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

safetyfirst wrote:
There's a lot of angry paranoid people about in this world, that some of them own firearms is a bigger threat to our sport than the police are!

Maybe it has something to do with the failures of the police to uphold their end of the social contract in the past, and a willingness to allow decent shooters to shoulder the blame for their failures that has brought about this mistrust? Hungerford and Dunblane cost us dearly and were both preventable had the police done their job.

Or perhaps it's because the policing authorities keep making up 'guidelines' ad hoc to our detriment.

Or maybe it's because NABIS and Continuity ACPO are constantly looking at ways to inflict themselves on sporting shooters

I'm not anti-police - I come from a family of coppers and was a TVP forensic officer back in the day. But I grew up in a much more free age, in the countryside, when people didn't think anything untoward with shooting, and coppers were able to distinguish between a long-standing FAC holder and a wrong un. Coppers are very much different in their attitude towards us these days - and I'm not going to do anything that I'm not required to do by law - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I got words

First of all Sim G, Plod is an affectionate slang word for police and I cannot see an issue with using it. Calm down dear!
Second , Cetshwayo (or might have been Shaka) the Zulu king once said of the creep of the British Empire , "first come the traders, then come the missionaries, then come the red soldiers ".
Regulations often come the same way and I do not trust continuity ACPO an inch. If you volunteer now you will be required to do it later.
I support our police and have always done so but have spent 37 years fighting the gross manipulation, b****** and (in Durham) invention, of fire arms regulations.
It would make more sense to require a shot bullet from every rifled firearm, and that would have been done ages ago had the government not understood that the cost of doing that in a society where legally owned guns are VERY RARELY used in the commission of a crime, is not warranted (NI is a different matter of course and why those peace loving dudes are allowed pistols when we are not just astounds me).
BUT, I cannot see how this would help solve a crime committed with a stolen gun. If they couldn't find the bugger that stole it in the first place.
I can't remember now which politician said it but it goes something like, " legislation should not be judged by the good it can do (when properly administered) , but by the evil it can do if misused " (something like that, I'm old and half cut so forgive my misquoting).
I feel this is what motivates people to object as opposed to being bad citizens.
I don't want to get into a slangging match with any one and think some of the language being used is intemperate, so I suggest do it if yo want, don't if you don't want, and agree to disagree. But be careful at accepting what you see as reasonable, it's always the reasonable people who get shafted in the end.
"if banning all hand guns can save the life of just one child, then it's worth it ", that was the very reasonable cry of distraught parents trooped out on to televisions after the Dunblane horror....and who can argue with that?
Words done.

b a s t a r d i s a t i o n is not a swear word computer

One of my closest friends is a Police Constable and he happily calls himself "PC Plod" as do his colleagues at the station. He will sit chuckling his way through Hot Fuzz delighting in every different slang name for the Police the ruder the better...so I doubt my affectionate use of the term "Plod" is going to harm Police/Sports Shooter relations.

This is the principle of the Police not creating their own legislation pure and simple.

To give another example that got hunters and pest control shooters all angry a while back, at least one Police Force set up a phone line and asked hunters/pest control shooters to phone if they were going out to shoot. Voluntary of course, the idea was if a member of the general public saw you and phoned in that they has seen some guys with guns they would know what was happening.

So on the face of it that seems reasonable, that way Armed Response don't have to waste their time going out to see people legitimately going about their business. Except...

If a member of the general public phones in they have seen somebody with guns then they have to respond regardless of the intelligence. You will still have armed Police turn up regardless of you phoning them beforehand! So in other words it is of no real benefit to the sports shooter going about their legitimate legal business but adds yet another onerous task to perform to our sport. How long before the Police then say "We now need Target and Clay Shooters to phone into this line every time you go target shooting."

That is the problem here, however reasonable it sounds the president is being set that they can concoct rules without reference to the Firearms act or the appropriate legislative process.

Sim G wrote:Yep, and by all means, maintain those good relations by referring to them as "local plod"....

Oh, so you object to the police being referred to as the "local plod", but you are quite happy to call somebody you don't know a "cock". (yes, I have a memory)

Police double standards at it's finest, Sim.

Just dropped in on this thread.

What is up with some of you?

There is absolutely no need for any of the personal references and name calling like "dick heads" and such.

This a shooting forum not a primary school playground.

Grow up and behave or this will be another sadly locked thread.

Fedaykin wrote: This is the principle of the Police not creating their own legislation pure and simple.

To give another example that got hunters and pest control shooters all angry a while back, at least one Police Force set up a phone line and asked hunters/pest control shooters to phone if they were going out to shoot. Voluntary of course, the idea was if a member of the general public saw you and phoned in that they has seen some guys with guns they would know what was happening.

So on the face of it that seems reasonable, that way Armed Response don't have to waste their time going out to see people legitimately going about their business. Except...

If a member of the general public phones in they have seen somebody with guns then they have to respond regardless of the intelligence. You will still have armed Police turn up regardless of you phoning them beforehand! So in other words it is of no real benefit to the sports shooter going about their legitimate legal business but adds yet another onerous task to perform to our sport. How long before the Police then say "We now need Target and Clay Shooters to phone into this line every time you go target shooting."
.

The DI signing the letter is asking for those in his area to assist with a scheme that may, in the unlikely event of a particular event, assist with bring the perpetrators or serious crimes, to justice. Simple as that. There is absolutely nothing to compel anyone to comply.

You then continue with another "thin end of the wedge" scenario to illustrate your reasoning. It continues to illustrate an extreme paranoia.

Les wrote:

Sim G wrote:Yep, and by all means, maintain those good relations by referring to them as "local plod"....

Oh, so you object to the police being referred to as the "local plod", but you are quite happy to call somebody you don't know a "cock". (yes, I have a memory)

Police double standards at it's finest, Sim.

Yep, I've got a good memory as well, Les. I called you a cock in a set of circumstances some ago when you came over as a cock. It was not a generalisation of you, but very specific to a very specific point. It is not how you are regarded on the whole....

Take it as you will...

Sim G wrote:

The DI signing the letter is asking for those in his area to assist with a scheme that may, in the unlikely event of a particular event, assist with bring the perpetrators or serious crimes, to justice. Simple as that. There is absolutely nothing to compel anyone to comply.

You then continue with another "thin end of the wedge" scenario to illustrate your reasoning. It continues to illustrate an extreme paranoia.

How many times do I have to say this Sim G! It is about the principle that the Police do not invent processes however reasonable they appear! In this case I doubt it will benefit crime solving!

That is not paranoia just a desire for the Police to operate within the rules. I rather resent the assertion, as Dromia asked Grow up!

Resent what assertion? That you're position comes across as paranoid? Well it does!

You've gone all "thin end of the wedge" malarkey because the police have asked for firearms owners to partake in a voluntary scheme in case they become victim of theft and their gun is subsequently used in crime! You're an account manager, how does that qualify you in what constitutes a relevant line of enquiry in a serious or complex criminal investigation. Is Crimewatch nothing more than a vehicle to encourage people to be informants for the State?

Grow up? That's how you bring a debate to a close?

No process has been invented, no legislation has been breached, no odious requirements placed on honest people, in fact, nothing underhand or suspect in the slightest, just a request for help.

Considering you usually come across very measured, here you're coming across as a right tin foil hat wearer....