Sgt Nightingale
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if the state should have the right to decide.
salad-dodger, it would be tempting to leave for sure,
S-D
Ronald,
I say again, our (your) opinion of the laws is a completely different argument. The simple fact remains that the laws are there and you cannot choose which ones to obey, unless you wish to punished.
This case is also pretty simple. He took the decision to break one of the most clearly defined laws we have.
Happy to discuss your views on UK law, of course.
I say again, our (your) opinion of the laws is a completely different argument. The simple fact remains that the laws are there and you cannot choose which ones to obey, unless you wish to punished.
This case is also pretty simple. He took the decision to break one of the most clearly defined laws we have.
Happy to discuss your views on UK law, of course.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone wanting to replicate the US stance on firearms has either to be in complete denial of the facts or insane.
As near as makes no odds the US population is 311,500,000 - about five times that of the UK.
The US suffers roughly 12,000 murders a year of which about 8,000 are committed using firearms.
The UK suffers about 600 murders of which about 60 (in a bad year) involve firearms.
The totals for assault etc using a firearm are even more alarming.
Oh - and incidentally. I own a number of guns, all held legally and all stored appropriately. I have also lived in both countries.
But that's only got tangential (if any) relevance to the thread so I do apologise.
As near as makes no odds the US population is 311,500,000 - about five times that of the UK.
The US suffers roughly 12,000 murders a year of which about 8,000 are committed using firearms.
The UK suffers about 600 murders of which about 60 (in a bad year) involve firearms.
The totals for assault etc using a firearm are even more alarming.
Oh - and incidentally. I own a number of guns, all held legally and all stored appropriately. I have also lived in both countries.
But that's only got tangential (if any) relevance to the thread so I do apologise.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bozeman, MT
Age: 64
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times Change...
With apologies for maintaining the thread creep, I left the UK in 1980 and moved to the US. The death toll from guns here IS horrific. That's a Pandora's box that probably will never close 
BUT, the number of laws that have been added onto the UK's books in the last 30 years that seem to remove personal freedoms lead me to agree with RR above.
Is the UK really a better pace to live than it was 30 years ago because the state has told you what is safe for you to do? Reading all the comments about Hi-Vis vests etc would lead me to believe posters here don't really like the regulations any more than RR, but are being a little selective remembering the changes over the last years.
I'll go back to lurking now. (waits for the thoughtful comments in reply...)
BUT, the number of laws that have been added onto the UK's books in the last 30 years that seem to remove personal freedoms lead me to agree with RR above.
Is the UK really a better pace to live than it was 30 years ago because the state has told you what is safe for you to do? Reading all the comments about Hi-Vis vests etc would lead me to believe posters here don't really like the regulations any more than RR, but are being a little selective remembering the changes over the last years.
I'll go back to lurking now. (waits for the thoughtful comments in reply...)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northumberland
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+ 1 to the above.
One of the best I have seen on any forum
Re "who got it", it is a very era dependent comment
as you don't hear it much nowadays.
One of the best I have seen on any forum
Re "who got it", it is a very era dependent comment
as you don't hear it much nowadays.
I would suggest the system should be changed and speed limits should be advisory only and used as a suggested guide but not as they currently are, a maximum allowed top speed. I don't know if the state should have the right to decide.
I don't agree with the slogan, 'Speeding Kills'. It doesn't! Idiots behind the wheel, who aren't capable at driving at what ever speed often kill though. As so many people aren't capable of driving fast, (or at all, but don't start me on that subject), the state should impose a limit which should be complied with, unless there is lawful excuse.
Perhaps if there were less Oxygen stealers in this world, there wouldn't be the requirement to 'hold their hand' so tightly...
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
For the record, it is highly unlikely Sgt Nightingale would be regarded as a
"hero" in the United States. In 2010 there were just under 160,000 arrests for Gun related offences in the US, usage, possession and permit related. The US also has the highest incarceration rate of any country at 750 per 100,000 population head, and the sentences are proportionately longer per offense than most other countries, especially weapons offenses where any savvy DA will try and tag on a "terrorist' angle to secure a conviction.
Despite the Aurora. Columbine, and Virginia Tech type massacres occuring with such breathtaking regularity that they hardly merit newsprint over here, the law is absolutely black and white about gun ownership and control. If you break that law and you are caught, you will be punished.
Correlation does not equal causation in this case - If he had been proven to have broken the law here he would be in jail.
"hero" in the United States. In 2010 there were just under 160,000 arrests for Gun related offences in the US, usage, possession and permit related. The US also has the highest incarceration rate of any country at 750 per 100,000 population head, and the sentences are proportionately longer per offense than most other countries, especially weapons offenses where any savvy DA will try and tag on a "terrorist' angle to secure a conviction.
Despite the Aurora. Columbine, and Virginia Tech type massacres occuring with such breathtaking regularity that they hardly merit newsprint over here, the law is absolutely black and white about gun ownership and control. If you break that law and you are caught, you will be punished.
Correlation does not equal causation in this case - If he had been proven to have broken the law here he would be in jail.
Last edited by Two's in; 30th Nov 2012 at 18:31.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I visited Anna Marie Island. We were by Holmes Beach. There was the usual speed limit in the village and a crossing by the school.
When school was out the Holmes Beach Sheriff parked his cruiser at the crossing. No need for a lollipop lady when the local sheriff packs a .45.
When school was out the Holmes Beach Sheriff parked his cruiser at the crossing. No need for a lollipop lady when the local sheriff packs a .45.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
Anyone wanting to replicate the US stance on firearms has either to be in complete denial of the facts or insane.
As near as makes no odds the US population is 311,500,000 - about five times that of the UK.
The US suffers roughly 12,000 murders a year of which about 8,000 are committed using firearms.
The UK suffers about 600 murders of which about 60 (in a bad year) involve firearms.
The totals for assault etc using a firearm are even more alarming.
As near as makes no odds the US population is 311,500,000 - about five times that of the UK.
The US suffers roughly 12,000 murders a year of which about 8,000 are committed using firearms.
The UK suffers about 600 murders of which about 60 (in a bad year) involve firearms.
The totals for assault etc using a firearm are even more alarming.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Violent Crime Rate Trends
File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This table was derived from data found here (not by me): http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdf...09chap2new.xls
2007: All violent crime
USA - 20.4/1000 adults
UK - ~48/1000 adults (480/10,000 adults)
Of course, there are differences in what is counted and how it is counted, for example the US includes rape but not other sexual assaults, while the UK includes all sexual assaults, but in general.....
In general the US actually sees less violent crime than the UK, which is described in European press as being the most violent country in Europe.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its heartening to learn that the iniquietous custodial sentence imposed upon
this loyal SAS Sgt has - mainly through public opinion and support by the
news media - been overturned.
this loyal SAS Sgt has - mainly through public opinion and support by the
news media - been overturned.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenknight,
I take your point - and you are right to point out that it depends what is actually being measured.
If we Brits are so imaginative that we only use firearms for 10% of our murders - imagine if we had similar access to them as a bunch that uses them for 2/3. One assumes the maths would work out as an increase to 1800 ish murders a year - the current 600 being merely the remaining 1/3.
My point, however, was about firearms in isolation - and I deliberately used the word 'stance' to avoid anchoring on any facet of gun control.
I offered the comparison because this thread is actually about the appropriate sentence for illegal possession and inappropriate stowage of firearms and ammunition. It then subtly morphed into a debate into what should be illegal vice what should be done if someone knowingly breaks the law. Perhaps I am at fault because I should not compare illegal gun ownership in the UK with legal gun ownership - but illegal gun use - in the USA. Mea Culpa.
As before. I love guns, have owned them in the US and UK and use them for military pruposes and leisure pursuit regularly.
The vast majority of my heart and head are very glad that Sgt Nightingale is a free man - but a small percentage is pretty sure that for a while at least he would have known he was breaking the law, and it sounds like a few of his colleagues were behaving in a similar manner. However - if you can't show a bit of leniency to such a man, maybe we're lost.
And I have perpetuated the thread drift which I didn't mean to and apologise again.
I take your point - and you are right to point out that it depends what is actually being measured.
If we Brits are so imaginative that we only use firearms for 10% of our murders - imagine if we had similar access to them as a bunch that uses them for 2/3. One assumes the maths would work out as an increase to 1800 ish murders a year - the current 600 being merely the remaining 1/3.
My point, however, was about firearms in isolation - and I deliberately used the word 'stance' to avoid anchoring on any facet of gun control.
I offered the comparison because this thread is actually about the appropriate sentence for illegal possession and inappropriate stowage of firearms and ammunition. It then subtly morphed into a debate into what should be illegal vice what should be done if someone knowingly breaks the law. Perhaps I am at fault because I should not compare illegal gun ownership in the UK with legal gun ownership - but illegal gun use - in the USA. Mea Culpa.
As before. I love guns, have owned them in the US and UK and use them for military pruposes and leisure pursuit regularly.
The vast majority of my heart and head are very glad that Sgt Nightingale is a free man - but a small percentage is pretty sure that for a while at least he would have known he was breaking the law, and it sounds like a few of his colleagues were behaving in a similar manner. However - if you can't show a bit of leniency to such a man, maybe we're lost.
And I have perpetuated the thread drift which I didn't mean to and apologise again.
When school was out the Holmes Beach Sheriff parked his cruiser at the crossing.
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Dec 2012 at 10:05.
I don't agree with the slogan, 'Speeding Kills'. It doesn't! Idiots behind the wheel, who aren't capable at driving at what ever speed, often kill though. As so many people aren't capable of driving fast, (or at all, but don't start me on that subject), the state should impose a limit which should be complied with, unless there is lawful excuse.
So, 'so many people' shouldn't be allowed to drive at all?? and the rest MUST do what 'nanny' says 'cos it's good for you and. whatever you do DON'T let commonsense or personal responsibility enter into the equation.
The OP's 'nom de Web' would normally make me run a mile to get away but he's absolutely right - we're being overwhelmed with the unthinking products of our politico's lack of public contact and small-minded, "Let's do something, ANYthing, to show we are in charge", mindset.
SI's "unless there's a legal excuse" proviso presumably means that as long as it's an incompetent plod driver causing the accident (enough of those to cause worry) everything is well with the world. The rest of us just 'get in line and do what you're told'.
I think that what worries me most about this Nightingale nonsense is that the varieties of the "Daily Slime" can claim some sort of influence in the result. Yet another sign of the times.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Actually a lot of people aren't allowed to drive at all. How many times do we hear of people, sometimes as young as 12, with no licence being banned from driving?
I wonder just how many of those who had licences and were banned also continue to drive?
I wonder just how many of those who had licences and were banned also continue to drive?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another scenario that the facts seem to fit.
Mainly as I was surprised by the John Farley comment earlier in this thread, I thought I'd point out the obvious bit that nobody seems to want to consider.
If, and I say again IF, Sgt Nightingale had lifted the weapon from another combatant and tucked it under his pillow, intending to keep it for his post army career as a hired gunman back in the UK, things would not look much different.
That would certainly explain why he didn't hand it in at the armoury on return from patrol like he should have. Regardless of how he got it, there are procedures in place for coming back in to camp with a gun more than he left with.
Exactly which box it came back to the UK in can't be proved.
Anyway.....
He comes home, has the gun, starts collecting ammo and gets called away from the house where he thinks it will be safe because "we all have them" and nobody's gonna search the house.
Suddenly it's all come apart at the seams and he needs a story. The truth is out of the question, so let's fall back on the "when I was ill a while ago" story. This near death experience which so affected his memory and yet cleared up a treat... yeah, reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.
"He nailed my head to the floor, but I got better."
On one hand, he was so ill that he can't recall having the Glock, on the other hand, he's fine now.
Mostly I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to the fact that he decided to plead guilty and therefore avoids having to answer questions in the dock. Now that really is a smart piece of legal advice.
Basically, forget the Brain injury, forget the sudden return to the UK with the deceased. Forget the house moves and boxes in storage.
Just explain why he didn't hand it in on returning to camp the day he got it.
If, and I say again IF, Sgt Nightingale had lifted the weapon from another combatant and tucked it under his pillow, intending to keep it for his post army career as a hired gunman back in the UK, things would not look much different.
That would certainly explain why he didn't hand it in at the armoury on return from patrol like he should have. Regardless of how he got it, there are procedures in place for coming back in to camp with a gun more than he left with.
Exactly which box it came back to the UK in can't be proved.
Anyway.....
He comes home, has the gun, starts collecting ammo and gets called away from the house where he thinks it will be safe because "we all have them" and nobody's gonna search the house.
Suddenly it's all come apart at the seams and he needs a story. The truth is out of the question, so let's fall back on the "when I was ill a while ago" story. This near death experience which so affected his memory and yet cleared up a treat... yeah, reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.
"He nailed my head to the floor, but I got better."
On one hand, he was so ill that he can't recall having the Glock, on the other hand, he's fine now.
Mostly I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to the fact that he decided to plead guilty and therefore avoids having to answer questions in the dock. Now that really is a smart piece of legal advice.
Basically, forget the Brain injury, forget the sudden return to the UK with the deceased. Forget the house moves and boxes in storage.
Just explain why he didn't hand it in on returning to camp the day he got it.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Good job he didn't have his armoury at home where one if his children could have got their hands on it!!!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northumberland
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"unless there's a legal excuse" proviso presumably means that as long as it's
an incompetent plod driver causing the accident (enough of those to cause worry)
everything is well with the world.
A trained and qualified emergency vehicle driver has less excuse for causing an accident, as they should be much more skillfull than someone who has simply passed their DSA test. (even my wife passed that...
) Therefore I believe they should be held to account when standards drop below what is expected, and as such, I've reported such drivers for just that. A blue beacon is not a free for all, it's simply a tool of the trade, and should be used as such.Drivers who are often able to 'claim the excemption', which doesn't just include police officers, should be adequately assessed and trained to do so. Drivers who usually can't, don't need to be, and would therefore usually be required to drive appropriately. (I use the word 'usually' as everyone may, under prescribed circumstances.) More volunteers for 'Traffic' or 'Motor Patrols' are refused because they don't display the skills required, than are accepted. Most police accidents, or 'polacs' involve divisional officers, driving what people refer to as 'Pandas', which is something which should be addressed! It takes a certain type of person to not drive at 150 mph plus, when they can, and the adrenline is pumping, just as it takes a certain type of person to fly and operate an armed aircraft. Unfortunately the Home Office get it wrong, more than the MOD...