Comments on: Ex-soldier to be jailed for handing in gun

By: MiriamBinder

MiriamBinder — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:44:37 +0000

Well said security scene.

By: securityscene

securityscene — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:29:41 +0000

It seems obvious that what this man needed to do was, pick up the phone and call 999, advise them that he had found a shot gun and wait a few minutes for it to be picked up, likely by firearms offices trained to make it safe.

The gun may have been used in a murder or other crime and should have been left as undisturbed as possible. This to allow police to check for evidence that could be crucial to solve a case - now contaminated and four days late!

There is no licence that this man or any civilian could have had to carry this gun as I belive it was a sawn off shot gun which is illegal for anyone to own.

This man also shouldn't have waited 4 days to take in the weapon. During his initial phone call he should have made the police aware of what he had found so that they could make arrangements for the safe retrieval and give him advice on how to proceed.

You have to ask what he was doing with the gun for 4 days?

I don't think he should get 5 years, bit much but this man obiously has no common sense.

http://securityscene.wordpress.com

By: RevdAstairCarnegie

RevdAstairCarnegie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:14:18 +0000

I anticipate this will cause a great deal of work for the Royal Military Police, (I serve as one of their Chaplains) The lads are very upset, It is highly probable that all those responsible for Paul Clarke's prosecution, from the Judge downward, will have their lives made an abject misery, following criminal damage to their property, e.g. cement down their drains, cars sabotaged at filling and service stations, with perhaps a dollop of diamond bort + vaseline stuffed up the petrol filler nozzle. (smoke out of the exhaust within 50 miles!) etc. etc. It will be very hard to locate the culprits, as the entire military are incenced and outraged. The way to end this, is to have the case quashed! expediently!

By: Fojee Punjabi

Fojee Punjabi — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:37:14 +0000

Dalbir:

Well done. You won. Enjoy your glory.

Cunt.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:50:48 +0000

You are officially a fool.

By: Charlie Bronson

Charlie Bronson — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:33:04 +0000

All you need to understand here is that common purpose is at work. Law abiding citizens are the enemy. Just don't talk to the police. Don't even look at them. Certainly do not associate with them for they are ostensibly civil enforcement officers for the corporation. We are officially at war.

By: Dalbir

Dalbir — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:28:33 +0000

it's just that you have this idea in your head that by someone feeling as if you have 'won' an argument it means the end of a debate.

No, that is exactly what you do.

PS - Your mum done a crappy job raising you Mr. Potty Mouth.

By: Fojee Punjabi

Fojee Punjabi — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:48:50 +0000

Dalbir:

No I am not but you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, mate.

Anyhoo, I was never complaining about a lack of debate it's just that you have this idea in your head that by someone feeling as if you have 'won' an argument it means the end of a debate.

Well I'm here to tell you to stop being so egotistical and put your ego to one side and argue with logic rather than with hyperbole.

Come back at me now, bitch...

By: platinum786

platinum786 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:47:12 +0000

lol, unbeleiveable.

By: Jookymundo

Jookymundo — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:14:18 +0000

lol, dump firearms in the gardens of everyone who served in afghanistan and iraq, and we'll have a bit of justice.

By: marvin

marvin — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:12:29 +0000

Jack of Kent has no civic duty to talk shit. He should therefore be locked up.

By: marvin

marvin — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:11:00 +0000

Despicable outcome. This case really shows the moral ineptitude of the general public. It rings of the Milgram experiment. A person of authority states it is absolutely essential that you continue to electrocute this person.... And so they do. Stupid, stupid, twats.

By: Dalbir

Dalbir — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:11:37 +0000

What are waffling on about now?

I for one would rather call The Boys than call Dem Babylon dem, yage'me?

Are you for real? No, let me guess you're a Southall rudebwoy......and ting

Do you wander about with your jeans hanging off your arse.....bwoy.....you get me....

Try and respond with some form of argument in future instead of this type of thing:

Stop trying to be an intellectual bully, Dalbir, because you're slowly becoming more of a dickhead with each post of yours.

Earlier you were crying about people not debating you. Having read your shite, I'm not surprised. Try something more than than playground style insults. If you can't manage this, let me know.

By: douglas clark

douglas clark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:10:55 +0000

To the extent we have been told the true story:

It seems wrong to me for either the commentators here or indeed the judge in this case to question the chaps actions. He appears to have acted in our interests, having taken a gun off the streets, as it were.

I do not agree with Jack of Kents' rather narrow and legalistic ideas of whether an offence has been commited or not, nor do I think any of this is in the public interest.

Just saying....

By: Fojee Punjabi

Fojee Punjabi — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:34:45 +0000

Erm… no… he did attempt to contact a policeman he actually trusted- the point I was making was that he's been jipped because he did the right thing and as Rumbold so eloquently alluded to- the spirit of the law has been renounced.

Stop trying to be an intellectual bully, Dalbir, because you're slowly becoming more of a dickhead with each post of yours.

By: Kulvinder

Kulvinder — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:13:54 +0000

Assuming its all been reported accurately, and to be frank you never know, it was an idiotic prosecution and an utterly utterly moronic conviction from the jury.

Aside from all that i find the argument that 'he was carrying a GUN in a PUBLIC place without a LICENSE' utterly hilarious and just the kind of emotive nonsense that other nations laugh at when commenting about our gun laws.

How would it have been any 'safer' for the public if he'd filled in a stupid form and got it blue ink stamped before handing the gun in?

Its the same idiocy that drives things like the ISA; just because you've followed the bureaucratic paper trail doesn't mean the risk has suddenly vanished. But perhaps thats what went wrong with Jean Charles de Menezes or those cases where the police end up shooting each other and civilians during training; they hadn't filled out their form properly and ipso facto someone got shot.

By: Don

Don — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:06:16 +0000

I for one would rather call The Boys than call Dem Babylon dem, yage'me?

Not really. What point are you trying to make? That he shouldn't have called the law when he found a sawn-off?

By: Rumbold

Rumbold — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:07:36 +0000

Fojee Punjabi:

Nope. I don't expect any better.

MaidMarian:

Perhaps he shouldn't have taken the loaded gun to the station. But on available evidence, as you say, there was no public interest in prosecuting him.

By: In Surrey, finding and then handling a gun means jail « Lightwater

In Surrey, finding and then handling a gun means jail « Lightwater — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:38:53 +0000

[...] case has kicked up a real storm in the blogosphere, with Pickled Politics, Liberal Conspiracy and Devil’s Kitchen all rightly [...]

By: Fojee Punjabi

Fojee Punjabi — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:57:42 +0000

Rumbold:

This is the result of Labour being in power for 12 years- do you expect any better when those idiots are still in charge?

Don:

Unfortunately I have the displeasure of knowing some policemen from the Metropolitan Police and can tell you that they are dirtier than the so-called criminals themselves so I for one would rather call The Boys than call Dem Babylon dem, yage'me?