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

FYI: trying to post in Hebrew crashes the user out of the forum!!! Even more proof Mossad is watching

Oy Vey !

saddler wrote:

HALODIN wrote:God help us... So... if something you've searched for triggers some form of alarm on their system, they get a psychologist to look at the material and judge if you're a risk to society... I don't remember signing up for this. Is this a revelation to most here? I have nothing to hide, but it feels like an invasion of privacy...

Can you cast any more light on what they do and what they collect? Did whoever showed it to you, tell you anything else?

The then Inspector & Sgt from the Firearms Dept.
It was a comment I'd posted on a WW2 forum regarding Lothian & Borders Police's then current bright idea de jour that some pump action shotguns were really Section 5 as they slam-fired....they spent about a year looking into the S.5 aspect in some detail....before it died a death.

Oh, the same Dept has money to burn on purchasing several SGC 9mm LR carbines with a view to make them run illegally so that they can ban them....the outcome of that one? "I got it to go fully auto for one shot..."(but it then jammed solid rendering the gun totally inoperable)

Yip = you cannot make this s*** up

Lucky they didn't have any money left to buy a side by side SG an a hacksaw.

joe wrote:Firearms act states the chief of Police needs a reason :-

(2)The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police has reason to believe—



Thus he need have resonable suspicion of the stated reasons on which a certficate can be revoked !
And he would justify his resasons to the court on appeal ! (He can't just say to the judge he is a danger but can't go into why because of what not etc )
Sim is right though that there is no requirement in law for the Chief of police to provide a reason in the latter

Also I think the court uses the civil burden of proof when it comes to its decisions

Basc and NRA said otherwise. Apparently there has been a stated case. And in that stated case the Judge pointed out it would be silly that the Chief Constable MUST have good reason but not HAVE to disclose it !

Yes - burden of proof is "balance of probabilities". Decided by a Judge in Crown Court but no jury.

And hearsay is admissible !

Back to the OP -

The Police hold intelligence on pretty much everybody ( inc fac holders ) who have come to notice whether in a criminal matter or not.

Merely applying for a FAC creates a file on the database for the individual concerned.

All info is added, whether fact or hearsay.

It is graded A-D and 1-4 in terms of the source and of the material. A1 for example would be fact supplied by a credible source and D4 would be unconfirmed info from a previously unreliable source.

breacher wrote: Basc and NRA said otherwise. Apparently there has been a stated case. And in that stated case the Judge pointed out it would be silly that the Chief Constable MUST have good reason but not HAVE to disclose it !

For my own interest can you remember what the stated case is? I can't find anything on the web or in Blackstones and the current BASC advice seems to be a straight lift from the 2016 Guidance, that the Chief "should", not "must"....
https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/ ... php?id=133

breacher wrote: It is graded A-D and 1-4 in terms of the source and of the material. A1 for example would be fact supplied by a credible source and D4 would be unconfirmed info from a previously unreliable source.

Haven't used that system for probably 15 years now. National multi agency 5x5x5 information evaluation matrix.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/A ... 5-form.pdf

walesdave wrote:FYI: trying to post in Hebrew crashes the user out of the forum!!! Even more proof Mossad is watching

Try posting in Russian Cyrillic.....it has a meltdown!!!

Sorry SimG - my case was 2007 so it was before then. Not kept any of the paperwork.

Nra and basc both stated that reason must be given in writing.

I must confess, doing my pre hearing research, I did not find a single case where reason was not given in writing at time of revocation.

I suppose one could say that there is nothing in the road traffic act that says an officer must tell the motorist why he is being stopped - but they always get told.

I see your point re sensitive info but the fac holder can still be given a reason in broad terms without details of sensitive reason.

Godammit - you got me going all devils advocate now !

I suppose that nothing in legislation re powers of arrest say you have to informed WHAT you are being arrested for. But I suppose the author did not feel the need to spell it out as nobody would imagine the officer would arrest without quoting the offence.

The same goes for powers of siezure in many if not all acts - power is there but no actual requirement to tell the property owner why their property is being siezed.

Again, although the Road Traffic Act caters for pointing out an offence - it does not require the officer to quote the actual issiue. Can you imagine an officer reporting a "construction and use" offence without telling the motorist what the actual contravention is ?

Legislation tends to be written with the assumption that an offender will be told by the officer when they have fallen foul of it. Without actually telling the officer he must do so.

May I ask the circumstances around your case ??
The firearms act allows chief of police to also revoke on "otherwise unfitted to be entrusted to have a firearm" this is very wide ranging and can mean anything! Has this been defined by the high court ??