'That' Evening Standard article - complaint
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 2:10 pm
Doubtless I've probably dropped my own clangers in there. Sent to the deputy managing editor of the Evening Standard.Dear Mr Gore
I understand you are the appropriate person to write to regarding editorial complaints about Evening Standard stories. I apologise if you are not, and request that you pass this email on to the person who is.
With reference to the p1 story about antique firearms, published 17 Apr: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ga ... 67108.html
The reference in par 4 to the Browning Hi-Power and Webley Mk.VI pistols as "antique" firearms is, I'm afraid, outright wrong.
By referring to the Home Office Guidance to the Police on Firearms - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... v_2013.pdf - you will see from page 56, section 8.12 that:
"Old firearms which should not benefit from the exemption as antiques are set out below... Revolvers, single-shot pistols and self-loading pistols which are chambered for, and will accept centrefire cartridges of the type .25, .30, .32,.38, .380, .44, .45, .450, .455 and .476 inch, or their metric equivalents including 6.35mm, 7.62mm, 7.63mm, 7.65mm, 8mm and 9mm, unless otherwise specified in the list in Appendix 5."
The Browning Hi-Power, which your reporter notes was issued to the British armed forces until a year or two ago, is chambered in 9mm - one of the cartridges explicitly noted above as not falling within the antique firearms exemption. The Webley Mk.VI, being chambered in .380, is also explicitly exempted. Thus your reporter's statement that "neither gun is classified as an antique" is completely false and misleading.
Despite the attempt to explain how these pistols are supposedly exempt from the law a few pars lower down in the story, the Home Office Guidance (as linked above) clearly shows how section 58 of the Firearms Act 1968, which your reporter presents as some sort of loophole, does not apply to these particular firearms. I am at a loss to understand how this clanger could have made it through newsdesk, copytasting, subs and revise.
Par 6 of the story describes how "thirty firearms including assault rifles, sawn off shotguns, Uzi and a Thompson machine gun were seized from an address in E10," illustrated by the picture at the top of the page. That picture shows a number of low-powered airguns, recognisable by their silver CO2 bottles and the slots in the underside of air rifles, along with what looks like a deactivated Uzi - compare the ejection opening area, above the grip, with a picture of a live Uzi. The plain, unpainted appearance suggests that the weapon's original internals have been removed and a piece of metal welded in their place. Given that the Met did not charge the man they arrested with possession of a live Uzi, I am confident in my diagnosis. For obvious reasons I won't go through each "firearm" one by one to describe their features.
That the picture issued by the Met press office was at such obvious variance with the accompanying press release shouting about "firearms" should have rung alarm bells. It is irresponsible to suggest that seizing toys somehow makes London safer than removing genuine, unlawfully owned firearms from people who should not have them.
Of course, reading between the lines here, it is clear that the story is based on a press release or similar from NABIS, who presumably know and understand these laws fully and yet choose to misrepresent them to the unknowing. I suggest that rather than parrotting them, with a blushing nod to unspecified "campaigners" as if this was some sort of genuine grassroots movement, the Standard's energies would be better spent applying some sceptical rigour to reporting police press statements.
If NABIS' claims about live firearms being successfully passed off as exempt antiques are true, which I consider unlikely, this demonstrates a terrifying lack of understanding of the law by the police and not some exploitable loophole. Any antique firearm not possessed as a "curiosity or ornament", as the Fiearms Act 1968 says, no longer benefits from the section 58 exemption - and in the case of the two non-antique pistols your reporter builds his story around, results in an automatic 5 year prison sentence upon conviction.
I trust future Standard reporting on firearms matters will present them in a more accurate and less misleading light. The public discourse is not helped when police agencies plant misleading and false stories in the press, especially when the press fails to spot them and runs them unchallenged.
Kind regards,
Gaz
