inthedark Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) The whole idea of forums such as this is to be able to have a reasoned debate, in order to learn from others and discuss, without the need to be rude, subjects of interest to us. You dont seem capable. He's capable of giving you the spanking you've been setting yourself up for, as in, see four five posts above Edited March 12, 2017 by inthedark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Cheers again timps…and that makes far more sense. I still think that the police would be hard pressed to say he is a risk to anyone else. But fully accept that he broke the firearms act, which is the likely reason he will get his SGC revoked. but as he wasn't charged with breaking the firearms act, can that stand? like you say time will tell. Just a shame our laws cant be written to support him more…I did think that when they assessed self defence law a few years ago that it offered more support to people in such circumstances… Doh. Seems derogatory may have been the wrong choice of word. There I was thinking it only had relevance if talking about a person…for example when commenting on a persons weight being a derogatory comment… Seems I was wrong and my critique of some of the police approach to firearms is derogatory. Every day is a school day…note for next time… I make no apologies for my statements, they are on the whole from personal witness or from conversations with other people taking it from their personal experience. And I am sure others on here will have similar opinions towards the unfair portrayal of firearms owners by the police, and tactics they use to lead the non shooting public astray about our sport. But for my incorrect use of the English language I do apologise. No offence is intended to any police officer. Inevitably it is only ever bad examples of anything we tend to remember, policing, waiters who spill food on us…refs who make bad decisions during the vital game… So by way of readdressing the balance towards favourable policing… To the police officers who daily risk life, diving into cold lakes to save kids, or the copper who (many years ago now) pulled me over on a Sunday night for it to transpire that I had no road tax (oversight) but instead of throwing the book at me, questioned what was first on my list of things to do on the Monday morning…giving me the chance to sort myself out, which I duly did…before making it plain that if he saw me again without tax I would be in for it… And all the police officers who we see on thing like police camera action dealing with the utter scum of the earth…Well done guys and girls. I have no objection to being corrected or educated, I have an objection to being disagreed with yet having nothing offered other than a basic no, or juvenile insult. Gordon if you could have approached in a manner such as timps then I would have listened. Incidently he is not giving me a spanking, he is attempting to get a rise out of me which he isn't achieving. I'm not overly worried about what a faceless internet bloke thinks about me...especially one who is unable to do anything but condescend and offer no real advice of merit...yet...I am prepared to admit my failings,I get things wrong from time to time, i am human. But I am entightled to my thoughts and opinions. If he can be gentlemanly and do the same then we can hopefully converse again in the future. And if he is as educated as he is trying to make out, or some of you think he is, then in future perhaps he could offer that education in a fair, free and good willed manner. All I ask for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 .. then a man who has no convictions should surely not be barred from owning a SGC... I know a man who has never done anything wrong in his life , no convictions,no history of depression ,medication ect. He cant get an SGC ,even though he is absolutely squeaky. So to say that,and to imply that it is a right ,is effectively wrong. Im not sure why you keep grinding away at this, the man heard noises in the night ,saw lights, and surmised he was being robbed. He decided on confrontation, so self defence is already on a sticky wicket here. Presumably his gun was locked away ? So he has made a decision to retrieve gun ,load and confront bad guys. He has then fired blindly upon bad guys ,injuring one. Could have been fatal ,for either party, he could have fired on them ,and then been run over in their panic to escape from him. Self defence seems a little far fetched, but that was his defence and thankfully the 'good' guy won the day at court. So heres the rub, when you are given your licence to bear firearms, you have to think very carefully about how you conduct yourself. I would say in this case the 84 year old gentleman conducted himself rather aggressively, confrontationally at the very least. Generally speaking this would be enough to relieve him of his SGC. We do not live in the US ,we do not have the automatic right to use deadly force, and we most definitely do not have same rights as police or military when it comes to using force. It has to be proportionate, giving the night both barrels of 5 shot might have seemed proportionate at the time,but I dont believe his FLM will see it that way. Next time you hear a noise on your driveway in the night ,lean out the window and put a few rounds down the street, and see if yours sees it differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Great post timps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Cheers again timps…and that makes far more sense. I still think that the police would be hard pressed to say he is a risk to anyone else. But fully accept that he broke the firearms act, which is the likely reason he will get his SGC revoked. but as he wasn't charged with breaking the firearms act, can that stand? like you say time will tell. Just a shame our laws cant be written to support him more…I did think that when they assessed self defence law a few years ago that it offered more support to people in such circumstances… Unfortunately, the chief officer of police can revoke your certificate just on his/her view of things with no court case or substantial proof, if it is his/her genuine belief you pose a risk then it is revoked regardless of any proof. You can appeal this in court and ask for a Judge’s opinion on it who will require proof, however, even if you win costs are not normally awarded unless the police acted unreasonably. In this case, regardless of whether he won his appeal I doubt he would ever get costs awarded so expensive day in court to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Some splendid news to come out of all of this is the lawyer known as Mr Loophole has set up a fund to help with the farmers £30,000 legal fees.I will be donating a tenner 'cause if i ever have the misfortune to be held responsable for some thieving trespassing low life i hope that i would act in exactly the same way as the farmer did. He will be having lots of sleepless nights now and I am proud that he has the guts to protect what is his.. Round where I live most farmers know that it would take the police hours to give assistance and there are systems in place where they help each other.. from Auntie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedark Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Some splendid news to come out of all of this is the lawyer known as Mr Loophole has set up a fund to help with the farmers £30,000 legal fees.I will be donating a tenner 'cause if i ever have the misfortune to be held responsable for some thieving trespassing low life i hope that i would act in exactly the same way as the farmer did. He will be having lots of sleepless nights now and I am proud that he has the guts to protect what is his.. Round where I live most farmers know that it would take the police hours to give assistance and there are systems in place where they help each other.. from Auntie. Have you got a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 yorkierm - in real life, is your name Walter? In Forum circles - some people are known as Walts. You have not addressed the issue of risk and it is rather silly to pretend that you have. You claim to have never said anything derogatory about the Police, but your posts make you look like a fool - not that you need any real help. Far from the member of HM Forces that you claim to be - are you actually still at school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Have you got a link? ITV news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment. "Fine judgements" over the level of force used are not expected, says the Crown Prosecution Service. What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong. Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment. Living in a remote location and you hear intruders (In this case in a vehicle) surely instinctively most would pick up a weapon (shotgun if available) not with intent to injure but to defend. Many would feel to be in peril by virtue of the isolated location? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Is it not it time to end this waffle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Is it not it time to end this waffle? Probably is but i would send the chap a donation if I could find the page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 IT is on the itv news page about the 5th item down. Sorry I can;t do links,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/supportkennethhugill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog1408 Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/supportkennethhugill Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnphilip Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Some splendid news to come out of all of this is the lawyer known as Mr Loophole has set up a fund to help with the farmers £30,000 legal fees.I will be donating a tenner 'cause if i ever have the misfortune to be held responsable for some thieving trespassing low life i hope that i would act in exactly the same way as the farmer did. He will be having lots of sleepless nights now and I am proud that he has the guts to protect what is his.. Round where I live most farmers know that it would take the police hours to give assistance and there are systems in place where they help each other.. from Auntie. Very well said Auntie.i will repeat if i may " let me be judged by 12 and not be carried by 6 " bless you x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Living in a remote location and you hear intruders (In this case in a vehicle) surely instinctively most would pick up a weapon (shotgun if available) not with intent to injure but to defend. Many would feel to be in peril by virtue of the isolated location? I completely understand that attack ,before being attacked, as being a recognised form of self defence. And I completely understand the remote location fear factor. I also completely understand farmers and residents living in these remote locations, anger and frustration at being robbed and worse, with poor police protection/response time. But does that changes the rules of 'self defence ' to get up,lock and load ,and blast any noise/strangers or strange vehicle ,without positively ID ing the target ? Do any who do pest control on here, think ooh some eye shine BANG! If you cannot ID the target,why risk hitting something or someone, that you really dont want to ? I dont care about the convicted burglar the man shot, but how did he know he was a burglar? That lack of judgement is why he wont be getting his SGC back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I dont think he son has helped by saying “We understand the firearms act is serious but under the circumstances, when an 83-year-old protects his isolated farm in the middle of nowhere and the police response is very, very slow, the police are so pushed to the limit they can’t cover the countryside, people have the right to protect their property in the middle of the night when there is no response or back-up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I agree - it doesn't help. When the farmer took his shotgun, his intent was to stop people stealing his diesel, it wasn't to save him from an onrushing vehicle - because that hadn't happened at the time. I understand why he did what he did if a vehicle was trying to knock him over - it actually wasn't - but he might have thought that for a second. That is presumably why he was acquitted. Many farmers must be in exactly the same position, but do not have a shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Who knows what anyone would do in that position? Baseball bat, Maglite torch, Carving knife? what would we all reach for if we or our loved ones were threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 It was his diesel he sought to protect - not his family. However, I do admire his honesty. He could have made up any amount of plausible versions, but he told the truth. My heart says he should not be parted from his shotguns - if he genuinely uses them for vermin control, game or clay - but my head says he won't. I hope I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningB525 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 EXCLUSIVE: Farmer, 83, cleared of shooting intruder pleads to be given his guns back so he can shoot rabbits as he returns to work on his farm Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4313220/Farmer-83-cleared-shooting-intruder-wants-guns-back.html#ixzz4bKxJWWAZ Fingers crossed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AULD YIN Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 If the land rover was diesel wonder if they bothered to dip the tank to see if it was red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Civilians are not allowed to have a firearm for defensive purposes due to the act... WRONG Quite a few FAC's exist ONLY for the reason of personal protection. Not just the part of the UK to the left of Wales, but some on the mainland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) WRONG Quite a few FAC's exist ONLY for the reason of personal protection. Not just the part of the UK to the left of Wales, but some on the mainland. Not wrong at all. Northern Ireland (part of the UK to the left of Wales) is not covered by the firearms act so we can discount there. 26.1 Section 60(3) of the 1968 Act provides that the Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland, where the possession of firearms is subject to separate legislation (see the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (No. 702) (N.I.3)) Exemptions exist for a pleather of reasons, it states it in the very first paragraph “Subject to any exemption under this Act”, but they have to be issued and in force, simple fact, unless exempt the act does not allow firearms on the mainland (where the act is law) to be used for self defence. So, unless you have an exemption in force on the mainland my statement is true. If you do have an exemption, then you are not bound by the act for that exemption but my statement is still true as the act forbids it just you are not bound by the act due to the exemption. Like I said in my previous posts crown exemption is one for servants of the crown, I am sure there are others but it doesn’t alter the fact the firearms act prohibits it, however, exemptions exist but they don't usually extend to Joe public and farmers on the mainland. On this topic which the context of my post was made I doubt the farmer had an exemption, if he has then he has nothing to worry about but it still doesn't alter my statement about the act, its an offence unless exempt. Edited March 15, 2017 by timps 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.