The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Link?

I watched the YouTube video yesterday and it did come across as very very smug.

Sigh.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR6F03GPTyY

I watched the video and agree that he came over as being smug.

And he came over as using loopholes to overcome the restrictions placed upon him by virtue of the FAC revocation.

There is an old saying - "When you are in a hole - stop digging".

Its one thing to learn by your mistakes, keep your head down and get your FAC back in due course. Its quite another to use loopholes to carry on.

It is another thing altogether to do it all on the interweb !

Only a matter of time before the powers that be ( or one individual therin ) takes his attitude as a being him mocking their efforts and takes matter further - they have various options ! And it costs them nothing but will cost Callum shed loads !!!

Never met the guy but from his online profile he seems a bit too keen to get his 15 minutes of fame - he mentions having had good advice from his legal advisor ? What legal advisor told him it would be a good idea to do this rather than keeping his head down ?

breacher wrote:I watched the video and agree that he came over as being smug.

And he came over as using loopholes to overcome the restrictions placed upon him by virtue of the FAC revocation.

There is an old saying - "When you are in a hole - stop digging".

Its one thing to learn by your mistakes, keep your head down and get your FAC back in due course. Its quite another to use loopholes to carry on.

It is another thing altogether to do it all on the interweb !

Only a matter of time before the powers that be ( or one individual therin ) takes his attitude as a being him mocking their efforts and takes matter further - they have various options ! And it costs them nothing but will cost Callum shed loads !!!

Never met the guy but from his online profile he seems a bit too keen to get his 15 minutes of fame - he mentions having had good advice from his legal advisor ? What legal advisor told him it would be a good idea to do this rather than keeping his head down ?

yes i think your right

I saw the video on Youtube regarding the creation of Gunroom TV and didn't find it smug. Seemed pretty innocuous to me.

I didn't see it as using loopholes to overcome the restrictions placed upon him either.
It's a curious thing about the Brits, particularly shooting Brits, if there is clear legislation permitting you to do something despite the usual prohibitive tone of the rest of the Act, you tend to prod it with a stick suspiciously and see it as 'a loophole' and that it is somehow 'not in keeping with the spirit of the rest of the document' to take advantage of the scant crumbs available.
This is partly why British shooters are relentlessly subjected to more and more BS legislation - compliance is a natural instinct.

Fair dinks to the bloke, I say. He played the game by self-censorship. He did the compliant little citizen thing. He subdued his thoughts like a good little Brit and ... came up empty. Might as well go with what he knows now. Legally.

Tiptoeing around and pretending legislation are loopholes to be ignored or that we dare not speak of them isn't going to save shooting sports. Our detractors are just going to keep on coming regardless.

I read in The Times the other day that senior police are whining about the expense of issuing FACs and SGCs again and calling for us to meet the full bloated cost of the process. The usual bo...cks about being able to afford "200" more officers if forces weren't so beleaguered by the cost of issuing certificates was trundled out.

Some little berk from The Gun Control Network squeezed out his ha'penny worth of borrowed thought asserting that as we can all afford £1,000 for a day's shooting plus champagne we can afford licences at £200 a pop.
He then went on to assert that we should have a licence for EACH firearm owned and renewable every two years.
Apparently, despite all the odds, firearm ownership has increased from 435,000 to 577,547 in the last eight years, so it made me smile to think of the additional cost and absurd manpower it would take to try and cope with the sort of nonsense spinning around in the GCN bloke's head. I guess those extra "200" officers would come in handy.

Despite the current FAC / SGC issuing / renewals / variation mostly being about the illusion of safety in an unsafe world proffered by the state to appease the media the tone is we should be the ones to finance the placebo. That will probably happen in 2020 when the cost of certs is due to be reviewed. No doubt the usual suspects will point to New Zealand and claim that a bit of paper that provides so much safety must be worth the cost and shooters should pay for it.

They just keep on coming - no matter how many Callums we may publicly decry like good little citizens.

Dark Skies wrote:
I read in The Times the other day that senior police are whining about the expense of issuing FACs and SGCs again and calling for us to meet the full bloated cost of the process. The usual bo...cks about being able to afford "200" more officers if forces weren't so beleaguered by the cost of issuing certificates was trundled out.

Some little berk from The Gun Control Network squeezed out his ha'penny worth of borrowed thought asserting that as we can all afford £1,000 for a day's shooting plus champagne we can afford licences at £200 a pop.
He then went on to assert that we should have a licence for EACH firearm owned and renewable every two years.
Apparently, despite all the odds, firearm ownership has increased from 435,000 to 577,547 in the last eight years, so it made me smile to think of the additional cost and absurd manpower it would take to try and cope with the sort of nonsense spinning around in the GCN bloke's head. I guess those extra "200" officers would come in handy.

.

We should be fighting back , or at least our associations should be .

"Policing football matches in London cost the Met Police nearly £6.7m during the 2016/17 season.
The force spent £7.1m covering professional football matches but was only able to recover 5.1% of the costs."

Will the organisers of the Grand National and the Boat Race get charged for full policing ?

Or on a smaller lever , will the Socialist Workers Party get charged full policing for the protest they had a hand in at the Dorchester Hotel ?

Not related to the title but is related to the Times articles, this may be of interest.

https://www.silverstoneshootingcentre.c ... c.facebook

I was once told that in order to shoot under this exemption you needed to have an Equity card.