Penalised for being abused by Travelers
Discussion
blindswelledrat said:
Just this. It's such a non-thread.
THe facts are reasonably obvious
Travellers do what they did.
Brother threatens to shoot them.
Police deal with both incidents sensibly.
PH jumps into hysteria about why we aren't allowed to shoot travellers who cut wood and get mouthy.
The part that I think isn't that sensible is confiscating a legally held shotgun.THe facts are reasonably obvious
Travellers do what they did.
Brother threatens to shoot them.
Police deal with both incidents sensibly.
PH jumps into hysteria about why we aren't allowed to shoot travellers who cut wood and get mouthy.
These jolly travelling folk had threatened to attack his 50 year old, cancer suffering sister with a chain saw, the police didn't attend, he got understandably angry and said he would deal with the matter himself if they came back.
Any why shouldn't you shoot people who "cut wood and get mouthy" when they are cutting wood on your land and getting mouthy by threatening to cause thousands of pounds worth of damage and potentially even kill you when asked to leave?
His mistake was telling the police what he would do.
AJS- said:
The part that I think isn't that sensible is confiscating a legally held shotgun.
His mistake was telling the police what he would do.
I think they categorically have to.His mistake was telling the police what he would do.
Assuming he has threatened to shoot them, there is no way on earth the police could risk being in the position where a traveller has been shot dead and the police had forewarning of it and knew the perpatrator has guns. Regardless of license, that gun is not legally held if it is being used in a threat against a person.
The mail is the very paper that would go f
king nuts about that.And suddenly the article would forget that the scum threatened to cut thier throats and lament about how a poor child has been shot dead by a rogue farmer.
We have laws that apply to everyone. The police are there to enforce them. They did. The end.
blindswelledrat said:
What should they do then?
I suspect that a conservative estimate would be that of all angry mouthed threats to kill uttered each day in the uk, about 0.0000001% ever result in murder.
It's just words.
This is obvious hypocrisy I suspect that a conservative estimate would be that of all angry mouthed threats to kill uttered each day in the uk, about 0.0000001% ever result in murder.
It's just words.
Travellers make angry threats to kill - no action
Property holder makes angry threats to kill - has legally held firearm confiscated
Uncle Fester said:
I hate s etc
This statement is exactly why the police need to act as they do and enforce the law.s etcYou've prattled on and on and on about how every single traveller is a criminal, a witness intimidator etc etc. and should be strung up, shot, burned etc etc.
In the real world the actual truth is that an uncomfortably large proportion of travellers are disrespectful of the law but there are still huge numbers of law abiding ones.
There is simply no one answer to how to treat all travellers.
THus if you relay the story in question and remove the origins of the travellers you get the following story:
A farmer had his shotgun confiscated after threating a 14 year old boy with it, who had threatened to cut his throat after being caught chopping wood.
Mod note: Not to mention the tedious evasion of the swear filter which I CBA correcting, hence the deletion of your post...
Edited by Bill on Wednesday 27th April 13:28
blindswelledrat said:
This statement is exactly why the police need to act as they do and enforce the law.
You've prattled on and on and on about how every single traveller is a criminal, a witness intimidator etc etc. and should be strung up, shot, burned etc etc.
In the real world the actual truth is that an uncomfortably large proportion of travellers are disrespectful of the law but there are still huge numbers of law abiding ones.
There is simply no one answer to how to treat all travellers.
THus if you relay the story in question and remove the origins of the travellers you get the following story:
A farmer had his shotgun confiscated after threating a 14 year old boy with it, who had threatened to cut his throat after being caught chopping wood.
Finally I see why I could not understand you vierpoint on this story BWD, you seem to think that the Shotguns were used in a threatening manner. You've prattled on and on and on about how every single traveller is a criminal, a witness intimidator etc etc. and should be strung up, shot, burned etc etc.
In the real world the actual truth is that an uncomfortably large proportion of travellers are disrespectful of the law but there are still huge numbers of law abiding ones.
There is simply no one answer to how to treat all travellers.
THus if you relay the story in question and remove the origins of the travellers you get the following story:
A farmer had his shotgun confiscated after threating a 14 year old boy with it, who had threatened to cut his throat after being caught chopping wood.
Not so, they never left the cupboard, in fact the police had to revisit the farm numerous times to get access to the Firearms cabinet. At no time in this version of events was a scumbag looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
The real story here is " property owned not able to run away and not face consequences of actions"
"Travellers allowed to disappear"
Perhaps there is a practical use for RFID tagging after all.
Gargamel said:
Finally I see why I could not understand you vierpoint on this story BWD, you seem to think that the Shotguns were used in a threatening manner.
Not so, they never left the cupboard, in fact the police had to revisit the farm numerous times to get access to the Firearms cabinet. At no time in this version of events was a scumbag looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
The real story here is " property owned not able to run away and not face consequences of actions"
"Travellers allowed to disappear"
Perhaps there is a practical use for RFID tagging after all.
and here is the problem. You have no idea what the real version of events is and yet you are happy to jump on the outrage bandwagon. Why is that?Not so, they never left the cupboard, in fact the police had to revisit the farm numerous times to get access to the Firearms cabinet. At no time in this version of events was a scumbag looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
The real story here is " property owned not able to run away and not face consequences of actions"
"Travellers allowed to disappear"
Perhaps there is a practical use for RFID tagging after all.
Gargamel said:
Finally I see why I could not understand you vierpoint on this story BWD, you seem to think that the Shotguns were used in a threatening manner.
Not so, they never left the cupboard, in fact the police had to revisit the farm numerous times to get access to the Firearms cabinet. At no time in this version of events was a scumbag looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
The real story here is " property owned not able to run away and not face consequences of actions"
"Travellers allowed to disappear"
Perhaps there is a practical use for RFID tagging after all.
Not true. I just read between the lines and don't accept cheap sensational journalism.Not so, they never left the cupboard, in fact the police had to revisit the farm numerous times to get access to the Firearms cabinet. At no time in this version of events was a scumbag looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
The real story here is " property owned not able to run away and not face consequences of actions"
"Travellers allowed to disappear"
Perhaps there is a practical use for RFID tagging after all.
I am completely certain that the police would not have confiscated the guns nuless there was a threat to shoot or similar.
Pretty obvious that the police went to the travellers to investigate. The travellers duly replied that the bloke had threatened to shoot them. THis made them check that the farmer did indeed have guns on the premises and they confiscated them just in case. Its just commonsense.
Do you think the police do a shotgun license check on every victim of crime they ever attend?
Or do you think its more likely that something drew their attention to the fact that the bloke posessed shotguns?
Its not difficult.
Pothole said:
and here is the problem. You have no idea what the real version of events is and yet you are happy to jump on the outrage bandwagon. Why is that?
It fits best with my already pre determined prejudices, simple 
Although brilliantly, I can read the paper, but am accused of being gulliable, not checking my facts, the victim of a media led conspiracy etc. Yet others (see BWD posts) can "interpret" and " I read that as" with a sagacity beyond the likes of right wing patsy's like me.
I'm with BSR on this. My father used to work at a "skill-centre" (some government backed scheme for getting people back into work though trade training) teaching precision tool making before he retired. One of his clients had been in prison following a incident where him and his brother had confronted some travellers on neighbouring land about stealing livestock. It happened several times and in the end, the other brother decided to act and took his shotgun with him resulting in one dead traveller and a murder charge.
Sensible precaution IMO.
Sensible precaution IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff