Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by oldbaldy, May 15, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
"the only qualified range officer in the TA"
Yes I did wonder at that one.
Perhaps they left out 'in his platoon'
Betcha he wears his "medals" on remembrance day - this should read "Walting gets you out of nick"
Geoffrey Hutton, 57
Well done the Hootsmon , how long do we think he's been out of the TA then?
Well, you don't get to legally hold 60 firearms if there's a sniff of walt around you.
As the beak said,
It seems justice has been done, and the man punished accordingly.
What a ridiculous state of affairs.
A gun collector with over 60 legally held guns and who has citations for saving lives and who is 57 years old and a former Territorial Army firearms expert, He had one .38 Smith & Wesson revolver that he didn't want destroyed.... amd he was facing a minimum FIVE years in prison?!
Now he has to do 200 hours unpaid community service and has a criminal record to boot! How mortifying.
How did this case ever get brought against him?!! Why why why!!!
I could understand it if this country was running smoothly and crime was virually non existant...then maybe the police could create work and cases through pettyness...but I'm a good honest upstanding citizen and I don't have the slightest problem with this man in this circumstances having this weapon...I am ashamed and disgusted that my country has labelled him a criminal. Shame on the courts and the copper that didn't use any common sense or discretion and didn't just tell him to make sure it stayed in the safe.
This country just makes criminals of decent folk
The judge said-
So here's a criminal record, and 200 hours spent with pieces of shit on community service.
The judge is a twat
So he knew the law then and as you so correctly point out.....
Bottom line he should not have had it - a drunk in charge conviction would not have been so lenient I think...
I'm not sure if this flexing of the 5 years min rule is necessarily a good thing. It sends mixed messages.
Although it is personally pleasing to see the beak acknowledging that this was an error of judgement and issuing a relevant punishment, I wonder how much this is driven by prison shortages, and not a desire to be proportionate?
I suspect there's rather more judges been guilty of drink driving than firearms experts!
The gun wasn't being waved around in the street for fucks sake- it was in a cupboard and only discovered when the fucking place burned out!
The guy should be given 200 hours of help from the local community with getting his home sorted after the house fire ..not made a criminal like this. This country is insane.
(Come the revolution we'll be needing these weapons anyway)
Sparky - the law is the law and he knows that! Where do you draw the line? Do we allow rapists a level of leniancy because they may have provided a public service 20 years ago? The fact that he was licenced to hold a veritable armoury in his house is neither here nor there. He knew the rules (sic Law) and he knew he was breaking the rules ergo he has been (is being) punished. I suspect that if he was a 20 year old Jobless immigrant type bloke then you would be in favour of dishing out the maximum sentence allowable. How can the same judge sentence another individual to a greater or heavier tarriff with any degree of impartiality and remain unchallenged in precedence?
How about intent, character, previous form and such like things?
I mean if a judge can let of a convicted junkie who is caught with a large amount of illegal drugs in his possesion because said junkie was "getting help"* with his problem and then turn round and jail someone else for exactly the same crime with no problems then there shouldn't be a probem here either.
*See Pete Doherty et al
This is the bloke who had a decativated S&W .38 as part of his collection, then got hold of a live weapon. Swapped bits out so that he ended up with a live one had the serial number of a deactivated.
His brief claimed "exceptional circumstances". Anybody know what those were?
The underlying lunacy of this is that he was considered a 'fit and proper' person to hold 60 firearms legally, but that the law considers that it cannot be safe for him to own a handgun which, I suspect, would be capable of doing much less damage than the great majority of his collection. He was a fool to hang on to this revolver but it isn't as if he was robbing post offices or anything like it.
Separate names with a comma.