Guns seized....again

[Graham M]

Best of luck to you whatever she decides

[Rockhopper]

The Police will be well aware of this thread, maybe they redacted the document as they knew you'd post it on a public forum and they will use that as their justification for redacting it in its entirety?

[walesdave]

I wouldn't mind if they are; I've been careful to be factual and, as far as possible, not insulting or personal.

The crowdjustice page names Gwent Police as my licensing force but I've removed all references to the Inspectors Surname. There's no obligation on myself to keep any documents private so trying to use that as a reason for redacting everything would be a bit of a push, I think it's more to restrict my access to written evidence that my seizure was taken using a flawed decision process.

My solicitor specialises in 'actions against police' and to be honest is a bit 'bolshier' than I am; I think she was a bit surprised when I mentioned my work email address is david.xxxxx@xxx.police.uk! (FYI: the last xxxxx ISN'T Gwent but I'm not telling which force it is ).

[MistAgain]

The Police will be well aware of this thread, maybe they redacted the document as they knew you'd post it on a public forum and they will use that as their justification for redacting it in its entirety?

I think that would qualify as Misfeasance in a public office .

[walesdave]

The Police will be well aware of this thread, maybe they redacted the document as they knew you'd post it on a public forum and they will use that as their justification for redacting it in its entirety?

I think that would qualify as Misfeasance in a public office .

In my original complaint to the Professional Standards department and then to the P&CC I said the Inspectors changing of what she said drove her decision was the same as the old 'changing the notes in my pocket book' dishonesty (ripping pocket book pages out or adding incorrectly dated notes to change what you recorded) and was an example of Misconduct in Public Office at worse or breaking the Force standard of Honesty and Integrity.
Without resurrecting the whole thread:

• Decision driver pre-complaint (directly emailed to me from the Inspector):
  
  • Decision driver post-complaint (as recorded by Professional standards but from the same Inspector):

• If there was ongoing suitability I would be looking at revocation procedure but I am not as the only issue is your health, which can improve.
  
  • There are confirmed issues that would satisfy the regulations surrounding domestic turmoil [the confirmed issues were classed as a 'normal' family argument by the PCs that attended and by their supervisor - one part of a SAR document that wasn't redacted!]
  • [family member] has complex trauma and concerns were reported in relation to her ongoing metal health and wellbeing. [...]we were unaware of this, which is another concern [they risk assessed 'family member back in 2019 already!]
  • [walesdave] is struggling with his stress now [no I'm not; Oncologist AND GP letter both make this point]

• whilst you are undergoing treatment you cannot be in possession for your own safety [context of entire email is all cancer patients would have this applied]
  
  • I am not of the view having taken all of the above into consideration that a blanket approach has been taken [so I guess the emailed "the only issue is your health" was just a 'little' bit dishonest?]

[walesdave]

Well, the family member involved in my guns being seized gave their permission for any redaction (on their 'behalf') to be removed from the documents supplied by Gwent Police in response to my SAR. Less redacted documents arrived today.

As expected, the report from when the family member 'went missing' clearly shows they weren't missing and:
'No signs of disturbance or tension between the couple' - this has been translated (after my complaint) by the Inspector as 'domestic turmoil'!
'No concerns for mental health of [family member]' - this has been translated (after my complaint) by the Inspector as '[family member] is suicidal'!

Best bit though is a document / copy of an email, including ALL responses etc. which was marked 'redacted' in its' title.....but was completely intact. I have a feeling the data team sent it by mistake. In it, the Inspector is emailing Gwent's Prof Standards and makes the following assertion:

"Mr 'walesdave' can complain and seek legal advice all he wants but the above will not change[...]. Hope this helps but ultimately this needs to be closed down"

She then provides a list of reasons for revocation, with ONE reason in Bold- Medical Conditions.

The Home Office stat guidance confirms reasons for revocation are as follows:
i - vii [...]
 (viii) relationship difficulties or other domestic turmoil;
 (ix) unmanaged debts, financial pressures, abnormal financial activity, or unexplained sources of income;
 (x) relevant medical conditions including alcohol and drug abuse ('bold' is Gwent Polices not mine)
 (xi) previous non-compliance with firearms certificate or other types of licences held; and
 (xii) any of the above factors in relation to a person other than the certificate holder living at, or with unsupervised access to, the address or addresses.

She doesn't highlight viii - domestic turmoil, ix - financial pressure, or xii - factors in relation to a person other than the certificate holder; all 'reasons' which only became important AFTER I complained about disability discrimination.

[walesdave]

Best bit though is a document / copy of an email, including ALL responses etc. which was marked 'redacted' in its' title.....but was completely intact. I have a feeling the data team sent it by mistake.

So, a bit of searching in the zip file of documents sent today and I have two copies of exactly the same email conversation - one redacted and one not!

Comparing the two is very telling about how 'The police' approach complaints and SARs; the redacted info contains ZERO personal identifiable information about parties other than myself or the 'family member' (OK - my wife) and appears to be more of a 'don't let him see any info that might help his complaint' approach.

So, what has been redacted?

• In one of two places, references to 'a friend' (of my wife's) no names or identifiable info

• In lots of places, references to legislation used to revoke a licence and how it would be used if I remove my 'voluntary surrender'

• In lots of places, references to things that are provably untrue (see previous post re: 'suicidal wife' and domestic turmoil

• Reference to an un-related case in a different force area last year where after a terminal diagnosis a cancer patient, with a SGC, shot himself; no names but took me <30 seconds to find via Google
  • Possibly removed as it shows a 'blanket approach' to all cancer patients with FACs; an approach which has been categorically denied by the Inspector?

• Virtually ALL of the Inspectors decision making thought process (invented after my DDA complaint)

If I can be bothered to redact my personal info from the 'plain' document I'll post both versions up so you can see what was redacted from the original.

[Alpha1]

I still dont understand why you need to share this information on a public forum were every body and his dog has access. You should if you think it warants it be dealing with leagel repersentation.
Going by your postings on here I would not give you your Guns back either.

[walesdave]

You should if you think it warants it be dealing with leagel repersentation.
Going by your postings on here I would not give you your Guns back either.

If you'd lend me 50k I'll go straight to judicial review; my solicitor is currently issuing an LBA to see what the response is before I decide to risk my house or not.

We've been over this before; public forums are to share experiences and possibly help others who might find themselves in similar situations; if you don't get this idea then I have no problem with that, just stay off my thread. "Nothing nice to say, then say nothing"; always good advice.

And going by your postings, late at night and (been mentioned in other threads) after you've been drinking too much - not sure how safe you are with firearms so please keep your opinion about my suitability to yourself.

[Pippin89]

Certainly sounds like you have proof of evidence tampering in your hands... If I were you, I would send them an email and innocently ask as you have a redacted and unredacted version, should they have sent you the unredacted version. Get them on the record as saying no they shouldn't. Although maybe best left to your solicitor to work that one out. They could have a field day proving that incriminating evidence has been redacted.

I still dont understand why you need to share this information on a public forum were every body and his dog has access. You should if you think it warants it be dealing with leagel repersentation.
Going by your postings on here I would not give you your Guns back either.

I'm inclined to agree with walesdave on this. If he wants to ask the community for support then that's his decision. Your opinion on whether he should get his guns back are of no help to anyone...