HantsRob Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, Newbie to this said: How so? Typically it would be a younger person without much life experience, and may not have the moral compass that leads to being able to vouch for someone above knowing them for 2 years. Those they do know will more than likely be a family tie and that blurs lines. But, they could be 18 and responsible for a gun. It was a loose and fast comment, but the point is that someone may be a worthy licence holder but not necessarily a good judge of character to meet a criteria level. There are so many reasons though why someone may be able to hold a licence but not necessarily be a good character reference. "As a referee you are taking on a very important role, as the applicant has identified you as someone that knows them well enough to provide a reliable and honest opinion of their character and suitability to hold a certificate which will allow them to possess firearms or shotguns...... ....is that the referee is of good character and has the ability to offer a reliable view of the applicant... You should have sufficient knowledge pertaining to the applicant, in order that the police can assess their suitability to have access to guns Knowing someone for two years, but not in a capacity that you have ‘got to know’ them, may mean you are not best placed to be a referee for them." normal.dot - Version 3.2 (devon-cornwall.police.uk) There's a few more reasons. Just knowing someone 2 years isn't enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39TDS Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 4 hours ago, HantsRob said: Those they do know will more than likely be a family tie and that blurs lines. There is a definition somewhere of what counts as family for these purposes. Cousins don't count as family and I have had cousins and their partners act as referee for my licenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 11 hours ago, HantsRob said: Typically it would be a younger person without much life experience, and may not have the moral compass that leads to being able to vouch for someone above knowing them for 2 years. Those they do know will more than likely be a family tie and that blurs lines. But, they could be 18 and responsible for a gun. It was a loose and fast comment, but the point is that someone may be a worthy licence holder but not necessarily a good judge of character to meet a criteria level. There are so many reasons though why someone may be able to hold a licence but not necessarily be a good character reference. "As a referee you are taking on a very important role, as the applicant has identified you as someone that knows them well enough to provide a reliable and honest opinion of their character and suitability to hold a certificate which will allow them to possess firearms or shotguns...... ....is that the referee is of good character and has the ability to offer a reliable view of the applicant... You should have sufficient knowledge pertaining to the applicant, in order that the police can assess their suitability to have access to guns Knowing someone for two years, but not in a capacity that you have ‘got to know’ them, may mean you are not best placed to be a referee for them." normal.dot - Version 3.2 (devon-cornwall.police.uk) There's a few more reasons. Just knowing someone 2 years isn't enough. There are some good reasons there but as both of us has been his referee for his past two renewals what has changed for one of us not to meet the threshold neither of us have been in any trouble for 20 plus yrs myself longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 7 minutes ago, Rim Fire said: neither of us have been in any trouble for 20 plus yr Nothing personal, but I would not dream of nominating as a referee someone who had ever been in trouble, even 20 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 (edited) Well i expect there is more than few on here that has got some sort of a past when they was in there youth and is FAC and SGC holders Edited March 1 by Rim Fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 8 minutes ago, Rim Fire said: Well i expect there is more than few on here that has got some sort of a past when they was in there youth and is FAC and SGC holders Very true, of course. But it doesn’t alter what I said. They are not people whom I would nominate as a referree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 4 minutes ago, London Best said: Very true, of course. But it doesn’t alter what I said. They are not people whom I would nominate as a referree. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 13 hours ago, HantsRob said: Typically it would be a younger person without much life experience, and may not have the moral compass that leads to being able to vouch for someone above knowing them for 2 years. Those they do know will more than likely be a family tie and that blurs lines. But, they could be 18 and responsible for a gun. I see, so nothing to do with being a McDonald's employee, just used as an example. But surely this goes for any employment the person is in. 13 hours ago, HantsRob said: It was a loose and fast comment, Acknowledged 13 hours ago, HantsRob said: but the point is that someone may be a worthy licence holder but not necessarily a good judge of character to meet a criteria level. There are so many reasons though why someone may be able to hold a licence but not necessarily be a good character reference. But the person in question has in the past been a referee, so was at one time deemed to be a good character reference. So unless his age has gone backwards, what else could have changed, even becoming an employee of McDonald's should not have made a difference 🤷♂️. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: I see, so nothing to do with being a McDonald's employee, just used as an example. But surely this goes for any employment the person is in. Acknowledged But the person in question has in the past been a referee, so was at one time deemed to be a good character reference. So unless his age has gone backwards, what else could have changed, even becoming an employee of McDonald's should not have made a difference 🤷♂️. I’m sure there are a lot of exclusions for referees police officers pub landlords rfd to mention a few as I said before being a referee is not to be taken lightly may I ask how well you both know the person and what your professional status is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 9 hours ago, 39TDS said: There is a definition somewhere of what counts as family for these purposes. Cousins don't count as family and I have had cousins and their partners act as referee for my licenses. Yes there is. My point of "family ties" is where you know someone through your parents, so you're not related but you know them. But, may not know them well enough for the purpose of a referee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 29 minutes ago, Old farrier said: may I ask how well you both know the person and what your professional status is Wrong person, I'm not the OP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: I see, so nothing to do with being a McDonald's employee, just used as an example. But surely this goes for any employment the person is in. Acknowledged But the person in question has in the past been a referee, so was at one time deemed to be a good character reference. So unless his age has gone backwards, what else could have changed, even becoming an employee of McDonald's should not have made a difference 🤷♂️. It was probably more around the young side, and the type of employee they attract. By that, usually someones part time or first full time position, I have nothing negative to say about persons who choose there for work, it can be some hard graft physically doing some of the roles. I suspect it was pre-Plymouth, where a lot of rules have standardised. By that, their local county force may have had a more relaxed set of criteria for referees, but now they have had to tighten to a national standard and that person no longer is eligible. So I suspect it is more national standardisation rather than something that has changed their side. So, if nothing has genuinely changed, it will be a policy change the Police side. I believe after sleeping on it that it is the main reason for this change. 2 hours ago, Rim Fire said: There are some good reasons there but as both of us has been his referee for his past two renewals what has changed for one of us not to meet the threshold neither of us have been in any trouble for 20 plus yrs myself longer I wouldn't dream to comment on your personal situation. I will merely say I hope you get it concluded without any negative outcomes for anyone involved. Good luck! Edited March 1 by HantsRob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 21 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Wrong person, I'm not the OP My apologies 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
team tractor Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 I’ve just been a referee for my mates wife and I’ve only had my tickets back a few years after my arrest . (False arrest) I’ve refereed a lot over the years too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 9 hours ago, team tractor said: I’ve just been a referee for my mates wife and I’ve only had my tickets back a few years after my arrest . (False arrest) I’ve refereed a lot over the years too There's no such thing as a false arrest. However, an arrest in itself is usually "on suspicion" and if fully 'cleared' or without enough to prosecute, no guilt can be conferred or suggested for the sake of a licence or referee. Often arrests can be a form of positive action (DA) so once it's either disproved, not enough evidence, or F&M allegations (I suspect this is your meaning of false), to safeguard and to prevent further harm or injury to another. Either way, I am glad an arrest that was without substance - based on your licence and giving you zero doubt - hasn't affected your shooting or references! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
team tractor Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 5 minutes ago, HantsRob said: There's no such thing as a false arrest. However, an arrest in itself is usually "on suspicion" and if fully 'cleared' or without enough to prosecute, no guilt can be conferred or suggested for the sake of a licence or referee. Often arrests can be a form of positive action (DA) so once it's either disproved, not enough evidence, or F&M allegations (I suspect this is your meaning of false), to safeguard and to prevent further harm or injury to another. Either way, I am glad an arrest that was without substance - based on your licence and giving you zero doubt - hasn't affected your shooting or references! On the report at the end it confirmed the arresting officers knew it was all lies . 3 officers had to retrain and 2 were told to leave the force . The report stated that several officers had been heard telling my ex wife to stop lying. My parents also had police turn up , search their phones , were threatened with arrests . We reported that and no records were found to even have police at that address ever. I just class that as false arrests 👍 . I’ve no idea if that’s the legal turn etc 👍. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 Wrongful arrest, either way I hope you sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
team tractor Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 2 hours ago, Newbie to this said: Wrongful arrest, either way I hope you sued. Unfortunately it was all too bent to proceed with it as because I was never charged it doesn’t give them grounds to search their phones . Crazy I know . someone tried to kill my friend this year by running him over . The police are friends of the accused and wouldn’t you know he’s gotten away with it but my mate has head trauma, broken leg , broken ribs , blood clots on his lungs . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 6 hours ago, team tractor said: Unfortunately it was all too bent to proceed with it as because I was never charged it doesn’t give them grounds to search their phones . Crazy I know . It could have been coersion to let them look with consent. But, I don't want to go into details. You mention it being bent. You have a few avenues; police standards department (or more commonly now anti-corruption), Police and crime commissioner (civvi), and you also have IOPC. I can assure you that good cops hate bent cops more than anything else. Anti-corruption would be a good start if you feel aggrieved, and have information to back that up. They will start an investigation if there is merit. Again this isn't the forum to discuss it. There are 3 sides to the story. If you take nothing else away from this thread: do NOT disclouse any further information online if you plan on taking it to a complaint, as doing so could tank a prosecution or investigation. But the fact people have been dismissed I can only assume it has gone to full conclusion for an investigation. It may just be you need to consider private litigation with a no-win no-fee setup. Finally, we only have your side. You wouldn't get any assistance with the unlawful detention. However, if you are correct that you shouldn't have been, and the investigation shows that, then it would be false imprisonment. Possibly Misfeasance in public office. Finally at worse a breach of your human rights. Good luck with moving on from the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
team tractor Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 2 hours ago, HantsRob said: It could have been coersion to let them look with consent. But, I don't want to go into details. You mention it being bent. You have a few avenues; police standards department (or more commonly now anti-corruption), Police and crime commissioner (civvi), and you also have IOPC. I can assure you that good cops hate bent cops more than anything else. Anti-corruption would be a good start if you feel aggrieved, and have information to back that up. They will start an investigation if there is merit. Again this isn't the forum to discuss it. There are 3 sides to the story. If you take nothing else away from this thread: do NOT disclouse any further information online if you plan on taking it to a complaint, as doing so could tank a prosecution or investigation. But the fact people have been dismissed I can only assume it has gone to full conclusion for an investigation. It may just be you need to consider private litigation with a no-win no-fee setup. Finally, we only have your side. You wouldn't get any assistance with the unlawful detention. However, if you are correct that you shouldn't have been, and the investigation shows that, then it would be false imprisonment. Possibly Misfeasance in public office. Finally at worse a breach of your human rights. Good luck with moving on from the situation. Iopc sorted what they could 👍. One of my best mates ann officer and I have to say a very good one who helped me through it. 👍I trust him 100% and like you say , he hates Beth police officers . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 (edited) Quote You get to meet too many cops while serving. Made me smile. When my wife and I go into our local McDonalds for a coffee - 19 Police personnel is the record. None ever pay for their drinks. Edited March 3 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 14 hours ago, team tractor said: Iopc sorted what they could 👍 I am glad you got it to an acceptable conclusion, even if not necessarily one to resolve properly! 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.