Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws

[Pippin89]

We just have politicians with petty criminal convictions.

I wouldn't say "petty". In 2012 43% of the members of the house of commons had criminal records, including some jail sentences. There was a stat somewhere about how many had drug possession charges which was shocking but I can't find it now.
Someone recently submitted a FOI request to get up to date figures but the response was that the House of Commons doesn't have the data because members are not obliged to tell them. I.e. the house of commons doesn't care what criminal records you have. There is a line from a song which is American but very relevant in this case:

If you were caught and you were smoking crack,
McDonalds wouldn't even want to take you back,
You could always just run for Mayor of D.C.

[Graham M]

Thank you for your email dated 28 January which is copied below.

There is a requirement to inform the House, if Members are arrested on
criminal charges, of the cause for which they are detained from their
service in Parliament. The House is also informed when a Member has been
committed to prison for a criminal offence. In such circumstances, the
Speaker would normally make an oral statement or lay a copy of the
letter on the Table. The Representation of the People Act 1981
disqualifies from membership of the House any serving Member detained
for any offence in the UK or the Republic of Ireland for more than a
year or detained indefinitely, and their seat becomes vacant.

The House of Commons Library has compiled a list of MPs imprisoned since
1979 and this is attached. The Library also has a collection of press
cuttings, which report details of individual cases falling under the
general heading of "Members conduct". The information contained in
these cuttings is accessible to you by means other than by a request to
the House, so is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOI Act.

No other information relevant to your request is held.

You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the
House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision.
Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of
Information Officer, Department of Resources, House of Commons London
SW1 OAA or [House of Commons request email]. Please ensure that you specify the
nature of your complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to
make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information
Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security

[Pete]

Seek, and ye shall find...........or you could subscribe to Private Eye, but be warned, it will make your gums bleed.........

Pete

[Pippin89]

Thank you for your email dated 28 January which is copied below.

There is a requirement to inform the House, if Members are arrested on
criminal charges, of the cause for which they are detained from their
service in Parliament. The House is also informed when a Member has been
committed to prison for a criminal offence. In such circumstances, the
Speaker would normally make an oral statement or lay a copy of the
letter on the Table. The Representation of the People Act 1981
disqualifies from membership of the House any serving Member detained
for any offence in the UK or the Republic of Ireland for more than a
year or detained indefinitely, and their seat becomes vacant.

The House of Commons Library has compiled a list of MPs imprisoned since
1979 and this is attached. The Library also has a collection of press
cuttings, which report details of individual cases falling under the
general heading of "Members conduct". The information contained in
these cuttings is accessible to you by means other than by a request to
the House, so is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOI Act.

No other information relevant to your request is held.

You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the
House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision.
Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of
Information Officer, Department of Resources, House of Commons London
SW1 OAA or [House of Commons request email]. Please ensure that you specify the
nature of your complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to
make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information
Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security

Interesting... I found this link which says they don't keep it. Although the way your one reads it seems to reference serving members being arrested for something, and the way the one in the link reads it seems to suggest members joining with existing criminal records. But who knows.

https://www.parliament.uk/site-informat ... ords-2017/

[Graham M]

Legalese methinks

[paul mercer]

Going back to the original subject, it was reported both in a local paper and regional TV that during the inquiry into the Plymouth shooting, the barrister apparently asked why shotgun licences are not subject to the same rules as the one for rifles, (with two referees required) as well as suggesting that the referees themselves should come under closer scrutiny from the police. The person giving evidence ( a Civil Servant, presumably from the Home Office) did give a reasonably good reply, but it doesn't bode well for the possibility of tighter legislation. At least the police admitted that the perpetrator should never have been granted a licence in the first place, let alone have it and his gun returned.

[Graham M]

So the police admitted it was their fault.........so gun owners must pay the price for their incompetence.
Never fails does it.

[Pippin89]

So the police admitted it was their fault.........so gun owners must pay the price for their incompetence.
Never fails does it.

This is the joke of it, that any rational person would see. The police admitted that under the current legislation, he shouldn't have had a gun. So that means, by default, the current legislation works. If it had been followed it would have filtered him out. So why do we need tighter leglislation? Surely we just need to enforce the current laws correctly and all will be fine and dandy. Same could be said of every shooting in the past 25 years.

[Blackstuff]

Getting rid of the last semblance of a 'right' to own a gun in this country i.e. the SGC approach of the police having to prove you don't have a good reason to own a gun (as opposed to FAC where YOU have to prove you have a good reason), has been on the 'hit list' since the McKay Report in 1972, along with anything pump action or semi-automatic

[Dark Skies]

We just have politicians with petty criminal convictions.

I wouldn't say "petty". In 2012 43% of the members of the house of commons had criminal records, including some jail sentences. There was a stat somewhere about how many had drug possession charges which was shocking but I can't find it now.
Someone recently submitted a FOI request to get up to date figures but the response was that the House of Commons doesn't have the data because members are not obliged to tell them. I.e. the house of commons doesn't care what criminal records you have. There is a line from a song which is American but very relevant in this case:

If you were caught and you were smoking crack,
McDonalds wouldn't even want to take you back,
You could always just run for Mayor of D.C.

This is why they address each other 'the honourable member ...' during debates - it's a bit of an inside joke that no person outside of Parliament could, in all conscience, bring themselves to say that.