More UK madness

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about the bloke was dishonourably discharged from the Army for stealing ammo?

where is the relevance to handing in a firearm as any good citizen in the interests of their community should apart from character assassination?

Or that he was suspected of shooting another doorman over drug business, but the case was discontinued due to lack of evidence, ie a gun?

Suspicion is now grounds for guilt on its own merits? That's an interesting interpretation of the English criminal legal system.


Or how about the fact that the shotgun he handed in had previously been licensed to him and had had the barrels and stock cut off and a partial serial number recovered through forensics?

if only a partial serial number was recovered how can they 100% guarantee that the shotgun is indeed the same one that was licensed to him? I'm guessing the additional details of cut-off stock/barrels is purely in the interest of allowing our imagination run wild with visions of gangland bangers with sawn-off shotguns.


as the number had not been ground off enough?

that is a contradiction with the previous statement - either it was a partial recovery of a serial number or a full recovery of the serial number. Which one is it? How can we have confidence in the factual accuracy of the other information provided if you cannot get such a simple detail as to whether a partial or full serial number was taken?

25Pdr,

the above isn't at all directed at you but the bobby that wrote it, more an observation that if a non lawyer can turn it around after a first reading imagine what a real lawyer can do.

Newspapers sell tripe because as P.T. Barnum apocryphally observed, there's a sucker born every minute and if you saw it on TV or read it on the internet then it must be true :neener:

sensationalist trivia masquerading as news or investigative journalism ?

Decide for yourself :neener:
 
That post is enlightening, for sure. My favorite bit from it: 'A little quote from Churchill for you, "Better to say nothing and people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt..."'
 
The American way ? in Hatcher's " Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers" he relates a similar incident in NYC about 1930. The man found a gun and being a good citizen he turned it in - and was promptly arrested !!
 
I think the story in the press should be treated as such, a story. There will be more to this than is published, of course. It is interesting the more information coming out. Let's also remember that the police don't write the laws they simply enforce them. There are a number of "tests" a case is subject to before a person is charged. One of those is whether it is in the public interest to procede. On the report this would not be in the public interest. However, in light of the other information it certianly is!
 
A serving Police Officer, (Sim G), has made this statement on UK a Forum, www.guntrader.co.uk which if true would explain the case..........

http://www.guntrader.co.uk/phpBB3/vi...156821#p156821

How about the bloke was dishonourably discharged from the Army for stealing ammo? Or that he was suspected of shooting another doorman over drug business, but the case was discontinued due to lack of evidence, ie a gun? Or how about the fact that the shotgun he handed in had previously been licensed to him and had had the barrels and stock cut off and a partial serial number recovered through forensics as the number had not been ground off enough?
Click to expand...

If that's true, that explains a lot. Charging someone with possession of a firearm when they were trying to turn it in would seem to run counter to the obvious goal of the UK government (namely, get those evil, evil guns off of the street). But, if it was the guy's gun in the first place and the guy is not exactly a stand-up guy, this makes it a different story.
 
25 Pdr said:
A serving Police Officer, (Sim G), has made this statement on UK a Forum, www.guntrader.co.uk which if true would explain the case..........

http://www.guntrader.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=137773&p=156821#p156821

How about the bloke was dishonourably discharged from the Army for stealing ammo? Or that he was suspected of shooting another doorman over drug business, but the case was discontinued due to lack of evidence, ie a gun? Or how about the fact that the shotgun he handed in had previously been licensed to him and had had the barrels and stock cut off and a partial serial number recovered through forensics as the number had not been ground off enough?
Click to expand...

Interesting if true.

Discharged from army? Irrelevant. Suspected of a prior crime? Sorry, irrelevant. Gun was licensed to him? Now that's relevant. However, I would like to know exactly what previously licensed to him means. Did he legally sell it to someone else in the interim?

Got any citations?
 
carbuncle,

Then allow me simplify my post just for you

a.) I tried to illustrate how it's possible to spin anything in the same manner that the supposed English bobby/cop did on that UK forum to the original 'story'.

b) As the 'story' originates from a newspaper it has already gone through the process of spin/sensationalist editing. The only pertinent sentence in the entire 'story' is the following

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction

Those 12 people, a jury of his peers, were no doubt given the facts and not the tripe that now passes for journalism.

Everything else in that 'story', to me at least, is sensationalist stuffing for a news story that is trivia to begin with....yet here people are willing to debate its merits.

c) if ever there was proof needed that debating logic with stupidity is futile then this is it.

Emotive reasoning trumps facts every day it would appear.

It would be funny if it wasn't such a tragedy the public are incapable of reading between the lines.

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

A pithy headline worthy of any tabloid newspaper....that's me being ironic in case that also goes over your head.
 
So... what's the penalty for contemplating a firearm, you know, staring at one? Removal of your dominant eye perhaps?
 
lykoris said:
carbuncle,

Then allow me simplify my post just for you

a.) I tried to illustrate how it's possible to spin anything in the same manner that the supposed English bobby/cop did on that UK forum to the original 'story'.

b) As the 'story' originates from a newspaper it has already gone through the process of spin/sensationalist editing. The only pertinent sentence in the entire 'story' is the following

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction

Those 12 people, a jury of his peers, were no doubt given the facts and not the tripe that now passes for journalism.
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible to spin a story out of touch with what actually happened and perhaps that is what has happened here.

I don't think that the fact that it took the jury only 20 minutes to convict is as important as you seem to make it. Given the apparent lack of flexibility in the law, i.e. possession = guilt regardless of the circumstances, the quick verdict could merely indicate that there wasn't much to discuss within the framework of the law. Or it might mean that the jury was prejudiced to begin with. Hard to tell from here.
 
throdgrain said:
Guys I live in England. Hell I live in Surrey damn nearly.

This thing is getting much debate on www.airgunbbs.com , the biggest U.K shooting forum.

There is much more to this case than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

I tried to look up the thread on airgunbbs, but it won't let me see the thread unless I'm registered and it won't let me register. :banghead:
 
I like the other headline in that paper: Dorking's famous albino squirrel is dead.

New York City has a justification of "temporary possession of an unlicensed handgun" if you disarm an armed robber and turn his own gun aganst him (Handgun Control says the same thing happens if you try to defend yourself with your own gun, so I guess turn-about is fair play.) In a sane jurisdiction, disarming an attacker should not open you to a charge of illegal possession in the first place.

The first story stated: "Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added."

The additions that Clarke had been caught stealing ammo in the Army, had allegedly assaulted someone but the weapon was not found, and the gun he turned in had previously been owned by him, (and I am not clear that that is true or just a rhetorical argument), does not change the prosecutor's instruction to the jury: even if his intent was honest as he alleged, it was a 'strict liability' charge with no defense. In a sane jurisdiction, a sawn-off shotgun should be accepted off the street with few questions or punishment. The message could be received as the authorities are saying, don't bother us with turning in illegal guns or we will put you in jail.
 
Natman,

you're completely missing my point.

the timeframe of 20 minutes of deliberation by the jury before reaching their verdict of conviction is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make - it could be 20 hours/days.

The point I'm making is that a jury of 12 were given all the facts in relation to the case in a court of law and given those facts made their decision based upon the rule of law.

To me it is apparent there is more to this case than what the article discloses (that should be the default assumption of any reader with any level of critical thinking:( )

Yet in reading the responses to this thread you find the overwhelming majority of people willingly adopt the conclusions of the journalist. Only a few people actually thought there could be more to the story...or at least another side.

And stepping back from that and looking at the larger picture you realize when the majority of people by default vociferously adopt the conclusions of an article by a journalist as factually representative of events it's a sorry state of affairs.

Re-read the article and highlight how the other side is represented. A single quotation taken by the prosecution which has no doubt been taken out of context/misquoted. Re-read the title of the article and the opening sentence. Is the article in any manner biased?

To me it's typical UK tabloid format - appeal to the emotions of the public as facts or the other side of the story doesn't sell newspapers.

The British media does have its moments - the expenses scandal as one example.
 
lykoris, my post was related to 25 Pdr's and was not a commentary on your post in any way.

To clarify, the officer's post on the other forum was enlightening regarding the background of the case, and I enjoyed the Churchill quote made by the officer. "That post" refers to 25 Pdr's, not yours.
 
lykoris said:
Natman,

you're completely missing my point.

the timeframe of 20 minutes of deliberation by the jury before reaching their verdict of conviction is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make - it could be 20 hours/days.

The point I'm making is that a jury of 12 were given all the facts in relation to the case in a court of law and given those facts made their decision based upon the rule of law.

To me it is apparent there is more to this case than what the article discloses (that should be the default assumption of any reader with any level of critical thinking:( )
Click to expand...

Allow me to requote part of your original post:
lykoris said:
b) As the 'story' originates from a newspaper it has already gone through the process of spin/sensationalist editing. The only pertinent sentence in the entire 'story' is the following

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction

Those 12 people, a jury of his peers, were no doubt given the facts and not the tripe that now passes for journalism."
Click to expand...

If the 20 minute part wasn't your point and that the jury heard things we're not currently privy to was, then your emphasis was grossly misplaced.

That said, I do agree with your point that it's quite possible the jury got a very different picture during the trial than was presented in the paper and that "journalists" often spin things beyond recognition. That's one of the benefits of internet posting; you can sometimes flush out people with more detailed knowledge of events. However, so far it's been pretty sparse on the rebuttal side.
 
it was the only sentence in the entire article that mentioned the jury taking a decision.

I should have put it in quotes rather than highlighting it in bold.
 
lykoris, no problem: I can see where there would be a misunderstanding, I should have been more specific about what I was replying to, sorry about that.
 
I went in search of the exact quote by Jefferson regarding newspapers rather than paraphrase it, I've highlighted it in bold below but also put in the entire paragraph from the letter he wrote in 1807. It is amazing to see that some truths transcend time and are just as relevant today as they were over 200 years ago.

e.g. Think of the deliberate misinformation given by the UK media to toe the government intention of gun control(firearms legislation) after the two shootings in the UK that lead to the banning of the semi-auto centrefire rifle and handguns. And the same is applicable to any other country. The media in the ROI did the exact same when they banned centerfire pistols this year.




excerpt from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell in 1807

" To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, etc., etc.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts; and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources, as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.
 
I certainly don't believe that everything printed in a newspaper is the truth.

It's pretty foolish to believe that everything printed in a newspaper is a lie just because it was printed in a newspaper.

So while I'm open to convincing evidence to the contrary, until some is presented I'm going with the story as published. The quotes are complete enough to be plausible as quoted and the story is, sadly, consistent with the current mentality regarding guns in the UK.

When you have some actual evidence I'll enjoy seeing it.
 
illegal ownership of a weapon be it "live" or a realistic blank fire gun carrys a minium of 5 years over here ;(

The police from what i've read carried the procidure out to the "letter of the law" which was wrong and any good attornry would make the jury see that.

On another note my friend was duck shooting over a pond (he has permission) and armed police grabbed him including a helecopter.

Police used helecopter not him lol.

because a "tree hugger" was walking near by(tresspassing on land)
and heard animals beeing injured!
Luckely he only spent a night in the jail and got his gun back.

U only need 1 biased person and it goes "tits up"
 
It's pretty foolish to believe that everything printed in a newspaper is a lie just because it was printed in a newspaper.
Click to expand...

I never said that and I don't believe the paragraph from Jefferson comes to that conclusion either but that is my interpretation.

When you have some actual evidence I'll enjoy seeing it.
Click to expand...

Evidently, as I'm sure you were aware when you wrote it, I'm incapable of providing any evidence beyond the article itself.

You take the article at face value and accept it as non-biased and factually correct. I've already said what I thought of it and it's pointless to repeat myself so we can just agree to disagree.

This is not meant as a provocation but more another illustration, that if you recall the misinformation in the UK media from TV/newspaper coverage following the hungerford massacre it swayed public opinion to demand the government banning you from owning this



The same media enabled legislators to ban handguns after Dunblane, again the disinformation given to the public and outrage made them demand the government ban them. Emotive reasoning based upon lies that the British public would be safer etc. etc. etc.

There is bias in all media regardless of origin or content and it is something the public should be mindful of when they read/watch x,y,z.

There is an interesting thread on here about mythbusters that further illustrates the disinformation given by the media to the general public vis-à-vis firearms ballistics.

The media shape public opinion on any given topic. A mere hundred years ago firearms where as common and as much a part of daily life in the U.K. as the daily newspaper....yet in such a short timeframe and a few generations later look at the U.K. The perception of the generations has been molded to such an extent that today those that do not shoot hold a fundamental distrust of anybody that does - thanks to the saturation of negative stereotypes they have been exposed to from birth regarding firearms.

I find it a disturbing trend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top