PDA

View Full Version : Man Arrested For Handing In Gun



Lockhouse
13th November 2009, 15:41
Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

DimPrawn
13th November 2009, 15:45
The state is protecting us from terrorists. Vote Labour and stay safe. These laws protect us all.

RichardCranium
13th November 2009, 16:02
I was going to :suicide: but I might get 5 years inside for doing so.

What a wonderful use of the law.

Churchill
13th November 2009, 16:06
Crucifixion's a doddle!

snaw
13th November 2009, 16:09
That is truly ******* bonkers.

He did what anyone else with a sense of civic duty would have done, and he gets found guilty.

/Mental.

Moscow Mule
13th November 2009, 16:11
That is truly ******* bonkers.

He did what anyone else with a sense of civic duty would have done, and he gets found guilty.

/Mental.

That's what you get when you have a bunch of career politicians forcing laws through the Lords without actually thinking through all of the consequences.

RichardCranium
13th November 2009, 16:16
Yesterday evening in Scratchwood services I parked next to a British Transport Police van with two coppers sat in the front. The engine was running and the driver was texting.

I didn't have the balls to confront them directly (what? And end up on the DNA database?) but made a sarcy comment as I walked past:

"It's funny how the mobile phone law doesn't apply to them."

When I came back from have relieved myself, as I got near their van, he hid his phone under the steering wheel and carried on using it, with the engine still running.

The annoying bit is, what can you do about the Police when they can freelly ignore the law (like the silly bitch in a police car last week that drove onto my side of a busy road to overtake a lorry with neither sirens nor blue lights nor indicators meaning I had to stamp on the brakes and damn nearly got shunted by the car behind) yet we get clamped down upon harder and harder?

I think I may have said before, it is hardly any wonder the filth get called pigs.

They needn't have charged that bloke; they do have the power of discretion.

Churchill
13th November 2009, 16:18
Yesterday evening in Scratchwood services I parked next to a British Transport Police van with two coppers sat in the front. The engine was running and the driver was texting.

I didn't have the balls to confront them directly (what? And end up on the DNA database?) but made a sarcy comment as I walked past:

"It's funny how the mobile phone law doesn't apply to them."

When I came back from have relieved myself, as I got near their van, he hid his phone under the steering wheel and carried on using it, with the engine still running.

The annoying bit is, what can you do about the Police when they can freelly ignore the law (like the silly bitch in a police car last week that drove onto my side of a busy road to overtake a lorry with neither sirens nor blue lights nor indicators meaning I had to stamp on the brakes and damn nearly got shunted by the car behind) yet we get clamped down upon harder and harder?

I think I may have said before, it is hardly any wonder the filth get called pigs.

They needn't have charged that bloke; they do have the power of discretion.

WTF?

The filth get called pigs? Neither is to my understanding, a term of endearment. :confused:

Tarquin Farquhar
13th November 2009, 16:20
The state is protecting us from terrorists. Vote Labour and stay safe. These laws protect us all.What's Labour got to do with it?

Oh, nothing. OK.

HairyArsedBloke
13th November 2009, 16:24
On the way home from the pub last night I passed three police cars from the dog patrol parked outside one of the restaurants with the pigs inside collecting a take-away. The engines of all the cars outside were still running, but there was nobody in any of them and one of the cars had a dog barking as if it was in some distress.

I’ve seen them there before doing the same thing; it’s not an isolated incident. I think I’m going to start taking my camera out with me to take pictures. However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

Churchill
13th November 2009, 16:29
On the way home from the pub last night I passed three police cars from the dog patrol parked outside one of the restaurants with the pigs inside collecting a take-away. The engines of all the cars outside were still running, but there was nobody in any of them and one of the cars had a dog barking as if it was in some distress.

I’ve seen them there before doing the same thing; it’s not an isolated incident. I think I’m going to start taking my camera out with me to take pictures. However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

You could always steal one of the police cars...

A mate of mine did that when pulled for drink driving after being out with a woman who wasn't his wife...

thunderlizard
13th November 2009, 16:30
The policeman who received the shotgun seems to have got off scot free. That loophole needs to be closed.

DimPrawn
13th November 2009, 16:33
What's Labour got to do with it?

Oh, nothing. OK.

The government (Labour for the hard of thinking) have rewritten most of our laws since coming to power, including laws relating to possession of a firearm.

You might recall Tony Bliar was a lawyer and so is his charming wife.

Spacecadet
13th November 2009, 16:40
A mate of mine did that when pulled for drink driving after being out with a woman who wasn't his wife...

yeah right... a "mate" of yours :wink

HairyArsedBloke
13th November 2009, 16:46
Looks like it was police revenge for the chap getting off an earlier 'offence'.
Sminky Pinky (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html)

Fraking :bluelight :tantrum:

threaded
13th November 2009, 16:55
Deserves 5 years for being an idiot.

Civic duty fail!

Spacecadet
13th November 2009, 17:00
Looks like it was police revenge for the chap getting off an earlier 'offence'.
Sminky Pinky (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html)

Fraking :bluelight :tantrum:

is it me or does the picture in that article look like he's still holding the broom handle?

Moscow Mule
13th November 2009, 17:00
...However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

Only if you're going to use it to help a terrorist.

Tarquin Farquhar
13th November 2009, 17:03
The government (Labour for the hard of thinking) have rewritten most of our laws since coming to power, including laws relating to possession of a firearm.

You might recall Tony Bliar was a lawyer and so is his charming wife.Possession of a firearm without a certificate has been a criminal offence for over 40 years. Nothing to do with the current administration.

HairyArsedBloke
13th November 2009, 17:06
Only if you're going to use it to help a terrorist.

Yeah, but I have every confidence that the police would be able to invent some way linking any picture of plod with a terror plot.

Moscow Mule
13th November 2009, 17:18
Possession of a firearm without a certificate has been a criminal offence for over 40 years. Nothing to do with the current administration.

Minimum 5 years sentence was TB's idea though...

snaw
13th November 2009, 18:51
Possession of a firearm without a certificate has been a criminal offence for over 40 years. Nothing to do with the current administration.

Since when has a mere inconvenient fact ever stopped DP blaming the government for everything? ;)

Zippy
13th November 2009, 18:55
It seems obvious to me that you shouldn't walk in to a police station with a shotgun. Good job he didn't pop to the bank first.

Churchill
13th November 2009, 19:02
It's ridiculous!

The man made an appointment, handed the weapon in and still got arrested and sent down!

Zippy
13th November 2009, 19:07
It's ridiculous!

The man made an appointment, handed the weapon in and still got arrested and sent down!

It sounds ridiculous, but I don't think he mentioned a shotgun when he contacted them.
He shouldn't have been charged but that's the cops for you.

NotAllThere
13th November 2009, 19:45
Looks like it was police revenge for the chap getting off an earlier 'offence'.
Sminky Pinky (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html)

Fraking :bluelight :tantrum:

The only answer is to hang them both. ( But it was a stupid question, mind )...

mudskipper
14th November 2009, 08:11
I wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.

Churchill
14th November 2009, 08:49
I wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.

Yup you've got a point there. What's the going rate for a sawn-off shotgun these days?

Cliphead
14th November 2009, 09:10
What's the going rate for a sawn-off shotgun these days?

About 1260 fps

Doggy Styles
14th November 2009, 09:13
So if you find a firearm the message is one of:

Keep it
Discard it so that someone else can find it
Sell it to a bloke down the pub

Paddy
14th November 2009, 09:13
I wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.


Thant doesn’t work either. About 20 years ago a distant friend who was a resident landlord in a small block of flat s. He reported to the police about a package hidden in a tree in the back garden. The package contained drugs. Although he was not suspected in dealing he was charged on the technicality that the drugs were in possession on his property. He got six months for that.

TinTrump
14th November 2009, 10:03
I wonder if this is the whole story.

Quite. I can understand that, him being ex-army, he might have been at ease with the weapon, but why not mention it to the coppers instead of making an appointment?

2 other issues. The CPS can decide whether its in the public interest to pursue the case, which they did (making me more inclined to think that they'd performed a sanity check). Secondly the speed of the guilty verdict from the jury; 20 mins. Juries do go against the direction of the judge; Clive Ponting was cleared of breaking the Off. Secrets Act even though that's exactly what he did.

So, appears perverse, but I'd like to know more. I really hope something we're not aware of justifies this verdict and sentence. Otherwise its atrocious.

mudskipper
14th November 2009, 11:43
Maybe they forgot to mention he popped into the bank en route to the police station.

The Dog Man
15th November 2009, 09:47
On the way home from the pub last night I passed three police cars from the dog patrol parked outside one of the restaurants with the pigs inside collecting a take-away. The engines of all the cars outside were still running, but there was nobody in any of them and one of the cars had a dog barking as if it was in some distress.
I’ve seen them there before doing the same thing; it’s not an isolated incident. I think I’m going to start taking my camera out with me to take pictures. However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

First of all I am sure that the intelligent readers will have realised that this story is not true, it is reported by one side only and therefore doesn’t give a true picture.
Now back to my friend above.
Are police officers not allowed to eat? I find that a 12 hour shift with no food is a long time.
Are police officers not allowed to use a take-away is there some special place we should buy our food from?
The dog vans were left with the engines running through the use of a "run lock" device, this allows the driver to remove the keys and lock the doors while leaving the engine running to allow the air conditioning to keep the dogs cool. Any attempt to move the vehicle kills the engine.
If the police officer was using his phone while driving then he was totally wrong and deserves to be disciplined for it. If he was parked in the station car park with the engine running then this was no offence.
Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man

Gonzo
15th November 2009, 21:42
Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog ManA word to the wise.

I wouldn't go taking so much interest in HAB's manhood if I were you. ;)

threaded
16th November 2009, 06:24
First of all I am sure that the intelligent readers will have realised that this story is not true, it is reported by one side only and therefore doesn’t give a true picture.

I know it's out on the internet so maybe one should take it with a pinch of salt, but I think it is true.

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

- Comments on this story have been disabled for the weekend, they will be reinstated on Monday.

BrilloPad
16th November 2009, 07:27
Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

He should have used it to rob a bank instead.

RichardCranium
16th November 2009, 08:23
He should have used it to rob a bank instead.Well there's no point trying to rob a Post Office - you'd never find one.

HairyArsedBloke
16th November 2009, 08:56
First .....

Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man

:rollin:

Go on own up. Who was this?

Whoever it is, they have got the self-righteous, self-entitled, above the law attitude of the police off to a tee.

Tarquin Farquhar
16th November 2009, 11:15
...However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.
Only if you're going to use it to help a terrorist.Only if it "might be of use for terrorism".

And it might, who can deny it......

Paddy
16th November 2009, 12:37
Only if it "might be of use for terrorism".

And it might, who can deny it......

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of ter "

In order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves".

The key is; it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action. In other words you are guilty until proved innocent. This is the case unless you know better the barristers and solicitors acting for the NUJ A reporter for the Southern Evening Echo was arrested for photographing a Motorway bridge bon the excuse that the picture could be used by terrorists to target bridges. .


The Act:
Sec 76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc
(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.
(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.
(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

HairyArsedBloke
16th November 2009, 12:45
|
|
v