Has England really become this ridiculous?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That 's true; he shud have kept it for his own use
or just thrown it away. Instead, he got an expensive lesson in trusting English police.
He ' ll have a long time to consider the wisdom thereof.

Well, he's actually old enough to have heard of the Firearms Act .... it's from 1968.

And the "Minimum sentence for certain firearms offences"
[section 51a of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) - Criminal Justice Act
2003 Chapter 44 ] is law since 2003.

I would think that a reasonable citizen, finding an abandoned firearm,
would think that it might have been discarded by a criminal.

So WHAT?? Its a SHOTGUN; it cannot be identified to any shooting; its smoothbore.

Presumably, someone ditched the weapon for a reason. Blood?
Fingerprints? [CLEAN IT] Serial number that can match it to a theft?

You are insufficiently imaginative.

I agree. There are too many questions:

1. I wonder why he said he didn't know what to do - he's a soldier, is he not? And 27, not a child. Surely he must have some common sense.

2. And why wait till the next day? And why call the Chief Supt? Wouldn't you just call 911?

3. And why did he touch it?

I'd have looked in the bag, called the cops, and waited for them to show up.

I wonder if he's 'known to the police'.

BTW, how're you doing, Walter?

After reading the article Francis posted, this whole thing is every bit as flaky as the "Zero tolerance " rules imposed onto schoolkids in the US.
Id be outraged that my civil rights would be tromped on without any recourse. People who live in some other countries must be living in terror lest they keep totally up to speed on all local ordinances on about anything that the several towns decide.

STOOPID STUPID LAW. FIE on you Brits for letting this happen.

In defence of Strict Liability
(Annabel Wynne, Blogspot.com, November 15, 2009)

It has been widely - and crossly - reported throughout the press and on blogs, that the case of Paul Clarke is a gross miscarriage of justice. But there is more to this story, and to the law that is being criticised, than meets the eye.

Possession of a Firearm, which is what Paul Clarke was arrested and charged with, is a Strict Liability law. Another example of a Strict Liability law is speeding: when you are prosecuted for speeding, the fact that you were speeding is not up for debate and there is no burden for the authorities to prove your guilt. The fact that you may have been speeding for what you regarded as a very good reason is, to an extent irrelevant, because you were still speeding, which is illegal. Therefore, according to the law, you have to be prosecuted. This is not the same as saying that no mitigation is allowable beyond this point.

However, it was reported by Clarke's local press that Strict Liability means that there is no defence in any case. This is at best a misunderstanding of the law and at worst a deliberate smudging of the facts in order to create a sensationalist story. Strict Liability means that guilt (mens rea) does not have to be proven; the intention to do what you have been charged with is not in dispute, and it is in this respect only that your reasons are surplus to your guilt. Paul Clarke DID walk through the streets of Surrey with a sorn-off shotgun and ammunition. It seems like quite a good law that says this is not an acceptable thing to do, quite aside for his reasons for doing so. His reasons for doing this, however well meaning and community-spirited, are irrelevant to the fact that he was in possession of a firearm in a public place, which is illegal, and dangerous.

However, what is being reported in a 'the law is an ass' way is that because this is a Strict Liability law it 'had' to go to court and that he 'had' to be found guilty and now he 'has' to go to prison for five years. This is not true. The point at which something 'has' to happen with Strict Liability is the point at which the offender has to be prosecuted. Beyond that, a defence citing your reasons for acting in the way you did, is admisable. There are defences in Strict Liability. Further to this it is also being reported that Mr. Clarke faces going to prison for at least five years because the mandatory minimum sentence for Possession of a Firearm is five years imprisonment. In actual fact, with all UK laws apart from murder, the mandatory minimum sentence is a 'guide' for the judge, who in sentencing has the right to exercise discretion in the sentence handed down. It is necessary for this to exist - and is indeed exercised - because every situation is different and has to be judged accordingly. If, when Mr Clarke is sentenced next month, the judge believes that this man has behaved in an entirely innocent and well-meaning way and has been nothing more than a bit foolish in his community endeavors, there will be no reason for him to send him to prison for five years, and there is nothing in law that says he is compelled to do so. This perfectly reasonable and fair point of law has not been mentioned by the press so far though.

Rather than jumping on the cross bandwagon and assuming that this 'ex-soldier' (and therefore according to the media some kind of saint) is beyond reproach, let's look at his account of events. He says he found the shotgun and ammunition in his garden. Concerned about the dangers of leaving it outside, he brought it into his house. Rather than immediately telephoning the police however, Mr. Clarke was then seemingly quite happy to keep the weapon, for which he had no license and which may have been used in a crime, in his home overnight and go off to bed. He says that he then telephoned the police the following morning. So surely at this point, having the phone in his hand, he mentions the fact that he has a sorn-off shotgun that he found in his garden? No, he actually doesn't even mention the gun but asks to 'pop in' for a 'private chat' with the Chief Superintendant. Without any reason for the 'chat' being given, this immediate appointment with a high-ranking officer was unquestioningly granted. At this point, Mr Clarke still apparently chose not to mention that he would be bringing a sorn-off shotgun to the 'chat'. Does this seem plausible to you? Because it sure as hell doesn't to me and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't to a jury. Even if we allow his intention to take the weapon to the police station himself - which he should not have done - why wait until the morning? Why not take it immediately? If we then make the further stretch though that he was prepared and happy to wait until the next day, why would you telephone the police but then not tell them why you were phoning them? Why would you think it necessary to hand the weapon over directly to the Chief Superintendant in a private meeting? It simply doesn't add up to anything remotely resembling the truth.

We absolutely cannot make assumptions here that this man has been unfairly treated by the law, when there is clearly a lot that is not being made public about it. First of all you have his account of events which seems utterly implausible but, even if we assume it to be true, the Strict Liability law does NOT mean there was no point at which this conclusion could have been avoided. Yes, he had to be prosecuted because he was illegally in possession of a firearm, but the CPS didn't have to allow the case to go ahead if they did not think it was in the public interest for it to be brought to court. Further, the verdict was decided not by the judge, but by a jury who were just as entitled to settle on the contrary verdict if that was what they felt to be right in this case, given that they are the ones who have heard ALL of the evidence.

That it is so obvious that there are significant aspects to the case that have not been put into the public domain makes it even more reprehensible that it has been reported in such a black and white, lazy fashion deliberately engineered to provoke a mob-like response. There are enough points of legislation that are being passed in this country that are genuinely infringing our civil liberties and signposting an increasingly paranoid State, without the need to take the germ of a non-story and run with it in pseudo-revolutionary style to the 'made-up facts' arena. It is not the law in this case that has been an ass, but those who have reported it in such hackneyed, uninformed and over-simplified terms.

Quote:

In defence of Strict Liability
(Annabel Wynne, Blogspot.com, November 15, 2009)

... a deliberate smudging of the facts in order to create a sensationalist story...

Merry Andrew wrote:

All I can say is this is a mighty strange story that makes little sense on the face of it.

Gun control makes no sense.
It is a suicidal philosophy, supporting the dominance of predatory evil
over helpless victims.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

All I can say is this is a mighty strange story that makes little sense on the face of it.

Gun control makes no sense.
It is a suicidal philosophy, supporting the dominance of predatory evil
over helpless victims.

Just how adequate is your nuclear arms capacity OSD?

I think Eorl is asking about the size of your inevitable nuclear arsenal.
Or how many nuclear bombs do you personally own and have ready for self defense situations.

I was just thinking that you've justified your position (in the past)
around the collective individuals need not to be outgunned by it's government,
and I realized you'd need to be packing some really hot & heavy metal to accomplish that.

Quote:

You're not in danger of a gun attack either, Dave.

Thank u for that information, Jack.
NOW, I know that I am the only American who has such immunity.

Quote:

How many years have you been packing now? 50 or 60 or so?
Still waiting for that attack which never comes?

By your reasoning, no one shoud get fire insurance because the fire "never comes" as u put it.
or no one shoud get health insurance, because he might not get a heart attack

Anyway, I have already posted that I have been the victim
of a gun attack, to wit:
I was driving home at about 1 a.m., alone on the road,
except for an old car (judging from its paint job) which was tailgating me.
After a while, it pulled abreast of me on my left; I heard a gunshot
and a bullet hole appeared in my driver's door window.
The old car held its position abreast of me.
I did not change speed nor direction,
but I drew out my stainless steel mirror, 2 inch .44 caliber revolver,
whereupon I heard a shrill scream and the old car departed apace.

I did not have time to even try to line up a shot.

Your premise is incorrect.

There is also this:
Before I got my first gun, I was 8, at home alone most of the time.
My family owned some businesses in Phoenix, Arizona, to whose administration thay were attending.

We lived in a good neighborhood; in all the time that we lived there,
I never knew of any crime, but I felt ill-at-ease at home,
wondering how I 'd defend the place against burglars,
if that became necessary; (it never did). All I had was kitchen knives.

When, by luck, a .38 revolver fell into my hands, I felt relieved in that I HAD
some means of defense, if necessary, which was distinctly better than being helpless.

For those years, I had a sense of tranquility and serenity insofar as self defense was concerned.
I look back upon it as a good thing.





David

interesting in that the attack you describe could have easily ended
with you dead and no chance to defend yourself

being armed would have made no difference