Home Office and Plymouth "Tragedy"

coire257

Well-Known Member
For the third f’kup in a row by the Police we the honest, truthful, dedicated, shooters are going to have to take it up the ass from the Home Office, again. The Police stuck it to us with Hungerford, then we, all of us had to shoulder the blame for Dunblane leading to the infamous handgun ban THEN they sealed the investigation for 100 years, now why would they do that? The ONLY reason I can think of is to allow the Police, who f’d up royally, to cover their arses AND keep their pensions.

Now to the latest debacle, they want us to take the blame again over Plymouth, they are looking at "future legislation in light of the Plymouth tragedy". Now I am not going to suggest we hoot and holler about their mistakes, I am going to hoot and holler about OUR mistakes. Are we really, yet again, going to stand there (or bend over) and take the punishments, because that is what they are, because, once again the Police f’d up?

I don't know what our next move is going to be, I am not smart enough to mind read the HO or our parliamentary representatives, that’s inferring they have minds of course, but I do know what we need to do and that is, for once, just once will do, for once we need to present a united front and just outright reject these proposals for the smoke screen they are.

For one time only, I am in agreement with Chrissie Hall of the Gun Control Network (a most odious individual) who has concerns that the recommendations of the Coroner may be watered down, I too share that concern because there were twenty odd points made by the Coroner criticising the Police and their actions and I personally want them brought to book. Further the idea of increasing the cost of a firearms certificate is just not acceptable. They (the government) want to increase the cost of a firearms certificate to reflect the true cost of issuing one.

This is just an outrageous idea, we are going to finance a load of Civil Servants who spend much of their day playing silly office games (just read that transcript of the hearing at the employment tribunal posted here a couple of months ago) and spend TWELVE MONTHS doing this? I don't want to pay for schools and libraries either but I, like most of the population do in the form of taxation, (on my pension!), which also pays for the Police, but from where I am sitting it is quite clear they are failing in all aspects of their job and if they cannot weed out their own corrupt and criminal officers .......?

This is from one who when working had a higher security than the PM, who has shotgun and game licenses dating back to the 1960’s, and does not reflect on the FEO’s who visit us and have to ask us those stupid questions they can tell if we are lying, but generally treat us with respect and openness.
 
Certainly a trouser rolling funny handshake enthusiast.
I've had a close professional and personal interest in this case since it happened. There are various theories that have some degree of credibility, particularly since the Assistant Chief Constable who overruled the local officers resigned before he could be called to give evidence at the inquest or the enquiry. But one thing I have never seen any evidence of was that Thomas Hamilton was a Freemason.
Happy to be proved wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary
 
Personally I don't see why FACs and SGC should be subsidised by the tax payer. I wouldn't be against a higher fee for those who are appealing either- of their case is more complex- why should the tax payer subsidise it ? The other examples you cite (schools etc) all benefit society. Keeping pest numbers down benefits the land owner more- far less so society (but it does a wee bit I suppose).

You say shooters should reject the proposals- how do you do that exactly ? They don't need our permission or acceptance.

The Plymouth shooting was pretty mind boggling- heads have rolled. But the police would have a lot more time to consider these situations if they were better funded- much of it should come from FACs.
 
It’s a lot more than three in a row. I can think of a few more instances where they have given firearms back to clearly dodgy characters who have gone on to kill in the last few years. Not saying I would want that weight of responsibility or that I would be any better at the job but that’s the job they have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kes
Personally I don't see why FACs and SGC should be subsidised by the tax payer. I wouldn't be against a higher fee for those who are appealing either- of their case is more complex- why should the tax payer subsidise it ? The other examples you cite (schools etc) all benefit society. Keeping pest numbers down benefits the land owner more- far less so society (but it does a wee bit I suppose).

You say shooters should reject the proposals- how do you do that exactly ? They don't need our permission or acceptance.

The Plymouth shooting was pretty mind boggling- heads have rolled. But the police would have a lot more time to consider these situations if they were better funded- much of it should come from FACs.

Tax payers subsidies firearms licences because they, all of society benefit’s from licensing and that’s how it was agreed by parliament when the first firearms act was introduced.

years back you could buy a shotgun certificate from the post office, it’s the government that has created the licensing system of today, to controller gun ownership for theirs and society at large safety.

lots of activities use police resources that we as tax payers pay or make a contribution, some i will never benefit from that’s just the system.
 
To answer the OP question, we need to demonstrate to the public at large we were not the cause of Plymouth, that was police failings, the shooting orgs’ should employ a PR expert, run a media campaign in the press and TV yes it will cost money. But i expect they will just rely on political representation which we all know how well that has worked in the past. So get ready to bend over.
 
Hiring a non shooting PR expert to represent shooters would be a BRILLIANT move, we need someone on the outside to portray shooters image to non shooters, and a non shooter can see it from their eyes better, maybe BASC could set up an emergency funding op and look into hiring someone, will need to be soon. If we dont do something in the next 6 months the future of shooting in UK looks very bad. If the politicians dont think the public want newer costly licencing laws, just stricter enforcement of satisfactory existing laws ,and start to feel the shooting association's represent a fair few voters and have some clout ,they MAY pick something else to focus on.
I think there are a lot more shooters than trans people, but the trans have more clout because they make more noise. We can learn from them.
 
Politicians on mass will never side with gun owners, most question why we want them, to publicly side with us is just political suicide, they want good positive headlines that make them look good and we are an easy target for that especially if they think it will win them the next election and keep them in their MP job.

Yes a few may participate in shooting, but very unlikely to publicly stand up for the likes of me or you.
 
I've had a close professional and personal interest in this case since it happened. There are various theories that have some degree of credibility, particularly since the Assistant Chief Constable who overruled the local officers resigned before he could be called to give evidence at the inquest or the enquiry. But one thing I have never seen any evidence of was that Thomas Hamilton was a Freemason.
Happy to be proved wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary
THIS..
 
I've had a close professional and personal interest in this case since it happened. There are various theories that have some degree of credibility, particularly since the Assistant Chief Constable who overruled the local officers resigned before he could be called to give evidence at the inquest or the enquiry. But one thing I have never seen any evidence of was that Thomas Hamilton was a Freemason.
Happy to be proved wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary
I think the freemason thing could be a case of 2+2=5
Hamilton was known to the ACC, but I don't think the exact nature of their relationship has been made public
At the time of the shooting my wife was secretary/PA to Ian Oliver, the recently appointed Chief Constable of Grampian Police, whose previous job was Chief Constable of Central Police - which includes Dunblane
On the morning of the shooting as word of the incident was coming in, my wife told me that out that Hamilton was the first word out of his mouth when he heard about it.

Cheers

Bruce
 
Tax payers subsidies firearms licences because they, all of society benefit’s from licensing and that’s how it was agreed by parliament when the first firearms act was introduced.

years back you could buy a shotgun certificate from the post office, it’s the government that has created the licensing system of today, to controller gun ownership for theirs and society at large safety.

lots of activities use police resources that we as tax payers pay or make a contribution, some i will never benefit from that’s just the system.
Yup I get that- and it isn't a perfect or a particularly fair system.

But as we dont have a legal right to guns- paying more for the privilege doesn't seem outrageous to me. Especially if you're a complex or marginal case that needs more time.

I did recognise there are society benefits to pest control etc- but they are weaker than the other examples you used.
 
Yup I get that- and it isn't a perfect or a particularly fair system.

But as we dont have a legal right to guns- paying more for the privilege doesn't seem outrageous to me. Especially if you're a complex or marginal case that needs more time.

I did recognise there are society benefits to pest control etc- but they are weaker than the other examples you used.

The benefits are regarding safety, not what we actually shoot.

Once you move away from the idea that tax payers contribute to cost of issuing certificates introduced by the government of the day for the benefit of society and move to full cost recovery then where do you draw the line, is the cost based on the worst most inefficient force and what incentive to improve efficiency and system. i.e, remove sound mods from certificates. Then think of the work they do that is not paid for by us, like free back powder acquire and keep certificates, clay club section 11, investigation into miss use of firearms by owners etc.

it’s a privilege to own a vehicle driving licence or a fishing license so I do not see where that comes into it.

so £300, £500, £1000, £1500 what is your pain threshold
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JTO
FAC fee should cover its cost. End of
Why?

Let’s just kill the sport for future generations, you need to look back in history the first firearms act was introduced by parliament to protect members of parliament.

I would be quite happy to buy my shotgun certificate from the post office.
 
Yup I get that- and it isn't a perfect or a particularly fair system.

But as we dont have a legal right to guns- paying more for the privilege doesn't seem outrageous to me. Especially if you're a complex or marginal case that needs more time.

I did recognise there are society benefits to pest control etc- but they are weaker than the other examples you used.
From your final bit of text it would appear you do not shoot..Under the bill of rights I believe we do have a right to arms and really should not pay for an FAC at all. Pest control as you put it is a living and way of life for some of us.
10/- for a gun licence and £3 for an FAC was expensive at the time but it seems the more the restrictions and cost are put upon us the death rate of shootings escalates. I would venture to say that in the average year since the handgun ban, the rate of shootings has increased from pre ban, mainly illegal.
 
Tax payers subsidies firearms licences because they, all of society benefit’s from licensing and that’s how it was agreed by parliament when the first firearms act was introduced.

years back you could buy a shotgun certificate from the post office, it’s the government that has created the licensing system of today, to controller gun ownership for theirs and society at large safety.

lots of activities use police resources that we as tax payers pay or make a contribution, some i will never benefit from that’s just the system.
Exactly this..
Football clubs only partially subsidise policing on match days. The rest is picked up by the tax payer. I have no interest or investment in football so I could ask why should I pay. I would imagine the cost for policing such events is eye watering compared to firearms licensing.
I stand to be corrected
 
Back
Top