Statistics
Scott Leckey
checked the "Statistics on the Police Use of Firearms in England &Wales,
1999-2000." (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/pcrg/firearmstats.htm).
The full figures are dull, but plying aged fingers on a dusty calculator,
the following numbers might prove interesting to followers of the Doc:
a) Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO) in 1996/1997: 6738. Number
in 1999/2000: 6262. Drop in numbers: 7.1%
b) Number of operations in which firearms were issued for the same years:
12379 and 10915. Drop in numbers: 11.82%
c) Number of operations in 1999/2000 in which firearms were discharged: 7
d) Number of fatalities 1999/2000: 3
By my (admittedly fallible) calculations, I believe that 7 as a percentage
of 10915 is 0.064%.
Looked at the other way, and treating every discharge of a firearm as a "Dr.
John Failure" (however justified the discharge was), I make that a success
rate of 99.936%. If we deduct incidents where no-one was killed, the "Dr.
John Success" rate is - obviously - even higher.
Although any death is a tragedy, the numbers hardly support the Doc's theory
of an uncontrolled, unaccountable killer elite rampaging through our towns
and villages killing at will.
Best wishes to all,
Scott Leckey
Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper
Whose numbers are those? I believe that fallibility lies not in your own
calculations but in your odd but understandably touching belief in their
accuracy. We gather from your previous posts that you inhabit an idyllic
corner of england where firearms are granted as a "right", something that
occurs nowhere else in this country that I am aware of... and that your
police are wonderful and are only "worthy" of support. Good for you! I still
believe that BASC need to hear from you on these matters. In the rest of
england however, reality impinges.
Viz and to quote from one of my favourite sites:
Quote
"Try not to get carried away with the assumed accuracy of these (police and
home office) figures. The police have been heavily taken to task for their
curious recording methods for crime. They count a number of burglaries in
the same block of flats, for example, as one crime. I am told reliably that
they have counted so-called crimes by children with toy guns in the street
as "firearms crimes" too. "
UnQuote
Furthermore, the police have been vilified several times by home secretaries
in very recent times due to their own diverse force structures reflecting in
their "independent" methods of recording crimes in their manors. The problem
is polarised in a peripheral matter, but one to which the ACPO and the
police "signed up to" and which is indicative. They cannot meet the deadline
imposed upon them to provide a central register of domestically held
firearms due to their "diversity" in recording methods. Those same methods
are also reflected in their gathering of crime statistics, and quite
naturally... they include their own "crimes" in the same bunch.
Take a look at how good they are at record keeping...
Quote
Errors in criminal records could halt sex offender checks
Special report: child protection
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Thursday March 29, 2001
The Guardian
Criminal records held on the police national computer are so inaccurate,
with errors in up to two-thirds of entries, that MPs have demanded that new
checks to prevent sex offenders working with children due to come into
effect this summer should be postponed.
A report published yesterday by the Commons home affairs select committee
says the opening of the new criminal records bureau in July should be
delayed until the police have sorted out the problems. The bureau, which has
been promised for three years, is due to start issuing 5m criminal record
certificates to those who apply for jobs working with children and
vulnerable adults as a key part of the government's measures to curb the
activities of paedophiles and other sex offenders.
The report on the committee's inquiry into preparations for the bureau says
that up to 65% of entries on the police national computer have some kind of
mistake in them. They range from simple errors such as recording the wrong
colour of somebody's eyes to more serious failings such as not including
previous convictions.
Their estimate is based on recent evidence from the chief inspector of
constabulary, who reported that the error rate between forces varies from
15% to 65% and that there are substantial delays in updating the records.
Although the police are expected to enter the results of all court cases
onto their national computer within 72 hours, the best force only manages to
do it within 15 days and the worst takes 354 days.
Robin Corbett, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said the
number of inaccuracies and errors in the police records meant it was not yet
in a fit state to be used for the new system of criminal records
certificates.
"It would be disastrous if errors on the police national computer let even
one undesirable person through the checking system, enabling them to work
with children or vulnerable adults. We believe that effort should be
concentrated on ensuring that the criminal records bureau gets it right when
it does open, rather than opening earlier and performing inadequately. It is
generally accepted that records on the computer are inaccurate. What we are
saying to ministers is don't deliberately put your foot in a mess," he said.
Paul Kernaghen, chief constable of Hampshire, told the MPs that while the
police accepted there were inaccuracies in their crime records they did not
believe they were serious enough to compromise the operation of the new
bureau. He said the errors were mainly in the detail of personal
descriptions of those listed and there had been few very few complaints from
the public about the quality of the records.
But a survey by the National Association of Probation Officers shows that
some of the mistakes are very serious. In one case a man who was charged
with a £2,500 theft was given unconditional bail because the court was told
there were no previous convictions listed in his entry on the police
national computer. In fact he was a murderer who had been released on
licence in 1994.
In another case the fact that a man had served five years for buggery of a
child was not listed in his previous convictions. A third case omitted 32
previous convictions, including rape and arson, of a man who was sent to a
probation hostel by a court on the grounds that he had only been convicted
of an assault and an incident involving criminal damage.
The MPs say that since the police are unable to overcome the problem the job
should be given to court clerks who should be asked to enter the details on
the police national computer within 24 hours of a conviction.
UnQuote
Any life lost to police "error" is more than a mistake, and I submit, far
worse than a premeditated murder. Yet the families who are deprived of their
loved ones are no less dispossessed than by criminal acts. In the past,
specifically in the case of our "man with the chair leg" I recall the police
treatment of the family later as being found to be nothing short of
reprehensible.
Quote
Police who shot unarmed man escape charges
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
Press releases - Police Complaints Authority
24-hour news bureau - Metropolitan Police
TWO police marksmen who shot and killed a man wrongly believed to have a
shotgun in a bag will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution
announced yesterday.
Harry Stanley, 46, was shot 100 yards from his home in Hackney, east London,
last September. The officers were told, after a 999 call from a man who saw
Mr Stanley in a pub, that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun wrapped in a
carrier bag. The plastic bag in fact contained a wooden table leg, which had
been repaired by his brother. The officers challenged Mr Stanley, a painter
and decorator originally from Glasgow, after he left the pub, and he was
then shot in the head and hand.
The CPS said yesterday that following a review of the case the two officers
would not face criminal charges. "Following a 999 emergency call, the
officers believed Mr Stanley was carrying a sawn-off shotgun wrapped in a
carrier bag. It is an established principle of English law that when a man
honestly believes he is facing an immediate risk of suffering serious
injury, even if that belief is mistaken, he is entitled to use such force as
is reasonably necessary to defend himself.
"The CPS took into account the evidence of eye-witnesses and the opinions of
medical and forensic experts in deciding whether there was sufficient
evidence. The CPS considered whether the officers' response was commensurate
with the degree of risk which they honestly believed had been created by the
threatened attack they believed they were under."
The inquest into Mr Stanley's death is now expected to be resumed and the
decision will be reconsidered if any fresh evidence emerges. His widow,
Irene, said: "I'm absolutely devastated but I half expected it. I have lost
half my life, so have my children and my grandchildren while those officers
go back home at night to their families. I will not give up and will
continue to fight for justice because I feel they have got away with it."
The family's solicitor, Daniel Machover, said they would be considering
seeking a judicial review of the decision.
UnQuote
The cps referred the matter back for "review" when they learned that the
family were not prepared to accept that their loss was an "error" without
fault.
Tot the fatalities up for yourself sometime. The Newspaper Archives are far
more reliable than the police I assure you.
You'll reach reality eventually, however unpalatable you find it. I can
understand why you'd reject it, given your own assertions about your own
living conditions. It must be disturbing... it certainly disturbed me when I
started to look beyond the "official" versions. I find the whole business
desperately sad and sorry... but it is real and not contrived or
manufactured. My researches continue regularly and have done so for a number
of years now. I have never yet been persuaded, after years of research and
practical experience in a professional capacity (not criminal as your
previous inference), that the situation is as it is portrayed in your posts
and their publicity... I really do wish that it were otherwise. Numerous
folks have "taken me on" over a long time in their wish to disprove the
points and bolster their faith in an already badly deteriorated system.
I remain.
Yours Faithfully
Dr John The Night Tripper
I don't worry about bandwidth any more... my ISP is a "free" one and in any
case the old reasons we had in the early days are now largely redundant.
Scott Leckey <sc...@leckey302.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9t90id$77c$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Buster
>TWO police marksmen who shot and killed a man wrongly believed to have a
> shotgun in a bag will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution
> announced yesterday.
> Harry Stanley, 46, was shot 100 yards from his home in Hackney, east
London,
> last September. The officers were told, after a 999 call from a man who
saw
> Mr Stanley in a pub, that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun wrapped in a
> carrier bag. The plastic bag in fact contained a wooden table leg, which
had
> been repaired by his brother. The officers challenged Mr Stanley, a
painter
> and decorator originally from Glasgow, after he left the pub, and he was
> then shot in the head and hand.
>
Your comments might have more credence if you didn't keep cutting and
posting old stories. The figures that Scott posted are as accurate as any
statistics. Blows your case out of the water, doesn't it?
BTW, I do live in an "an idyllic corner of England where firearms are
granted as a "right"" and "police are wonderful and are only "worthy" of
support. "
I live a peaceful and contented life. I do not live in fear of crime, the
police or anything much else. This must make you very jealous.
Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper
The figures that Scott posts are statistics... from the home office... who
get them from the police... whose record keeping (except where you live) is
already proven to be about as much use as your corner of merrie englande is
as a reference to the rest of the country and reality as whole.
Old stories... these are recent. Blow me out of the water? No way. Try and
work it out... I know its hard for you.
You don't know or want to know about any of this because it doesn't happen
where you live. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means you can't
cope with it.
It doesn't make me jealous at all... because its not real. Its all in your
mind. My posts are all in the papers... legally checked and filleted before
being released. They have to be to avoid libel actions and also "garage"
actions from the police federation.... despite what Scott says.
I enjoyed the way you worked out the mixture of the two of you in the post I
made. I was waiting for Scott to bite and come back at me with a rebuttal
based upon the grounds that the post was meant for someone else. I would
naturally riposte with the sentiment that it would make a change for him, as
a plod, to be on the receiving end of "mistaken" records. Ah well.
If you live a peaceful and contented life what are you doing associating in
this newsgroup with us lesser-privileged mortals and malcontents?
Why, if your life is so peaceful and contented, do you seek any kind of
modification in the conditions under which you hold whatever firearms you
do... if you indeed do?
As a natural supporter of the establishment shouldn't you be supportive of
their pistol ban and the eventual removal of your "right" to keep any
weapons privately at all?
After all, it was the police and the home office who brought it about. They
advised the prime monster that it was feasible and necessary to remove
handguns from private ownership. They are still advising the prime minister
that all weapons should be removed from the control of anyone who is not a
major contributor to party funds, a plod, a member of the armed forces on
duty, or the security services... notwitstanding third world dictators and
despots of course.
Come, Come, surely we can do better than this?
One of these days the folk you see on the Television... the ones Trevor
Macdonald reports on and the ones you see on the news... are going to find
the rabbit hole to your corner of merrie englande. They're going to drink
from the bottle marked Drinkme... thinking it is a controlled substance no
doubt... and then they are going to come down the rabbit hole to wonderland
and bring reality with them. Then we'll see how wonderful your police are
and how much protection they give you down there.
I still remain.
Dr John The Night Tripper
Buster <ch...@airborne.spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1006159110.15521....@news.demon.co.uk...
Buster
bandwidth>
> Old stories? Ah, so thats how the idyl rich see it is it?
>
Idle rich, you must be joking! Unlike some who post here, I have to work
for a living and am rich only in my dreams.
<snip>
> It doesn't make me jealous at all... because its not real. Its all in your
> mind. My posts are all in the papers... legally checked and filleted
before
> being released. They have to be to avoid libel actions and also "garage"
> actions from the police federation.... despite what Scott says.
Yes, it is in my mind. Happiness and contentment are a state of mind. It
must be terrible living with your fear and paranoia. You are correct, the
stories in your posts were in the papers - five years ago!
<snip>
> If you live a peaceful and contented life what are you doing associating
in
> this newsgroup with us lesser-privileged mortals and malcontents?
>
Perhaps you don't read what I post. I am a gun owner determined to do my bit
to ensure that my freedom to own guns is not eroded anymore. In my opinion,
the only way forward in the current political climate is for us gun owners
is to try and un-demonise sports shooting. We have to demonstrate to all of
society that sports shooting offers no threat to anybody, and the sports
shooting community is a sane and well balanced group of people. Ravings of
loons like yourself with an alternative political agenda do not help the
shooter's cause at all.
> Why, if your life is so peaceful and contented, do you seek any kind of
> modification in the conditions under which you hold whatever firearms you
> do... if you indeed do?
>
I would like the oppurtunity to shoot pistols in a sporting club
environment.
> As a natural supporter of the establishment shouldn't you be supportive of
> their pistol ban and the eventual removal of your "right" to keep any
> weapons privately at all?
>
No, why? I enjoy shooting.
Clive Taylor
Buster
I am indeed extremely envious of you, living in a part of mainland UK
where firearms are granted as a right. I'm looking to retire and move
soon and would love to live in an area where I could pursue my chosen
sport without having to look over my shoulder for either
gun-grabbing/hating Police Officers, malcontents, or criminals.
Perhaps you'd like to identify this 'Garden of Eden'.
Joe Bridgehouse
"Clive Taylor" <cl...@caddman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dq5ivtcm1m9re355t...@4ax.com...
Its Manchester Clive!!
Clive Taylor
In that case forget it. Even though Diggle is close I think I'd prefer
Kabul.
Joe Bridgehouse
with one of the Dunblane parents, and the programs call for more gun
controls, you might have cause for reflection.
Joe B
>
>
Joe Bridgehouse
Steady on Clive, Manchester is the centre of the Uzi and MAC10 owners club
JBennett
"Joe Bridgehouse" <J.Brid...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:9tcusr$ngh$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
police officers, wouldn't it, Clive?
As for Kabul, the UN is already making noises about disarming various
factions. Novel concept, what? Disarm one group then protect them from the
others with armed forces/police, etc. When will they ever learn.
Jack B *USA*
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Clive Taylor
<J.Brid...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Wouldn't qualify for membership - my suntan's not dark enough.