The end of English shooting YouTube channel

[Thorney]

Under the terms of the Firearms act its a legitimate exemption with relatively few details to adhere to. However the FA is also subject to a lot of 'interpretation' especially by the police and a lot of weight is given to the intent which could be looked at both positively and negatively depending on your pov. However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

My knowledge is slightly out of date - but as I recall, FEO manager can submit a report to Home Secretary to have an individual declared a prohibited person - and the Home Sec can do it without much in the way of proof !
!!

Not entirely true, FEO's are still public servants and their actions are subject to the same checks and balances applicable to everyone and that includes acting on reasonable belief, which means to some extent their actions must be defendable to a standard. Now of course whether they choose to follow those or have another agenda is a different matter which also has the same standards.

[breacher]

And of course - its not just his neck in the noose.

Whoever has the authority to possess the firearms, has to satisfy themselves that the person they allow to handle or shoot them is doing so legally.

Because, if the exemption is tested in court, they will also be looked at regarding allowing the use of the firearms by someone who did not have the authority ( or exemption )

[breacher]

Under the terms of the Firearms act its a legitimate exemption with relatively few details to adhere to. However the FA is also subject to a lot of 'interpretation' especially by the police and a lot of weight is given to the intent which could be looked at both positively and negatively depending on your pov. However at the end of the day licencing rules are actioned by the Firearms Licencing Teams as a civil application of the act, criminal proceedings are decided by the CPS who have far clearer rules to adhere to other than 'intention'.

As has been said, its all a question of how far you are prepared to go.

My knowledge is slightly out of date - but as I recall, FEO manager can submit a report to Home Secretary to have an individual declared a prohibited person - and the Home Sec can do it without much in the way of proof !
!!

Not entirely true, FEO's are still public servants and their actions are subject to the same checks and balances applicable to everyone and that includes acting on reasonable belief, which means to some extent their actions must be defendable to a standard. Now of course whether they choose to follow those or have another agenda is a different matter which also has the same standards.

But their actions would be merely submitting a report to the Home Sec - a factual report - we revoked FAC as we felt Mr X was unsuitable to possess firearms - but now he is all over the interweb possessing them - respectfully submitted for your consideration etc etc

The Home Sec then deals as they see fit - FEOs are fireproof as they just passed along the info !

At the end of the day - a person is either fit or unfit to possess firearms. Legislation is lacking if someone can have their FAC pulled as their possession of firearms is considered unsafe..........then go out and possess firearms anyway.

[Thorney]

And of course - its not just his neck in the noose.

Whoever has the authority to possess the firearms, has to satisfy themselves that the person they allow to handle or shoot them is doing so legally.

Because, if the exemption is tested in court, they will also be looked at regarding allowing the use of the firearms by someone who did not have the authority ( or exemption )

True, the position is certainly something I'd be wary of.

[TattooedGun]

At the end of the day - a person is either fit or unfit to possess firearms. Legislation is lacking if someone can have their FAC pulled as their possession of firearms is considered unsafe..........then go out and possess firearms anyway.

Therein is the rub.

This is a man that his FEO has deemed unfit, and his attempts at appeals have been unsuccessful to see him holding firearms. The Section 5 RFD that is going against the FEO and giving him possession of firearms under this exemption is playing with fire in my humble opinion.

I also agree with whoever said it came across as smug in the latest video. Spot on...

Some people should know when to stay out of the limelight.

As an aside, this wikipedia article is interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

[Dark Skies]

... Otherwise any of us could pop into the garden with a smart phone and upload videos of us with Vickers machine guns on YouTube claiming that they are media productions broadcast worldwide ...

OMG! (as the younger kids probably don't say any more) That'd be too much like living in a free country to contemplate!

In reality though, if we may venture there for a moment, the requirement for adequate safety and an approved range, plus the appropriate people to oversee would still be there. It's not like the bloke can walk into any armoury, flash his arty credentials and walk out with section 5 arms and munitions. Someone else turns up with these and supervises him throughout.

As far as I am aware the bloke has no criminal convictions and the bulk of his prohibition is down to falling foul of having differing views to the approved narrative. Heard some gossip about home life but nothing that translated into charges so that's all that it is, gossip.

[TattooedGun]

As far as I am aware the bloke has no criminal convictions and the bulk of his prohibition is down to falling foul of having differing views to the approved narrative. Heard some gossip about home life but nothing that translated into charges so that's all that it is, gossip.

Utter bo...cks.

If it was down to "Gossip" and there were no substantiated claims, he'd have a license and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

It's got nothing to do with having different views to the approved narrative - how many on this forum alone have vocalised views of wishing we had castle doctrine or ability to possess for self defence.

He might be squeaky clean when it comes to criminal convictions, but what's to say there's not a medical report he's failed on that he doesn't want public. What if that same medical report makes him un-suitable for possessing firearms, yet he's not divulging it to any other people involved... He's even admitted there's more going on that he doesn't want to make public.

[HH1]

At the end of the day - a person is either fit or unfit to possess firearms. Legislation is lacking if someone can have their FAC pulled as their possession of firearms is considered unsafe..........then go out and possess firearms anyway.

Therein is the rub.

This is a man that his FEO has deemed unfit, and his attempts at appeals have been unsuccessful to see him holding firearms. The Section 5 RFD that is going against the FEO and giving him possession of firearms under this exemption is playing with fire in my humble opinion.

I also agree with whoever said it came across as smug in the latest video. Spot on...

Some people should know when to stay out of the limelight.

I was told last night that the Police are very well aware of what he is up to.....

[Dark Skies]

As far as I am aware the bloke has no criminal convictions and the bulk of his prohibition is down to falling foul of having differing views to the approved narrative. Heard some gossip about home life but nothing that translated into charges so that's all that it is, gossip.

Utter bo...cks.

If it was down to "Gossip" and there were no substantiated claims, he'd have a license and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

It's got nothing to do with having different views to the approved narrative - how many on this forum alone have vocalised views of wishing we had castle doctrine or ability to possess for self defence.

He might be squeaky clean when it comes to criminal convictions, but what's to say there's not a medical report he's failed on that he doesn't want public. What if that same medical report makes him un-suitable for possessing firearms, yet he's not divulging it to any other people involved... He's even admitted there's more going on that he doesn't want to make public.

"bo...cks"
I've got no answer to that. I guess it acts as an authoritative statement ... to someone.

"How many on this have ... ?"
Irrelevant - they're saying it from the safety of anonymity whereas this chap is very public.

"He may be squeaky clean ... but ..."
What ifs and who is to say? is just conjecture.

Your whole post was essentially just, well, ... empty.

[breacher]

As far as I am aware the bloke has no criminal convictions and the bulk of his prohibition is down to falling foul of having differing views to the approved narrative. Heard some gossip about home life but nothing that translated into charges so that's all that it is, gossip.

Utter bo...cks.

If it was down to "Gossip" and there were no substantiated claims, he'd have a license and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

It's got nothing to do with having different views to the approved narrative - how many on this forum alone have vocalised views of wishing we had castle doctrine or ability to possess for self defence.

He might be squeaky clean when it comes to criminal convictions, but what's to say there's not a medical report he's failed on that he doesn't want public. What if that same medical report makes him un-suitable for possessing firearms, yet he's not divulging it to any other people involved... He's even admitted there's more going on that he doesn't want to make public.

"bo...cks"
I've got no answer to that. I guess it acts as an authoritative statement ... to someone.

"How many on this have ... ?"
Irrelevant - they're saying it from the safety of anonymity whereas this chap is very public.

"He may be squeaky clean ... but ..."
What ifs and who is to say? is just conjecture.

Your whole post was essentially just well ... empty.

Speaking as someone once revoked and who did the crown court appeal MYSELF with no barrister and WON - I know a little about the revocation and appeals process.

The fact that he was revoked COULD be put down to a vindictive or over zealous firearms licensing manager. But the Judges at Crown Court appeals are actually very fair and open minded.

That he failed at the appeals process ( WITH THE AID OF A BARRISTER ) indicates to me that there is something which has not been revealed.............