OT: This govt really _has_ lost the plot!
JB
Steve
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing...
That's a strange point in law.
Presumably the entire cabinet is then guilty of 'Possessing
information that could be of use to a terrorist'?
Steve
Derek Turner
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-
gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Section 1 Firearms Act 1968
What the /fuck/ has that to do with this government, some of them weren't
even fucking born YTC.
Champ
Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
current Government?
--
Champ
We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed.
ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo
neal at champ dot org dot uk
Switters
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-g
>>un/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> current Government?
They allowed it to happen? Quick, ring the Daily Mail.
Krusty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> current Government?
It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
--
Krusty
'03 Tiger 955i '02 MV Senna '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)
Derek Turner
> Champ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>> current Government?
>
> It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
Labour soft on gun-crime shocker, see pages 3, 5-8, 9, 11 and 'Comment'
of tomorrow's Daily Mail.
Champ
<dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Champ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>> current Government?
>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
Maybe.
Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
hand this shotgun in".
Malc
>
> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> hand this shotgun in".
Ding
--
Malc
Colin Irvine
>If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>hand this shotgun in".
Absolutely.
So in answer to the OP, it isn't a bad law brought in by the present
government, it's a good law brought in by a previous government. He
might well be content with that.
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Steve
> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and
at this point you would be guilty...
Steve
Champ
Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
admit to having touched it.
Krusty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), Steve
> <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Nov, 14:27, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> >> twat. �If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it,
> pick >> it up and
>
> > at this point you would be guilty...
>
> Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
> admit to having touched it.
You've not thought this through have you...
ogden
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), Steve
> <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Nov, 14:27, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> >> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> >> it up and
>
> >at this point you would be guilty...
>
> Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
> admit to having touched it.
You were wearing gloves, right?
--
ogden
doetnietcomputeren
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>>> g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>> current Government?
>
>> It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
There's a part of this story that isn't quite right.
Why did he phone and see the Chief Super (or whoever) as opposed to
dealing with it via the front desk?
--
Dnc
Nige
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4is7g510u83907lhf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> current Government?
Nowt i can see, but it is fucking pathetic (if he did 'find' it)
Krusty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:21 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following:
>
> > If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
> > bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> > you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> > hand this shotgun in".
>
> Absolutely.
>
> So in answer to the OP, it isn't a bad law brought in by the present
> government, it's a good law brought in by a previous government.
I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence. It's not even
'guilty until proven innocent', it's 'guilty - tough shit'. Even if the
sentence is nothing, he's still got a criminal record for a gun-related
crime. No more trips to the US for him then, or jobs in various sectors.
Mark Olson
> I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence. It's not even
> 'guilty until proven innocent', it's 'guilty - tough shit'. Even if the
> sentence is nothing, he's still got a criminal record for a gun-related
> crime. No more trips to the US for him then, or jobs in various sectors.
Unbelievable.
I could walk into a cop shop wearing a pistol and hand a cop the bag with
a sawed off shotgun in it and he'd shake my hand and say thanks for making
sure some kids didn't get hold of it.
Champ
>> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>> >> twat. �If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> >> it up and
>>
>> >at this point you would be guilty...
>>
>> Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
>> admit to having touched it.
>You were wearing gloves, right?
If I weren't, I'd be sure to give it a wipe :-)
In all honestly, I doubt I'd even pick it up - I'd just nudge it a bit
with my boot, with a yes-that-really-does-seem-to-be-a-shotgun
expression on my face.
des popping in
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
><dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Champ wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>> current Government?
>
>>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> Maybe.
Well, y' see, there's this thing called the Doctrine of Parliamentary
Sovereignty.......
Adrian
they were saying:
>> So in answer to the OP, it isn't a bad law brought in by the present
>> government, it's a good law brought in by a previous government.
> I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence. It's not even
> 'guilty until proven innocent', it's 'guilty - tough shit'.
Of course not.
You have to proved to have been in possession of the firearm.
Of course, it's fairly easy to prove that when you admit to having walked
into a police station carrying it...
There's two tests the CPS apply before deciding whether to prosecute. One
is "Is there a reasonable chance of conviction?" Yes. The other is "Is it
in the public interest?" - which would rule out most straightforward
prosecutions of a case such as this - so is there a bit more to it?
Could be.
Some sources suggest he also "found" ammunition for the shotgun, and took
it in at the same time.
Some sources suggest he already had a previous conviction for a similar
crime.
So we now have an ex-squaddy with a record wandering around town with a
sawn-off and ammo, having casually called an old mate and said "I'm
heading over to see you, but won't say why..."
Anyway, the judge apparently has discretion to impose a shorter sentence
than the 5yr minimum, according to circumstances.
chrisu
even if you had a firearms certificate ?
Catman
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:07:13 -0000, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>>>> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>>>> it up and
>>>> at this point you would be guilty...
>>> Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
>>> admit to having touched it.
>
>> You were wearing gloves, right?
>
> If I weren't, I'd be sure to give it a wipe :-)
>
> In all honestly, I doubt I'd even pick it
a bin liner
>up - I'd just nudge it a bit
> with my boot, with a yes-that-really-does-seem-to-be-a-shotgun
in this bin liner
> expression on my face.
While I can see that the bloke has no defence, and it's difficult to see
how the law could be improved unless intent is taken into consideration,
I don't *really* think most people would behave in the way they are
claiming.
Certainly I would have taken said bin liner indoors. I probably would
have then called the police and invited them round to come and get it.
This would seem to earn me an instant conviction.
It also *seems* that simply having the gun dumped on your property could
be interpreted in law as 'possession' and so we'd all be fucked whatever
we did.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Simon T
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing...
Not a suprise, really.
I had an air pistol and rifle still hanging around in the loft from
when I was a youngster.
Rifle was shit and pistol had not worked for several years (knackered
seal and broken internals - would fire with no warning, which was not
as bad as it could have been as there was no seal - pellets got
halfway down the barrel).
Called the police to ask about handing in. Was told to phone
beforehand (so I have backup in case I get stopped on the way to the
police station) and turn it in to the front desk, with proof of
ownership, amongst other things.
At that point I gave up and destroyed the items myself (angle grider
and much fun).
steve auvache
<ne...@champ.org.uk> writes
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), Steve
><steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Nov, 14:27, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>> twat. �If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>> it up and
>
>>at this point you would be guilty...
>
>Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
>admit to having touched it.
Now I know this law exists then I too will do the same but previously
had this sort of thing happened to me I would have done the responsible
citizen bit and picked it up even if only for the sake of the children.
As others have hinted there seems more to this case than meets the eye
and it sounds though it might be enough to stop the Mail picking it up
and running with it as a stick to beat the gummint.
--
steve auvache
TOG@Toil
> In all honestly, I doubt I'd even pick it up - I'd just nudge it a bit
> with my boot, with a yes-that-really-does-seem-to-be-a-shotgun
> expression on my face.
And then go: "Ouch, oh deary me" as it blows your foot off....
Eiron
You mean an air pistol and an *air* rifle?
I've got a broken video recorder. Do you think I should hand that in to
the police?
--
Eiron.
Simon T
heh.
Both were air weapons. I was living in Croxteth at the time and saw
no reason to have them lying around. Rifle was a russian (I think)
piece of shit and pistol was decent (and probably repairable with the
right tools)
Colin Irvine
following:
>Colin Irvine wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:21 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following:
>>
>> > If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>> > bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>> > you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>> > hand this shotgun in".
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> So in answer to the OP, it isn't a bad law brought in by the present
>> government, it's a good law brought in by a previous government.
>
>I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence.
That simply makes it the best sort of law - unequivocal.
A.Lee
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"wrote:
> >It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
There is more to this story than shown in the papers. The bloke has been
arrested before, but found Not Guilty in Court, there were also other
allegations against him according to another newsgroup, so maybe the
Police thought the gun was actually his.
I'd say it was very very rare to be charged for possessing a gun, when
all you have done is found it in your garden.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
TMack
>
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously convicted of
assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal. Then there is the
fact that he was "grandstanding" by setting up the appointment without
disclosing that he would be bringing in a gun, which suggests that he is
probably a self-important twat who may have previously got on the wrong side
of his local plod. He claims to have found the gun the day before but has
no way of proving that - he could have had it for days, weeks or months.
Why didn't he report it immediately if he "found" it - after all, it could
be vital evidence in some recent crime. The plod may have taken the
opportunity to rid themselves of someone the regard as a local nuisance.
Very unfortunate that he appears to have been prosecuted for doing what
superficially appears to have been the right thing. However, there may well
be other dimensions.
As the relevant law was passed in 1968 its hard to see what this government
has to do with it. Do you seriously think that any governement is going to
repeal this legislation and, in effect, say that its OK to have such a
firearm in your possession provided yo can come up with a convincing excuse?
--
Tony
'04 Ducati ST3, '08 DL650GT (waiting for new wheels),
'87 semi-rat LS650, OMF#24
des popping in
> JB wrote:
>>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> I bet there is a history to this.
'has to be. Plod wouldn't be so vindictive to someone who handed in a gun
he'd found in good faith. Would they..?
Interestingly enough, the National Rifle Association provides instruction
for kiddies who find a gun. Basically: don't touch, back off, call an
adult.
That corresponds exactly to what the UK police are apparently advocating.
Which fits in perfectly with the British infantilisation of citizens.
Veggie Dave
masterpiece:
>No more trips to the US for him then
So, there is a silver lining to this cloud then.
--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine
Champ
>>>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>
>>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>>> current Government?
>>
>>>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>>
>>Maybe.
>>
>>Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>>No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>I dunno. You and I would certainly do that, but an ex-soldier who is
>hopefully trained to handle firearms? Certainly the soldiers I know
>would have no qualms about handling it. And doing so safely.
And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
shotgun through town).
des popping in
>
>>>>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>>>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>>>> current Government?
>>>
>>>>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>>>
>>>Maybe.
>>>
>>>Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>>twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>>it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>>>No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
>>I dunno. You and I would certainly do that, but an ex-soldier who is
>>hopefully trained to handle firearms? Certainly the soldiers I know
>>would have no qualms about handling it. And doing so safely.
>
> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
> shotgun through town).
My personal reaction would be to leave it untouched and call plod. Not
because I couldn't handle it safely, as with 20% of our population just
waiting for a chance to kill us, we've sadly had to learn 'skills' that
were not necessary in France. But simply because I wouldn't want my dabs
on it.
malc
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:21 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> I dunno. You and I would certainly do that, but an ex-soldier who is
> hopefully trained to handle firearms? Certainly the soldiers I know
> would have no qualms about handling it. And doing so safely.
Well I reckon that I could pick up a gun and handle it safely and I'm not an
ex soldier. But there's no way I'd carry it through town and turn up
unannounced at the local cop shop with it. If I was going to hand it in I'd
phone up the cops there and then and not even bring it into the house,
disturbing evidence and all that.
--
Malc
Rusted and ropy.
Dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic,
or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.
Tosspot
> On 2009-11-18, TMack <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> JB wrote:
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> I bet there is a history to this.
>
> 'has to be. Plod wouldn't be so vindictive to someone who handed in a gun
> he'd found in good faith. Would they..?
>
> Interestingly enough, the National Rifle Association provides instruction
> for kiddies who find a gun. Basically: don't touch, back off, call an
> adult.
I believe members of this parish would advocate, that when finding a body, you
quickly forget about it and leave it to someone else.
The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
JackH
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
>
> >Champ wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:55:51 -0000, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
> >> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> >> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> >> current Government?
> >It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> Maybe.
>
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> hand this shotgun in".
Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
my way to the police station'.
As others have said, there's almost certainly more to this than meets
the eye.
If there isn't... well then he quite possibly got a bit of a raw deal
given he was allegedly doing the 'decent thing'.
--
JackH
Simon T
> >> JB wrote:
> >>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing...
>
> >> I bet there is a history to this.
>
> > 'has to be. Plod wouldn't be so vindictive to someone who handed in a gun
> > he'd found in good faith. Would they..?
>
> > Interestingly enough, the National Rifle Association provides instruction
> > for kiddies who find a gun. Basically: don't touch, back off, call an
> > adult.
>
> I believe members of this parish would advocate, that when finding a body, you
> quickly forget about it and leave it to someone else.
>
> The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
Always handy to have a shotgun lying around. Especially one with an
unknown history.
'Hog
> It also *seems* that simply having the gun dumped on your property
> could be interpreted in law as 'possession' and so we'd all be fucked
> whatever we did.
Oh you have *no* idea how complex it can all become.
He was found guilty by Jury so you can almost guess there was more to it
than reported and indeed someone has posted suggestions in this thread.
--
Hog
Catman
Absolutely. It's only going to be a surface snapshot.
Champ
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>> >> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> >> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>> >> current Government?
>> >It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>> twat. �If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop. �
>>
>> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>> hand this shotgun in".
>Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
>doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
>handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
>my way to the police station'.
You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
law were repealed.."
Cab
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:44 +0000, Ben <b...@bensalesDOTME.uk> wrote:
> >>>> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
> >>>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> >>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> >>>> current Government?
>
> >>>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> >>Maybe.
>
> >>Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> >>twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> >>it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> >>No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
> >I dunno. You and I would certainly do that, but an ex-soldier who is
> >hopefully trained to handle firearms? Certainly the soldiers I know
> >would have no qualms about handling it. And doing so safely.
>
> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
> shotgun through town).
Umm...
--
Cab
Pip Luscher
<simon....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 12:55�pm, "JB" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing...
>
>Not a suprise, really.
>
>I had an air pistol and rifle still hanging around in the loft from
>when I was a youngster.
<...>
>Called the police to ask about handing in. Was told to phone
>beforehand (so I have backup in case I get stopped on the way to the
>police station) and turn it in to the front desk, with proof of
>ownership, amongst other things.
<...>
They've outlawed airguns too?
--
-Pip
malc
>
> The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
I'd have been tempted I must admit.
Dave Emerson
"malc" <malunsp...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ea_Mm.6513$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Tosspot wrote:
>>
>> The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
>
> I'd have been tempted I must admit.
He found it in his garden, it might have been a plant.
--
Dave
ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop
http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "JB" <n...@spam.net> saying
something like:
>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
JHFC, that's absolutely fucked in the head.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<lo...@bottom.of.home.page> saying something like:
>>I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence.
>
>That simply makes it the best sort of law - unequivocal.
What the fuck are you on?
JackH
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:49:15 -0800 (PST), JackH
>
>
>
> <jackhacket...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
> >> >> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> >> >> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
> >> >> current Government?
> >> >It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> >> Maybe.
>
> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> >> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> >> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> >> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> >> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
> >> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> >> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> >> hand this shotgun in".
> >Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
> >doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
> >handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
> >my way to the police station'.
> You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
> law were repealed.."
Bad choice of word on my part - replace 'doesn't' with 'wouldn't'.
--
JackH
Champ
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>> >> twat. �If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> >> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>> >> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop. �
>>
>> >> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>> >> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>> >> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>> >> hand this shotgun in".
>
>> >Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
>> >doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
>> >handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
>> >my way to the police station'.
>
>> You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
>> law were repealed.."
>Bad choice of word on my part - replace 'doesn't' with 'wouldn't'.
<sigh>
My point is that, if you make it legal for a genuine chap to take an
unlicensed shotgun to the cop shop, then it becomes easier for
ne'er-do-wells to claim a get out clause.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<Dave_dot...@LineOne.net> saying something like:
>
>"malc" <malunsp...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Ea_Mm.6513$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Tosspot wrote:
>>>
>>> The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
>>
>> I'd have been tempted I must admit.
>
>He found it in his garden, it might have been a plant.
There were slugs with it.
JackH
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:22:39 -0800 (PST), JackH
>
>
>
> <jackhacket...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
> >> >> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> >> >> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> >> >> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> >> >> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
> >> >> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> >> >> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> >> >> hand this shotgun in".
>
> >> >Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
> >> >doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
> >> >handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
> >> >my way to the police station'.
>
> >> You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
> >> law were repealed.."
> >Bad choice of word on my part - replace 'doesn't' with 'wouldn't'.
>
> <sigh>
>
> My point is that, if you make it legal for a genuine chap to take an
> unlicensed shotgun to the cop shop, then it becomes easier for
> ne'er-do-wells to claim a get out clause.
And my point was that even if they did change the law as you suggested
(1), it would still be irrelevant in a case such as this, (assuming,
as I said before, there isn't more to this than initially stated in
the press), as the chap concerned was collared once he'd actually
entered a police station with the offending item, rather than being
collared with it elsewhere and with him claiming 'why officer, I was
just about to hand this in at a station'.
Let us assume he'd done as you'd earlier suggested, and called the
police to his home to inform them he'd found the gun.
Do you reckon he'd have been any less guilty of possessing the gun
than he has been proven to be having taken it to a police station?
Can you see the precedent that's being set by this case in terms of
what anyone in future who happens upon a gun will need to consider
before contacting the police to report the find, assuming no further
facts subsequently come to light that help to explain the apparent
heavy handedness this chap has been treated with, and which are then
widely reported in the public domain?
*Maybe*, assuming he is as innocent as he has claimed, the best thing
for him to have done in terms of self preservation, would have been to
have dumped it over the wall in his garden into the public field
behind?
Would you approve of someone taking that course of action in similar
circumstances, or do you think they ought to hope plod are in a good
mood if they elect to report the find?
As you say... *sigh*.
(1) Which they won't, as well I'm sure you know.
--
JackH
des popping in
> On Nov 18, 10:26 pm, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:22:39 -0800 (PST), JackH
>>
>>
>>
>> <jackhacket...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>> >> >> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> >> >> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>> >> >> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>>
>> >> >> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>> >> >> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>> >> >> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>> >> >> hand this shotgun in".
>>
>> >> >Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
>> >> >doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
>> >> >handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
>> >> >my way to the police station'.
>>
>> >> You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
>> >> law were repealed.."
>
>> >Bad choice of word on my part - replace 'doesn't' with 'wouldn't'.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> My point is that, if you make it legal for a genuine chap to take an
>> unlicensed shotgun to the cop shop, then it becomes easier for
>> ne'er-do-wells to claim a get out clause.
>
> And my point was
{ snip }
LOL .. poor Steve. Still proving that he has the analytical maturity of a
four year old..
Buzby
> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
> shotgun through town).
You reckon?
--
Buzby
"There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot"
Beav
"Champ" <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:io08g5hpee58ev8v0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"
> <dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Champ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>> current Government?
>
>>It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>
> Maybe.
>
> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
> hand this shotgun in".
Yeah, but if you'd already *gone* to the nick and handed it over, it's not
"quite" the same thing, is it?
I think what's happened to this fellow is a little Pythonesque myself.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Beav
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), Steve
> <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Nov, 14:27, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>> it up and
>
>
> Of course. Which is why I'd put it down again sharpish. And not
> admit to having touched it.
Your DNA's all over it. You're going dahn.
Beav
"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2e51d538-bc28-4b03...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Nov, 15:25, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> In all honestly, I doubt I'd even pick it up - I'd just nudge it a bit
>> with my boot, with a yes-that-really-does-seem-to-be-a-shotgun
>> expression on my face.
>
> And then go: "Ouch, oh deary me" as it blows your foot off....
And get a conviction for discharging an unlicensed firearm in a public
place, just to cap the day off nicely.
Beav
"doetnietcomputeren" <doesnot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009111816074264440-doesnotcompute@gmailcom...
> On 2009-11-18 15:27:21 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> said:
>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>>>> g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>
>>>> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>>> current Government?
>>
>>> It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>
>
> Why did he phone and see the Chief Super (or whoever) as opposed to
> dealing with it via the front desk?
And why did he remove it from the bag and "point it at the wall"?
Guy's a facking natter
Beav
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:49:15 -0800 (PST), JackH
> <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> >> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handin
>>> >> > g-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> >> Can you please briefly explain what this story has to do with the
>>> >> current Government?
>>> >It's a stupid law that they could get rid of at the drop of a hat.
>>>
>>> Maybe.
>>>
>>> Having read the story, I think the bloke was, as the very least, a
>>> twat. If I found a shotgun in my garden, I'd go and look at it, pick
>>> it up and then put it down again very carefully, and call the police.
>>> No way would I cheerfuly carry it to the cop shop.
>>>
>>> If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>>> bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>>> you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>>> hand this shotgun in".
>
>>Take this case at face value, and the latter example you just gave
>>doesn't apply; he'd walked into a police station with the gun and
>>handed it over rather than been caught with it and then said 'I was on
>>my way to the police station'.
>
> You seem to have missed the key part of my point, which was "if the
> law were repealed.."
Do they repeal this law every time there's an amnesty on firearm ownership
encouraging people to bring their unwanted guns/knives/etc to the nick, or
are they all arrested and charged with posession?
Beav
"TMack" <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:he1cg7$pam$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> JB wrote:
>>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously convicted of
> assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal.
So basically, he was innocent then. Not "unguilty", but innocent.
> Then there is the
> fact that he was "grandstanding" by setting up the appointment without
> disclosing that he would be bringing in a gun, which suggests that he is
> probably a self-important twat who may have previously got on the wrong
> side
> of his local plod.
He may well be a self important twat, but there's nothing to suggest he's
guilty of anything other than being a twat. Self important or otherwise.
> He claims to have found the gun the day before but has
> no way of proving that
If there's any doubt, it's up to the "other side" to prove he *didn't* just
find it. It's not up to him to prove a thing.
> - he could have had it for days, weeks or months.
He could, but did he?
> Why didn't he report it immediately if he "found" it - after all, it could
> be vital evidence in some recent crime. The plod may have taken the
> opportunity to rid themselves of someone the regard as a local nuisance.
5 years for being someone that *maybe* plod doesn't like?
> Very unfortunate that he appears to have been prosecuted for doing what
> superficially appears to have been the right thing. However, there may
> well
> be other dimensions.
There may well be, but what are they?
Champ
>Champ wrote:
>> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
>> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
>> shotgun through town).
>You reckon?
I do.
Traditionally, the armed forces have drawn their recruits from the
poorest areas, where they find young men with few qualifications and
poor prospects. Most people who have the choice choose take a job
that doesn't involve them being shot at.
Champ
<gives up>
You have a real talent for stupidity, you know.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> saying something like:
>Do they repeal this law every time there's an amnesty on firearm ownership
>encouraging people to bring their unwanted guns/knives/etc to the nick, or
>are they all arrested and charged with posession?
"Amnesty" would cover it. In the past I wouldn't have thought twice
about nipping down the copshop with a gun I'd found, but in the UK now,
after this, fuck that.
Colin Irvine
following:
Form.
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
des popping in
>
> "TMack" <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:he1cg7$pam$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> JB wrote:
>>>
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously convicted of
>> assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal.
>
> So basically, he was innocent then. Not "unguilty", but innocent.
There is no such verdict.
des popping in
Even 'back in the day', I'd not have touched. I recall playing cops and
robbers in the woods with a schoolchum, circa 1973, when we happened across
an olive-green steel box, with military stencilling in yellow. Even at
that tender age, we knew not to touch it, and to warn our parents (who in
my case, were plod). 'course, it was nothing, i.e. the box was empty.
Even in a country with saner (or should I say less hysterical, as the UK
has gone absolutely fucking mental in its whackjob, knee-jerk terror of
'the gun') firearms laws, I wouldn't touch a gun I found. How do you
prove that your dabs are on it _only_ because you picked it up to hand in?
How do you prove that _you_ weren't the cunt who used it to knock off the
local Agnews? How do you prove that you were home watching 'Holby City'
when the panda car got shot at?
And so on. All in theory, of course, but one can't be too careful at the
moment as your country is the sick man of the world at the moment. No
disrespect meant to any individual Brit, but with H&S lunacy, blatant calls
for Vichy-style 'délation' of 'anything suspicious', the relentless
dumbing-down of the working classes to the extent that they're effectively
rednecks without the guns, and a political élite who aren't even making a
_pretence_ of being representative anymore, you lot are in trouble.
I'm surprised more of you aren't doing what Timo's done.
JackH
You have a real talent for dismissing something when it doesn't fit
with your own personal POV rather than actually arguing your corner,
you know.
What I've said above isn't that absurd... if it is, then explain why
rather than casually dismissing it out of hand.
--
JackH
Pete Fisher
<lo...@bottom.of.home.page> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:10:36 +0000 (UTC), Krusty squeezed out the
>following:
>
>>Colin Irvine wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:21 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following:
>>>
>>> > If the law were repealed, then if I were a bad guy on the way to do
>>> > bad things with a shotgun, and I got nicked, I'd say "Thank goodness
>>> > you're here, officer - I was just on my way to the police station to
>>> > hand this shotgun in".
>>>
>>>
>>> So in answer to the OP, it isn't a bad law brought in by the present
>>> government, it's a good law brought in by a previous government.
>>
>>I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence.
>
>That simply makes it the best sort of law - unequivocal.
>
Environmental protection law has many strict liability offences with no
'mens rea' consideration. It is also a basic tenet of jurisprudence that
"ignorance of the law is no defence".
It is up to the prosecutors, however, to consider whether bringing a
prosecution in a particular case is in the public interest.
This one is tricky. At first sight it seems like a draconian over
reaction, but aspects of the conduct of the perpetrator need to be taken
in to account. Why, after phoning the police before hand, not say why he
was going down to the cop shop. Why remove the gun (let's remember this
was a sawn off shotgun, not a small practice pistol) from the bag as
soon as he got there?
Not only clearly guilty of committing a strict liability offence, but
also stupid and arrogant [1]. This may be a classic case of "pour
encourage les autres."
[1] Not unknown character traits in these parts TBF.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Scraggy
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:14:09 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon squeezed out the
> following:
>
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Colin Irvine
>> <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> saying something like:
>>
>>>> I don't see how it's a good law when you have no defence.
>>>
>>> That simply makes it the best sort of law - unequivocal.
>>
>> What the fuck are you on?
>
> Form.
<g>
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
Champ
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> You have a real talent for stupidity, you know.
>
>You have a real talent for dismissing something when it doesn't fit
>with your own personal POV rather than actually arguing your corner,
>you know.
<takes deep breath>
We're not discussing my 'point of view', we're arguing about your
basic inability to follow a logical argument.
1. Chap is had up in court for what, on face value, seems reasonable
behaviour - handing in a shotgun.
2. I point out that, if it were indeed legal to behave as he did, any
scrote caught with a shotgun might try and use this as a get out
clause.
Then you chime in saying that the original chap might have been a
reasonable, non-scrote. Well, yes, that's the fucking point, isn't it
- the law has to be there for the bad guys, and if, even as a good
guy, you break it, then you're going to face the same consequences.
Malc
> "malc" <malunspamwh...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Ea_Mm.6513$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > Tosspot wrote:
>
> >> The bloke was a spazzer. I'd have kept it.
>
> > I'd have been tempted I must admit.
>
> He found it in his garden, it might have been a plant.
>
>
--
Malc
doetnietcomputeren
> local Agnews? How do you prove that you were home watching 'Holby City'
> when the panda car got shot at?
I'd rather go down.
--
Dnc
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Colin Irvine
<lo...@bottom.of.home.page> saying something like:
>>>That simply makes it the best sort of law - unequivocal.
>>
>>What the fuck are you on?
>
>Form.
Ah, right.
Nige
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:kcs8g5d3c07310nhs...@4ax.com...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Colin Irvine
> <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> saying something like:
>
>>
>
> What the fuck are you on?
The bench by the look of his FB pic :)
Beav
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:30:09 -0800 (PST), JackH
> <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> You have a real talent for stupidity, you know.
>>
>>You have a real talent for dismissing something when it doesn't fit
>>with your own personal POV rather than actually arguing your corner,
>>you know.
>
> <takes deep breath>
>
> We're not discussing my 'point of view', we're arguing about your
> basic inability to follow a logical argument.
>
> 1. Chap is had up in court for what, on face value, seems reasonable
> behaviour - handing in a shotgun.
> 2. I point out that, if it were indeed legal to behave as he did, any
> scrote caught with a shotgun might try and use this as a get out
> clause.
I don't actually believe you've written that. What has walking into a cop
shop and handiond in a sawn-off got to do with a scrote being caught on the
street with one? One has *actually* handed it in to the police, while the
other patently hasn't, he's been caught in the street with a gun and has
given no indication that he was headed to the nick. The bloke in the article
said he's rang the station and told them he was coming in, even if he didn't
say why.
>
> Then you chime in saying that the original chap might have been a
> reasonable, non-scrote. Well, yes, that's the fucking point, isn't it
> - the law has to be there for the bad guys, and if, even as a good
> guy, you break it, then you're going to face the same consequences.
Which is plainly ridiculous. I think there's a distinction between being in
possession of a weapon and giving a found one to Plod and if the mere fact
that one handled the gun (by removing it from its bag at the nick) is
committing a crime worthy of 5 years in pokey, then what's the next step in
this downward spiral of "It ain't fuck all to do wiv me guv" world we're
living in? "
I saw a bloke holding a gun on an old woman outside the post office, but I
couldn't take it off him or it'd be me for the chop"
I wonder if you'd be quite so "entertaining" if it was you who found the gun
and was caught opening the bag to look at it?
Needless to say, there's more to this case than we've seen or heard, but
based on the "facts" as we know them, it's a tad harsh to say the least.
Beav
"des popping in" <d...@des.com> wrote in message
news:008e1e72$0$26916$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Really!. Well I'm truly fucking astounded.
Have a guess what " " they're for.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>> 2. I point out that, if it were indeed legal to behave as he did, any
>> scrote caught with a shotgun might try and use this as a get out
>> clause.
> I don't actually believe you've written that. What has walking into a
> cop shop and handiond in a sawn-off got to do with a scrote being caught
> on the street with one? One has *actually* handed it in to the police,
> while the other patently hasn't, he's been caught in the street with a
> gun and has given no indication that he was headed to the nick.
The difference could be as simple as five minutes and 100yds.
Or did this muppet teleport straight from his front room to the police
station?
des popping in
Solution: just carry it completely concealed. Or do Brit plod now hav
powers of random stop and search?
Adrian
saying:
How did they manage to stop this scrote wandering around with a shotgun,
then...?
des popping in
>
> "des popping in" <d...@des.com> wrote in message
> news:008e1e72$0$26916$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 2009-11-19, Beav <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "TMack" <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>>> news:he1cg7$pam$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> JB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>
>>>> I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously convicted of
>>>> assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal.
>>>
>>> So basically, he was innocent then. Not "unguilty", but innocent.
>>
>> There is no such verdict.
>
> Really!. Well I'm truly fucking astounded.
>
> Have a guess what " " they're for.
>
>
Um .....
Champ
Thank you for saving me the trouble for pointing out the bleedin
obvious.
TMack
> "TMack" <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
> message news:he1cg7$pam$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> JB wrote:
>>>
>>
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously
>> convicted of assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal.
>
> So basically, he was innocent then. Not "unguilty", but innocent.
I over-simplified. He had the charge reduced to common assault. Basically,
he allegedly hit a DVLA Vehicle Inspector with a broom handle after the DVLA
VI had been inspecting his vehicle's tax disc - but managed to convince the
appeal hearing that he just happened to be sweeping the road outside his
house when the incident happened and the head just happened to fall of the
broom and that the bruises on the DVLA VI just might have happened as the
DVLA VI got out of his car. So possibly not quite the upstanding citizen he
is being portrayed as by some.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html
--
Tony
'04 Ducati ST3, '08 DL650GT,
'87 semi-rat LS650, OMF#24
Grimly Curmudgeon
<nigel.in...@btinternet.com> saying something like:
Tbh, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Andy Bonwick
Anyone with any sense would find out where rope lives and chuck it in
his back garden. Nobody would believe that it was anyone in his family
owned it because they're all victims.
Alternatively throw it in a river after dark and forget it.
Lozzo
> I over-simplified. He had the charge reduced to common assault.
> Basically, he allegedly hit a DVLA Vehicle Inspector with a broom
> handle after the DVLA VI had been inspecting his vehicle's tax disc -
> but managed to convince the appeal hearing that he just happened to
> be sweeping the road outside his house when the incident happened and
> the head just happened to fall of the broom and that the bruises on
> the DVLA VI just might have happened as the DVLA VI got out of his
> car. So possibly not quite the upstanding citizen he is being
> portrayed as by some.
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-ins
> pector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html
This bit intrigues me:
"Mr Hart said: "He was carrying a broom stick without the head on the
end of it."
He said the man appeared very aggressive and threatened violence
against him.
"As I got out of my car to ask him what he was doing, he struck me on
the arm two or three times with the handle," he said."
Ummm, the guy is brandishing a broom stick and threatening violence
while the inspector is sitting in his car filling in forms, so the
inspector gets out of his car and claims he got beaten.
Well more fool him, any other sane person would get the fuck out of
Dodge pretty cunting sharpish when confronted by an angry man carrying
a broom handle, but this inspector is so dumb he needs to get out of
his safe car and ask what the guy is doing. What a wanker.
--
Lozzo
Versys 650 Tourer, CBR600F-W racebike in the making, SR250 SpazzTrakka,
TS250C, RD400F (somewhere)
Garage clearout - Yamaha SpazzTrakka 250 for sale, email for details
Dave Emerson
In Scotland there's "Not Proven" which is pretty close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
--
Dave
ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop
http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw
des popping in
>
> "des popping in" <d...@des.com> wrote in message
> news:0315600d$0$1314$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 2009-11-19, Beav <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "des popping in" <d...@des.com> wrote in message
>>> news:008e1e72$0$26916$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> On 2009-11-19, Beav <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "TMack" <tonyREMOVE...@REMOVECAPS.dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> news:he1cg7$pam$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> JB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bet there is a history to this. The bloke was previously convicted
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> assualt on a DVLA inspector and only got off on appeal.
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically, he was innocent then. Not "unguilty", but innocent.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such verdict.
>>>
>>> Really!. Well I'm truly fucking astounded.
>>>
>>> Have a guess what " " they're for.
>
> In Scotland there's "Not Proven" which is pretty close.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
'pretty close' to what? To 'unguilty'? Not really. 'Unproven' is another
way of saying, 'we know you did it, you cunt, but we can't prove it'.
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
>Well more fool him, any other sane person would get the fuck out of
>Dodge pretty cunting sharpish when confronted by an angry man carrying
>a broom handle, but this inspector is so dumb he needs to get out of
>his safe car and ask what the guy is doing. What a wanker.
"STOP THAT, I'm a Government Inspector!"
Pete Fisher
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> cast forth these pearls of
wisdom
I hear what you say, and having done a "coping with violence an
aggression" course in my white hat days would have driven off smartly.
IIRC I've already told the story about the scrap yard owner who left the
grease from his nose on mine at the gateway to his yard, whilst I was
attempting to exercise my power of entry.
Cab
> On 18 Nov 2009 22:53:59 GMT, "Buzby" <g...@pumpupthe.net> wrote:
>
> >Champ wrote:
> >> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
> >> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
> >> shotgun through town).
> >You reckon?
>
> I do.
>
> Traditionally, the armed forces have drawn their recruits from the
> poorest areas, where they find young men with few qualifications and
> poor prospects. Most people who have the choice choose take a job
> that doesn't involve them being shot at.
What a load of bollocks. That may have been the case in the before
WWII, but that certainly doesn't apply to anything post-national
service.
--
Cab
Champ
wrote:
No?
Why do squaddies have such an appalling reputation around Aldershot,
then?
CT
> Why do squaddies have such an appalling reputation around Aldershot,
> then?
TBF, Aldershot is, and always has been, a shit-hole. It drags everyone
down to its level.
--
Chris
Cab
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:21:28 -0800 (PST), Cab <ros...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 1:23 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On 18 Nov 2009 22:53:59 GMT, "Buzby" <g...@pumpupthe.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Champ wrote:
> >> >> And lets not forget, soldiers are usually pretty thick (and so less
> >> >> likely to think throught the implications of carrying an unlicensed
> >> >> shotgun through town).
> >> >You reckon?
>
> >> I do.
>
> >> Traditionally, the armed forces have drawn their recruits from the
> >> poorest areas, where they find young men with few qualifications and
> >> poor prospects. Most people who have the choice choose take a job
> >> that doesn't involve them being shot at.
> >What a load of bollocks. That may have been the case in the before
> >WWII, but that certainly doesn't apply to anything post-national
> >service.
>
> No?
>
> Why do squaddies have such an appalling reputation around Aldershot,
> then?
They're young soldiers, trained to be aggressive and kill. It's got
bugger all to do with their level of education or level of income. A
career in the forces is still a bloody good career.
--
Veggie Dave
>What a load of bollocks. That may have been the case in the before
>WWII, but that certainly doesn't apply to anything post-national
>service.
To be fair, that describes my squaddie mates perfectly. It's certainly
how they saw themselves when they joined up.
--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine
ogden
Right up to the point you lose both legs and an arm in Helmand.
"Your daddy well he died in the Falklands
Fighting for another man's cause
And your brother he was killed in the last war
And your mother well she's lying home alone"
--
ogden
CT
> "Your daddy well he died in the Falklands
> Fighting for another man's cause
> And your brother he was killed in the last war
> And your mother well she's lying home alone"
*You* quoting The Levellers?!
Well I never - it will be prog rock next, I'm telling you!
--
Chris
Krusty
> "Your daddy well he died in the Falklands
> Fighting for another man's cause
> And your brother he was killed in the last war
> And your mother well she's lying home alone"
Sounds like she needs comforting.
--
Krusty
'03 Tiger 955i '02 MV Senna '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)