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

"An inquiry has found "unacceptable" and "inexcusable" failings in how Durham Police dealt with a man who shot dead three family members and then himself."

Looks like the IPCC have done a decent job of identifying the failings of my local force, but (unsurprisingly) no action will be taken against them.

As usual it will be the law abiding shooter who suffers for it. There's already postings on other forums from shooters under Durham of increased delays for renewals and applications, wider ranging security checks including interviews with immediate family and even applicants childrens boyfriends and girlfriends that are not required by law.

Hopefully common sense will prevail, but I wouldn't count on it.

Hmmm, what can be done about this kind of thing though?

it seems that the laws don't apply to the authoritys when surely they should be applied with greater vigour when those that should set the standard flout the law?

Anyone got a link to the report? I'd like to see if the 'failings' found match what i've been told about the blokes behaviour by the rumour mill ...

Sorry, forgot to post a link to the BBC News site,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-20316578

The report highlighted Durham Police's assessment of Atherton for his first shotgun certificate in 2006, in which a member of staff added a handwritten post-it note to his file which read: "4 domestics - last one 24/4/04 - was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse - have we sufficient info - refuse re public safety."

But the recommendation was overruled by two more senior members of the Firearms Licensing Unit, who, the report said, feared the force would lose any subsequent appeal by Atherton as he had never been convicted of an offence.

I know of somebody who was quietly informed he would not be successful in applying for an FAC for exactly that offence. Someone in the Durham firearms licensing department has blundered, bigtime.

IPCC wrote:"We feel that at this stage it is entirely appropriate that members of staff who made decisions within relevant guidance are not identified, as it is the coroner who addresses issues of anonymity.

One rule for them...

I've emailed IPCC for a hyperlink to the official report, assuming that it will be a public domain document.

Sounds like the rumour mill was right about the bloke then And worse that just like with Hamilton, recommendations from the ranks to pull his certificates were ignored because they knew he'd appeal :cool2:

It will be interesting to watch inside out tonight, which is about this. I think it will be available on the iplayer for people like me not in the North east region.

Thanks for the heads up! No doubt it'll just be the family living in denial about the father being the problem and banging on about tighter gun laws emrolleyes

Blackstuff wrote: recommendations from the ranks to pull his certificates were ignored because they knew he'd appeal

Why wouldn't the Police want them to appeal ?

Harrier1980 wrote:

Blackstuff wrote: recommendations from the ranks to pull his certificates were ignored because they knew he'd appeal

Why wouldn't the Police want them to appeal ?

In case he won? If its anything like the Planning appeal system if the appeals board finds that the decision was unfair the applicant gets awarded costs which can be significant sums. However, this is entirely supposition on my part. Anyone know for certain if this is the case?

Re; the program unfortunately it was as i'd predicted and people with PTSD? throwing themselves into campaigning as a way to deal with the grief. There was even the ubiquitous appearance of 25% of the membership of the GCN, in the form of the cretinous gill marshal-andrews, praying on the vulnerable nephew.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 9_11_2012/