grasshopper Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 These officers appear to be scapegoats for Durham Police, I know for a fact that other officers who were as they call FEO's and also officers who were firearms policemen who bought or obtained guns in same type of circumstance BUT they have not been questioned???Why probably cos the police didnt realise it was commoin practice not just in Durham but other Forces to.They have started something they don't want to or cant finish and obviously want it to go away??There should be more than these 2 cops involved and I know that from personal experience, but why not I ask?? These 2 have made mistakes but only did what has gone on for years everyone in Co Durham and other fdorces know that , I even know of serving senior officers who obtained guns off these 2 buty they are not involved. It seems that noty only are thety to go to prison they will loose everything pensions etc. I think they have been treated rather harshly for what was a well known common practice and Ithink the punish they are going to receive is too harsh for the crime. If the police had looked at everyone in Durham who had guns I'm sure half the force would be in court with these 2 as would cops from elsewhere in the country. Bazooka Joe seems toi have it in for pc Allen I wonder why has he got on the wrong side of this cop in the past?most probably! The full truth will probably never come out as knowing the courts and the way they work these 2 will probably plead guilty to somethjing they havent done just to get a lighter sentence(who wouldnt?)and that way Durham can make it go away? So is it common practice for all FEO`s to forge letters from the person they have sold the gun too,back to the issuing force? Because this is what happened with the shotgun i bought from him!! There is no smoke without fire and it will be interesting to see just what does come out during the upcoming trial,as there seems to be a lot of differing acounts on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 was that just the notification of transfer letter Grasshopper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Why would someone join this forum and dig this thread out, as his first topic?? Ulteria motive maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 google search of the blokes name would be my guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 was that just the notification of transfer letter Grasshopper? No, the disciplinary department(cannot remember there exact title)who came out to interview me asked if i,d bought the gun from a Mr so and so...no,i bought it from the pc at the police station..oh! so you didn,t write a letter into HQ firearms department stating you,d bought the gun from Mr So and so.Again No! Well there,s a letter there from you saying you did...they then told me it was obviously forged by..well your guess is as good as mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 its a tricky one as in your case though he was your contact presumably he was an intermediary between you and the guns owner, hence the creation of a paper trail. Naughty if he signed it for you etc but then i guess you didn't send in notification of aquiring it because it came from him. But fundamentally you bought a gun and if the previous owner got the money its bending the rules rather than being out to make a profit / deal in illegal weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatstand Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Quote from Blunt Shooter "The full truth will probably never come out as knowing the courts and the way they work these 2 will probably plead guilty to somethjing they havent done just to get a lighter sentence(who wouldnt?)and that way Durham can make it go away?" I wouldn't plead guilty to something I hadn't done. I think the two gentlemen here have made a mistake. I don't believe they didn't know they were doing anything wrong, if they did I would have to question their ability to do the jobs they were paid to do. They will plead guilty because in the eyes of the law they are thieves, who have used deception to hide their crime. It is such a shame for these two policemen as going to prison is not going to be very nice for them. On a separate note I wonder if you had had a firearms application turned down by one of these two officers that you could appeal when they get convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 On a separate note I wonder if you had had a firearms application turned down by one of these two officers that you could appeal when they get convicted? I doubt he will be back on mate, just a stirrer with a motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Quote from Blunt Shooter "The full truth will probably never come out as knowing the courts and the way they work these 2 will probably plead guilty to somethjing they havent done just to get a lighter sentence(who wouldnt?)and that way Durham can make it go away?" I wouldn't plead guilty to something I hadn't done. I think the two gentlemen here have made a mistake. I don't believe they didn't know they were doing anything wrong, if they did I would have to question their ability to do the jobs they were paid to do. They will plead guilty because in the eyes of the law they are thieves, who have used deception to hide their crime. It is such a shame for these two policemen as going to prison is not going to be very nice for them. On a separate note I wonder if you had had a firearms application turned down by one of these two officers that you could appeal when they get convicted? you would plead guilty if you couldn't afford to fight it and you could get a lesser sentence, they know they're going down its just for how long. They aren't being charged with stealing as in money but of firearms from the police. The firearms in question had been handed in for destruction but it seems like these guys sold them on for the previous owners and passed the money back to them. So benefiting them but as we all know firearms are bad and if they are nice guns handed in for destruction they should be cut up as for the appealing turned down applications its not the FEO's that have the final word but the chief constable so no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 I can't find it in myself to feel any sorrow for them, they will have been well paid with a better pension than most of us could anticipate, but it LOOKS like they exploited or abused their tax payer funded positions, possibly to facilitate a cheaper or easier solution regarding disposal. We got rules - they got rules. We know all too well how important it is to follow the rules relevant to firearms control issue and use - and the grief we could fall into if we lose sight of them or become complacent about any of the issues. Would it be ok if we simplified changed ownership of our guns? They are men who should have been squeaky clean regarding the correct procedural disposal of firearms that are handed in or seized. There would be special problems and concern about firearms and it must be all to easy for a property officer to want the problem to go away - so who gets to do the disposal - presumably with an almost freehand? How many of us have niggling doubt's about what happens to our property if it gets taken from us - and how a police officer MIGHT be a little keener to revoke a ticket if he, or the police retirement fund MIGHT have a financial gain from it? I'm not saying it happens, but if the police either collectively or individually can be seen to gain (and the retirement fund is gain) from firearms under their control it does not look good. Where does the buck stop? How much is it ok to overlook next time a disposal is miss-handled: or where the firearm eventually turns up? What I'm not getting at very well in my slightly dyslexic way is this differs from most other property that comes into possession of the police in that few other items are controlled by those that can seize and dispose of them and how a little 'give' here and there allows more 'take' to progress from it down the line - slippery slopes and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunt shooter Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 BJ and others seem to be missing the point, these cops are charged with theft from their Chief Constable , they have sold guns on behalf of the owners who have handed them in then given those people the money in some instances they have sometimes again taken guns with the owners permission done them up then sold them to cover their costs , I know that cos thats what I was told by someone who Allen asked if he could have their gun they'd handed in he let him, the cop did it up and sold it to cover his costs, despite the fact my mate knew he had the gun and had no problem with him doing it up and selling it on he has had to give a statement as they say Allen had stolen it from the police??I can only summise that simiular circumstances apply when they havbe sold guns for tyhe owners who were paid. But if the guns were sold for the owners and they were paid if the cops stole them then how come the owners havent been done for getting stolen money??? As for the comment about the state funded pension for cops , police officers get such a good pension as 11% of their wage is taken to fund their pension. on talking to people who know these ,2 Allen has been told that the police are going to seize all his pension , beariing in mind he could of retired with 30 yrs in soon that must be 1 hell of a financial punishment to him and his family.Every1 seems to put all the blame on Allen what about Cobain he has admitted the same offence again probably to do a deal?its easy to say don't plead guilty to something you havent done but if it would get a better deal I'm sure moist of us would do a deal and plead?. Perhaps the truth will never come out but on reading thie items in this forum its seems to me that despite what BJ states ASllenn was a p[opular bwell lioked cop and that this practices was country wide not just in Durham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunt shooter Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 just a further point re Grasshopper satating Allen forged notification that he bought a gun, wehat did Allen gain from this ? surely he has by what Grasshopper says informed The relevant Dept thta a gun had been transferred to him and that Grasshopper was now the new owner, all that Allen seems to have doine is saved Grasshopper the cost of a stamp, mnay forces use a pro forma form to notify of transfers of guns he probably filled one of those in on behalf of Grasshopper? Did Allen sign the gun over to Grasshopper as he did to a friend of mine if that was the case my friend was told by Allen as the gun had been transferred from police property to him Allen would do the paperwork, I see nothing wrong in that, my mate paid for a gun and he now knows who used to own and knows that Allen gave him the money so is this a forgery ???I cant see how it it is. just food for thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 out of interest how did anyone get to know he had a gun they wanted? did he mention it at renewals etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 I,ve already given the details earlier in this thread.. The gun was only a single barrel Baikel and i only paid £20 for it. The investigating team subsequentely failed to turn up on time for me to make and sign a statement,and as i had better things to do i didn,t wait around and didn,t ring them back as they requested.So whatever comes of the forged letter is of very little interest to me. There is also the point of the 7 or so reciept books going missing which presumably would prove he did eveything above the law..as i have said previously in this thread,i have nothing against Maurice Allen and i,m interested to see what the outcome is. Just hope he has as much faith in the british justice system as he would of expected us to have all these years he,s been a policeman eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunt shooter Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 i have shot with ans spoken to many people who have shot with Allen, Cobain and other coips in Durham doing this same thing, it would seem that as part of theeir normal activities they would be asked things like do you any1 who is selling such n such or do you know some1 who wants to buy such n such. Because of their jobs they were obviously in the right place to put people ibn touch with each other to transfer gun ownership or to facilitate it, As some1 mwentioned earlier why should perfectly good guns be destroyed if they can be transferred to some1 who has a licence to have it. Durham have said throughout this matter that NO WEAPONS are missing ALL are accounted for and ALL have gone to people lawfully allowed to have them (licence holders), so they werent giving guns to criminals or terrorists.When we get our licences we all get the rules given to us on transfer, sale , destruction etc so why did any of these people who got a gun which including serving cops NOT THINK something was wrong and report it? probably cos all parties were happy with the way things were dealt with. Its only now after the police have told the Press that they are investigating it that these peole are now UNHAPPY and are saying they had no idea any thing was not abover board, so what about the guns if the officers stole them fromn the police as alleged, do the new owners get to keep them?Do the old owners who have been paid have to pay the money back to the police or do they get done for some offence of getting money off stolen guns?Remember some of these who have got guns and or moiney are serving cops, so who lknows how they will deal with that mess. As for receipts and receipt books as mentioned earleir my m8 was given a receipt offf Allen when he paid £50 for a Baikal and the previous owner who he now knows was given a receipt by Allen to say he got his £50, but apparently all of Allens used receipt books are missing, surely this is more in the police p[olicers favour than Allen's as they would show he wasnt making money, SO WHO LOST THEM , bet it wasnt Allen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Now your just putting a lot of your own theories and assumptions forward and repeating what has been said already... If you,ve anything new to disclose,please do,otherwise why not just wait for the trial. I,m sure the truth will come out then!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 If lots of FEO's are really doing transfers the wrong way, could it be that that the correct way is not working as well as it should in some situations just like a few other regional variations in procedure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 If the police had looked at everyone in Durham who had guns I'm sure half the force would be in court with these 2 as would cops from elsewhere in the country. Would you care to elaborate on that ? Bazooka Joe seems toi have it in for pc Allen I wonder why has he got on the wrong side of this cop in the past?most probably! Most probably not is the answer...only time I've met him was on renewals. they have sold guns on behalf of the owners who have handed them in then given those people the money in some instances they have sometimes again taken guns with the owners permission done them up then sold them to cover their costs. I'm interested....exactly what costs need covered ? I know that cos thats what I was told by someone who Allen asked if he could have their gun they'd handed in he let him, the cop did it up and sold it to cover his costs, Again what costs are we talking about ? Perhaps the truth will never come out but on reading thie items in this forum its seems to me that despite what BJ states. All I've stated is what's linked to the BBC Website, & Look North News, nothing added, just fact. ASllenn was a p[opular bwell lioked cop and that this practices was country wide not just in Durham. There's quite a few that are watching this case, intrigued at what the outcome will be. When we get our licences we all get the rules given to us on transfer, sale , destruction etc so why did any of these people who got a gun which including serving cops NOT THINK something was wrong and report it? Maybe because they didn't know, like Grasshopper, who only knew when confronted by the IPCC. I'm agreeing with Grasshopper ( Now your just putting a lot of your own theories and assumptions forward and repeating what has been said already... ) BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 Maybe because they didn't know, like Grasshopper, who only knew when confronted by the IPCC. Didn,t the whole investigation start because of a burglary and 1 of the guns stolen in said burglary was previously handed in for destruction and unknown to the previous owner(who i know so can check if you want)was sold on to the burglary victim. Like has been said...no smoke without fire!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldous Huxley Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 If they have simply been selling the guns on behalf of the deceased owners relatives, then it is a scapegoating exercise. However, if they were taking a hefty cut, then they are abusing their office. I would like to see surrendered guns given first referral to local school shooting clubs etc, I know mine could always use a couple new shotguns and you never know what kind of rifle might turn up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunt shooter Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 as for one of the guns in question had been handed in for destruction and was sold by the police but later stolen in a burglary(comment made by Grasshopper) That is not all the facts the original owner lost his licences cos he threatened his ex as such he gave/sold some of hbis guns to people he knew via Allen which appaerently is within the law.The 22 rifle that was left no one wanted Allen eventually sold it and I havew spoken to 4 people who know the previous owner(ex gamekeeper) well who state he has told them he was paid for the gun, so somewhere it doesnt add up if he was paid what has Allen done wrong but help someone out?Why should these people who know him lie and if he lost his licence cos of threatening his ex with violence is he to be trusted anyway? Besides all that it would seem that the guy who bought the rifle wasnt actually burgled he found the rifle in the stream in his back garden not 50yds from his house a few weeeks after reporting it stolen.Funny how it was the only thing stolen from his house and it was loaded with mag attached at the time, what about his offence of not storing mag/ammo seperate ?has he been done for that? I doubt it? Probably more like he dropped it in the stream himself and faked the burglary to claim on his house insurance and as such dropped the cops in it/right in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeymagic1969 Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 mmmmmmmmm................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST3V3 Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 That is not all the facts the original owner lost his licences cos he threatened his ex Or so she says my ex who is an evil bitch and I have spent many hours in a cell because of her made up allegations all proven to be false! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Or so she says my ex who is an evil bitch and I have spent many hours in a cell because of her made up allegations all proven to be false! He,s still a gamekeeper and still has his licence .. Blunt shooter seems to be making things up as he goes along. Seems the case has been put back a month and all 16 charges are to be tried..unless you know different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 and I havew spoken to 4 people who know the previous owner(ex gamekeeper) Amazing......is this the same gamekeeper who I was sharing a beer with a few weeks ago Probably more like he dropped it in the stream himself and faked the burglary to claim on his house insurance and as such dropped the cops in it/right in it Arhh the conspiracy theory......... You still haven't answered what's outlined in my previous post BS....ie; expenses...I'm all ears, BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts