, the then-current Conservative government of John Major introduced a the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales. Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blairintroduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "handgun" due to their dimensions. Edited March 31, 2015 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 What has the Queen Victoria School got to do with it? Maybe something to do with governors? " Queen Victoria School’s governing bodyQueen Victoria School’s governing body is the BOARD OF HER MAJESTY’S COMMISSIONERS who are responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence. Spec” members, Lord Cullen, Lord Ross, PRINCE PHILIP and D MacLehose have all been on the Board and had a leading legal responsibility for the custody and care of the pupils at QVS, not least those who were physically and sexually abused." http://www.dunblaneexposed.info/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) , Edited March 30, 2015 by stevo 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.