Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

You fought for king and country, now eff off

For once in my posts im NOT trolling.

Soldier arrested

This is effin disgusting. I dont feel the need to comment any further, story speaks for itself!

Reply 1

thunder_chunky

I think they were very strict about taking trophies, even back then. It's been thirty-four years though, and he may well have been away during the amnesties. They ought to cut him some slack. The same goes for Sgt. Danny Nightingale.

Reply 2

Shabalala

A joke the law shouldn't be one size fits all it should take into account specific personal circumstances and should use common sense.

There is a massive difference between trophy guns like this man had and some wannabe gangster from south London having a Glock in his glove box.

While I still think there should be some sort of reprimand for former SF people keeping trophy guns as a deterrent to make sure no one else does it as well but there is no way it's worthy of a custodial sentence. Just give him a fine and confiscate the weapon.

Reply 3

nulli tertius

He kept the 9mm pistol to remind him of the comrades who died with him.

Why did he keep the four other pistols and the nearly 200 rounds of ammunition?

Reply 4

MagicNMedicine

Whose king was he fighting for?

Reply 5

simon_g

Good.
He had 5 pistols and over 170 bullets, but it's "in memory of fallen friends". of course- there are absolutely no lethal memorabilia available, also the pistols could not be by any chance deactivated.
he had them illegally (and he was perfectly aware of it), now he uses "i'm a hero" card.

Reply 6

ChaoticButterfly

Homeless ex soldiers is more of a problem. Go get mad about that.

Reply 7

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by Laomedeia

For once in my posts im NOT trolling.

Soldier arrested

This is effin disgusting. I dont feel the need to comment any further, story speaks for itself!

Is it?

It seems pretty straight-forward. British soldiers aren't allowed to take their guns home with them or get a free pass from UK law because they served in the military.
I can believe his story he kept it simply as a 'memento' or whatever, but really he should have had that thing deactivated or whatever before he even got back to the UK.

I'm less inclined to believe the ammunition and other stuff was memorabilia.

No I don't think he was going to go on a rampage or commit an armed robbery (maybe?), but he knew the law as well as anyone, and the law is strict about firearms possession.

Trying to make it out as some big mean nasty police brutalizing a war veteran is really low and cheap. Plenty of veterans live within the confines of the law, and they get their dues at veteran days and events un-peturbed by the old bill.

I'll agree that under the circumstances jailing the guy seems a bit excessive (a hefty fine or other sentence would have sufficed), but that's the law.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 8

Maker

The law is right in this case. Pistols have been banned for 20 years and he would have known that. He could have kept them legally if they were deactivated. There can't be one law for veterans and another one for everyone else.

Reply 9

Trapz99

Disgusting how someone who contributed so much to the country gets this sort of treatment. He needs to be freed immediately.

Reply 10

simon_g

Original post by Trapz99

Disgusting how someone who contributed so much to the country gets this sort of treatment. He needs to be freed immediately.

if anything, your post is disgusting.
law applies to everyone equally.

Reply 11

GStevens

Very emotive but really not addressing the facts.
He had 5 pistols and ammo.
He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms, not for taking a trophy. Or aide memoir as he was suggesting.
If he wanted to be safely rid of these weapons he did not need an amnesty, he could easily have passed them into safe hands in a number of ways.
Past history is not a defence unless that history could be shown to have lead to the offence, psych trauma etc.

I sympathise, I also have souvenirs from my army days*, but you can't use 'I was in the army, sir, so I get carte blanche for gun related offences' as a defence, even when it is as distinguished as his is. Ironically if he had shot someone with one of them his history may well have carried more weight.

* I still have the toenail I lost when a Humber Pig drove over my foot in NI and the charge sheet from when I was charged, and found guilty of 'illegal possession of an electronic flashing traffic lamp'.

Reply 12

GStevens

Original post by Trapz99

Disgusting how someone who contributed so much to the country gets this sort of treatment. He needs to be freed immediately.

What sort of treatment?
Has he been singled out, picked on or harassed?
No, he has been charged like anyone else would be.
The difference here is that a red top newspaper has run with the story to gain sales and hit the right emotive 'our Heroes should be given special treatment' buttons of some of their less discerning readers.

Reply 13

GStevens

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Whose king was he fighting for?

lol, depending on the timing it could have been any number of 'kings', we had SAS 'advisers' in all sorts of places from Aden to Brunii.

Reply 14

username1799249

Original post by Trapz99

Disgusting how someone who contributed so much to the country gets this sort of treatment. He needs to be freed immediately.

He broke the law. Plain and simple. Would you sympathise with a former traffic cop who was caught speeding? No doubt done a great service to his country as well.

Reply 15

L i b

Yeah, not massively sympathetic to the case being made here. Being ex-forces doesn't give you a licence to go around knowingly committing crimes. As said above, if they'd been deactivated (although I recognise he'd have struggled to do that, given that they were held illegally from the outset) it'd probably never have caused a problem. They weren't.