The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

saddler wrote:
I can just picture it
Your lass & her mates on the sofa getting stuck into the wine & snacks watching a chick flick....and you're doing tactical drills up & down the hallway in all your ninja kit!
She must have one hell of a set of excuses memorised already. ...

Like they don't immediately get tied up and put in the shed as soon as they arrive

zzr1100 wrote:firearms and alcohol don't mix .. simples

Said someone in Russia... never

While I agree the guy is a bit of a twit, nobody was even remotely close to being harmed, there's no evidence he was drinking real vodka and he wasn't in charge of the gun while drinking "broke open and laid on the ground".
Let's hope the plod aren't watching through your windows the next time you're having a beer while cleaning your rifle, or having a drink (alcoholic) after a shoot or competition with your guns close-by.

Gaz wrote:

MiLisCer wrote:Harmless prank? - more like another excuse for the resident Journo to stick the boot in to both the Police and BASC - so boring now.

I actually think the BASC statement is a good one! - so you condone "messing about with firearms and alcohol?"

Don't like it? Don't read it.


The police claimed he was messing about with firearms and alcohol. He says he put water in the bottle (edit to add, and I can well believe that he didn't down half a bottle of vodka in one gulp and wouldn't have wanted to, other than appearing to for the sake of his tongue in cheek video). As the police didn't bother showing up at court to present any evidence at all to defend their allegation, the judge restored his certificates to him, rightly concluding that the police had done the wrong thing in the absence of any evidence to support the revocation.

I despair when shooters themselves take allegations that weren't even defended at court as gospel truth. Gawd forbid anyone should go through your forum posts (or GOM!) or other social media for incriminating remarks and build a case against you on the strength of those alone.

Who is taking anything as gospel truth?

I doubt many people know what the truth is because they were not there. Therefore very few people will be in a position to comment either way.

When apparently asked about it, BASC made a perfectly reasonable statement. They are not in a position to comment on the particulars of the case, probably are not aware of the facts, and without the certificate holder being a member of BASC they cannot make any further comment that the one they made which amounted to general advice and guidance about behaviour with firearms and social media.

That advice and guidance stated:

“BASC urges everyone who shoots to behave responsibly and safely with firearms. They should also consider carefully what they put on social media. People should not be surprised that behaving irresponsibly with a firearm is likely to prompt police involvement”.

It is actually pretty good advice, which was not specific to the Certificate Holder in this case, and applies to all of us.

It is rather unfair to suggest BASC were "putting the boot in" as sensationally claimed in the article.