Blackstuff wrote:IMO there is more 'evidence' of fact in the police letter than in the response which, to my reading doesn't cut to the chase of bluntly and directly disputing the statements being made by the police. But, having had dealings with, and being part of 'officialdom' in a way, I know very well how things can be tainted one way or another. I guess the thing that undermines the club secretary for me is allowing a prohibited person use any gun at the club, let alone his 'own' club gun. If that really has been happening it just shows a complete lack of judgement.
I have a friend who is a prohibited person and he has asked me directly if I would take him shooting , and i'd love to, I owe him more than one substantial favours, but i'd never risk my FAC just for him to get to go shooting, let alone near 300 peoples tickets.
For the sake of everyone involved I really hope that a solution can be found to keep the club going one way or another.
Can I just pull you up one one thing .
The person referred to is not in any way a "prohibited person" .
Les wrote:I can't see the APC ever opening again, and the reason can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the secretary, not the police.
How do you explain the 100+ members that the police claim they have no knowledge of ?
To reach a figure like that would mean that the police had not been informed of new members for several years .
Last year Merseyside Police requested some RFD's to supply details of transactions going back at least 10 years
as they had no trace of them . And several were claimed not to be on the Police NFLMS . Now where have I seen that mentioned ?
No doubt the defendant can raise this in any legal case ?
And he will have written proof of the notifications ? A sent e-mail copy or such ?
Blackstuff wrote:IMO there is more 'evidence' of fact in the police letter than in the response which, to my reading doesn't cut to the chase of bluntly and directly disputing the statements being made by the police. But, having had dealings with, and being part of 'officialdom' in a way, I know very well how things can be tainted one way or another. I guess the thing that undermines the club secretary for me is allowing a prohibited person use any gun at the club, let alone his 'own' club gun. If that really has been happening it just shows a complete lack of judgement.
I have a friend who is a prohibited person and he has asked me directly if I would take him shooting , and i'd love to, I owe him more than one substantial favours, but i'd never risk my FAC just for him to get to go shooting, let alone near 300 peoples tickets.
For the sake of everyone involved I really hope that a solution can be found to keep the club going one way or another.
Can I just pull you up one one thing .
The person referred to is not in any way a "prohibited person" .
A lazy choice of words, I agree, apologies to the party involved.
Nevertheless a person the police have deemed not suitable for the possession of firearms, albeit allegedly for reasons he is not directly responsible.
Les wrote:I can't see the APC ever opening again, and the reason can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the secretary, not the police.
280 members are currently desperately trying to sign with other clubs, and I wish them well, but there will be a lot of folks who will lose out, and it all seems to be because the secretary knows better than the HO or the police.
This should be a wake-up call to any clubs that take short cuts, or don't clearly follow well defined guidlines. There will only ever be one winner .............. and it won't be the club.
I don't agree that APC will never open again Les. Providing that the conditions are met that I mentioned in a previous post I don't see why the club can't continue shooting all be it as a non H.O. approved club, and therefore without the exemptions that go with approval.
However I think that it would probably be essential to convene a members and stakeholders meeting, and to reformat the way the club is managed and run.
Blackstuff wrote:IMO there is more 'evidence' of fact in the police letter than in the response which, to my reading doesn't cut to the chase of bluntly and directly disputing the statements being made by the police. But, having had dealings with, and being part of 'officialdom' in a way, I know very well how things can be tainted one way or another. I guess the thing that undermines the club secretary for me is allowing a prohibited person use any gun at the club, let alone his 'own' club gun. If that really has been happening it just shows a complete lack of judgement.
I have a friend who is a prohibited person and he has asked me directly if I would take him shooting , and i'd love to, I owe him more than one substantial favours, but i'd never risk my FAC just for him to get to go shooting, let alone near 300 peoples tickets.
For the sake of everyone involved I really hope that a solution can be found to keep the club going one way or another.
Can I just pull you up one one thing .
The person referred to is not in any way a "prohibited person" .
A lazy choice of words, I agree, apologies to the party involved.
Nevertheless a person the police have deemed not suitable for the possession of firearms, albeit allegedly for reasons he is not directly responsible.
Again Devils advocate.... It doesn't actually state why he wasn't granted an FAC or SGC. It could be that he has naughty neighbours and not enough security. In which case there would be no reason to not allow him to shoot at a club. It does mention something about his son but as with most things in this case we don't know the circumstances of this.....
One scary thing I noticed earlier.... if you type in Aintree Pistol Club into Google Maps it puts a marker at Rogers' home location.
(Also his home address in on the Home Office correspondence letters shared on his website)... how difficult would it be for criminals to go round and take him and his mrs hostage and have them open up the Liverpool premisses by force, bearing in mind they are both OAP's.
Remember what happened to Ian from Target Sports in Bolton that time. Lifted off the street and force to open up the shop.
Chapuis wrote:I don't agree that APC will never open again Les. Providing that the conditions are met that I mentioned in a previous post I don't see why the club can't continue shooting all be it as a non H.O. approved club, and therefore without the exemptions that go with approval.
However I think that it would probably be essential to convene a members and stakeholders meeting, and to reformat the way the club is managed and run.
I hope for the sake of all the genuine FAC and SGC holders that you're correct about the club reopening, but it will definitely not reopen in its current form.
As you say, the way the club is managed will need to change, and I hope that it is given the opportunity to do it, but I can't see the authorities - whether it's the police or any body else involved - being in any hurry to reopen it, or to allow it to be reopened.
The letter from the Home Office reveals sensitive personal information about one of the Club's members - that he has been refused an FAC/SGC and that the Police advise that his sons have links with organised crime. To me this lays them wide open to a complaint under the GDPR and claims for damages against the Home Office.
Triffid
Triffid wrote:The letter from the Home Office reveals sensitive personal information about one of the Club's members - that he has been refused an FAC/SGC and that the Police advise that his sons have links with organised crime. To me this lays them wide open to a complaint under the GDPR and claims for damages against the Home Office.
Triffid
