Well posted all our resident heroes. We do extremely difficult selection courses for guys to be accepted for our SF. Whether you are for or against Nightingale fighting to the bitter end, would you expect a SF operative to give up, be it in the field behind enemy lines or in a court surrounded by legal eagles?


Enough of the snide comments that he´s hiding behind his wife´s skirts.


At least give him the respect he deserves for his service to Q and C.

I would have thought that a Special Forces Soldier, trusted by the army to carry weapons and ammunition on duty as a normal part of their operational day to day life; should be licensed to be able to hold some self defence weapons and ammunition at home.

However, they should be secured as would any other licensed firearms holder.

That firearm is illegal in the UK, even if you have a firearms certificate. "Self defence" is not a legal justification for owning a firearm in the UK.

He lost that respect when, despite making formal declarations to the contrary, he started taking hundreds of rounds of ammunition home, "forgot" he had an illegal firearm, and continued to make the case for his innocence despite overwhelming and robust evidence otherwise.

I understand a lot of other issued kit was also found in his SSSA - surveillance equipment, NVGs, etc, for which he had no lawful purpose to retain in his accomodation; he has yet to be charged in relation to these items, but it does raise further doubts - if any were needed - about his integrity.

And I also understand very few of his former colleagues believe that the pistol was intended to be a trophy. A gold-plated Kalashnikov - yes; a nearly-new, cased pistol with mags and ammunition? Unlikely trophy to be displayed.

He lost that respect when, despite making formal declarations to the contrary, he started taking hundreds of rounds of ammunition home, "forgot" he had an illegal firearm, and continued to make the case for his innocence despite overwhelming and robust evidence otherwise.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif


Good for you 2s in. No doubt you have an honourable record of truth and integrity in your SF service history. He still has my respect for his service record. We have seen recently reports of actions a lot worse.

Sounds reasonable, I keep two powerful rifles and ammunition at home, in accordance with the required security conditions. As far as the Glock is concerned I'm sure the licence could be worded along the lines of; the licence covers weapons he may be required to use in accordance with his duties and as determined by his CO and may include weapons that would otherwise be prohibited by law.


Personally I think that after he had his original sentence reduce he should have, as suggested, done the grey man thing. He didn't lose his rank,(which would have made life interesting at Colchester!) and he wasn't given a disciplinary discharge, I doubt he would have continued within the SAS but he might have been able to stay in the Army, who knows? As it is I understand he is getting an administrative discharge, "Services no longer required" which does, I think, preserve his pension rights. He is possibly still acceptable to some of the private security companies.


What I don't know is whether his sentence was detention or prison, and did it carry an automatic discharge?

I doubt you would need to be licensed as you are a member of the defence force and at least over here in Aus,
carriage of what would normally be prohibited firearms is allowed.

How would you issue a license to him in the UK when pistols are illegal
so no such license exists ?

Easier to do it under the legislation covering the Armed forces.

After all, the SAS and others carry what are normally prohibited firearms
when in civilian clothes - and use them !

500N - I agree that, as members of the armed forces, a licence should not be necessary, but, in order that a person may have in their possession a weapon that is otherwise prohibited, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they were in possession of some kind of authority, for the sake of simplicity it could even be called a 'licence'! Of course a handgun licence doesn't exist at the moment.

Yes, I can see your point.

Even a letter from the CO !

In Northern Ireland, pistols for self protection of Police, Prison Officers and others is allowed; indeed there are some 3000 authorised to be carried and concealed. But that's not the point in this case. Sgt Nightingale didn't need any of this stuff for personal protection; he was hoarding it - and we can only speculate what he was. He knew the rules and he broke the rules and then conjured up all sorts of fantasy to explain it. And the courts saw fit to find him guilty.

perplexed that normally rational people think he should have got off this charge. It's illegal to possess. End of. Anything else is irrelevant. Oh and the argument that his sf status makes a difference; Dr Thomas Shanks.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Sgt. Nightingale wasn't alone.
 

Don't think it got a whole lot of publicity but after the trial it was reported that a skip was strategically placed in the barracks for other soldiers to dump their collections and the CO was quoted as saying that he was, "Somewhat disturbed at the speed with which the skip was filled".

There are, apparently, two sorts of skip (Skoda convertibles excepted), self-filling and self-emptying. Presumably the one mentioned stayed filled

Pars

Then I think the co was naive.

SF soldiers the world over have a healthy interest in knives, guns and explosives
And trophies !

Ah yes, but it doesn't say if he expected it to be filled more quickly or more slowly! Seriously though, in his position he would have to make a comment acceptable to both the MOD and the press.