Media arrogance!

Why is this man still allowed to work instead of being prosecuted by the law? In yet another show of arrogance by a member of the media, who for some reason fell they are above the law, not only does this writer break a minimum of two laws, but he then has the arrogance to admit his felonious deeds in the newspaper that he works for. Now don’t misunderstand, if there is a problem with society or its laws, then feel free to address those problems, write about them in whatever medium you have available to you. It is beholden upon you to engage with the relevant individuals, group, or authority to have this problem recognised and removed. This does not however entitle you to break the law in pursuit of proving your perceived problem, real or otherwise.

In a similar scenario, David Gregory, another media worker, this time in the United States, illegally obtained a 30 round magazine. In the District of Columbia, also known as Washington D.C., it is illegal to obtain, or possess any magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Despite this, Gregory openly flouted the law when presented the magazine, in his hand, on his T.V. show. So was Gregory charged and prosecuted to the extent of the law, $1000 fine and 1 years’ imprisonment? No, his friends in high places decided that to prosecute him would not serve public safety or be in the public interest. Funny then how in 2012, 15 other individuals were prosecuted under the same laws.

The full report  of the first writer’s criminal activity in his words, is available HERE!, you may need to scroll down 2 or 3 articles first. In both of these cases, and there are numerous others out there in a similar vein, the media appears to get free rein to break the law. If any other member of society tried to pull these sort of stunts, and were caught, let alone openly defying or publishing their criminal activity in a major paper, I have no doubt they would be prosecuted and made an example of. But it appears that the authorities, perhaps afraid of negative publicity being hurled at them by the very media that breaks the law, seem unwilling to proceed in these or any other case where a member of the media is concerned relating to these issues.

The law is, as they say, the law, and until such time as it is disseminated evenly and fairly, there will be one law for those with power or influence, and another for the rest of us!

HMIC report highlights failing police forces.

There have been over the past years several high profile shootings by owners of legally held firearms, from the Hungerford shooting onwards. Firearms regulations were tightened after this event, there were few who railed against the basic proposition, although the magazine restriction, even now, can lead to lively debate. With a whole host of measures employed to control the ownership of firearms by the civilian populace, Things settled down until Dunblane; where, after this most heinous of crimes, even further restrictions were applied. In 1997 the government of the day banned the possession of all handguns by all but a very few. More recently, the shooting in Cumbria, brought the calls for even more restrictions to be placed on legitimate firearms owners.

The recent release of a report by Her Majesties Inspector of Constabularies, HMIC, states that the country faces an ever increasing risk of mass shootings if their recommendations are not given serious consideration, and preferably implemented. The interesting thing is though, whilst most agree that the current system is at best disjointed, the current guidelines cover all aspects of ownership rather well. Therefore if you take the time to read the report HMIC Report you will be at a loss to see why the current guidelines are a cause for concern. The report uses the examples given earlier to illustrate that the current system is broken and needs drastic action to resolve the problem. The only trouble is that throughout the report the failings are not that of the guidelines, the shooting industry or the vast majority of shooters.

Time after time in the report attention is drawn to a number of constabularies, who for whatever reason, have failed to implement the current guidelines. The reports response to resolve these inadequacies and failure to follow the rules, apply more rules, and give the police powers unseen in this country for many years. In yet another attempt to push forward an agenda mentioned in previous post, HMIC propose the police have a statutory right of entry into firearms owners’ property. At present an appointment needs to made at a mutually convenient time, or, if there is evidence of a crime or domestic unrest, a warrant is required, which gives the police a right of entry. The NPCC proposed this, along with the “shop a gun owner” phone line. It cannot be a coincidence that both Stephen Otter and Andy Marsh have put forward near identical proposals to resolve what they perceive as problems with the current system.

Speaking as an owner of firearms and other lethal items, and answerable to a vehemently anti-gun police authority, who appear to employ firearms enquiry officers who only know and understand firearms from the authorities dictate, it is not surprising that the failures highlighted in HMIC report occur. Thankfully they are few and far between, and the over 1.5 million owners in the country use their firearms in a responsible manner. We as firearms owners have to prove a use or need to possess our firearms, yes even the shotguns, this was debated, politely, on the last time my application was granted, a typical case of an ill-informed FEO. So, why don’t we have FEO’s that are conversant with the guidelines, who understand firearms in a context outside of the criminal perspective usually proffered by the police?

Before the police are given, which hopefully they never will be, powers to enter properties without a warrant they should get their own house in order, ensure that the guidelines are followed by all their constabularies and officers. When, and only when they have succeeded in doing this, will we be able to tell if the current system is a defective as HMIC seem to think it is. Personally, I think they protest too much, and are trying to deflect as much criticism as possible onto those who are less able to defend themselves.