CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Strange as it may seem to the likes of "IG", my concerns over anonimity in the Cornwall shooting stem not from a bitter shooter, but from a citizen alarmed at how "armed" standoffs between the police and the depressed, mentally deficient, drunk and plain stupid, have decended into what can only be compared to a "turkey shoot". Gung Ho operational policy and a kind of "judicial privelege" that anonimity plays a part in has ensured that there is no requirement to preserve human life. I think history will prove that the police in the UK have been grossly negligent in ignoring the unassailable fact that almost all of their armed encounters do not involve real firearms (guns, not airguns). By not altering their operational policy to account for this they have facilitated the deaths of perhaps a dozen or more "unfortunates". We all agree the officers must be properly trained and equipped for real armed encounters, but a bit less of the "my only tools a hammer so every jobs a nail" mentality would save lives and go a long way towards dispelling any doubt as to the officers conduct. Its scandalous that only only a couple of police forces in the UK seem to be actively doing something to prevent further tragedies such as the one in Falmouth. Durham police need congratulating on this front, having a baton gun available in ARV's specifically to deal with situations such as the soldier with the air rifle - had the officers there been similarly equipped, the guy would most probably be still alive - bruised and in jail. (before anyone comments it would appear the officers had plenty of time to use a baton gun, having shouted several warnings before shooting). Sooner or later the relatives of one of these "unfortunates" will successfully sue the police for their heavy handed approach in the face of clear evidence that the vast majority of their encounters are of minimal risk to themselves. >As far as accountability goes, well, if the police werent >being held to account, then what the hell is the inquest >doing? Open your eyes for gods sake! The comments about self >incrimination are not really worthy of comment, other than >ask what on earth Rusty is going on about? 'Seeds' of >evidence? Where is that term mentioned in any legislation or >description of the judicial process? What does it mean? Coroners call witnesses to inquests, although the inquest does not seek to aportion blame, any evidence that may result in proving that a person was "unlawfully killed" is admissable - that includes evidence concerning the character, demeanor or mental state of the officers involved - how on earth could a witness with relevant character or incriminatory evidence come forward if no one knows who's in the dock? "Seeds" - something small from which something large might grow. Rusty -- I can't fault the police in this circumstance for shooting him. I also don't think a baton gun was much of an option, baton guns are designed for crowd control, you're supposed to aim at the ground in front of the target and the baton is supposed to bounce and clobber people. Firing a baton gun at the distance in this case would just have likely have been fatal. The police received a call of an armed man, they responded with armed police, he was challenged, aimed at an armed officer and was shot fatally. I can't see that the police did anything wrong in that particular circumstance, perhaps they could have done something better, but if someone is aiming a gun at you, even if you are behind cover, well, I know I would shoot back. There have been more dubious cases, one I can recall the police shot a man who simply had an air pistol in his hand but wasn't pointing it at anyone. LAPD use shotguns loaded with bean bags, but even then, if the subject points a gun at them they're likely to switch to the real thing. The Home Office has recently issued guidance on the use of armed officers, essentially requiring a bit more prudance on the part of the police as in most cases when the police confront an armed man it usually is an airgun or replica that poses little threat. This was as a result of the case in London where the guy with the table leg in a bag was shot dead. (Although the Home Office won't say that, of course). With criminals using real guns, in 99.9% of cases the armed police arrive too late to challenge them, because they are involved in a robbery or a drive-by and flee the scene. When armed police confront armed criminals who are carrying serious ordnance, it is usually as part of a planned operation, an arrest or whatever. Most of the police who actually engage armed criminals in the process of the crime being committed are unarmed, because they are the first on the scene. The Home Office actually has some research that shows that. The Knights case in Feltham is perhaps the most graphic example. The problem is that the police then face a massive risk to themselves, because it t
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > It >seems to me to be yet another case of 'lets have a go at >the police 'cos they never answer back' In a lot of cases they are never called upon to "answer Back" or as others may see it "to defend their actions" >and its a popular >national pastime from disenchanted shooters who blame >every one but themselves for their problems. In what way were the shooters to blame for the loss of their sport? other than having respect for the sensibilities of the bereaved parents of Dunblane. The police and news media had no such concerns and made every possible opportunity to vilify the INNOCENT shooters. Its odd that the News of The World should have suddenly found out how evil paedophiles are, and are now being accused of a "witchhunt" against paedophiles, when the Cullen report clearly showed that Thomas Hamilton was a paedophile. Why was the "witchhunt" against shooters not decried? It seems that the police are more willing to protect the rights of paedophiles than the Law abiding citizen that shoots for a hobby! >Lets look at the wider picture here. Police officers are >not trained to the degree that military special forces units >are. They perform under different rules altogether. Yes! the military are not free to open fire on the general public, yet we have seen enough cases of the police doing exactly that to cause severe concern! >As far as accountability goes, well, if the police werent >being held to account, then what the hell is the inquest >doing? Exactly what the inquest did not do in the "Martin" case, it is giving the police the right to kill when in fear of their lives and denying it to the ordinary citizen. When did the police become a protected species? > I speak >from experience, as I look at the panic alarms and emergency >equipment in my living room, due to a threat from criminals. That is a failing of the "system" that does not allow you to protect youreself by having handguns or other suitable defensive articles, it is nothing to do with the shooters. >Hobby shooters who pontificate from their sitting rooms >don't have that to contend with. I do not relish the idea >of the press discovering my identity and publishing my >details either. No! we only have to go out in the "mean streets" totally unprepared. We are not allowed to know who the real criminals are and who to avoid. As shooters we are not even allowed to know whether a "probationary" club member is a psychopath or not, the plod will not allow us to run a check on prospective club members. So we have to take them on trust, I for one would like to know that we are not allowing "nutters" access to firearms and the plod should take an equally responsible attitude by giving a simple yes or no to the question "would this applicant be denied a firearms certificate for any reason?". At least you have a load of mates that can come to you're rescue tooled up to the knocker! We weren't too impressed at being forced to hand over our legally owned possesions under threat of ten years imprisonment for none compliance either! Lifes a bitch. >I strongly resent the undertones that are implied in the >post from 'Rusty'. He is suggesting that the officers >should be treated as defendants. Why should they not? If they are innocent then they will be found innocent and no further stigma will be attached to them, but if on the other hand they have been found guilty then they should be subject to the full weight of the Law, as we are. Why do you assume that because you are a police officer that you have special priveledges that do not allow youre version of events to be questioned, make you immune to prosecution and have rights that the common man does not have? > It appeared >to be an emotionally disturbed man who unfortunately >did a very stupid thing. Aided and abetted by a ART that overreacted to what would have been a relatively minor act of stupidity, if they had held back and surveyed the situation they could have ascertained to what degree of threat they were really being put, with a bit of diplomacy and common sense they could have ended the confrontation without passing the "Death Sentence". As the "Death Penalty" has been withdrawn in grate britain, it is not unreasonable to ask why the police have arbitrarilly carried out such a sentence! The banning of handguns in the U.K. at the instigation of the police (among others) has removed the veil from the eyes of shooters, who genuinely believed that it was in the interest of the public. They are now seeing reallity for the first time. The police are no more than an extended arm of the "Tax collection" service, their spy cameras are only there to provide revenue from speeding motorists, they do not protect the children on estates, they are mounted on motorways where children have no right to be. The "clean up" rate for the police is abysmal, if I were to tell my boss that I had repaired 17% of the faults he had passed to me, he would go ballistic and
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] You said - Is the threat of revenge attack the only reason for officers being anonymous in this fashion? I have answered sepatetely that the identification of specialist officers (not only those in firearms units) in open courts could lead to them being neutralised or targeted by fringe groups or terrorists, even organised crime. There is also the social stigma and tramatic stress of having shot someone. Its all too easy to search press databases via the internet for police shootings or similar occurences and obtain names and ranks of those involved. A little extra work and you have their name and address (not easily but it can be done). You can then target them or their family. Certainly at inquests I think it is quite fair that the police are not identified. Should the inquest have ruled the killing unlawful then the rules change as the officers go to court as defendants. Regards Jerry Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Mike Taylor, [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG might also like to ponder on the fact that the sentiments voiced by Kenneth Pantling are shared by many more people who are not shooters. The police in many areas have lost the plot completely and their senior officers have reduced themselves to being politicians in uniform. As for exhorting his colleague to "stay with the professionals". That tells us a good deal about the type of police force IG wants. Since he wants no part of us (mere civilians), who can blame the civilians for their lack of enthusiasm for him? -- It was Mitch who made the comment, not IG. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is starting to annoy me. If I were to shoot someone who was threatening me with a gun, I certainly would be treated as a defendant and I see no reason why a member of the Police should be treated any differently. I would have to justify my actions and so should the Police. The Police have to operate within the Law, after all. Surely that is a healthy approach in a democratic society and nothing to be feard if the officers have acted appropriately. Is there a different criteria for justification in these cases involving Police shootings and if so why is it acceptable for a member of the Police to defend themselves in this manner and not a civilian? Neil Saint I -- It's not a given you would be charged but there's a good chance of it. However at the inquest I doubt you could claim anonymity. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Richard Loweth", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can recall that all police vehicles in London having distinctive numbers painted on the outside. Why? As the direct result of an incident in which a man was assaulted by police officers in a vehicle. He could not identify the vehicle and the crews of other vehicles refused to co-operate with the subsequent enquiry to try, by a process of elimination, to ascertain which vehicle and which crew it was. I also read that CCTV is now helping prove assaults on members of the public by police officers where, previously, the officers and their colleagues would have claimed it was a response to an "attack" by the third party. The police should remember that they are SERVANTS of the public and also that this country is not a colony. For it is often said that England is Britain's "last colony" and that the policing methods we now increasingly see used on us seem to reflect this. No one on this board is "anti-police" they are just not prepared to accept an increasing attitude of "us and them" which ranges from being merely impolite through insulting to the actual infliction of unprovoked physical assault. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >My view is that the police should ditch the MP5s and assault rifles >which scare the crap out of the public (with rare exceptions) > >Steve. > But thats what they are meant to do, isn't it? Niel -- I think too many police officers have watched the SAS during the Iranian Embassy siege. I saw some tape of a SWAT team in Washington State, I think it was Tacoma, can't remember exactly. They were all armed with Glocks. The pointman had a Glock 18 with the 33-round mag. Flashlights mounted on the pistols. I watched that and I thought to myself, "hmm, why is it that so many police are armed with MP5s" - there is no real logical reason, a pistol or an MP5 is just as lethal inside a building, and if anything a pistol is easier to move with. Someone said once that the MP5 was on a sling so you had both hands free if you wanted - anyone heard of holsters and lanyards? Pistols make more sense because it is possible to carry two, so your backup is the same as your primary weapon. Plus all the magazines are interchangeable between weapons. The use of the MP5 is to a large extent a triumph of marketing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: andrew, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you have to look at the psychological side of this. The "authorities" would not consider that an "ordinary citizen" (that's you and me) needs to be concerned about retribution as we have the protection of our glorious police force who we pay so much for and granting anonymity would be an admission of failure. Whereas the police have no one higher power to look after them; sort of a variation on the "who watches the watchers" theme. Besides which being treated differently to the to everyone else is guaranteed to make you feel superior. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Alistair Shutt", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello I imagine support for Dave's viewpoint is not soley confined to CS, ask anybody who has reported a burglary, stolen car, vandalism, etc. etc. Regards -- Or attempted murder, I kid you not. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Suggestions I have - JHPs instead of SPs, and bean bag shotgun >rounds. What difference would it make? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong (as ever), but don't SPs feed better than JHPs? >more _use_ of the pistol as I fail to see the reason behind coppers >carrying semi-auto MP5s which are in essence, big pistols. Because for given level of training, the average shooter is more precise in his shooting and it has greater range. You try engaging someone at just 50 yards with a pistol. --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 -- According to ACPO, most engagements are at ten yards or less if I remember correctly. And JHPs do feed more reliably than SPs in my experience, because SPs have the exposed lead at the tip which can stub on the feed ramp. Geco SPs wouldn't feed at all in my Beretta, and it's rare to encounter a load that won't feed in the open top Beretta. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Jim FRANKLIN", [EMAIL PROTECTED] [.] Regardless of the perceived bias or otherwise of "IG" and Mitch 's points of view, I think the list would be much the poorer without them. Although email gives a certain anonimity, it still takes a reasonable strength of character to defend your opinion at the risk of having it shot at by dozens of very angry people. Many of their opinions are bound to be coloured by the dregs of humanity with whom they come into contact daily, so like any group of "common purpose" there is going to be a feeling of "us and them", just like all us paranoid shooters have... [.] " I don't like what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it" - Voltaire. Whilst many of us would take issue with a lot of what is said in Cybershooters and any other forum, everyone has a right to spout his two-pennyworth. However I draw the line at Crown Servants using their position to express views on the Law, Policy and further, making provocative statements to the effect that the general population abuse their hard won freedom, cannot be trusted, should be disarmed and controlled "for their own good". I would not die in a ditch for the right of any member of "the Executive", Government, Judiciary, Police, Military or any appointed or elected person to be able to express those views. They are not there for that purpose. They are there as our representives or appointed to positions of authority in order to execute policies that benefit us. As a consequence of their position, they relinquish some of the rights to free expression enjoyed by Joe Public. They do not have a remit to speak publicly about anything at all, apart from reporting on day to day matters. These restrictions should go even further, they should not even be allowed to discuss or air their opinions within their own groups, or even hold these opinions. They hold their positions at our pleasure, and as such are answerable to every single one of us. Jim Franklin Orpington KENT. UK PGP key on request -- I think everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, however that personal opinion should be kept seperate from a duty to implement the law as intended by Parliament. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have read the posts resulting from my original reply re the Falmouth incident with great interest. A common thread is severe criticism of the Police. It seems to be the consensus that the 'Police' are useless, incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to themselves, etc. etc. There is very little moderation or informed argument, merely bland statements. I suspect that many of the comments are made by people who are merely propogating a popular myth. Whatever, the thread is that the 'Police' are all the same. Well, is that not rather hypocritical? The other common thread is that shooters are not all the same as Hamilton and Ryan, etc. Great offence is taken when it is suggested that shooters are all the same, but not an eye is blinked when everyone tars the Police with the same brush. Imagine the uproar if I were to dare suggest that all shooters have homicidal tendencies and should not be allowed anywhere near law abiding people. Imagine if I started to quote examples like Ryan, Hamilton, Robert Elmer Kleasen, David Gregory, Robert Sartin, etc. as being examples of why all guns should be banned? Of course, I wouldn't, because I am a shooter myself, but the logic is the same. Back to anonymity. Why should a person who is merely doing his or her job be placed under the extra pressure that disclosure of identity would bring? Can anyone who disagrees with this say that they would be prepared to do the same job and be named and photographed publicly? I have protective measures (communications equipment) in my home because, in the course of my work, I have confronted and dealt with some major criminals who have actively attempted to discover my whereabouts. I resent the implications that I have some sort of a magic entitlement to this. Anyone who is directly threatened can have it. Lets get real here. Just what does the public want from the Police? Does the person who wants guns banned have any less right to say that than anyone here? Like it or not, this is a democracy and although there are some dreadful laws, it is the duty of the Police to enforce them. It is the duty of the home office to instruct the Police. It is the duty of parliament to tell the home office what laws are in existence and will be enforced. Dont keep knocking the Police please. Look at the top end. As an aside, I have spent lots of time in trying to effect a reconciliation in my area. I have invited clubs and societies to our training wing to see how we train and what kit we use.Our licensing dept. has invited clubs to visit them to see what goes on.I have liaised with local clubs to assist their members with problems in licensing issues. I have stuck my neck out for shooters over long barreled pistols, moderators and other things that cause grief. I am a shooter through and through and have always tried to help the private shooter as much as possible, as all who know me will corroborate. Having read the posts here, though, it puts a different light on things in many respects. Although I know there was resentment, I didnt realise it was so deep and virulent. I am having a deep rethink of my philosophy. IG -- Well, I personally draw distinctions between police officers and different departments, I can't comment on everyone else, everyone has a different opinion, that's obvious. However, on the narrow points of anonymity and what laws there are on the books - I have sympathy with the argument that someone who is doing their job should not be placed in danger, however, there is also a need for justice to be transparent, and in cases where there is little threat to the officer involved, which I believe this case in Falmouth to be, there is no great need for the officer to retain his anonymity. In my opinion. If there was a great danger, i.e. the gunman was part of an organised criminal gang or terrorist organisation, my opinion would be different. People such as Rusty are making the point (which I disagree with) that the officer had no need to shoot the gunman, and it has to be said that if there hadn't been a need for him to be shot, then the anonymity issue would be academic anyway. On the point about the bad laws on the books, there is no obligation for the police to enforce them in the same way that that the Nurenberg trials held. Police officers are not blindly obligated to uphold bad law. It's not that simple I realise, but it is also not as simple as the responsibility falling entirely on the Home Office and Parliament. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Neil Francis", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I imagine support for Dave's viewpoint is not soley >confined to CS, ask anybody who has reported a burglary, >stolen car, vandalism, etc. etc. You mean most people actually support logic like: ::The point is that they did not give a flying f*** if anybody noticed ::their protest, they were prepared to forego their childrens "Hero ::worship" for the knowledge that they had done as much as they could to ::show their disgust at the victimisation of a section of society that had ::done no wrong. If we were black and had been victimised because a black ::man had murdered 16 children and their teacher how would that hang with ::you? and apparent threats like: ::...I would strongly advise against pissing me off,... or what I ask.? and accusations of abusiveness because a poster happened to disagree with the apparent 'collective' viewpoint or certainly the viewpoint of Dave... ::You were being abusive to the honest law abiding citizens that had once owned firearms and ::are now prevented due to the incompetance or otherwise of the people that are ::assigned the responsibility of protection of said people. and ridiculous mob mentality statements, previously chastised on the board (apparently), such as: ::The police most certainly are guilty of persecuting handgun shooters, while showing ::that they prefer paedophiles to handgun shooters. Do not piss down my ::back and tell me it is raining! Their defence of paedophiles is ::disgusting when compared to the support we received! That 's a good one - paedophiles to handgun shooters - are you on LSD Dave? What in god's name is that supposed to actually mean? Defence of paedophiles - what defence? Neil Francis Trowbridge, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Hugh Bellars", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah, but IG has said that he has already stuck his neck out over 'long barrelled pistols, moderators and other things that cause grief'. My point was, why should he have to stick his neck out at all? It is only because some of his fellow officers appear to be prejudiced against certain 'nasty' section 1 items. I was merely pointing out that it is this prejudice, often put forward by ACPO and sadly, some grass roots police officers, that often causes the flames to rise in CS when the subject of our friends in blue is discussed. IG - I hope that you are not too disheartened (I agree with Brian: the list would be a duller place without our Police subscribers). If you had any doubts before about the strength of feeling about the '97 act, you surely have none now. Ordinary people who enjoyed their hobby don't easily forget being called 'perverts' by the media and having their property taken away. Hugh Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Well, is that not rather hypocritical? Not really, I believe the similarities between the police and shooters are very close, 150 years of the organised shooting of handguns as a sport, and about the same length of time for the organised policing of this country, but the abuse of power lies very strongly with the police. At the time of the handgun ban we were closely matched in numbers, without 80 years of persecution of the shooting public I think we would have greatly outnumbered the police. >The other common >thread is that shooters are not all the same as Hamilton >and Ryan, etc. Great offence is taken when it is >suggested that shooters are all the same, but not an >eye is blinked when everyone tars the Police with the >same brush. Imagine the uproar if I were to dare suggest >that all shooters have homicidal tendencies and should >not be allowed anywhere near law abiding people. Our record is very clean in comparison to the police, "bent coppers" are more commonplace than "homicidal shooters" >Back to anonymity. Why should a person who is merely >doing his or her job be placed under the extra pressure >that disclosure of identity would bring? Can anyone who >disagrees with this say that they would be prepared to >do the same job and be named and photographed publicly? I do not have a problem with that, except that this should also have extended to the Martin bloke, why should he have been subjected to the sort of media attention that the police are protected from? He is as much a target as you are! >Does the person who wants guns banned >have any less right to say that than anyone here? Like >it or not, this is a democracy and although there are >some dreadful laws, it is the duty of the Police to >enforce them. Yes, but it is not the duty of the police to try to create laws, the handgun ban is an evil law and has brought naught but evil in its wake. It has driven a wedge between the most law abiding and the law upholders even if the handgun ban was repealed tomorrow, that divide will be there forever, that is how evil it is! >As an aside, I have spent lots of time in trying to >effect a reconciliation in my area. I have invited >clubs and societies to our training wing to see >how we train and what kit we use.Our licensing dept. >has invited clubs to visit them to see what goes on.I >have liaised with local clubs to assist their members >with problems in licensing issues. I have stuck my >neck out for shooters over long barreled pistols, >moderators and other things that cause grief. I do not doubt youre good intentions, but, this smacks of guilty conscience, and that will not restore our sport. The only thing that will restore our sport will be the acknowledgement that "We were wrong" from both the politicians and the police, and unless the "Court of Human Rights" tell them so I cannot foresee them ever accepting that. > I am a >shooter through and through and have always tried to >help the private shooter as much as possible, as all >who know me will corroborate. >Having read the posts here, though, it puts a >different light on things in many respects. Although >I know there was resentment, I didnt realise it was >so deep and virulent. I am having a deep rethink of >my philosophy. This sounds like a thinly veiled threat, are you about to turn into an "anti" because so many are against a bad law? The operations of the ACPO were not youre responsibility so why do you have a problem because youre attempt to defend them is met with such hostility? No body blames you personally, but when you play the "Devils Advocate" you must expect a lot of heat! -- Dave Reay Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] You dont seem to see the big picture. Your argument is totally irrelevent. Individual police officers do not, should not and never will have the choice as to which laws, passed by parliament, they will or will not enforce. Yes, enforce. The police do enforce the laws, the courts decide on guilt or otherwise and impose suitable punishment if necessary. If I understand you, the insinuation is that because you and others (me included) think a piece of legislation is unfair and unjust, then INDIVIDUAL officers should refuse to uphold or enforce that law. When you talk about the 'Police' do you mean the organisation or individuals? Because if you mean the organisation, then a decision to refuse to uphold a law would be contrary to the constitution and the oath. If you mean the individual, that would mean him or her commiting a discipline and probably a criminal offence. The continuous thread here is that the Police should not make up their own interpretation of the law, yet this is exactly what you are saying should happen! Once again, I deeply resent the use of Nuremberg as a comparison. It does you no credit. As far as the silly comment about shooting speeding motorists goes, the author can not be really serious about introducing that into a debate. DaveI HAVE NEVER DEFENDED THE HANDGUN BAN! I was as much a victim as anyone here! Neither have I tried to call private shooters amateurs with regard to their abilities! I am even trying to get acknowledgement that civilian (and I dont care who hates that term) shooters could pass on much needed skills and instruction! Definetely the last post! IG -- Of course it would be a disciplinary offence, that's what the police are there for! But it's not a violation of any law per se, are you seriously saying that every police officer always arrests everyone they see violating the law? You use no discretion at all? The general point I am making here is that the police are not the lackeys of Parliament. Of course if it was a public situation the officer might face disciplinary charges for not "doing his job" but we can safely assume if it came to that, the law would be so repugnant that would be a fairly trivial point. Assuming for the moment that there were some morally upstanding people in the SS or Gestapo (I'm not saying there were, just assume it for the moment), and the _only_ reason they smashed up a Jew's shop or beat someone up or something was because they were under orders to do it, then when it came time for the trials after the war, I think it's a safe bet that such a person would have been sitting there thinking: "Damn, I wish I hadn't enforced that law!" Because in the end their actions were held to be morally wrong, and the defence of "I was just following orders" didn't wash. (Yes I realise the Nuremberg trials were a joke and hardly anyone was tried who should have been, I'm just coming up with a hypothetical situation). I suppose what I and others have been saying in a very round about way is that there is more to being a police officer or civil servant or politician or whatever than sitting reading a pile of directives from the Home Office or court precedents etc., at the end of the day there is the difference between right and wrong which the Nazis for example were held to account for in Nuremberg. Many people who do decide to do the "right" thing do get villified for it, and taken to court and have the book thrown at them (like this MI6 guy at the moment), but as contrite as it may sound people expect other people to do the right thing. The way in which the handgun ban was enacted and enforced, together with the heaps of horror stories we get from people like Guy Savage and Jim McAllister gives the impression that the police aren't interested in doing the right thing, in fact they appear often hell bent on doing the wrong thing, and that is where all of the concern over this issue springs from. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Can I take it you are sticking up for my right to say what I think, or is it >a cue to shut up and find another forum? >Not 100% sure! I think everyone on this NG would fight to the death to uphold youre right to say what you think, but they may not agree with it. How can a meeting of minds begin to exist if we are not to be allowed to disagree with each other. If you want to have everything you say agreed with then I would suggest you seek a diferent forum, but that will not result in constructive debate, it will only result in the sort of bullshitting that makes people that are not as good as they think, believe they are better than they are while denying them the opportunity to be as good as they could be. Ive baffled myself with that one! I think what I mean is if you look at youre abilities and attainments with a true eye, then you will usually find room for improvement, but if someone tells you you are perfect then there is no more to be gained so you stop before achieving youre best possible. We are obviously hardline against the handgun ban, try to convince us it was right and not a politically motivated scapegoating of the most law abiding sector of society that had done nothing to deserve the "media" hate campaign that followed Dunblane. One small point that gets right up the nose of the "amateur" shooter is the police making reference to themselves as "the professionals", this suggests that we are in some way inferior, just a percieved perception but nonetheless derogatory. Us "amateurs" have a far better safety record and I would suggest are far more knowledgeable about firearms than those that profess to be the "professionals". I am making a conscious effort to stop refering to the police as plod, there, we have progress!! I do slip up sometimes but as I said evaluate with a true eye and there is always room for improvement. -- Dave Reay Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Can I take it you are sticking up for my right to say what I think, or is it >a cue to shut up and find another forum? >Not 100% sure! For some reason I didn't get this message, and saw only the quote in a reply. Is it from IG? As the one who asked the original question which sparked apparently literally!) the debate, and who has been highly impressed with the weight and quality of the contributions, I hope no-one feels obliged to leave. I have learned a great deal from the arguments, particularly from the contributions from the police officers. I still take the view that anonymity should be used extremely sparingly - if David Shayler gets to trial, you will see what I mean when MI5 officers A, B, etc give evidence from behind screens - but honest men and women under real threat for working on our behalf are entitled to protection. I am also perfectly prepared to make a distinction between individuals and the institutions they work for, always remembering though that institutions are made up of individuals in the first place. Yours sincerely Jeff Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public PGP Key at: ldap://certserver.pgp.com Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I must disagree with Hugh here and agree with IG. Any police officer disagreeing with policy directions given by senior officers is 'sticking his neck on the line' and any officer putting himself in this situation can find life very difficult indeed. Regards Jerry Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Your argument is totally irrelevent. Individual police >officers do not, should not and never will have the choice >as to which laws, passed by parliament, they will or will >not enforce. Yes, enforce. The police do enforce the laws, >the courts decide on guilt or otherwise and impose >suitable punishment if necessary. You seem to endow the individual officer with as little self determination as the pistol he may wield. The pistol being his weapon and the officer being the unthinking weapon of the government. Of course the police enforce the laws but if they rigourously enforced every law on the books we'd need more courts than schools and a jail the size of Wales. I think we all need to stop and remember that the police enforce the laws that parliament enacts and parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people and the last time I checked police were still people and with a fairly vocal union to back them. I suspect that if the spectre of Nazi's and Nuremberg hadn't been bought into this arguement we would be a lot closer to agreement or at least agreeing to disagree with a bit more of a smile than a scowl. Brian T -- I just think people have been socialised into stark naked terror at the mention of Nazis. The Nazis had a system of law and governance as well, they didn't just appear from under the bed like some nightmarish monster. It's an historical event with a lot of important lessons from many perspectives, including the legal side of it. I don't mean any insult by mentioning the Nuremberg trials, but it was an important historical event in law that has evolved into various declarations of human rights in international law that this country has signed up to. The idea being of course to prevent anything like the Nazis coming along again. The point is that each small step may appear perfectly rational and sensible, but it can lead to something very bad. I'm sure the guy putting Jews on the train to be "resettled" thought it was perfectly harmless to do so, but if he had paid attention to what was going on and where they might be going, he might have changed his mind. The guy collecting handguns in at the police station probably thought it was perfectly harmless as well, but I know too many ex-RFDs living in destitution. They've lost their families in many cases, at least one committed suicide. Now, if ACPO had stuck to their original viewpoint expressed to the Home Affairs Committee in 1996, instead of caving in with the Government, it wouldn't have had to be that way. At least the Police Federation and the PSA were bigots at the outset and were perfectly happy to say they were, but ACPO knew better and said so, then they folded instead of standing on principle. Somewhere in the chain from Parliament to PC on the job, someone needed to say "no, I'm not going along with this" but no-one did. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] < I don't mean any insult by mentioning the Nuremberg trials, but it was an important historical event in law that has evolved into various declarations of human rights in international law that this country has signed up to.> Well, you are insulting and tell us what laws Nuremberg has evolved into. Your reference to the SS man smashing the windows of shops belonging to Jews... First of all.he was not acting under any law. Krystallnacht was an arranged 'spontaneous' act of vandalism and anti semitism structured and organised by the Nazi party. That rules that argument out. Yes, for murder and other human rights offences that were not commited under the banner or protection of laws passed by a democratically elected government. I take it that you and other contributors want to have the various sections of the firearms act that infringe our rights repealed? Is it fair to assume that a burning sense of injustice remains? (It does for me). If so, what is to be achieved by attacking the police so virulently? The references to Nazi criminals remains, and the comparison is abhorrent. There is no relationship at all. None. Not in any way, shape or form imaginable in the most fevered and fertile imagination can such a comparison be justified. It is a gross insult to every police officer in the UK to suggest that they are akin to criminals tried at Nuremberg for offences of mass murder, ethnic cleansing, torture and so on. I have no inclinations to commit such acts, nor do I know of a single colleague that does. The laws I uphold are laws passed by a democratically elected government. I am sure that you have some friends or relatives that voted for them. Are they Nazis as well? I think not. If your wife voted for them what would that make her? There was no legal precedent at Nuremberg. ECHR has nothing to do with it at all. For the last time, Nuremberg was a showcase expedient whereby most of the major murderers were 'tried' and executed. Obeying the law had nothing to do with it. The excuses were 'just obeying orders'. This was an attempt at mitigation in order to escape the death penalty. If you want to regain lost rights, the only way to do it is to use the same process that was used to remove them The courts and the politicians. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Futile gestures like handing medals in, doing silly things at the commonwealth games and attacking everyone who disagrees with them are pointless and will only weaken the case. Only well presented and structured debate, strongly made cases and relentless pressure will win the day. Relentless pressure does not, however, have to translate into intemperate and hostile attacks on people either as individuals or institutions. It is human nature to fight back. I do not defend the stance by ACPO, the Superintendants Association or the Police Federation (its not a union, by the way. Police officers do not have that particular human right, along with many others that are conveniently ignored). I disagree with it and said so vociferously at the time. I marched, lobbied and did the things that everyone here did. If I was to take notice of some of the subscribers, I wouldn't have done so as he thinks I should not have an opinion. I think he means I should not have one different to him. IG -- I think you are completely missing my point, in my whole entire life every time the word "Nazi" crops up people tend to get offended when in fact in this case I am simply trying to illustrate a legal theory. I'm not suggesting that the police in the UK are akin to the Gestapo, what I'm trying to say is that the police bear responsibility for their actions, not the Home Office and not Parliament, which is what you have said is the case. The defence of "I was just following orders" does not wash, and the Nuremberg trials are an example of where that defence failed. I will stay away from Nazi comparisons in the future because people seem unable to get away from the emotional side of it. Unless it's a criminally negligent act, a police officer does not commit a criminal offence if he decides he is not going to follow orders. If you decided not to show up to work tomorrow because you thought you would have to arrest someone for breaking an immoral (in your opinion) law, what offence would you commit? None whatsoever. Yes you would face disciplinary action, but the Home Office, Parliament etc. cannot throw you in prison for it. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you want to regain lost rights, the only way to do it >is to use the same process that was used to remove them >The courts and the politicians. Anyone who thinks otherwise >is fooling themselves. Futile gestures like handing medals >in, doing silly things at the commonwealth games and >attacking everyone who disagrees with them are pointless and >will only weaken the case. Only well presented and structured >debate, strongly made cases and relentless pressure will win >the day. Oh dear me No. Well presented and structured debate will get you a pat on the head and an A for effort but on it's own will have bugger all effect without a good few futile gestures. Most politicians will do what the party leaders tell them most of the time and what the current party leaders tell them is based very largely on focus groups which is about as close to govenment by media as we've ever come. Poll Tax! Ring any bells. Sod all would have happened about that without countless demonstrations and possible civil unrest. But thats an example of a govenment seriously p---ing off the majority. Minorities have to make a lot more noise and achieve a much higher media profile for politicians to even notice them, the smaller the minority the louder the noise required. I seriously doubt that it would have been "Tea & Crumpets with Tony" for Gerry Adams if the IRA hadn't been blowing people up and shooting them for years. An extreme example but it makes the point. Brian T Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] --snip-- >I take it that you and other contributors want to have >the various sections of the firearms act that infringe >our rights repealed? >Is it fair to assume that a burning sense of injustice >remains? (It does for >me). --snip-- > >If you want to regain lost rights, the only way to do it >is to use the same process that was used to remove them >The courts and the politicians. Anyone who thinks otherwise >is fooling themselves. Futile gestures like handing medals >in, doing silly things at the commonwealth games and >attacking everyone who disagrees with them are pointless and >will only weaken the case. Only well presented and structured >debate, strongly made cases and relentless pressure will win >the day. Relentless pressure does not, however, have to >translate into intemperate and hostile attacks on people >either as individuals or institutions. It is human nature >to fight back. --rest deleted-- [...] Steve, & IG, IG: Your point above - "Only well presented and structured debate, strongly made cases . . ." isn't going to do much for anybody, when almost everybody disregards your position, largely because YOU cannot get adequate press or media attention concerning YOUR position. If what everybody else hears, sees, reads and understands as the truth is nothing more that a pack of deceptions, and if every major news story the public hears about is so biased and politically one-sided, and if the majority of your fellow citizen-subjects get the impression that the police are almost to a man/woman on the wagon about your guns, then you can talk until the cows come home. And, I'd like to ask: Just who are you going to debate with and where? If your mass media are not willing to cover the affair, and (more importantly) if the other side refuses to debate you because they can effectively dismiss your invite as being an unworthy cause (remember: you are a minority - they really do outnumber you), then whose ear are you going to attend? You can be dismissed as irrelevant. In fact, it is happening as I write this, because your shooting community is so splintered that it effectively amounts to tooth picks in a box of people who pick at each other's firearms as unnecessary, trivial, over-the-top, extreme, and borderline psychotic. By some of the discussions I've witnessed, I have to wonder if they were talking about hardware or software - get my drift? I write letters all the time, with a lucky few being published. But the same fish wraps publish 100 times more in the opposite direction; and they publish more anti firearms letters anyway. I cannot get even one anti to debate me in an open forum, much less get a local paper to cover it, and this in a state that sent the last anti-firearms plebiscite down by 70 percent margin of the popular vote. My own American media is very much like yours, except that most of the citizens own firearms, way in excess of the usually quoted numbers. These bastard in my own government are waiting for that opportune time to play the confiscation game. But you can believe me when I say that they literally shake in their Gucci shoes whenever some idiot bureaucrat suggests that that happen. Pucker factor is a good description for the feeling: they KNOW what will follow: it'll be a short tax year, followed by many no-tax years. We still have the option. Yours is either to go around to each residence in your community, and convince your fellows that bad laws should not exist, and to repeal them, or wait for the inevitable knell. One man can make a difference - I did. Your choice. You are a cop; if that doesn't lend credence to your words, then maybe its time you found out why. ET -- I have to say we do a better job than the antis getting letters in the paper, but the press overall is heavily baised against us. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rusty and Jeff Wood seem to have a problem with anonymity being granted to Police Officers involved in shootings. As a police officer myself, I cant see what there problem is. It seems to me to be yet another case of 'lets have a go at the police 'cos they never answer back' and its a popular national pastime from disenchanted shooters who blame every one but themselves for their problems. Lets look at the wider picture here. Police officers are not trained to the degree that military special forces units are. They perform under different rules altogether. Please dont get confused between special forces and the police. They are different and can not be linked at all. As far as accountability goes, well, if the police werent being held to account, then what the hell is the inquest doing? Open your eyes for gods sake! The comments about self incrimination are not really worthy of comment, other than ask what on earth Rusty is going on about? 'Seeds' of evidence? Where is that term mentioned in any legislation or description of the judicial process? What does it mean? The danger of revenge attacks is greater than members of the public like Rusty and Jeff Wood appreciate. I speak from experience, as I look at the panic alarms and emergency equipment in my living room, due to a threat from criminals. Hobby shooters who pontificate from their sitting rooms don't have that to contend with. I do not relish the idea of the press discovering my identity and publishing my details either. I strongly resent the undertones that are implied in the post from 'Rusty'. He is suggesting that the officers should be treated as defendants. Maybe a lesson in S3 Criminal Law act, S.117 of Pace, Common Law etc. might be adviseable. Good advicethink it through before posting drivel like the above. IG -- I appreciate what you're saying, but this wasn't an armed criminal who was gunned down who has mates who are going to attack this police officer. It appeared to be an emotionally disturbed man who unfortunately did a very stupid thing. At the end of the day it may make no difference not to know the officer's name, but I find it hard to believe the officer would have faced any sort of revenge attack. Is the threat of revenge attack the only reason for officers being anonymous in this fashion? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Richard Loweth", [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a very old saying that "if justice is to be done justice must be seen to be done" In other words out in public and in the open. One very important piece of evidence in the trial of the farmer Martin was his alleged boast that he wanted to "machine gun gypsies". It called into question whether Martin felt himself genuinely at risk or was his firing prompted by a desire to fulfil that wish? That is why anonymity is important. In order to establish whether a homicide is lawful on the grounds of self defence it is vital to establish the "mens rea" or state of mind of the person who has done the killing. Was it motivated by a genuine fear of immediate threat of serious harm or by a wish to "machine gun" gypsies? Or perhaps an officer boasting to a witness that he was a better "gunman" than any "civilian FAC holder" and that in any armed confrontation that he, the police officer, would come off better? But how can that witness then come forward if he does not know if the officer who boasted to him of being that better "gunman" is the officer in question or not? Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] << It seems to me to be yet another case of 'lets have a go at the police 'cos they never answer back' and its a popular national pastime from disenchanted shooters who blame every one but themselves for their problems. >> I'm not sitting still for that piece of canteen culture self-justification! The main sources of our troubles are: a hostile Home Office, a hostile police force and a cynical media who don't give a damn who they hurt. All this was brought together by two shooting tragedies perpetrated by criminal lunatics. I do not share in any collective responsibility for their actions despite the efforts of corrupt politicians to tar me and my friends as borderline psychopaths and a cancer on the body of society. From my point of view the police bear much more resposibility for shooters' troubles that ever shooters do. We were the convenient scapegoat that the police used after Hungerford and particularly Dunblane and they certainly answered back then. ACPO were very quickly off the mark to shift the responsibility. If we do show culpability for our problems it is because we didn't answer back after Dunblane when the Home Office and ACPO PR machine steamrollered over us. Not that it will do me any good but I thoroughly resent your remarks as being offensive and rooted in ignorance. Kenneth Pantling -- "There is an easily identifiable police attitude towards the possession of guns by members of the public. Every possible difficulty should be put in their way. No documentation can be too rigid, no security requirement too arbitrary, which prevents guns coming into the hands of criminals." - Police Review 8/10/82 That, in a nutshell, has been my experience with several firearm licensing officers. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve The likeliehood of a revenge attack comes not only from the friends or relatives of the unfortunate deceased, it comes from those members of the criminal fraternity, or terrorist community, who have grudges against the officers from firearms units. If such a person is able to obtain the details of an AFO, then there is every chance that there will be threats, intimidation and all sorts of aggravation. I am quite prepared to take what is coming to me in the line of my duty, but when it begins to impinge on my wife and family outside of work, then that is a different matter. I suggest that all of the correspondents on this board would think likewise. Where do you draw the line at disclosure of identities? If an officer is named, he or she would then become fair game for the press. Photographs would follow, with the inevitable consequences. I do not broadcast to my friends and neighbors what I do for a living. AFO's dont get paid any more than any other officer, why should they be subject to additional grief? Dont forget, if the jury returns a verdict of unlawful killing, or the officers were charged with offences, their details would become public then. It is only for the inquest proceedings that they remain anonymous. What is so wrong with that? It would be nice to see constructive comments about the Police. All I see are references to 'Plod', Kevlar cowboys, etc. There are many failings with the police use of firearms, but please understand that those failings are as the result of political interference and not the lack of dedication of the officers who are AFO's. I am trying to introduce the concept of civilian instructors, as I acknowledge that there is a vast pool of expertise and knowledge in the civilian world, far more than there is in the police. The powers that be, however, only ever see private shooters making comments that are disparaging, such as the ones that are posted here and on the sportsmans association BB. If it is constructive, then great, but most of it is ill informed and vitriolic. No the wonder its hard to sell the idea of civilian staff in firearms training departments! -- I had a friend, a PC, a firearms instructor in a rural police force. Some of the things he used to ask me terrified me, to be frank. Basic stuff like where to place his finger on the trigger of a pistol. One day he and one of his colleagues were "caught" engaging in a "shooting competition", basically he and the other instructor had gotten a couple of IPSC targets and were shooting up some old reloads and had made it a bit competitive to improve their skills. He and the other instructor got chucked off the firearms squad. Barmy. Whether or not a police officer is an AFO or not I don't think is particularly relevant to the likelihood of a revenge attack. If you really want to find out the names of the AFOs in a police force it's pretty easy. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that this particular AFO would be likely to face a revenge attack. No more so than any other AFO picked at random from that force. On the other hand you've got a family who have no clue who shot their son. I can understand anonymity in cases where it would reveal the identity of detectives who work undercover or say, an AFO who shot dead a member of a criminal gang, but like Richard said, justice has to be seen to be done. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There is an easily identifiable police attitude towards the possession of guns by members of the public. Every possible difficulty should be put in their way. No documentation can be too rigid, no security requirement too arbitrary, which prevents guns coming into the hands of criminals." - Police Review 8/10/82 That, in a nutshell, has been my experience with several firearm licensing officers. Steve. >> Steve, The mindset (policy is probably too formal a word) illustrated above has been proved to be totally valueless by the ever climbing use of guns in crime since 1982 when it was written. When this is contrasted with the declining public ownership of guns one would hope that the result would be a change in attitude. Unfortunately, it has by and large resulted in a redoubling of efforts. I would like to inform IG that my feelings towards the police were based on the trust and respect that I was brought up with. However, this has slowly been whittled away over the years by the attitude encapsulated in the quote above. I suspect that many shooters share this experience. Kenneth Pantling Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >IG I agree with you totally but don't expect support from >the majority of subscribers. They will take any chance to >have a pop at the Bill. Stay with the professionals In the few short sentences above is encapsulated the entire 'us and them' arguement that this and other similar threads have revolved around. Until "the majority of subscribers" can view The Law as something that is available to them rather than done to them then The Law and all those who enact and enforce it will be regarded with suspicion. How we get to a state of mutual trust is going to be a long and painful journey but ultimately it will have to start with a government trusting the electorate for the entire term of a parliament not just giving the impression of doing so for the few short months when it wants us to vote it in. Given this administrations record not just on firearms law but on the so called Freedom of Information bill and the recently enacted RIP bill I see little hope for the forseeable future but ultimately someone in government will have to take that first step. Until then large sections of "The Bill" will view any FAC or SGC as a crime waiting to happen and equally large sections of the shooting population will view the police as at best an obstacle and at worst a threat to their peaceful pursuit. Come the day we are actually trusted with some form of self defence even if it were just a CS spray (which is entirely defensive!) we will have taken considerably more than one step. Brian T Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, in this case I think I do have a problem with anonymity. In a terrorist or Yardie matter, there may be good reason for individual police officers to fear revenge attacks. However, in what seems to have been, essentially, a sad case, it isn't immediately obvious why the policemen who shot a civilian, and are accounting for themselves in what is a court, shouldn't at least give their names. If in similar circumstances I as a civilian had shot this chap in an emergency, I doubt if anonymity would have been granted to me. On reflection, if I hadn't been willing to account for myself, I would have no business taking on the responsibility. Uniforms, peaked caps, numbers rather than nametags all tend to give the wearers anonymity, and distance them from those they should represent, and who pay their salaries and pensions. Yours sincerely Jeff Wood Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG I agree with you totally but don't expect support from the majority of subscribers. They will take any chance to have a pop at the Bill. Stay with the professionals MITCH Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This desire for anonimity is not universal. In my area, a county just to the north of London, the firearms team meet regularly in a local pub where they boast loudly after a few drinks of their status. I would be seriously concerned if members of one of my clubs drank this much and acted in this way -let alone a police AFO. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Kay, Martin (DEI)", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch and IG appear to be overlooking a fundamental fact, that they and every other Police Officer are public servants, with a duty to serve and protect the public by enforcing laws as passed by the Government of the day. I hate to pee on their parade by reminding them of this, but I think many UK subscribers will agree that an institutionalised attitude to the contrary exists within most if not all of our many constabularies, and it is this attitude which is the root cause of the present level of mutual distrust and friction between the shooting community of the UK and our Police as a body. To recommend that IG should "Stay with the professionals" demonstrates clearly the attitude of which many subscribers are rightly critical, the defensive "Us vs Them" of the canteen. Some of the criticism directed at the police on this site may be unfounded, but an awful lot of it is very perceptive and arises from often harsh personal experience. By posting on this site you are taking part in a public debate. If you do not like it, then it may indeed be appropriate for you to "Stay with the professionals" and indulge in the Internet equivalent of funny handshakes in your own increasingly isolated little world. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Certainly at inquests I think it is quite fair that the police are not identified. I think I can see the point here. What I do object to is the fact that a civillian who kills someone in self defence (by whatever means) will not recieve the same benefit. I can't see why a civillian who kills a Burglar or mugger would be any less likely to retribution than a Police Officer, especially if the Burglar has loads of criminal mates. J. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I can suggest a time as to when all this changed- after the >Brixton riots in 1981- Try after the violent suppression of the miners at around the same time, a family member was a senior officer in the field back then and from what he told me the biggest problem was the control of the uniformed mob. The first units had removed their ID numbers (don't know who I am so I can do what I like) and from then on no-one trusted them to use restraint, he had to force officers to replace their ID numbers on several occasionsThe problems started before then in the minds of those who saw the police as a private army, for maggie or anyone else, but that capped it for a lot of people. Yes they are supposed to be civilians, but as Nick points out they think they are something else Niel. -- I thought the Met still didn't have collar numbers? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] --snip-- >I also lost my pistols after the '97 fiasco. I fully agree >that the police are useless at licensing, and that the >attitudes of some in the ranks are hostile towards shooters. I >personally will stick up for any legitimate shooter except >someone who wants a gun for self defence. --snip-- > I dont feel the need to have a firearm for protection at >home. I dont know or associate with anyone who does. If >anyone feels that strongly about it, then I feel very >sorry for them. Their lives must be hell, and I mean that sincerely. --snip-- >:-) > >IG > >PS Just 'cos your paranoid doesn't mean they >arent after you. > >PPS The proponents of the right to bear arms for >self defence will presumably be able to distinguish a >replica or an air weapon in a burglar or muggers hands >in the dark. [...] Steve, and IG, IG: Well, I can certainly sympathize with your ill feelings, being put upon by your detractors. They do have well placed arguments that you have not adequately addressed, especially the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. I see that you rather disagree with that position, but you do not -- in any way -- effectively counter their proposition that they have the right to defend their lives and their property -- with deadly force, if necessary. If, as you pronounce, you are a member of the Law Enforcement Establishment, you should very well know that no cop is omniscient or omnipotent: You cannot be everywhere at the same time, nor render aid at the time of gravest need. If that is the case, and if cops have the right to employ deadly force in their own defense, how is it then, that non-police -- in your world view -- must be deprived of the same force that the citizens gave them the authority to employ? If the citizens have the authority to authorize a power, do they not also possess that power themselves? You cannot give what you do not possess the original authority for, to begin with. The Crown in your land is by citizen assent, not by edict. The crown cannot take what it does not compensate for by direct action. Neither the Crown nor the Parliament has in any way managed to compensate the loss of viable and affirmative defensive abilities on the part of the citizen, in the name of personal arms. So, you don't feel the need? And, what of those others who do? Am I to suppose that because you feel a certain way, that all others must kowtow to that special feeling of yours? In what way are you special enough to warrant that all others must somehow just keep a stiff upper lip whilst they are delivered a beating without any recourse to effective measures? That, I'd really like to know the answer to. ET -- Time for another classic quote: "It is the role of the police to maintain public safety and protect the individual in the community." - Home Office minister Earl Ferrers, 27 October 1993. ARVs outside every house in Handsworth then! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The likeliehood of a revenge attack comes not only from >the friends or relatives of the unfortunate deceased, it >comes from those members of the criminal fraternity, or >terrorist community, who have grudges against the >officers from firearms units. It's becoming increasingly common for witnesses to be anonymous. I'm presently engaged in a case of a fatal shooting in a nightclub. All of the material witnesses (i.e. those who were present) are anonymous. They are listed as S12, S25, and so on. In the case of police witnesses, we do need to bear in mind that a constable may be involved in, say, the shooting of the man with the air rifle, for which there is no apparent need to remain anonymous. But, the officer may be a marked man from some previous or subsequent case. His identity, is of course, known to the Court and it is a matter for the judge to rule upon. --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >By posting on this site you are taking part in a public debate. If you do not like it, then it may indeed be appropriate for you to "Stay with the professionals" and indulge in the Internet equivalent of funny handshakes in your own increasingly isolated little world.< Regardless of the perceived bias or otherwise of "IG" and Mitch 's points of view, I think the list would be much the poorer without them. Although email gives a certain anonimity, it still takes a reasonable strength of character to defend your opinion at the risk of having it shot at by dozens of very angry people. Many of their opinions are bound to be coloured by the dregs of humanity with whom they come into contact daily, so like any group of "common purpose" there is going to be a feeling of "us and them", just like all us paranoid shooters have... I have several non-shooting friends who are serving police officers - there is some definite "us and them", but they seem normal people to me - and it does make for interesting conversation. If the list was limited to only those who had the time and resources to have total perspective in 20 20 vision on all firearms issues then there would be no debate, no education, and the content would certainly be a lot less colourful (wouldn't it Dave). As for attitude, the only real piece of deliberate police licencing obstruction I have experienced personally is the following: I recall handing in my first application for a shotgun certificate; having just walked three miles to get to the police station, I naively expected in my law-abiding enthusiasm to just hand over the bits required on the form and the cheque. It was a Saturday afternoon, and the local football team were playing at home. As I walked up to the front desk, there was a radio on monitoring local events and it became apparent that a colleague of the chaps at the desk had just been clobbered and injured by a follower of the "beautiful game" - not a good start. - So, up walks muggins with shiny application form and payment, to be greeted by a very large, very displeased person, who, after scanning through the correctly completed form, asked me to supply the "height" of the person of good character (my local vicar). Well I didn't know, and at 17, I wasn't going to argue with a police sargeant who, as a figure of authority, obviously knew the Law far better than I did. Suffice it to say I obtained this spurious information, and with another six mile round trip dutifully supplied it and the correct items to a rather bemused (different) officer some days later... Tim : ) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Well, certainly stirred a hornets nest up there, didnt I! I hope Dave Reay is recovering form his burst blood vessels. Just to reassure him, I am an old time copper, having been one for 26 years. I have no intentions of handing back my medals and commendations, though. Who on earth is going to take any notice of that? I dont believe in futile actions and anyway, I earned them and my kids will get them in due course. The guys he knows that have thrown away or handed back their medals must be feeling pleased that they showed 'em alright! That was a high profile protest, wasn't it! I also lost my pistols after the '97 fiasco. I fully agree that the police are useless at licensing, and that the attitudes of some in the ranks are hostile towards shooters. I personally will stick up for any legitimate shooter except someone who wants a gun for self defence. The tone of Dave's venom filled missive seemed to suggest that you can't set foot out of your door without being faced by gangs of gun weilding lunatics or accosted on every corner by a paedophile, in between being snapped by police anti speeding cameras. Lets keep this in perspective please. I dont feel the need to have a firearm for protection at home. I dont know or associate with anyone who does. If anyone feels that strongly about it, then I feel very sorry for them. Their lives must be hell, and I mean that sincerely. When I hear expressions such as 'The police are no more than an extended arm...etc', does the author mean the individuals who do the day to day work, or does he mean the senior ranks, or does he mean the politicians who make the law..what does he mean? If he means the rank and file, then get a life and also some treatment for the severe paranoia that is affecting you! I have nothing but contempt for attitudes such as yours. (It works both ways.) By the way, Jeff, I pay more towards my pension than you do, 11% of my wage to be exact, so dont come that old one. I also pay taxes, so I suppose I am paying twice. Funny, when you think about it. I am really paying my own wages. Aint that the damndest thing! :-) IG PS Just 'cos your paranoid doesn't mean they arent after you. PPS The proponents of the right to bear arms for self defence will presumably be able to distinguish a replica or an air weapon in a burglar or muggers hands in the dark. -- That last comment is weak. If someone threatens you with a replica, and you have a gun, then they are this year's receipient of the Darwin Award. The police have shot loads of people who were unarmed, or armed with table legs, walking sticks and the like. But the police are still armed after those mistakes. In fact in many cases they were not held to be mistakes. If someone unlawfully enters your house, points a replica at you that you believe is real, tough. They have placed themselves in that situation. I can safely say that the person who shot such an intruder would not be allowed anonymity at the inquest into his death! Off-topic, but about paedophilia, according to the Home Office stats far more children are killed by their parents than by paedophiles, yet I don't hear calls for parents to be banned from looking after their children! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, now everyone, including me, has had the chance to sound of and get things off their chest. Take a step back and look at things from all angles. ARV crews are volunteers. They have to perform normal duties alongside their armed role and switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat. Having read many of the posts, I can single out various comments, such as the one that alleges the ARV teams in his area openly brag about it in the pub after a few beers. That is appalling and, if true, should be the subject of an official complaint. In my area, they would all be dismissed form the unit. Has anyone ever asked themselves what law gives the police in the UK the power to carry firearms? S54 of the '68 act gives crown servants exemption from the need to possess a firearms certificate. S3 CLA gives ANYONE the right to use reasonable force, as does s117 of PACE. Common law also gives the right to ANYONE to use reasonable force. The judicial system in this country means that an inquest is held to determine the cause of death of a person when it has not been certified by a doctor, i.e. after an illness in hospital. The type of inquest can range from an appointment with the coroner to a full blown hearing before a jury, as all deaths involving the police MUST do by law. If the inquest finds that the death was unlawful, the coroner can order a person to be indicted. That power has been used, but usually the CPS will have pre-empted this and charged the persons believed responsible. They will NOT be anonymous under these circumstances. Contrary to the popular belief displayed by correspondents here, there are set and rigorous procedures that an officer will be subjected to if he or she is involved in a shooting. They will be treated as a murder suspect. No special treatment here, the same investigation will be done. Everyone has had their go now, how about some constructive ideas on less than lethal options, types of training, equipment, etc. The police have always taken their skills from the civilian world. That door is now closed. There is so much antagonism between police and shooters that everyone tends to forget that there are many officers who are private shooters and have suffered in the same way as everyone else. Likewise, there are many officers who play the political correctness game. Any ideas and constructiveness will be greatly received. IG -- Not all ARV teams switch between duties, the Met, West Mids and GMP all have permanent armed officers. There are different categories of AFOs. One intriguing statistic is that as far as I have been able to discover, when AFOs encounter armed criminals in the commission of a crime (pretty rare event), they are more often than not, unarmed! Most AFOs are detectives and the like who are only issued firearms under certain circumstances, they're not all riding around in Range Rovers with an MP5 slung across their chest. Suggestions I have - JHPs instead of SPs, and bean bag shotgun rounds. Also more training on the use of the pistol. And in fact, more _use_ of the pistol as I fail to see the reason behind coppers carrying semi-auto MP5s which are in essence, big pistols. And if we are going to have coppers riding around in Range Rovers, enough of this idiotic policy of having the guns locked in a box. I remember something on the TV showing two Nottingham officers having to unlock a box and take out their revolvers. If they are supposedly trained in the use of a firearm, surely they are capable of carrying one without accidentally shooting themselves? And it would be quite nice if AFOs are trained to recognise guns, instead of shooting people with walking sticks, table legs and so on. And those deadly flocks of pigeons, of course. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Yes, those forces and indeed most forces have dedicated armed units. The problem is that the members of these units do more than firearms work. They are also expected to meet 'performance indicators' by handing out speeding tickets, HORT 1's, verbal cautions, in fact everything that every other police officer does. If they don't, then its goodbye to the unit and back to normal duties. Most units have a tenure of post policy thet means an officer will spend a maximum period as an AFO on the unit, usually around 4 or 5 years. They are then moved and a brand new officer takes their place. Dont ask me why, I dont know. Its the usual policy thing. Most AFO's are not detectives. In fact, very few nowadays outside the Met are detectives. Armed criminality is almost always the responsibility of the ARV's or specialist units. (see open govt site and HMIC reports on each force). We are all looking at less than lethal options, and bean bags are an option. I personally dont like the baton for a number reasons, but the bean bag seems to have potential. The whole issue has to be looked at. Overt arming..yes, good idea to be able to get to weapons quickly. However, what law allows the UK police to carry firearms overtly as a matter of routine? S54 of the '68 act allows crown servants to possess firearms without a certificate in the course of their duties when requitred to do so. Is routine patroling sufficient requirement for routine arming? If it is, should ALL officers be armed? Opinions would be welcome. IG -- I don't think Section 54 is remotely relevant, TBH, because as has been pointed out it provides no exemption that applies to Section 5 weapons anyway, and even if it didn't exist, it's only a matter of getting a certificate from the licensing dept. and a letter from Mr Straw. Section 54 also says nothing about the Crown Servant requiring the firearm, it says they are exempt, that's it. I don't think all officers should be armed but I make the point that all armed offenders arrested in the commission of an offence that was not known to the police via intelligence were arrested by unarmed officers according to the HO. My view is that the police should ditch the MP5s and assault rifles which scare the crap out of the public (with rare exceptions) and learn how to use pistols. I also think that patrol officers who operate in areas with high levels of armed crime (e.g. Handsworth and Moss Side) should be routinely armed with firearms. Routinely arming all the police with guns is a waste of money and the training levels (such as they are) would sink to almost nothing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I hope Dave Reay is recovering form his burst blood >vessels. Sorry to dissallusion you but my blood vessels are not so easy to burst, a 9mm might just do it but simple words have little effect. I will not stand idly by while we as shooters are accused of things we have not done, while those that were in a position to do something constructive lay the blame at our door. >Just to reassure him, I am an old time copper, >having been one for 26 years. I have no intentions of >handing back my medals and commendations, though. Who on >earth is going to take any notice of that? I dont believe >in futile actions and anyway, I earned them and my kids >will get them in due course. The guys he knows that have >thrown away or handed back their medals must be feeling >pleased that they showed 'em alright! That was a high >profile protest, wasn't it! The point is that they did not give a flying f*** if anybody noticed their protest, they were prepared to forego their childrens "Hero worship" for the knowledge that they had done as much as they could to show their disgust at the victimisation of a section of society that had done no wrong. If we were black and had been victimised because a black man had murdered 16 children and their teacher how would that hang with you? >I also lost my pistols after the '97 fiasco. I fully agree >that the police are useless at licensing, and that the >attitudes of some in the ranks are hostile towards shooters. I >personally will stick up for any legitimate shooter except >someone who wants a gun for self defence. The tone of Dave's >venom filled missive seemed to suggest that you can't set >foot out of your door without being faced by gangs of gun >weilding lunatics or accosted on every corner by a >paedophile, in between being snapped by police anti >speeding cameras. I am not the one that brought up the subject of having "panic alarms" and other paraphinalia that can provide a plod squad faster than us mere mortals can! I dont know where you live but I can assure you that in the North East of England speed monitoring cameras are sprouting up faster than weeds. If you find my "missive" venom filled, I would strongly advise against pissing me off, I thought I was being fair and replying to youre comments in a circumspect manner. You were being abusive to the honest law abiding citizens that had once owned firearms and are now prevented due to the incompetance or otherwise of the people that are assigned the responsibility of protection of said people. The police most certainly are guilty of persecuting handgun shooters, while showing that they prefer paedophiles to handgun shooters. Do not piss down my back and tell me it is raining! Their defence of paedophiles is disgusting when compared to the support we received! > Lets keep this in perspective please. I >dont feel the need to have a firearm for protection at >home. I dont know or associate with anyone who does. If >anyone feels that strongly about it, then I feel very >sorry for them. Their lives must be hell, and I mean that >sincerely. That goes against what you have infered, why have panic alarms unless you feel threatened? If you are threatened then surely a firearm in the hand beats a cop on the phone! What is youre problem with citizens having guns for their protection? We have laws against murder and if a person murders another then they will be found guilty in a court of Law and will be sentenced accordingly. > >When I hear expressions such as 'The police are no more >than an extended arm...etc', does the author mean the >individuals who do the day to day work, or does he mean >the senior ranks, or does he mean the politicians who >make the law..what does he mean? >If he means the rank and file, then get a life and also >some treatment for the severe paranoia that is affecting >you! I have nothing but contempt for attitudes such as >yours. (It works both ways.) The law was changed so that the monies gained from camera prosecutions could be ploughed back into more cameras, this is a self perpetuating system that persecutes the motorist. I find it a bit embarassing that I have to draw this fact to the attention of a serving officer of 26 years. > >By the way, Jeff, I pay more towards my pension than >you do, 11% of my wage to be exact, so dont come that >old one. I also pay taxes, so I suppose I am paying >twice. Funny, when you think about it. I am really >paying my own wages. Aint that the damndest thing! I have personal experience of how the plod try their damndest to get "Invallided" out of the FORCE, with a bloody healthy pension! These blokes would play volleyball with gusto, until the specialist arrived, then they would limp in to be assessed by the specialist. The moans and groans of those blokes was pathetic compared to the people with real injuries. If anybodies interested, it was a rehab centre provided by the Mineworkers Union, they were specialists in back inju
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: Richard Barrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED] In his recent post IG successfully identifies the fundamental problem that exists in the relationship between the Police as an institution and the general public. The Falmouth incident which sparked of this thread brought out just one way in which Police Officers are treated differently before the law in comparison with a member of the public: officers who shot a man were granted anonymity at the inquest when testifying as to the circumstances of the shooting. There is no possibility that this would be allowed for a member of the general public under any, let alone equivalent circumstances. In what follows I mean by Police, the various pressure groups, some of which are supported by tax payers money, that claim to represent the "Police" view of the world and influence government policy accordingly. This includes ACPO and the "trades unions' representing the various levels of rank in the Police Forces in the UK. IG asks: >Has anyone ever asked themselves what law gives the police in the UK the >power to carry firearms? >S54 of the '68 act gives crown servants exemption from the need to possess a >firearms certificate. S3 CLA gives ANYONE the right to use reasonable force, >as does s117 of PACE. Common law also gives the right to ANYONE to use >reasonable force. This statement of the law as it stands drives right to the heart of the problem: the abrogation of the historical constitutional right of a citizen to own and keep a gun for self defence and practice with it. The state, enthusiastically supported by the Police, has progressively usurped the citizens rights to adequate self defence. As it now stands, the law has two faces; one set of rules for the state and its apparatchiks, another for the citizens. Guess who is at a disadvantage? These apparatchiks can have and use a gun to defend themselves subject to a set of rules they make up for themselves as to when they can carry. The ordinary citizen can not, and merely applying for a license for self defense purposes in mainland Britain [concealed carry or home defence] is effectively treated as proof of criminal intent and automatically denied. Use of a firearm or shotgun for self defense that is licensed (typically for sporting purposes or pest control) is effectively treated as proof of criminal intent and is almost certain to lead to prosecution. It a bit like being told that you may not apply for insurance until after you have proved you need it, by having an accident, and that applying for it even then, will be regarded as proof that you plan on having an accident in order to make a fraudulent claim. Naturally enough your application will be rejected and you will subject to further investigation. While individual officers may have shot for sport at civilian clubs, the Police as an institution has lent enthusiastic support to the politicians who have corrupted the constitution. And many officers involved in the licensing process both before and after the 1997 Act are chosen for and are actively antagonistic to the ownership of firearms by members of the general public. They allow this to influence their judgement negatively when dealing with certificate holders. I see no reason for believing that the Police will stop trying to stretch the law in order to disarm the general public, with enthusiastic support from all politicians and much of the judiciary. That disarming the citizen has done nothing to increase public safety in the last 80 years, indeed have made it worse for the ordinary person, is of course ignored by the anti-gun zealots which includes the Police, the government and the majority of MPs in Parliament. Obviously - to them - the solution to everything is further restrictions on citizen gun ownership regardless of the lack of positive correlation of such policies with firearms abuse and criminal use. But then they are anti-gun zealots and we all know what a zealot is: one who redoubles his efforts as he progressively loses sight of any rational end. > >Any ideas and constructiveness will be greatly received. >IG >-- The Police as a whole and as individuals officers should stop behaving as though they were privileged guardians operating the law on behalf of a ruling elite and treating ordinary people as subjects of those rulers, whose behavior has to be controlled by the Police. [I am of course ignoring the reality of the British "constitution" in making this comment. We do not have government of the people, for the people by the people in the UK. Which is why politicians claims that we live in the one true democracy are so laughable] The Police should: 1. Simply enforce the law and stop trying to be part of an elite that believes it is especially entitled to try and change it. 2. Stop interpreting the law to achieve an unpublished agenda that is at odds with such constitutional rights as the citizenry does have. 3. Stop s
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG >ARV crews are volunteers. They have to perform normal duties alongside >their >armed role and switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat. Agreed, though some do relish their gun handling rights. > >There is so much antagonism between police and shooters that everyone tends >to forget that there are many officers who are private shooters and have >suffered in the same way as everyone else. Also true, the best ARV guys I've met have all been shooters off-duty, though in hampshire previous shooting experience always counted against becoming an AFO in the past. Steve >And if >we are going to have coppers riding around in Range Rovers, enough >of this idiotic policy of having the guns locked in a box. I >remember something on the TV showing two Nottingham officers having >to unlock a box and take out their revolvers. > >If they are supposedly trained in the use of a firearm, surely they >are capable of carrying one without accidentally shooting >themselves? > Wiltshire seemed to be able to have their smiths strapped on without a problem, though why I could never understand (its quite a rural county, though the army and the farmers have LOTs of guns). ~ Perception, thats the problem from both sides, law abiding people don't expect harassment, nor should those in power preach the same 1918-1919 doctrine about guns in private hands. Its very much a case of the police being piggy in the middle (no pun intended) between the people and the government (especially those unelected whitehall types who really do fear the people). niel Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Richard Barrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The arguments being presented to justify anonymity for Police Officers giving evidence in court, even the Coroner's court, are plausible but represents the thin end of a very thick wedge. That wedge being: one set of rules for the ordinary citizen and a different set of rules for employees of the state. Well we already have that in respect to Firearms Law but let us not compound the problem any further. Surely the general principle is that people influencing a court's deliberations declare their identify and give their evidence while visible to the court, including members of the public and newspaper representative that are present. Only in the cases of juveniles and certain other specific circumstances defined in law are there restrictions on identifying witnesses etc. Justice will not be done or seen to be done by regularly allowing state employees, who it is claimed are at risk as a consequence of being publicly identified, exemption from this principle. The fundamental guarantee that justice is being done is the ability of the public at large to scrutinize the process. The ability of the state to obscure public visibility over the process, however plausible the arguments for so doing, can only serve to undermine the public's confidence and increase the risk of real abuse by state authorities. One only has to consider the abuses of Public Interest Immunity certificates by the state in recent years that have led to miscarriages of justice to see the nature of the problem. It has been argued in this thread that the officers involved in the Falmouth incident might be stigmatized or further traumatized by being identified. That this is a material consideration says much about the quality of training given to armed Police Officers and the criteria used in selecting these volunteers. But one has to ask if the Police and Home Office are prepared for similar rules be applied to a member of the general public who committed a homicide, i.e. anonymity at the Coroner's court and continued anonymity if the verdict there was justifiable homicide. I think not and rightly so. -- That is the point, if the guy had pointed his air rifle at a member of the public and been hit over the head with a shovel or whatever, you can bet that member of the public would not be allowed anonymity at the inquest. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Innocent", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Come on everyone - IG has made a rather good point here. If our perception about the police is one-sided, and we believe the police have the opposite view about us, rather than keep having a pop about it, its time we took the "fight" to the "enemy" (sorry IG - but you know what I mean) and started meeting with these people so that we can start changing their attitudes by seeing that we are the reasonable sensible law-abiding types we all claim to be. At the same time we have the opportunity to demonstrate the expertise that exists in the civilian world. If we can influence the copper on the ground, especially the young ones, we will lay the foundations for the future as these youngsters move up the ranks. Just as we all believe in training the young shots of today to become the experts of tomorrow, so we can apply the same to the police. It won't be easy, but the effort has got to be worthwhile - if I lived in IG's part of the world (east anglia I believe?) I would take him up on his invite; I do however have an offer from my local firearms enquiry officer to visit his HQ (Sussex) and meet the licencing people et al, and I am going to take him up on that - I urge everyone to do likewise - remember the only ever successful counter-terrorist campaign waged in the last century was the by the British in Malaysia using the "Hearts and Minds" principle (also used in Vietnam by their SF till the Marines stepped in with their generally subtle approach - not a criticism, just a different philosophy!!). The moral being that you win people over by being friendly to them and educating them in the way you want them to think - attack them and you have lost them. Open your minds; you might take three steps forward and suffer four steps back, but keep at it and eventually ground must be gained, after all, what have we got to lose? Chris Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have read the posts resulting from my original reply > re the Falmouth incident with great interest. > A common thread is severe criticism of the Police. It > seems to be the consensus that the 'Police' are useless, > incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to > themselves, etc. etc. There is very little moderation > or informed argument, merely bland statements. I think a lot of the time People are only saying what they find. I don't think that the Police are "useless, incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to themselves, etc. etc." in everything they do. Generally the Police do a very good job under difficult circumstances and whenever I have needed them either Personally or through Work they have always been efficient and polite. However this does not apply to all Police Work and it dosen't apply when things go wrong. If we are talking about Firearms matters then the Police quite often are incompetant and dangerous. Just looking at the numbers of negligent discharges involving Police officers tells us that. Over about 13 years that I have been shooting I have never seen a negligent discharge by a civillian shooter and I have only heard of one involving someone I knew directly (this did however go in a safe direction). The Police seem to be having them all over the place. Airports, railway carriges, race meetings and Police stations. The fact that this seems so common leads me to believe that the Police are indeed dangerous when it comes to Firearms handling. It also seems to be rather common for the Police to leave Guns lying around for anyone to pick up, although I admit that it hasn't happened recently. As for being unaccountable, How can the Police be accountable if complaints against them are investigated by other Police personell? I suspect > that many of the comments are made by people who are > merely propogating a popular myth. Whatever, the thread > is that the 'Police' are all the same. I don't think People are saying this at all. We are shooters and because of that the Police whom we come into contact with the most in a profesional sense may be mostly the same ie: anti firearm, so this is what People notice. I don't think they are tarring all of the Police with the same brush, many shooters know Police Officers personally and there are lots of serving or retired Officers who are shooters. Most of the grievances shooters have with the Police stem from the fact that whenever possible the Police have, from a policy point of view, screwed shooters. We all know that the restrictions in '88 and '97 had zero effect on the criminal use of Firearms. We also know that it won't stop some scumbag committing mass murder with an illegal Firearm in the future. Yet the Police were all too willing to support whatever measures the government of the day proposed without question. If the Police had given an honest opinion on the matter or had said nothing it would have been that little bit more difficult to get the legislation through. But no, there were too many Knighthoods and promotions at stake. > Back to anonymity. Why should a person who is merely > doing his or her job be placed under the extra pressure > that disclosure of identity would bring? Can anyone who > disagrees with this say that they would be prepared to > do the same job and be named and photographed publicly? As Steve has pointed out, there is virtually no risk in the Falmouth incident of the Officers involved being subject to any sort of retribution. Why then do they need to hide their identitys? If it is just the pressure of being named and Photographed that we are talking about, then perhaps the Officers concerned should not be doing the job? Police work, like other some jobs, brings pressures that are not present in more ordinary lines of work. People know this when they join the Police and receive very good pay and Pensions to compensate. If they are not prepared to undergo the extra pressures involved should they be doing the job in the first place, especially the extra pressures brought on by Firearms duty? > I have protective measures (communications equipment) in > my home because, in the course of my work, I have > confronted and dealt with some major criminals who have > actively attempted to discover my whereabouts. I resent > the implications that I have some sort of a magic > entitlement to this. Anyone who is directly threatened > can have it. I agree with this, my Family has had this also some years ago. Credit where credit is due the Police on that occasion were excellent. > Lets get real here. Just what does the public want > from the Police? Does the person who wants guns banned > have any less right to say that than anyone here? If that person is a Police Officer and is speaking from a Police point of view than I would suggest that he does have less right to say these things. The Police are there to admini
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Jim FRANKLIN", [EMAIL PROTECTED] [.] At the same time we have the opportunity to demonstrate the expertise that exists in the civilian world. [.] OK, we are out of order taking a poke at our friendly neighbourhood bobby. However, if there is one thing that sticks in my craw, its the way they brand anybody not a policeman as a "Civilian". Today at my local nick, whilst picking up a stock of application forms, there was a notice referring to "Civilians and civilian staff". The Police are just as much civilians as I am. The counterpart of "Civilian" is "Military", and that they are not!! Jim Franklin Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >That 's a good one - paedophiles to handgun shooters - are you on LSD >Dave? What in god's name is that supposed to actually mean? >Defence of paedophiles - what defence? >Neil Francis >Trowbridge, UK >[EMAIL PROTECTED] If we don't hear from Dave shortly can we assume that his modem has exploded! Rusty Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] However I draw the line at Crown Servants using their position to express views on the Law, Policy and further, making provocative statements to the effect that the general population abuse their hard won freedom, cannot be trusted, should be disarmed and controlled "for their own good". Who on earth is using their position for gods sake?Is this not an open forum? As a consequence of their position, they relinquish some of the rights to free expression enjoyed by Joe Public. They do not have a remit to speak publicly about anything at all, apart from reporting on day to day matters. I think not old chap! What a strange view of society you have. Would you prefer it if I relinquished all of my rights as a member of society? Who is talking about remits? Dear oh dear! These restrictions should go even further, they should not even be allowed to discuss or air their opinions within their own groups, or even hold these opinions. They hold their positions at our pleasure, and as such are answerable to every single one of us. Sorry, I have just realised this is a wind up, lol, and wasnt meant to be taken seriously. Well done, you had me going for a moment! Nice one Jim! Quite agree Steve, opinions should not influence duties. I can think of many examples. Can I take it you are sticking up for my right to say what I think, or is it a cue to shut up and find another forum? Not 100% sure! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Hello > >I imagine support for Dave's viewpoint is not soley >confined to CS, ask anybody who has reported a burglary, >stolen car, vandalism, etc. etc. >Favorite Topics I've just had my car broken into and 500 pounds sterling worth of tools stolen, the plods attitude was sympathetic as usual. Believe it or not, I was investigating why our satellite transmitted "Data" was being corrupted. The culprit turned out to be the microwave link from the closed circuit TV cameras! Needless to say the said cameras saw bugger all. A cynic? not me, I am a realist! -- Dave Reay Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Hugh Bellars", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG, I have a lot of sympathy for many of the views expressed in your post, but this one line made me do a double-take. What 'grief' could possibly be caused by these legal section 1 items? The implication from your statement is that some people in the Police just don't like 'civilians' owning these items, despite the explicit wording of the Firearms Acts. I am lucky in that my own licensing department is superb - they genuinely seem to believe in the 'service to shooters' line put out by the Home Office. However many aren't so lucky, and we regularly hear horror stories on Cybershooters of inappropriate behaviour by some police officers. IG, you are clearly one of the enlightened; but as long as such views are held by some of your colleagues, are you really surprised that many Cybershooters get upset at the Police in general? Hugh Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "Jim FRANKLIN", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[.
However I draw the line at Crown Servants using their
position to express views on the Law, Policy and further,
making provocative statements to the effect that the general
population abuse their hard won freedom, cannot be
trusted, should be disarmed and controlled "for their
own good".
Who on earth is using their position for gods sake?Is this not an
open forum?
[.]
One ? will do!
Yes, this is an open forum and I was not talking about cybershooters in
particular. One has to be particularly obtuse to not only take things out of
contact, but to omit part of the quote in order to make the complaint fit
the diatribe
{.]
Whilst many of us would take issue with a lot of what is said in
Cybershooters and any other forum, everyone has a right to spout his
two-pennyworth.
[.]
The above preceded the first quote above, so the ground rules were clearly
laid down. However to make things perfectly clear, the point was about any
public official using in his official capacity making remarks on public
policy.
To take it a bit further even if "off duty" they can still reign in their
opinions. As a former MoD Engineer and NATO Official, it would have been
more than my job and pension were worth to comment on the same line as some
of today's police officers. They have ideas way above their station. They
are quite simply, public servants and no more.
If there are comments to made on policy, let my MP or Ministers make it. I
want to hear the organ grinder not the monkey.
[.]
Sorry, I have just realised this is a wind up, lol, and wasnt meant to be
taken seriously. Well done, you had me going for a moment! Nice one Jim!
[.]
Burying your head in the sand to avoid the issue does not alter the facts or
make them go away.
Jim Franklin
Orpington
KENT. UK
PGP key on request
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "Kay, Martin (DEI)", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG wrote: "...Only well presented and structured > debate, strongly made cases and relentless pressure will win > the day..." > Those of us who owned SLRs and later pistols tried this approach in our defence. The response from media, politicians, and regrettably certain sections of the police, (the organisation in the best position to understand the facts) was: " ...intemperate and hostile attacks on people > either as individuals or institutions..." > Most of our subscribers would agree that: " It is human nature to fight back..." IG has the courage to defend his corner and I think that he has earned a lot of respect from subscribers for doing so, even though strongly held differences of opinion are exchanged. This lively debate is surely what the function of the group is. IG, although the going is hard, the group will be poorer for your lack of input. Don't take your ball home yet. Martin Kay > Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "david", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The moral being that you win people over by being friendly to them and educating them in the way you want them to think - attack them and you have lost them. Open your minds; you might take three steps forward and suffer four steps back, but keep at it and eventually ground must be gained, after all, what have we got to lose?< actually, nothing now, it's mostly gone, so don't let that influence you. hearts and minds works in many ways. just blanket and unthinking resistance and arguement is as you say, likely to be unproductive. resistance, obstruction and confrontation with an explanation is quite another thing. write to your cheif constable and tell them how they have lost your support and why. if you think that there was a cover-up after Dumblame, or that acpo exceeded their remit or that you are dissapointed with the politicisation of the police, tell them. that is all. let them open their mail and see dissent from shooters. it's one thing to have an ex-con's mum or solicitor grumbling but another to have the most upright of sections of society taking the trouble to write. just do it, gallery rifle sucks and so do the .22 and .32 pistol disciplines. david Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to dispute this one with you. OK, I have the benefit of inside knowledge, but define the terms you have used and I challenge this assertion. I will simply not let outrageous statements such as this go unchallenged. This could be an unhealthy can of worms that you are opening here. What on earth are you going on about? Why on earth should I have a guilty conscience? What have I done to anybody apart from encourage the same things as you! Whew. Doesnt seem to be much I can say without paranoia setting in. Not much point in continuing to post with attitudes like this. Show me where I have tried to defend anything to do with the handgun ban or ACPO! I have to say that there are some entrenched attitudes here. I don't have to apologise for anything I have done. I have been branded worse than a pickpocket here, merely because I dared to challenge some dogmatic views. The thinly veiled comparison to Nazi concentration camp guards is probably the worst. That it comes from people who have never met me and have absolutely no idea of my religious background makes it even more worrying. As 'Pendrous' correctly observes, a public display of such hatred and hostility for the police does not do anyone any good, but please, I am NOT an agent provocateur. You dont need an agent provocateur! I feel responsible for unleashing this venom, so I will sign off now for the sake of my sport. Personally, I am quite used to people having a go, after all, I have been a police officer for over 25 years. However, to have such attacks bordering on the personal come from people who are allegedly enjoying the same sport as me is a bit disconcerting. To be told that I should not air my views or opinions is frightening. All I can say is that I have had my eyes opened! Thanks to those subscribers who have displayed moderation and a willingness to look at things from all angles. Best of luck in your struggles. Dave - chill out. No point in bursting blood vessels! IG -- I did not compare with the concentration camps, I pointed out that it is a well established point of law that you cannot simply say "I was following orders", this as a result of the Nuremberg trials which also involved the prosecution of various police officials in the Nazi regime. The concentration camps were only part of reason behind the prosecutions of war criminals. You said that Parliament and the Home Office bear the responsibility, not the police. That is incorrect. Everyone in the chain from Parliament to the courts, including the police, bear the responsibility for the enforcement of a law which is contrary to the interests of the public whom they are supposed to serve and protect. The police actually do have a reputation of ignoring the more silly provisions of law in this country, they have to, because of the kneejerk nature of Parliament. The recent fiasco with ACPO refusing to recommend zero tolerance enforcement of the speed limit is a prime example. (Although they caved in). Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Whew. Doesnt seem to be much I can say without paranoia setting in. It's ingrained with some people. :-) >I have to say that there are some entrenched attitudes here. I don't have to >apologise for anything I have done. I have been branded worse than a >pickpocket here, merely because I dared to challenge some dogmatic views. No, it's less than that even: it's because of what you do for a living, nothing more than that. Wholly irrational, of course, but a few of the posters of late have been as bad as the tabloid press. You're "one of them" so you are personally responsible. Try to ignore it. >I feel responsible for unleashing this venom, so I will sign off now for the >sake of my sport. I hope you're not unsubscribing? Perhaps you could be persuaded to lurk rather than leave completely. FWIW, I have viewed the more vitriolic attacks on you - which in my opinion seem to be based on nothing more than an attack on the symbolism of the uniform of authority -with some horror. Those individuals appear incapable of viewing any issue from anything other than their own (distorted?) perspective. --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve, & IG, Simplistically speaking, but completely relevant nonetheless, is the question: Suppose your Parliament (or HO) were to issue an edict that all speeders were to be shot dead on sight. Completely ludicrous, I realize. But what if? What if the law were so onerously against the rights of man, that it was patently obvious? Would you still enforce it? Would you see it as your duty to carry out the intent of the law, regardless? ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nuremberg has no bearing on any legal precedent in the UK, not is it the basis for the establishment of any legal principle. It is certainly not included in the list of any stated or decided cases.What laws do you think the police should enforce? Who should decide? Individual officers? What if some officers thought that a certain law was a good one, and others thought it was a bad one? Whichever way you dress it up, it is a gross insult to every police officer in the UK to be mentioned in the same sentence as anything to do with Nuremberg. You arent the only one to make this odious comparison, its been mentioned by more than one subscriber and its yet another popular bandwagon. No the wonder there's so great a division. IG -- All I can say is that you're going to find yourself in a very nasty lawsuit if for example you try and enforce the law which requires people who have received a speeding ticket from a speed camera to identify themselves, because that law has just been ruled illegal. That was the point I was trying to make. If an officer attempts to enforce a law which contravenes the ECHR for example, and which has been ruled to contravene it, that officer has broken the law. It will not be too long IMO before the EU sets up some sort of enforcement mechanism to stop police officers from enforcing laws of a country which contravene EU law. The results of the Nuremberg trials apply in a similar way. Don't kid yourself. With the Human Rights Act on the books every copper who violates the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights is going to have a sticky time in court justifying themselves, if the UK law they were enforcing is held to contravene the ECHR. Or are you familiar with every ruling of the ECHR and every court of every country that has signed the ECHR? There are heaps of lawyers out there who are going to make a living doing this in the coming years. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well I for one will be sorry to see Iggy go. I suppose as he keeps mentioning the length of time he's been a copper we should call him Iggy Pop. Wether I agree with his point of view or not it's enough of a rarity to have someone in the force prepared to stand up and not just argue but do so in words I can understand. Not that God awful monotone style that all senior officers seem to have learnt. On the initial point in his reply I have to say that comparing bent coppers with homicidal shooters is way off beam. Bent coppers with bent shooters or homicidal coppers with homicidal shooters and lets keep the arguement fair. If the debate has got somewhat overheated just consider the initial media coverage and government reaction in March 1996 (No Iggy I don't exclude you from the same feelings as the rest of us I just seek to remind everybody) We were condemned as worse than Paedophiles with the government preferring to find time to punish us in preference to them and had more libel and abuse flung at us than practically any other group of people, certainly since the war. From her recently reported comments Gill Marshal Andrews still considers that my children should be on the "at risk" register merely because of my interest in shooting and at the time she would have been one among many expressing similar opinions. That level of injustice has not and will not be forgotten or forgiven. I shall bare that particular grudge till they nail the lid down. So for the good of shooting stick around my friend and keep arguing. The day this list revolves around mutual ego stroking rather than hot debate is the day I unsubscribe. Brian T Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >more commonplace than "homicidal shooters" > > >I have to dispute this one with you. OK, I have the benefit of inside >knowledge, but define the terms you have used and I challenge this >assertion. I will simply not let outrageous statements such as this go >unchallenged. This could be an unhealthy can of worms that you are opening >here. I can call on the knowlege of the whole of one police station being sentenced to various lengths of "time" because the "crime prevention" team were going around and in effect casing numerous shops. The "night shift" were then going in and burgling the shops based on the knowledge gained from the "crime prevention" team. Felling, Gateshead ring any bells? There certainly has been more cases of bent coppers than homicidal shooters!!! > >"anti" because so many are against a bad law? The operations of the ACPO >were not youre responsibility so why do you have a problem because youre >attempt to defend them is met with such hostility?> > >Whew. Doesnt seem to be much I can say without paranoia setting in. Not much >point in continuing to post with attitudes like this. Show me where I have >tried to defend anything to do with the handgun ban or ACPO! Good point! I can't, so I appologise profusely for that comment, but it still remains a thinly disguised threat. > >I have to say that there are some entrenched attitudes here. I don't have to >apologise for anything I have done. Neither do we! and yes the attitudes are firmly entrenched, we are innocent of any crimes but have been sentenced regardless. We all had to go to a police station to be robbed of our lawfully held possesions, if you cannot see how much that affects our attitude towards the police then there is no more to be said. >I have been branded worse than a >pickpocket here, merely because I dared to challenge some dogmatic views. >The thinly veiled comparison to Nazi concentration camp guards is probably >the worst. That it comes from people who have never met me and have >absolutely no idea of my religious background makes it even more worrying. >As 'Pendrous' correctly observes, a public display of such hatred and >hostility for the police does not do anyone any good, but please, I am NOT >an agent provocateur. You dont need an agent provocateur! I do not think he was refering to you on this count but I will contact him via E-mail to confirm. >I feel responsible for unleashing this venom, so I will sign off now for the >sake of my sport. Personally, I am quite used to people having a go, after >all, I have been a police officer for over 25 years. However, to have such >attacks bordering on the personal come from people who are allegedly >enjoying the same sport as me is a bit disconcerting. To be told that I >should not air my views or opinions is frightening. >All I can say is that I have had my eyes opened! Are you recieving E-mails that we are not privy to? If this is the case I for one would like to know who from! I do not want to be associated with anyone that would not be prepared to have to answer for his comments, but would rely on the anonimity of the internet to threaten or otherwise badly use another. >Dave - chill out. No point in bursting blood vessels! >IG My blood vessels do not burst so easily! I love a good debate because it is the only way of finding out the true feelings of those involved. I sincerely hope that you do not sign off and continue to add input to this NG. Could I suggest that it is you who should chill out and take a reasoned, unbiased look at why we are so full of Hell. As a shooter youreself, you must be asking the same questions, what am I guilty of? When you come up with answer of "nothing" then you can ask youreself "then why have I been punished"? The "Magna Carta" or was it he "Bill of Rights" it matters little because both are the foundation of "British" law, was quite clear on the subject, "All fines forfeitures or seizures" will be deemed null and void unless they have been proscribed by a court of law. My firearms were stolen from me without recourse to a trial by jury, I have not been found guilty of any crime, but sentence has been carried out, this is illegal. The fact that the police aided and abetted this act of criminality has made us very wary of anything to do with the police. Who can we trust? -- Dave Reay Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Simplistically speaking, but completely relevant >nonetheless, is the question: >Suppose your Parliament (or HO) were to issue an >edict that all speeders were to be shot dead on sight. >Completely ludicrous, I realize. But what if? >What if the law were so onerously against the rights >of man, that it was patently obvious? Would you still enforce it? >Would you see it as your duty to carry out the intent >of the law, regardless? >ET A very relevant point. How about the incident in the news last week, of a policeman in Italy shooting dead a scooter rider who was not wearing a crash helmet. A bigger threat to public safety I couldn't imagine! Did the policeman really think he was entitled to use deadly force over a most trivial infringement of the law? The following extract was from a recent judgement in Australia over the right to arms for defence. McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, ...but Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to... So there you have it, straight from the horses mouth. The UK and Australian Parliaments think they can legislate and pass any law-however immoral or ridiculous, and they get away with it because of the apparent connivance with the Judiciary. However, we do have checks and balances against the misuse of power. The authoritative textbook of the common law Blackstone's Commentaries in this famous passage describes the subjectÆs rights;" The rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmenà consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in full vigour; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogativeàAnd all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened. "Blackstone noted that these rights, if they were to have any effect, had to be protected by constitutional mechanisms consisting of five auxiliary rights: 1. The constitution, powers, and privileges of parliament and their limits 2. The limitation of the king's prerogative 3. The right of every Englishman to apply to the courts of justice for redress of injuries done to him by anyone. 4. The right of every individual to petition the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances or infringement of the rights before mentioned, which the ordinary course of law is too defective to reach. 5. The subjects right to possess arms for their defence against transgressors of the law, either individuals or the State. I am aware of Parliamentary restraints on the first auxiliary right. I know the limits of the Royal prerogative on the second. I have applied to the Court for redress of grievance on the third. I have petitioned the House of Commons, the Judicial Office of the House of Lords, the Hereditary Peers and have given information of treason against Lord Justices Morritt, Henry & Peter Gibson on the fourth. The State has transgressed the law. Who is the criminal, the State for suppressing my rights or me for reclaiming them? Regards, Mike Burke. PS. I'm studying the fifth right with interest. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "Kay, Martin (DEI)", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert wrote: "...On the contrary, Nuremberg reminded us, nothing more, because the law was > already clear, pre 1945, that obeying an illegal order was no defence. > > Every *soldier* is taught that; I am surprised that policemen don't know > it!..." > Maybe because policemen are civilians.like it or not. Martin Kay -- I don't think I agree with this line of thought because the defence some Nazis used was that they were following perfectly lawful orders given under the law in force at the time. Ergo, they lacked responsibility according to the defence as they were not responsible for the law. The laws allowing about 90% of what they did to the gypsies were in force prior to the Nazis coming to power, so the Nazis could even use the defence that they were not the ones responsible for the law even. They did not receive illegal orders, what they did was act in a grossly immoral way contrary to a hastily enacted international law that didn't even exist when the acts were committed. The point being made (I guess) that you have to be careful not only to do the legal thing but also the right thing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apropos Nuremberg >Nuremberg has no bearing on any legal precedent in the UK, not is it the >basis for the establishment of any legal principle. It is certainly not >included in the list of any stated or decided cases. On the contrary, Nuremberg reminded us, nothing more, because the law was already clear, pre 1945, that obeying an illegal order was no defence. Every *soldier* is taught that; I am surprised that policemen don't know it! Robert Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iggy, Stop now, you won't get anywhere - I know because I tried recently along similar lines when I had the temerity to suggest that magistrates do not have the power to throw out cases that they consider to be based on bad or unjust law. The example we were talking about was Tony Martin, when some subscribers suggested that the magistrates could have said there was no case to answer, and I had the unmitigated gall to point out that in fact the bench has no jurisdiction in such cases and can only act as a clearing house. I too got the comments about "it didn't work for the nazis (only following orders) so why can it work for the judiciary" - there then ensued a dialogue with many people both on the list and off in which I answered every point based on fact, and still got a lot of claptrap. I take solace in the fact that only a few people are total prats and incapable of seeing the target AND the means of achieving it. I firmly believe that the majority of cybershooters are angry BUT rational and willing to take part in an activity that has a realistic chance of achieving the desired aim. For example, I have already had one chap who lives in Sussex asking about my invite to the licencing unit, and wishes to undertake the same. As I said before, Hearts and Minds wins, Angry rejection and attack mode doesn't!! Don't lose heart AND don't stop subscribing - it will be a poorer world if you do!! Regards Chris Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember most of the laws enacted after 1936 were in effect edicts from the Nazi party as parliament (the Riechstag) was not debating and passing the laws. What the Nazis did within Germany was suspect legally. What they did in the occupied territories was covered by the Geneva and Hague conventions and the accepted standards of war and clearly illegal. What should also be remembered was the German military code made failure to obey any order a capital offence, on the battlefield punishable by summary execution. The German ethos of obeying the law is so deep seated that even today you find pedestrians waiting at a red light at a German light controlled crossing even when there are no cars coming! The idea of obeying the 'law' is deep seated in most of us. However as IG pointed out when does one decide that a law is illegal or immoral, the ECHR gives us some guidance but already some ridiculous examples of the ECHR being 'misused' are getting into the press. Regards Jerry -- Such as? Anyway, I'm not suggesting that every single Nazi could say what he did was legal, however many of them could. Gypsies had effectively the same rights as farm animals prior to the Nazis coming to power, so the Nazis could essentially do what they pleased with them under the pre-existing law. Many pretty onerous laws were passed in Germany prior to the Nazis coming to power, in part expressly to stop them coming to power, however that backfired because when they did come to power a lot of the police state they wanted was already in place. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity etc
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> OK, you have got your bite. The comment that provoked this latest intemperate outburst was actually well meant. I had fully intended tackling the officers that gave you such a hard time, but once again your bigotted rantings have let the side down. Get on with it Mr Reay. All I can say is that I am glad that the majority of subscribers have a more enlightened and moderate viewpoint than you do. You do neither yourself nor your sport any credit, sir, and I would prefer to distance myself from any association that may be drawn with attitudes such as yours. I have no wish to prolong this discussion with yourself as it is only damaging to the sport. I leave this forum a sadder but wiser person. My future actions will be tempered by the knowledge gained from here. Accordingly, although with reluctance, I request that Mr Kendrick removes me from the subscribers list. Please note, Mr Reay, that I do so of my own choice and not because you have told me to F*** off elsewhere. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity etc
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >OK, you have got your bite. --snip-- >I leave this forum a sadder but wiser person. My future >actions will be tempered by the knowledge gained from here. >Accordingly, although with reluctance, I request that >Mr Kendrick removes me from the subscribers list. >Please note, Mr Reay, that I do so of my own choice and not >because you have told me to F*** off elsewhere. > > >IG Steve, And what a shame, he never answered my questions. But then, for someone to utter that there is never an illegal order, and then not comment on the obvious question that challenges that position, one can only wonder what he really would do if ordered to murder another person. Would 'golem' be an apt description? ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >"misfeasance in public office" - what Act is that under? It isn't under any Act, it's an ancient common law tort (civil wrong) which is enjoying something of a revival. The necessary elements are given in "Three Rivers District Council et al v. Governor of the Bank of England" (The Times, 22nd April 1996) and are:- 1. deliberate and dishonest wrongful abuse of the powers given to a public officer 2. malice in the sense of an intention to injure the claimant, combined with a knowledge that he had no power to do the act complained of, or reckless as to whether he had the powers or not 3. can be committed by acts of omission as well as commission 4. the purpose of the tort was to give compensation to those who had suffered loss as a result of improper abuse of power. So, for example, if a firearms licensing officer noticed that a Notice of Transfer of a firearm did not provide all the details required by the Firearms Act, and he deliberately failed to seek from the FAC holder those details with the result that an offence was committed and subsequently prosecuted the FAC holder for the offence of failure to notify the chief officer of police, then that firearms licensing officer would, in my opinion, be guilty of the tort of misfeasance in public office. As a police constable, he had a duty to prevent a crime from occurring and he could have done this, but he sat back and allowed the offence to occur in order that he could then pursue the FAC holder for the offence. A purely fictional example, of course, not that I am bitter and twisted. :-) Anyone interested in more detail is well advised to study "Suing The Police: A practical guide to knowing and enforcing your rights" by Chaman Salhan and Henry Spooner, ISBN 1-901-657-868, which costs L19.95 but no doubt can be borrowed from a library. Ask me why I've got a copy. :-) --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity / Perceptions
From: "Gregg Mitchell", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I.G., I read your comments with interest. Your argument re. parrallelling condemnation of Police & shooters is fallacious. Shooters are citizens. They pursue their interest for pleasure, without pecuniary advantage and without the attendant pressure to conform to views held or implied by superiors. A police officer is not that fortunate. He is an individual, but his opinions and actions are bound by his office. He is an administrator and enforcer of government. The Police, therefore, is the body and he is but part of that organism. The only free will he can exercise is that which exists within the bounds of conscience. This is as it should be. I have no argument with that, I see no dichotomy, nor anything sinister. When the Police attempt to create the Law, I despair of this country. ACPO, the Superintendents' Association & Police Federation engage in political activity, pursuing their own agenda with their advice & statements. They ignored the realities of legitimate firearm ownership in this country. I lost respect for those bodies. It is concomitant that I lose a degree of respect for the people they purport to represent and the people who support their existence. When the Police, as an organisation, override "Law" with "Policy" and actively contribute to bad legislation, then the Police are irrevocably damaged, tainted far more than by any isolated corruption. After all, if I hear rubbish on something I know about, then what other rubbish have I been fed over the years from the same source? "I was only a guard dog at Buchenwald" doesn't work either. The Home Office & Parliament are not the only villains in the piece. When will the Police learn that respect is hard earned & easily lost? I resent the historical involvement of the Police in the shabby legislation we endure. I resent the fact that I now regard any Police statement (re. armed crime, firearms) with suspicion. If attitudes displayed in the postings have shaken you, don't lose heart. Shooters are just ordinary people. When you've been rogered as soundly as we all have, it bound to sting a bit. Keep faith and Good Luck. G.M. By the way, removal of anonymity is lunacy, but the fastest way to cause it is to use the facility too casually. Article 29 doesn't apply, as far as I am aware. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is illegal for the police to obey illegal orders yes but once a law is on the statute books it is not illegal to enforce it. Remember much that was prosecuted at Nuremberg were actions that were against the Geneva and Hague conventions on the conduct and practice of war, however the 'Allies' also came up with some interesting legal concepts such as 'it was illegal to wage aggressive war'. These legal concepts were more than a little dubious even though we were using them against people who were guilty (in our eyes) of some pretty heinous crimes. If the police and military in the UK (or when operating abroad) obeyed an order which was obviously illegal (such as to murder or torture people who were obviously non-combatants) then the defence of 'only obeying orders' is no defence and they would be charged as a principle in the crime. If the British military or police were enforcing laws that were on the statute books and enforcing them in a 'reasonable' manner, where reasonable means they stayed within the law as they understood it then 'obeying a lawful order' is indeed a defence. The agreement that the law is unreasonable is one for the courts to decide. The police have some discretion in enforcing the law but that is at the margins (e.g. cautioning a driver doing 35 MPH in a 30 limit) rather than a total interpretation of the law. Locally we have one road that has 'accidentally' been made a 30 MPH limit and the police must enforce that until it is amended. Regards Jerry -- What _crime_ does a police officer commit (as opposed to a disciplinary offence) if he refuses to apply a law? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > < good authority that the same Officer at the case that > resulted from this dealers persecution said to one of the > Lawyers present something along the lines of "well now > we've got their pistols, we can start on the shotguns > next" to which said lawyer replied "Well you're not getting > my bloody shotguns". >> > > I have got lots of things on good authority too, but have the common sense > and decency to keep them to myself. Hearsay, tittle tattle and gossip are > kids games. Besides, its getting very close to dodgy ground here. > I can see the game here, lol, and I wont be wound up! OK, it's hearsay. I withdraw it as I can't prove it. I notice you haven't commented on the first bit of that post though. Jonathan Laws Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> I have got lots of things on good authority too, but have the common sense and decency to keep them to myself. Hearsay, tittle tattle and gossip are kids games. Besides, its getting very close to dodgy ground here. I can see the game here, lol, and I wont be wound up! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think one of our other contributors provided that one - misfeasance in public office as the criminal charge and neglect of duty as the disciplinary offence. Should it be a more direct failure to uphold the law, say a police officer deliberately standing aside to allow an assault then they could also be charged as an accessory even though they took no active part. In such an example their failure to intervene would be sufficient as they had a sworn duty to intervene. Regards Jerry -- "misfeasance in public office" - what Act is that under? Say IG knew that tomorrow he had to go and help inventory a pile of seized cigarettes in some town or other, and he didn't want to do it because he objects to cigarette taxes. So he stays in bed and doesn't show up for work. What offence is that? Misfeasance for not showing up? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I request that > Mr Kendrick removes me from the subscribers list. > Please note, Mr Reay, that I do so of my own choice and not > because you have told me to F*** off elsewhere. This is rather disappointing. We may not agree with one another all the time or indeed very often but that is surely the very reason we debate things? Going off in a huff is not the way in which to change opionions that you disagree with. Jonathan Laws. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity revisited
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve, although I think we eventually "agreed to disagree" on police weapons and tactics, here's some very disturbing stuff on the death of Harry Stanley. http://www.gn.apc.org/inquest/briefings/stanley.html also http://www.gn.apc.org/inquest/policestats.html Rusty Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
