Still breaking the law
Speeding and wrong info = FAC Revocation and Seizure
- Thread starter Foxyboy43
- Start date
- Status
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
I never said otherwise. But doing 30 round a wet corner in a 50 zone is also potentially breaking the law.
I’m in Scotland, speeding laws up here are ridiculous.
I’m in Scotland, speeding laws up here are ridiculous.
you for real. i am honesty shocked at some of the coments on this thread. looks like to police are right to have a tidy up of some iresponsible firearm owners
Reading that lot, I think it would be astonishing if the applicant was granted a licence for a water pistol !It ain't splitting hairs... 96mph falls into a different penalty bracket to 100mph
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Explain why ?
You’re accusing me of being an irresponsible firearm holder so back it up with logical reason please.
So, what other laws do you think shouldn't apply, or should be applied in a graduated manner ?
Maybe if someone is only a little bit over the drink-driving limit ? Still get their 308 ?
Maybe if someone robbed a shop, but they only got away with a few hundred quid rather than £10k, it shouldn't prevent them from getting their SGC ?
Or how about a mugger that 'only' pushes his elderly victims to the floor, rather than beating them to a pulp, maybe he should still be eligible for his FAC ?
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Who said anything about breaking laws ?
Are folk not reading ?
I’m talking about speed and the fact it’s not the ogre people make out.
Apart from that every single person on the site has broken a speed limit, every single one.
But back to speed my point is that it’s not what cause accidents it’s not some blanket blame , driving too fast does not mean you were breaking a speed limit.
Are folk not reading ?
I’m talking about speed and the fact it’s not the ogre people make out.
Apart from that every single person on the site has broken a speed limit, every single one.
But back to speed my point is that it’s not what cause accidents it’s not some blanket blame , driving too fast does not mean you were breaking a speed limit.
dunno how to do the quote thing but you clearly wrote '100 mph is no big deal' you clearly have no respect for the law. what other laws dont you care about? shocking
This seems to be descending into a discussion about the merits of speed limits yet I’d wager this chap wouldn’t have lost his license just for the speeding offences.
However, not declaring is going to cause him trouble and is something I have always understood as a serious no. His bigger issue now is not whether speeding at 100mph means he’s not safe enough for a FAC but why he told his FEO he had no convictions. I’ve just checked and a false declaration is an offence in itself, so he will have to be a little careful of pushing this too far.
However, not declaring is going to cause him trouble and is something I have always understood as a serious no. His bigger issue now is not whether speeding at 100mph means he’s not safe enough for a FAC but why he told his FEO he had no convictions. I’ve just checked and a false declaration is an offence in itself, so he will have to be a little careful of pushing this too far.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
An ex traffic cop of mine said vehicle speed is a factor in every accident he had attended. If they were going slower the accident may not have happened and/or the outcome would have been better if it did.
This thread was about speeding /convictions/loss of or refusal to grant.
Whatever anyone may think - its what the Police think which is important in the above and there are accepted guidelines. Break the law and it CAN be used against you whether it will is a different matter - equally disclose everything that is required and you have no case to answer about dishonesty and whether a dishonest person should have any gun.
Whatever anyone may think - its what the Police think which is important in the above and there are accepted guidelines. Break the law and it CAN be used against you whether it will is a different matter - equally disclose everything that is required and you have no case to answer about dishonesty and whether a dishonest person should have any gun.
Anyone who lets a car get away from them to the tune of 30mph above the limit clearly lacks the wit to be driving. Drivers don’t accidentally bust a limit by 43%, that’s simply negligence or incompetence.
I too have owned fast bikes and cars. One or two cars were very, very quick indeed on the track (0-60 3.2 secs with a top speed of 190 mph) and not once did I ever mishandle it to the degree you describe.
This ‘defence’ sounds an awful lot like one of my neighbours who has lost his licence three times through totting up. It’s never his fault though, always someone/thing else.
Never been above the speed limit then?
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
Even getting to 70 in mine is like a scene from Memphis Belle . . .
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm. So in summary after 130+ posts there is much variation in views over how full a picture we are seeing from the chap who has lost his books and even going only on what is known for certain, considerable differences on when revocation/seizure including how it is actually achieved, is the correct action.
From my perspective the “punishment must fit the crime” in all cases, of course in one like this there are potentially (and I would emphasise in only the rarest of cases) much wider implications/consequences. The police have a fundamental duty to protect the public which is central to their very existence; that is never in question. In the context of this case where for reasons we cannot be absolutely certain of a decision had been taken to seize but I really do not know whether an armed response is really justified. That said if there is indeed an alleged “history” of “aggression” I have to ask myself if I was an FEO would be happy to knock his door and ask for his firearms?
In relation to the seizure itself and the many views on for example speeding, how does one judge and compare say a one-off 100 mph against a repeat offender at just on the prosecution trigger cusp?
As can be seen from the many views there is no easy answer, I do not envy those who have to evaluate, decide and act on these matters but I do hope that there is an established “process” which stands up to scrutiny and which is applied equally across the many police forces, though sadly I doubt it. Hence my perhaps naive “points” suggestion.
From my perspective the “punishment must fit the crime” in all cases, of course in one like this there are potentially (and I would emphasise in only the rarest of cases) much wider implications/consequences. The police have a fundamental duty to protect the public which is central to their very existence; that is never in question. In the context of this case where for reasons we cannot be absolutely certain of a decision had been taken to seize but I really do not know whether an armed response is really justified. That said if there is indeed an alleged “history” of “aggression” I have to ask myself if I was an FEO would be happy to knock his door and ask for his firearms?
In relation to the seizure itself and the many views on for example speeding, how does one judge and compare say a one-off 100 mph against a repeat offender at just on the prosecution trigger cusp?
As can be seen from the many views there is no easy answer, I do not envy those who have to evaluate, decide and act on these matters but I do hope that there is an established “process” which stands up to scrutiny and which is applied equally across the many police forces, though sadly I doubt it. Hence my perhaps naive “points” suggestion.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Much of this is about perceptions.
If you interact with the PSNI for instance (in any capacity) you are already experiencing an "armed response".
Ditto most Countries in Europe and indeed, the rest of the world.
There is a world of difference between attending an address as an 'armed officer' and carrying out a dynamic entry with an SFO team.
Armed Policing - a whole new thread...
tikka_madras
Well-Known Member
Personally, I fill out the form as requested and ignore the 3 points I received ages ago for going a bit quick on a motorway, on the grounds that that’s what the form says to do. I also do not disclose a speed awareness course, as there’s no requirement to.
As to fitness to possess firearms, I don’t see how complying exactly with requirements should indicate anything adverse about my character.
As to fitness to possess firearms, I don’t see how complying exactly with requirements should indicate anything adverse about my character.
- Status
Similar threads
