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

A number of lawfully owned firearms have been seized from a certificate holder by police following allegations of a brawl and claims that a gun had been fired...

UKSN comment

It is completely unacceptable for on-duty police employees to express personal views on active legal proceedings (proceedings are considered active under contempt of court law from the moment of arrest) much less to use official social media accounts to broadcast those views as if they were fact.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... ch-a-haul/

I can't actually believe the local police were that bloody stupid as to gob off using an official police social media account and open themselves up to a libel lawsuit, criminal liability for individual employees and potentially jeopardise a future trial.

Personally I would love to see the end of the police using social media. Far too many throbbers involved in all aspects. Considered and truthful press releases at the end of a case, all well and good. The police don't need farcebook, twatter or any other such abomination. They don't need a "corporate image and would be better served actually just doing the right thing as opposed to just being seen to be doing the right thing..

Read your article Gaz. Firstly, some public order offences can be committed in private and secondly, apart from being just as inflammatory as the wording used by "SW Response", "Supposedly this is so any public sector employee visiting an FAC/SGC holder’s home is warned in advance that a gun-toting madman lives there.", ..... Really....?

Saw this on my morning flick through of the daily mail website. From the headline it gave a misleading impression.

Waiting for the full story about the incident. What exactly happened?

We may never know...

Slightly off topic, but in response to the original post by Gaz and the reponse by Sim:
As a public sector employee who has an enforcement role as part of my duties, I can categorically state that I get absolutely zero information about the sexual deviation, mental state, criminal record or attitude to my fellow public service employees of any address I have to visit. Nor do I have any information as to whether the address has any firearms legally or otherwise, dangerous dogs, baseball bats, drug users or jihadists.
As the local police station was sold for redevelopment, we now share our offices and most of our car park with plod.
The only contact I have is when they take an out of hours message for me and I have sort it out.
Other local authorities may have a better system, I have certainly worked for one that had a very good relationship with the local division.
We do not even have a flag for non lone visit addresses.
The work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust seems to have been forgotten in our little district council.

whoowhoop wrote:Slightly off topic, but in response to the original post by Gaz and the reponse by Sim:
As a public sector employee who has an enforcement role as part of my duties, I can categorically state that I get absolutely zero information about the sexual deviation, mental state, criminal record or attitude to my fellow public service employees of any address I have to visit. Nor do I have any information as to whether the address has any firearms legally or otherwise, dangerous dogs, baseball bats, drug users or jihadists.

That's interesting, and I'm not sure if a good or bad thing.... To explain....

I was speaking with a Guardia Civil officer last year who shoots at our range, he showed me how our car registration numbers here are linked to our NIE numbers which are our same number for driving licences, firearms licences and health access cards, if I'm stopped in a routine traffic check the police can see my photo, D.o.B. Home address (which is not shown on our driving licences) and the fact that I could be carrying a firearm on a screen in their car, which I understand also tells them if I have anything like a parking or speeding offence or similar that they need to speak to me about :(

I really don't have a problem with it, nor can I see a problem with that information being given to anyone in public service, to whom it could be important.

Sim G wrote:Personally I would love to see the end of the police using social media. Far too many throbbers involved in all aspects. Considered and truthful press releases at the end of a case, all well and good. The police don't need farcebook, twatter or any other such abomination. They don't need a "corporate image and would be better served actually just doing the right thing as opposed to just being seen to be doing the right thing..

Read your article Gaz. Firstly, some public order offences can be committed in private and secondly, apart from being just as inflammatory as the wording used by "SW Response", "Supposedly this is so any public sector employee visiting an FAC/SGC holder’s home is warned in advance that a gun-toting madman lives there.", ..... Really....?

+1 Sim G.

Sim G wrote:Personally I would love to see the end of the police using social media. Far too many throbbers involved in all aspects. Considered and truthful press releases at the end of a case, all well and good. The police don't need farcebook, twatter or any other such abomination. They don't need a "corporate image and would be better served actually just doing the right thing as opposed to just being seen to be doing the right thing..

Once someone 'Likes' a police force it gives said police force access to their, and their 'friends' accounts if they haven't set up their security settings properly (most people haven't - i know a police inspector who is also a shooter and has a completely open account for any one to view ). I can't imagine how grateful detectives and other investigaters must be for the opportunity for entirely lawful/warrantless snooping.

whoowhoop wrote:Slightly off topic, but in response to the original post by Gaz and the reponse by Sim:
As a public sector employee who has an enforcement role as part of my duties, I can categorically state that I get absolutely zero information about the sexual deviation, mental state, criminal record or attitude to my fellow public service employees of any address I have to visit. Nor do I have any information as to whether the address has any firearms legally or otherwise, dangerous dogs, baseball bats, drug users or jihadists.
As the local police station was sold for redevelopment, we now share our offices and most of our car park with plod.
The only contact I have is when they take an out of hours message for me and I have sort it out.
Other local authorities may have a better system, I have certainly worked for one that had a very good relationship with the local division.
We do not even have a flag for non lone visit addresses.
The work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust seems to have been forgotten in our little district council.

On a completely unrelated note to the above, as a public sector worker i would suggest you get yourself at least a personal facebook/twitter account, if not access to the councils own account. You'd be surprised at how much site visit preparation you can do

As to the article itself "Lawful guns seized: Police ask “How'd he get such a haul?", erm, well if the police don't know i don't know who will?!

Sim G wrote:Personally I would love to see the end of the police using social media. Far too many throbbers involved in all aspects. Considered and truthful press releases at the end of a case, all well and good. The police don't need farcebook, twatter or any other such abomination. They don't need a "corporate image and would be better served actually just doing the right thing as opposed to just being seen to be doing the right thing..

Read your article Gaz. Firstly, some public order offences can be committed in private and secondly, apart from being just as inflammatory as the wording used by "SW Response", "Supposedly this is so any public sector employee visiting an FAC/SGC holder’s home is warned in advance that a gun-toting madman lives there.", ..... Really....?

Ta for the headsup on public order offences, I've updated that. Genuinely thought they were public places only - remind me not to swear in my living room! As for the sarky part, I've added scare quotes and (sarcasm) just in case someone without a sense of humour comes along......

I mostly agree with you about police and social media, it's just window dressing. Unfortunately, so long as "public confidence" targets exist to keep senior managers' pensions and OBEs flowing, that particular rubbish will just keep on coming.