Floating Chamber Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Saw them on TV. Two bobbies looked as if they were playing computer games on them. (One had his upside down.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) Its a pity when Tinbum obviously out of consideration for his neighbours by investing in a Hushpower becomes the butt of what is possibly a malicious complaint based on ignorance. If someone wishes to make mischief for a shooter ,then it seems they hold all the cards. The general public,hearing a shot could easilly imagine it being aimed at them.Give them a grudge and they could give you a really hard time in this anti gun culture. All the more reason to be careful I suppose. I use a Hushpower for daytime shooting.Since having my mole traps all nicked I suspect antis are about. Hope you get it sorted TB. Edited June 12, 2008 by vole21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevethevanman Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 i think the fall out o shot is lik two hundred something yrds, that is the recommended safety distance, the law says no shot or bullets should stray onto land in which you dont have premission, at worst it was a accident , and for a shottie you woud of have to of been aiming it like a artilery peice to hit the house, and by 150yds the little No.6 pellets of a 410 will cause no damage, my FEO says he goes to a shoot and you can hear it pattering of the ground all around you, unless they can find shot on there premessies, theve got no reall proof.....same as everyone contact BASC. :blink: hate antis Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maiden22 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hope you manage to get it sorted out without too much aggravation TB. Must be very annoying and worrying for you. All the best, Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinbum71 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 i think the fall out o shot is lik two hundred something yrds, that is the recommended safety distance, the law says no shot or bullets should stray onto land in which you dont have premission, at worst it was a accident , and for a shottie you woud of have to of been aiming it like a artilery peice to hit the house, and by 150yds the little No.6 pellets of a 410 will cause no damage, my FEO says he goes to a shoot and you can hear it pattering of the ground all around you, unless they can find shot on there premessies, theve got no reall proof.....same as everyone contact BASC. :blink: hate antis Steve Distance of travel in yards is approx 2200 x shot dia. in inches. For No. 6 that is 0.010" x 2200 = 220 yds. I have 300+ in all directions I shoot. I have specific "stands" with pre-determined safe and no-shoot directions when shooting woodies/crows etc in this field. (it's the nearest to my house) These change with the location of the livestock, but I know it all by heart and never differ from the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattw Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 If I were you I think I would speak with the police and confirm that it was your neighbour that reported you, Be specific and clear about the information you want. If they question why you want to know, inform them that you are intending to sue for slander and any other damages that you and a good lawyer can think of. I would be interested to hear Dirty Harry's thoughts on this plan of action as it would be agood indication of how the police would resond and he has considerably more knowledge on he matter that I do. I would also speak with a good lawyer and lodge an intent to sue your neighbour, dont necessarily go through with it, but a firm warning shot across her bow that you too can play legal might just get her to F off. With the thought of a lawsuit it might clarify her mind enough to remember who it was shooting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinbum71 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 If I were you I think I would speak with the police and confirm that it was your neighbour that reported you, Be specific and clear about the information you want. If they question why you want to know, inform them that you are intending to sue for slander and any other damages that you and a good lawyer can think of. I would be interested to hear Dirty Harry's thoughts on this plan of action as it would be agood indication of how the police would resond and he has considerably more knowledge on he matter that I do. I would also speak with a good lawyer and lodge an intent to sue your neighbour, dont necessarily go through with it, but a firm warning shot across her bow that you too can play legal might just get her to F off. With the thought of a lawsuit it might clarify her mind enough to remember who it was shooting? I may be considered a "soft touch", but I really don't want to escalate the problem. She's been round asking me not to shoot her magpies. I said I don't and wouldn't shoot anything gratuitously, but if particular ones caused me problems they'd better look out. She wasn't too happy, but pottered off grumbling. That was weeks ago. If her current complaint and allegations are true, then all I want to do now is exonerate myself. I don't need bad feeling in a community as small as this, and leaving half dead animals in peoples gardens isn't on! I would go around to see her to assure her it wasn't me, but until the police have finished I'm not sure if it would just make matters worse. Of course if she's making it up.......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 ......the law says no shot or bullets should stray onto land in which you dont have premission...... Where does it say that ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 2200 * 0.01 = 22 BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) ......the law says no shot or bullets should stray onto land in which you dont have premission...... Where does it say that ?? I think he's referring to section 34 of VCR Act 2006.* *Which is Air weapon specific Edited June 12, 2008 by LEFTY478 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinbum71 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 2200 * 0.01 = 22 BTW Damn! But I was close. Same theory, different numbers! BTW Please see new pics under negative magpie!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hi DH, we'll go round in circles on this thread; I said that the police can seize any evidence relating to an offence. And I'll say it again..... I never said they couldn't seize any evidence, it's you who picked up on this point...! And for your information I dont need the internet to read up on basic things like pace and seizing evidence. That was for your benefit. Not for my benifit, read above. & what's Pace ? BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleabag Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hi DH, we'll go round in circles on this thread; I said that the police can seize any evidence relating to an offence. And I'll say it again..... I never said they couldn't seize any evidence, it's you who picked up on this point...! And for your information I dont need the internet to read up on basic things like pace and seizing evidence. That was for your benefit. Not for my benifit, read above. & what's Pace ? BJ. www.pacehealth.org.uk NOT THIS I HOPE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleabag Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 2200 * 0.01 = 22 BTW Damn! But I was close. Same theory, different numbers! BTW Please see new pics under negative magpie!! Tinbum i am down till sunday, you can come have a shot with me if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulos Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hi DH, we'll go round in circles on this thread; I said that the police can seize any evidence relating to an offence. And I'll say it again..... I never said they couldn't seize any evidence, it's you who picked up on this point...! And for your information I dont need the internet to read up on basic things like pace and seizing evidence. That was for your benefit. Not for my benifit, read above. & what's Pace ? BJ. PACE = Police And Criminal Evidence Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) PACE is Police and Criminal Evidence Act : http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operationa...ace-code-intro/ Problem is that as a whole we are always going to be in for it. We could put this to the test - get your missus to phone up plod and say that you lost your rag tonight and gave her a back hander. 1. this would be untrue - her word against yours and all that 2. but, your guns would be gone in probably less than 48 hours 3. and you will spend the next 6 months arguing with the police about it trying to get them back It is just one of those things. Anyone who says "there must be more to this than meets the eye, Tinbum is not telling us the 'whole story' <nudge nudge> will be a Daily Mail reader. Foreign looking and on trial equals guilty already and when the police shoot someone or someone is wrongly convicted they will say something like "he looks guilty", "no smoke without fire" or "the police knew he did it but couldn't prove it legitimately and so fitted him up and that makes it okay". God help the Daily Mail reader if they end up in the poo with the police for whatever reason. I don't know Tinbum and he could be a plank. He could be a 14 year old fantasist, this site has seen enough of them. However, the bottom line is that as shooters, any sniff of grief (founded or otherwise) means guns away and lots of aggravation getting them back. I am not anti police by any stretch of the imagination. I am anti people not exercising reasonable doubt. Edited June 12, 2008 by Mungler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hi DH, we'll go round in circles on this thread; I said that the police can seize any evidence relating to an offence. And I'll say it again..... I never said they couldn't seize any evidence, it's you who picked up on this point...! And for your information I dont need the internet to read up on basic things like pace and seizing evidence. That was for your benefit. Not for my benifit, read above. & what's Pace ? BJ. One last time to try and make you understand! I used the word OFFENCE. The Act uses the word OFFENCE. You have an issue with me posting the bit about police seizing evidence relating to an OFFENCE because the OFFENCE is not proven and is only suspected. I am trying to make you see that I use the word OFFENCE not because I think Timbum is guilty and should be hung from the nearest tree but because the law, act, pace all refer to evidence relating to an OFFENCE not a suspected OFFENCE as you would rather it be worded. Do you understand? Is it just BJ who is not getting this? Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleabag Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 PACE is Police and Criminal Evidence Act : http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operationa...ace-code-intro/ Problem is that as a whole we are always going to be in for it. We could put this to the test - get your missus to phone up plod and say that you lost your rag tonight and gave her a back hander. 1. this would be untrue - her word against yours and all that 2. but, your guns would be gone in probably less than 48 hours 3. and you will spend the next 6 months arguing with the police about it trying to get them back It is just one of those things. Anyone who says "there must be more to this than meets the eye, Tinbum is not telling us the 'whole story' <nudge nudge> will be a Daily Mail reader. Foreign looking and on trial equals guilty already and when the police shoot someone or someone is wrongly convicted they will say something like "he looks guilty", "no smoke without fire" or "the police knew he did it but couldn't prove it legitimately and so fitted him up and that makes it okay". God help the Daily Mail reader if they end up in the poo with the police for whatever reason. I don't know Tinbum and he could be a plank. He could be a 14 year old fantasist, this site has seen enough of them. However, the bottom line is that as shooters, any sniff of grief (founded or otherwise) means guns away and lots of aggravation getting them back. I am not anti police by any stretch of the imagination. I am anti people not exercising reasonable doubt. I have met tinbum once, and to put your mind at ease he is no plank, is not 14 or to be fair no where near it . and he can come to any of my shoots any time he gets bored with the shotie that i hope he gets back fairly soon with a full apology from plod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 And I'll say it one last time DH to try & make you understand plain English, I said that the police can seize any evidence relating to an offence. And I'll say it again..... I never said they couldn't seize any evidence, it's you who picked up on this point...! Point out in the underlined text above, which bit you don't understand, BJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reedbradshaw Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Shame we can't all stand together for support and ideas instead of resorting to instant accusations and back-stabbing! Well said But that to many is the piegeon watch way.....unfortunatly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 "Calm down dear - it's just a commercial" is going through my head at the way this is developing. I find it's often best to just agree to disagree chaps? Anyway, a question that I'm sure must be on many minds: If the worst happens and the anti's win the day by twisting around or whatever - can the owner get the guns taken to an RFD for disposal or does he get shafted with the financial loss as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 The only cases I know of is where people have lost their guns followed a successful prosecution and in those cases the guns were destroyed. These were cases of "in pursuit of game" and "armed trespass", I don't know if things are different for "nuisance". I do know of one case of an administrative slip up, where a chap bought a FAC gun he was not supposed to and he was allowed to sell it to a RFD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Joe, I have come to the conclusion your a bit stupid or can not read. Cheers Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 DH its like banging your head against a brick wall. I find once someone gets that irritating I have to just stop reading the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Take it to PM's or leave it alone, please do not use the forum for your disputes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts