Shotgun certificate and speeding.
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
mph1977 said:
let's deal first with your dubious grip of jurisprudence, Police officers on duty have exemptions from various aspects of road traffic law.
Let's stick to the "attitude" of exceeding a speed limit alongside the proposal that the same leads to a marked lack of care in respect of firearm control shall we?i've walked around with several thousand quids worth of class As before - all totally legally.
Jasandjules said:
mph1977 said:
you really do have a tenuous grip of jurisprudence
Not quite. I got a first for Jurisprudence... Did you?However you appear unable to grasp a fairly simple concept.
1, 'the simple concept' that actions which are illegal for the general public may contextually perfectly legal and expected behaviours for Individuals in certain jobs who hold certain Offices or Professional Accreditations ... e.g. eligible emergency services drivers claiming exemptions of the fact that a Nurse, ODP ,Doctor or Paramedic may be walking round with hundreds if not thousands of pounds of class A in their posession
or 'the simple concept'
that anti -police t
ttery indicates an immature and jealous attitude .Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It seems that all and sundry now have access to one's medical records and doctors aren't necessarily careful how they word things on file. So a benign comment can be misconstrued accidentally or otherwise by an interested party. I took life insurance about 4 years ago and had a world of inconvenience because of a badly worded comment by a GP relating to medicine.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It somewhat flies in the face of the advice "if you're feeling depressed talk to your doctor".
Eleven said:
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It seems that all and sundry now have access to one's medical records and doctors aren't necessarily careful how they word things on file. So a benign comment can be misconstrued accidentally or otherwise by an interested party. I took life insurance about 4 years ago and had a world of inconvenience because of a badly worded comment by a GP relating to medicine.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It somewhat flies in the face of the advice "if you're feeling depressed talk to your doctor".
OpulentBob said:
Eleven said:
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It seems that all and sundry now have access to one's medical records and doctors aren't necessarily careful how they word things on file. So a benign comment can be misconstrued accidentally or otherwise by an interested party. I took life insurance about 4 years ago and had a world of inconvenience because of a badly worded comment by a GP relating to medicine.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It somewhat flies in the face of the advice "if you're feeling depressed talk to your doctor".
The current Home Office Guidance on firearms licensing procedure is in sections 10 and 11 of the document linked to below. See sections 10.20 to 25 for the approach to medical info.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Breadvan72 said:
So, being able to have a gun is more important than maintaining good mental health? Righty ho.
It's one of two things. Either I take the view that when one is mentally disturbed it's really useful to have a gun.Or my comment didn't relate to gun ownership and actually something else that I mention only about two posts earlier.
mph1977 said:
which 'simple concept' would that be ?
1, 'the simple concept' that actions which are illegal for the general public may contextually perfectly legal and expected behaviours for Individuals in certain jobs who hold certain Offices or Professional Accreditations ... e.g. eligible emergency services drivers claiming exemptions of the fact that a Nurse, ODP ,Doctor or Paramedic may be walking round with hundreds if not thousands of pounds of class A in their posession
or 'the simple concept'
that anti -police tttery indicates an immature and jealous attitude .
With respect, I think you may have missed the point being raised. The OP and the later post refer to an attitude towards risk (note I say risk and not illegality) that speeding displays. They were told that this attitude may affect their suitability to hold a firearms certificate.1, 'the simple concept' that actions which are illegal for the general public may contextually perfectly legal and expected behaviours for Individuals in certain jobs who hold certain Offices or Professional Accreditations ... e.g. eligible emergency services drivers claiming exemptions of the fact that a Nurse, ODP ,Doctor or Paramedic may be walking round with hundreds if not thousands of pounds of class A in their posession
or 'the simple concept'
that anti -police t
ttery indicates an immature and jealous attitude .I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
Eleven said:
Breadvan72 said:
So, being able to have a gun is more important than maintaining good mental health? Righty ho.
It's one of two things. Either I take the view that when one is mentally disturbed it's really useful to have a gun.Or my comment didn't relate to gun ownership and actually something else that I mention only about two posts earlier.
Breadvan72 said:
Eleven said:
Breadvan72 said:
So, being able to have a gun is more important than maintaining good mental health? Righty ho.
It's one of two things. Either I take the view that when one is mentally disturbed it's really useful to have a gun.Or my comment didn't relate to gun ownership and actually something else that I mention only about two posts earlier.
I think I am right in saying your profession used to have legal privilege but now you have to report a client if he or she tells you certain things.
It's fast becoming the case that it's probably only safe to discuss things with one's mother.
Legal professional privilege still exists. Lawyers are subject to money laundering rules. These are an extrapolation of the long standing rule that if your client gives you information about a criminal venture then the information is not subject to privilege. Privilege is based on confidentiality, and the old maxim is that there is no confidence in iniquity.
Breadvan72 said:
These are an extrapolation of the long standing rule that if your client gives you information about a criminal venture then the information is not subject to privilege.
That's really interesting. I know little about lawyer/"customer" relationships but if a lawyer was defending a guy on a charge, adn the guy admitted it to the lawyer, does the lawyer have an obligation to tell the judge/reject the customer?OpulentBob said:
Breadvan72 said:
These are an extrapolation of the long standing rule that if your client gives you information about a criminal venture then the information is not subject to privilege.
That's really interesting. I know little about lawyer/"customer" relationships but if a lawyer was defending a guy on a charge, adn the guy admitted it to the lawyer, does the lawyer have an obligation to tell the judge/reject the customer?As both Breaders and I will know to our cost, when the client changes their plea at the last minute, thus costing us a bl00dy fortune.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff