Social media scrutiny and firearms licensing in Scotland

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Social media seems to lull some people into exposing extreme views they hold that they would not dream of showing to the real world, what is disturbing is that some of these thoughts/opinions abide in their mind and character in the first place!

Many people privately hold socially unacceptable (and even illegal!) opinions on issues such as immigration, criminality, drug taking, violence, racism, sexism, sexual deviation etc etc etc, that they would not dare to express in public, but feel able to do so hiding behind the screen of anonymity social media seems to offer............They don't seem able to take in that this anonymity is not as anonymous as they believe it to be!

Apart from the above examples, and more relevant to the fieldsports community, It seems socially acceptable (I can't think of any other reason?) for the police to monitor, provoke, interfere with, control and physically intervene in a lawful, peaceful protest....but not acceptable for police to monitor, interfere with, control and physically intervene in anti hunting protests that involve criminal acts such as threatening behaviour, provocation, intimidation, conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, trespass, armed trespass, criminal damage, death threats, assault etc etc etc, why do we think that is?

So the answer must be, if you are a gun owner keep any social unacceptable opinions you may have to yourself....or risk losing your licence!

Without wishing to be pedantic, as I broadly agree with your post, the bit highlighted is something I would question.

Can an opinion ever be illegal?  To use an example I quoted earlier I disagree with the UK's approach towards recreational drugs, I believe it is ineffective and potentially criminalises an awful lot of people for absolutely no social benefit, thinking specifically about cannabis.

So my opinion is contrary to the national policy, however I have never suggested that people should ignore the law as it stands just now, just that I think the law is wrong.

It is an emotive subject as we have been bombarded for years with the all encompassing Drugs = Bad message, so should I be denied talking about that for fear of losing my ticket because it is emotive and contentious?

In a sophisticated society don't we have the right to publicly challenge the things that we believe are wrong without fear of censure?  To suggest otherwise starts to stray into the area of the police state.

As with anything there are nuances and the context in which things are discussed make all the difference, but I would hate that the shooting community should somehow feel suppressed (maybe even oppressed) to express considered and reasoned opinion for fear of offending the sensitivities of the FEO.

Further to that if we deny people the chance to have debate about contentious subjects then the ideas they keep silent start to fester and become stronger rooted because there is nobody to challenge them.

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

panoma 1 - I too wonder why the Police tolerate the behaviour of sabs.  It is clearly criminal, but seems to be ignored.

Perhaps Gordon it is much easier to police people who have something to lose.  Policing gun owners that are heavily regulated is a doddle, likewise with policing the law abiding motorist.  It is a controlled and captive audience and easily monitored.

[timps]

The biggest monitor of social media are the users, on Facebook even if you have it locked to friends it doesn’t stop the police being informed. I know someone who started expressing right wing views on his locked Facebook page regarding immigration, nothing to extreme or threats of violence but still over the mark for current times. He actually got phone call from the police to be interviewed at the station about his post.

To this day he has no idea which of his Facebook friends informed on him but it goes to show anything put in writing can and will be used against you even if you think only friends can see and to be fair it was only his opinion. No further action was taken, but he was concerned about his job as a pub landlord so he went down to the police station with a brief, an expensive Facebook post to say the least.

On a public forum the chances of offending someone must be even higher, I do wonder if any user names on here are ever put forward either out of spite or genuine concern and whether the police would bother to track down the actual name.

Either way it’s the world we now live in, a certain shooting writer whose name is banned on here (for this very reason) would have you in court at the drop of his floppy hat should you write anything about him. It is certainly wise now to consider what you post as it can definitely come back to haunt you.

I do think the police have more than passing interest in monitoring social media that would  catch some posts but you are more likely, in my opinion, to be brought to their attention by the actual users of your chosen social media out of boredom, spite, general concern or they have a self righteous attitude and are easily concerned for public decency or safety.

There are too many Reverend Lovejoy's wife's from The Simpsons with their 'Won’t somebody please think of the children!' attitude on social media now.

Edited March 8, 2018 by timps

[Zapp]

3 hours ago, JDog said:

Then my initial post must have been misleading and for that I apologise.

What I meant to say was that those who in my own mind may be considered ‘nutters’ based on the content of their posts never seem to post about their sporting forays. The intimation being that they spend their time being nutters and not out shooting.

Fair enough

[Gordon R]

grrclark - I don't disagree with what you say.

timps - I think you have a very valid point. I suspect more media users report matters to the Police, than the Police actually find under their own steam.

The person you mention guards his reputation zealously. He has taken stick - some comedic and justified - some totally out of order. He is in the shooting business rather than being a contributor on forums such as this. He cannot - for business reasons - let undue / unfair criticism go.

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

Without wishing to be pedantic, as I broadly agree with your post, the bit highlighted is something I would question.

Can an opinion ever be illegal?  To use an example I quoted earlier I disagree with the UK's approach towards recreational drugs, I believe it is ineffective and potentially criminalises an awful lot of people for absolutely no social benefit, thinking specifically about cannabis.

So my opinion is contrary to the national policy, however I have never suggested that people should ignore the law as it stands just now, just that I think the law is wrong.

It is an emotive subject as we have been bombarded for years with the all encompassing Drugs = Bad message, so should I be denied talking about that for fear of losing my ticket because it is emotive and contentious?

In a sophisticated society don't we have the right to publicly challenge the things that we believe are wrong without fear of censure?  To suggest otherwise starts to stray into the area of the police state.

As with anything there are nuances and the context in which things are discussed make all the difference, but I would hate that the shooting community should somehow feel suppressed (maybe even oppressed) to express considered and reasoned opinion for fear of offending the sensitivities of the FEO.

Further to that if we deny people the chance to have debate about contentious subjects then the ideas they keep silent start to fester and become stronger rooted because there is nobody to challenge them.

 

 

 

Perhaps Gordon it is much easier to police people who have something to lose.  Policing gun owners that are heavily regulated is a doddle, likewise with policing the law abiding motorist.  It is a controlled and captive audience and easily monitored.

An opinion isn't illegal provided it remains in the confines of your own mind! Once you verbalise negative opinion contrary to what society (the state!) and the law decrees is acceptable on, for example racial matters, it will be interpreted by the authorities as breaking the law by something like......."incitement to promote racial hatred" (or words to that effect?) under the Race Relations Act, or if you verbalise opinion on LGBT "rights" that is contrary to what society, the state and the law declares is acceptable, you could well end up in court for under the Sex Discrimination Act.

 

 

[Howling Hound]

ZAPP just had a thought. If a group of anti's joined the forum posing as true shooters and started threads which they could the use in there legitimate websites to discredit us, how would you distinguish these from our normal "nutters"

[walshie]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

timps - I think you have a very valid point. I suspect more media users report matters to the Police, than the Police actually find under their own steam.

I reckon more crimes or perceived crimes in general are "solved" because of informants than good old detective work. 

[Perazzishot]

The bottom line is that you will receive very little if any public support if you lose your tickets regardless of reason that is why you have to be squeaky clean.

I don't think a crowdfunding page to help pay legal costs to get your tickets back would accrue much even if it was blatant over zealous policing.

Now save a fox from those nasty hunters rakes it in.

[Gordon R]

Quote

ZAPP just had a thought. If a group of anti's joined the forum posing as true shooters and started threads which they could the use in there legitimate websites to discredit us, how would you distinguish these from our normal "nutters"

To quote Shakespeare - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."