Operation Wishbone

Blogg

LE
220 guns removed amid domestic abuse fear

"Deputy Chief Constable Derek Benson said Essex Police had checked if any firearms licence-holders had been responsible for domestic abuse, even if they had not been arrested, charged or been found guilty of an offence.

Inspector Neal Miller said: "We prioritised the cases, focusing on the highest risk first, and began visiting the holders to check on their suitability.
"We also made our approach much more victim-based so that they had an opportunity to say whether they believed their partners or family members should be allowed to keep their guns.
"Throughout the whole process we also worked closely with our safeguarding team to make sure an appropriate safety plan was in place around any domestic abuse victims.
"We also found that when firearms were removed from homes, some victims then felt able to disclose further details of domestic and sexual abuse they had suffered because they were reassured we were taking action."
All of the county's 24,500 licence holders were reviewed and 777 people were visited to check whether they were suitable to own weapons.
A total of 24 had their licences revoked and 26 surrendered their licences - leading to the seizure of 220 shotguns and other firearms.
A further 86 owners were given warnings about how to store their guns.
Mr Miller added that licence-holders would now be routinely reviewed following claims of domestic violence."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...20-guns-removed-amid-domestic-abuse-fear.html



You have been warned.
 

HE117

LE
And where exactly in the Firearms Acts does it authorise CCs to do this..?

Whilst I fully agree with the Police following up any evidence of certificate holders behaving in ways where their possession of firearms comes into doubt, carrying out a 100% review of holders smacks to me of political willy waving..!

Just how can the Police authority justify such an expenditure of resources given the level of crime originating from certificate holder? Anyone would think there was a case being made to up the cost of certificate renewal..!


Oh... hang on....!?
 
Why would they need to do a review unless there had been some failing or incompetence or their part initially?

Fine, if people are not charged with anything, but appear to be bordering on some kind of offence then give them a talking to. However, removing peoples lawfully obtained property because they had a marital or domestic tiff is bordering on the " he looked at me in a peculiar way, your worships, a manner which made me feel proppa uncomfortable so I think, as much as I am able to, that he should not have guns, your worships".

Honestly, it just needs someone with the balls to take the CC to court over the matter. Most local authority based organisations are on such tight budgets that they cannot afford costly court cases. Example: The owners of Bruntingthorpe airfield (former RAF camp) wanted to extend the number of days which they could sell to people such as Top Gear, 5th Gear and Jonathan Palmer for go faster testing and driver fun days. The council said "no". Then they got the planning permission/change of use very suddenly. I knew a couple of the blokes at the airfield and they told me that the owners went to the local authority with a lawyer, sat in front of the chief exec and the head of planning. They basically said, "no we don't want to give you permission........because", no real reason. So the lawyer tells them that he is willing to take the authority to court on a no win no fee basis because they will lose and that in order to win they are willing to spend a million quid.......at which point one of the owners plonks a large briefcase on the chief execs desk, opens it, and points at the wedge of cash inside and tells him that that is the million quid and asks him if his authority can afford to lose a million quid. As I said, they got the planning. Same with tickets and firearms, if you know the right people you can even get Section 5's for your hobby.
 

Blogg

LE
This is the cause of it:

Distribution:
All Chief Constables
31 March 2014
BY EMAIL

Dear Colleague

Firearms and Shotgun Certificates and Domestic Violence
As national lead on Firearms & Explosives Licensing I occasionally circulate judgements in cases of firearms revocation or refusal appeals to practitioner leads in forces so they we can collectively learn from the experience of the outcomes of appeals.
I have taken the unusual step of circulating the attached judgement to you of Michael West v Chief Constable of Essex, because it related to a domestic violence based revocation which has been made as the result of a review of existing holders who may have been granted certificates or renewals prior to the redrafting of HO guidance launched on 7 October 2013.

You will be aware that Chapter 12: "Assessing Suitability" of the guidance states:
v) Domestic violence and abuse
12.28 When considering applications for the grant or renewal of firearm/shotgun certificates particular attention should be paid to domestic incidents, specifically violence and patterns of behaviour by the applicant which give cause for concern (see below for the definition of domestic violence and abuse). An incident of domestic violence taking place should trigger a need for police to review whether the certificate holder can be permitted to possess the firearm or shotgun without causing a danger to public safety or to the peace.
12.29 In general evidence (including a history) of domestic violence and abuse will indicate that an individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm or shotgun. Each case must be assessed by the police on its merits, on the basis of the strength of the evidence available and all the circumstances of the case.

Bearing in mind that this judgement endorses the legitimacy of a review process against a different standard, my opinion is that it is for the Chief Officer lead for firearms and shotgun licensing to determine whether any cases which may have passed a less stringent test for grant / renewal should now be reviewed.
Yours sincerely
Andy Marsh
Chief Constable
Chair, ACPO FELWG



http://www.acpo.police.uk/ProfessionalPractice/FirearmsandExplosivesLicensingWorkingGroup.aspx
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
We've been here before ACPO guidance isn't HO guidance and has no grounding in law. That said the HO guidance is just that guidance and when challenged the various constabularies cant answer what guidance they are working to but are willing to sell you a copy of ACPO guidance. I responded during Op Solitaire that if the police cant follow their employers guidance why should we follow the top cops boys club guidance? Not once did I mention the Masons honestly!
 
Isn't ACPO as a badged identity going to cease to exist shortly. And if that is the case is this bit of 'guidance' going to be followed by the new body that Sara Thornton CBE QPM is going on to head up?
 
That'll be interesting as ACPO (wrongly in my opinion) is the organization which, for a piss take fee, gives criminal background check certificates accepted by other nation's - and is the only organization recognized as being able to issue such by LEO's outside the UK.

Not bad for a high ranking plod dining club.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
yes and yes, still a bunch of cnuts though!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
C U N T S Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
 
I can read lips so I heard you the first time ;-)
 

HE117

LE
The real root of this issue is the lack of communication and representation..

II think the Home Office remains the only legitimate operational authority in relation to firearms issues. They used to have a reasonably effective Firearms consultative committee with representation from the Police and the Shooting associations. After Dunblane, the constitution of the committee was changed to include the anti-gun lobby, and the whole thing became political and pointless and was broken up by the Blair Government..

As a result, the Police set up their own group via ACPO and ACPOS in Scotland and continued the debate, only this time excluding the shooters and anyone who knows anything about the subject area. "Expertise" in the debate now seems to come from a bunch of random forensic scientists, who may understand more of the weapon technology, but seem to demonstrate an irritating lack of knowledge of shooting or a pragmatic view of reality. Recent pronouncements from these "experts" on muskets, bayonets and rifled chokes do not seem to demonstrate any realistic perspective..

On the shooting side, we remain a divided camp, certainly at the top of the various organisations.. With one or two notable exceptions, the level of competency, communication and representation across the shooting organisations is appalling.. with the NRA in particular still not demonstrating the leadership it needs to show!

Power without balance will always tend to corrupt.. The Police have a responsibility for public order, but this has never been their sole responsibility, although many would like us to believe this.. The Police need always to remember that they operate with the consent of the public, and should never be in a position to dictate without this consent. Police strategy for the past forty odd years has been to present themselves to the Public, press and politicians as the sole arbiter of public firearms policy.

IMHO there is absolutely no justification for this position. I am absolutely not making a case for a right to bear arms, however neither do I believe that the Police should be making the running in areas which frankly they have a heavy vested interest. By all means let the Police pursue criminal use of firearms, just as they do with the illegal use of any other artefact, but the Police have no competency or right to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms.

The conjunction of firearms and domestic violence is an important issue, however all the running on this initiative seems to be coming from ACPO with no consultation with any of the shooting interests.. This, given the less than sparkling performance of the Police on domestic affairs as a whole, makes me suspicious..

I would like the whole management of sporting firearms moved away from the Police and responsibility given to the Shooting community to manage its own business...
 
I would like the whole management of sporting firearms moved away from the Police and responsibility given to the Shooting community to manage its own business...
There was consultative document issued by the Home Office in the early 90s that suggested moving Firearms Licensing away from the police to a Statuary body but this was essentially vetoed - by whom? Re-arrearage these letters into well-known body - OPCA.

Seriously, this "initiative" by Essex is a demonstration WHY the police should NOT be licensing firearms. That is to say they are not independent due to a number of axes they feel the need to grind. For example to be shown to be "doing something" about armed crime. They can't/don't/won't actually do much about the real problems with firearms in Essex, criminals with guns, so they go for the low hanging fruit - because they have their names and addresses.
 
Ah yes, ACPO, that "association" registered at Companies House.
I wonder what the state of their accounts are? Well in surplus I would imagine, even given the disbursement of some very nice expenses incurred.
The whole thing smacks of an Inspector/Chief Inspector rank staff officer finding/being given a project and coming up with this for evidencing his/her/it's next promotion up, and selling it to daft 12 year old (ish) Chief Constable to put his name and stamp on.
The game is as old as the hills, the target is still promotion, not through merit either.
Once upon a time Essex Police used to do law enforcement and catch criminals with weapons.
That was some time though.......................................
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
The real root of this issue is the lack of communication and representation..

II think the Home Office remains the only legitimate operational authority in relation to firearms issues. They used to have a reasonably effective Firearms consultative committee with representation from the Police and the Shooting associations. After Dunblane, the constitution of the committee was changed to include the anti-gun lobby, and the whole thing became political and pointless and was broken up by the Blair Government..

As a result, the Police set up their own group via ACPO and ACPOS in Scotland and continued the debate, only this time excluding the shooters and anyone who knows anything about the subject area. "Expertise" in the debate now seems to come from a bunch of random forensic scientists, who may understand more of the weapon technology, but seem to demonstrate an irritating lack of knowledge of shooting or a pragmatic view of reality. Recent pronouncements from these "experts" on muskets, bayonets and rifled chokes do not seem to demonstrate any realistic perspective..

On the shooting side, we remain a divided camp, certainly at the top of the various organisations.. With one or two notable exceptions, the level of competency, communication and representation across the shooting organisations is appalling.. with the NRA in particular still not demonstrating the leadership it needs to show!

Power without balance will always tend to corrupt.. The Police have a responsibility for public order, but this has never been their sole responsibility, although many would like us to believe this.. The Police need always to remember that they operate with the consent of the public, and should never be in a position to dictate without this consent. Police strategy for the past forty odd years has been to present themselves to the Public, press and politicians as the sole arbiter of public firearms policy.

IMHO there is absolutely no justification for this position. I am absolutely not making a case for a right to bear arms, however neither do I believe that the Police should be making the running in areas which frankly they have a heavy vested interest. By all means let the Police pursue criminal use of firearms, just as they do with the illegal use of any other artefact, but the Police have no competency or right to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms.

The conjunction of firearms and domestic violence is an important issue, however all the running on this initiative seems to be coming from ACPO with no consultation with any of the shooting interests.. This, given the less than sparkling performance of the Police on domestic affairs as a whole, makes me suspicious..

I would like the whole management of sporting firearms moved away from the Police and responsibility given to the Shooting community to manage its own business...


"IMHO there is absolutely no justification for this position. I am absolutely not making a case for a right to bear arms, however neither do I believe that the Police should be making the running in areas which frankly they have a heavy vested interest. By all means let the Police pursue criminal use of firearms, just as they do with the illegal use of any other artefact, but the Police have no competency or right to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms."

forgive me for effectively selectively quoting you but that one paragraph is a shining light. It is the one thing I have always agreed with.
 

Blogg

LE
"IMHO there is absolutely no justification for this position. I am absolutely not making a case for a right to bear arms, however neither do I believe that the Police should be making the running in areas which frankly they have a heavy vested interest. By all means let the Police pursue criminal use of firearms, just as they do with the illegal use of any other artefact, but the Police have no competency or right to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms."

forgive me for effectively selectively quoting you but that one paragraph is a shining light. It is the one thing I have always agreed with.

Pity all those ACPO Common Purpose types don't:

"On Common Purpose courses around the world, our participants learn a new approach to leadership: one that can cope in unfamiliar territory, where authority has to be earned; that will take leaders beyond the closed world of their own organisations and make them effective in the outside world too."

http://www.commonpurpose.org/who-we-are/about-us?gclid=CLWn1pel3MICFUvJtAodQg0AeQ#lba
 
Pity all those ACPO Common Purpose types don't:

"On Common Purpose courses around the world, our participants learn a new approach to leadership: one that can cope in unfamiliar territory, where authority has to be earned; that will take leaders beyond the closed world of their own organisations and make them effective in the outside world too."

http://www.commonpurpose.org/who-we-are/about-us?gclid=CLWn1pel3MICFUvJtAodQg0AeQ#lba
Common Purpose. Now there's a name I've not heard in a while.
 
We've been here before ACPO guidance isn't HO guidance and has no grounding in law. That said the HO guidance is just that guidance and when challenged the various constabularies cant answer what guidance they are working to but are willing to sell you a copy of ACPO guidance. I responded during Op Solitaire that if the police cant follow their employers guidance why should we follow the top cops boys club guidance? Not once did I mention the Masons honestly!

Hmm.. my bold, what about that even more insidious group "Common Purpose" though?

Damn, beaten to it. CP try to keep below the radar but have successfully infiltrated much of local govt./police/establishment organisations. and are using it to push their particular brand of pc politics.
 
Last edited:

HE117

LE
I'm not sure CP is all that relevant.. The issue is simply one of a lack of balance.

I am old enough to recall the "Anti Establishment" movement of the sixties, where we were all being told that "the toffs" were lording it over us and we, the common people had no power...

Actually I think most of us were a damn sight freer under the Old Establishment than we are under the current regime.. at least you knew where you stood, and that someone applying common sense to a situation was generally given the benefit of the doubt.

What hacks me off is that these days, even when "the system" completely screws it up, it is never their fault, and the poor punter is always in the wrong... (or that completely obscene amounts of public money are wasted to inevitably no effect.)

Anyone care to put a figure on what will be spent on "Dustcartgate"?
 

Latest Threads

Top