|
The Old Fat One
I bet you don't like Mondays either...tell me why :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D I’ll bet that one went right over his head. In fact I would not be surprised if it went over a lot of people’s heads here. :ok::ok: |
+ 1 to the above.
One of the best I have seen on any forum :ok: Re "who got it", it is a very era dependent comment as you don't hear it much nowadays. |
Oh dear. Have we got to the stage of deliberately misinterpreting posts in order to jump on the outrage bus now? Not really intended as deliberate. Perhaps a tad misinterpreted, and something about the coyness of the man that I find somewhat irritating. Hey-ho, PPRuNe!! Enjoy the weekend, Regards - cuefaye |
My feelings on this are mixed, as are many peoples it seems.
There is a lot more to this than much of the British public are aware of - namely, the amount of ammunition and the possible culture of this activity associated with a few more individuals within that unit of the Regiment. Many on the 'outrage bus' are on it because of the way the media has portrayed the bloke; an innocent war hero (can't argue with that last bit) who has been wrongfully indicted with illegal possession of a firearm etc etc. So, he was in possession of a firearm and nearly 300 rds of ammo which, in THIS country of ours, IS illegal. Mitigating circumstances, reduction of harsh initial sentences etc have all played their part but the bottom line is that Sgt Nightingale committed a crime, now has a criminal record and won't ever escape that. I hope he learned whatever lessons came out of this episode of his life and can now move on with his family and friends behind him. I don't necessarily wish him luck but I do wish him better judgement in future... |
I also think this sets a dangerous precedent. I now expect the next scroat who gets nicked with a Glock and AP in his possesion to be given a suspended sentence when his top-notch lawyer quotes Nightingale vs The Crown, 2012. Yes he was technically guilty of a statutory offence, but there should have been leeway for the Judge Advocate (pr!ck) to give him a suspended sentence. So now justice has been delivered by the Appeal court. Anyone casting dispersions on this outcome is therefore illogical, illiberal and showing disregard for the right of any man to appeal any sentence given by a UK court. Shame on you all - you know who you are. |
or cast 'aspersions' even... fix'd
|
I am finding several of the posts here that are critical of Sgt Nightingale very out of line with the information that is in the public domain. The main points I have gathered are:
He was given the gun and ammo in Afghanistan. For reasons that don’t matter he left Afghanistan expecting to go back and so left a lot of his kit including the gun and ammo out there. When he didn’t go back his kit was packed and forwarded to his UK address. It was not unpacked at his address and while he was away from the address he had a serious medical event that affected his memory. Then his address was searched in connection with another occupant. That search produced the unpacked gun and ammo. If all of this is correct then it is clearly not a simple case of a bloke deliberately keeping a gun and ammo. If any of this is not correct kindly put me straight. |
John,
The location of the gun (in a cupboard in a bedroom) and ammo (under the bed I think) suggest the 'forgetting' mitigation maybe, shall we say, have been 'maximised' and not entirely believable (but not without some merit either). I'm glad he's out, but mainly due to the non-legal wider view that we are not locking up far far more evil characters so on balance, given his otherwise blemish free character, it just feels wrong. He did however commit a serious firearm 'lapse of judgement' and should rightly be in some trouble for that. I'm not sure I agree he should now be looking to squash his conviction completely - I think that's pushing his luck too far. I feel he should admit the whole thing has been regrettable and look forward/move on. There are mitigations that clearly help his case, but at the end of the day the gun/ammo should not have been where it was. I would hope that a precedent is not being set and others should take note that you can't take the p*ss with firearms and can expect a serious sentence. Nightingale was lucky - and I'm OK with that - but this should be a visible wake up call to others. I actually would expect an hardening of the line taken in such cases - the nightingale case is so high profile you can't pretend that being flippant with weapons will somehow be tolerated. |
John ... some relevant facts you might have missed, as I don't think you have read the transcript.......
2 years between returning home and the "accident" In that 2 years he moved accommodation, and therefore moved both gun and ammunition. makes the "I forgot" seem a bit lame IMHO |
Originally Posted by AtomKraft
(Post 7547556)
What do you think he did, and what do you think happened?
|
John F
If any of this is not correct kindly put me straight. Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates | 2012 | In the case of 24951951 Sergeant Danny Harold Nightingale A few line fillers for you; JUDGE ADVOCATE: Yes, but Mr Winter, 122 rounds of 9mm which fits the Glock Pistol are identified as an aggravating feature in the authorities, are they not? MR WINTER: Of course we readily accept that indeed, so it is very clear the frangible rounds would also be fireable. JUDGE ADVOCATE: But Mr Winter, if anybody had gained access to the accommodation, it would not have taken them more than 30 seconds to spot the ammunition in a clear Perspex box and find the gun. MR WINTER: Correct. It is in this period, i.e. some time towards the end of October or early November of 2007, that it must be the case that the Glock was presented to him. That is an analysis that has been constructed really from his wife Sally’s memory and what he said in interview. It therefore remained in the locked secure cage for the whole of 2008 and the whole of 2009 and in fact for the first half of 2010. In October of 2009, whilst it is in the cage, he did the marathon, which as you know caused the serious brain injury The gun remained in the cage until mid-2010 when it was required to be moved from the cage to his mess accommodation, not the triple SA but the mess accommodation that he was given at that time. He does not believe he opened it because he would not need to open it, he has no memory of it, but he says why would I open an operations box when I was not on operations, and he believes he used it for his brew-up table, having put a cloth over it, in his mess room where it remained from mid-2010 until January of 2011. In the latter part of 2009, as you have been told, he was cleared fit for work and came back to work in the early part of 2010, and in the June to October had sufficiently recovered to be placed upon the 30-minute response counter-terrorism team, for the training for that team which took place between June and October of 2010, and during that time was made sniper coordinator of a fast reaction counter-terrorism team, which is a position of considerable responsibility, and as Doctor Young will tell you for him to have constructed strategies whereby his brain could heal itself and whereby he could return to that sort of operation is quite frankly truly remarkable, In the early part of 2011, in January, he was required to move out of the mess into the triple SA accommodation, but he was on the 30-minute standby and he therefore was given by his superiors about 2 hours to move his stuff out of the mess and get back. He believes, he is not sure about this, but he believes that he and the other officer, who has been dealt with in June, took a van and together moved all the contents of both their mess rooms to the flat at the triple SA accommodation in about 2 hours. It is a 20-minute drive each way and the loading accounted for the rest of the time, but they basically just ran in and dumped it in the room and he dumped all of his stuff in the upper rear bedroom of the triple SA accommodation. He does not remember putting the ammunition from where it probably was in his mess room, which he said in interview was probably in one of the drawers of the desk; he does not remember shoving that into the plastic box that you have seen in the photographs. It maybe that he did not do it, maybe that he did do it. If he did do it he is extremely sorry. Obviously that was a moment when he should have thought ‘hang on a second, that can’t come with me. In fact it should not be here but it certainly can’t come with me to the triple SA accommodation’. |
All I have to say is that one of our true British Heroes has been given justice. What a shame it has taken such a public outcry for justice to be served. It's time that our government looked after the British people, and not those who are in our country as hangers-on. SGT Ningthingale - I salute you and your family, and Thank You for your courage and Bravery. May God Bless You.
|
I almost give up in despair! There should have been absolutely no political discussion surrounding the appeal, and the matter of a petition should not have been raised in the Court of Appeal (how was that relevant?).
The guy held a weapon unlawfully - for a considerable period of time - and he held a considerable amount of ammunition unlawfully - kept in an insecure manner at a civilian address. Whether he was trained to handle weapons or not is irrelevant - except that he knew of the dangers posed by such weapons, and he would have been aware of the seriousness of the offence under the Firearms Act. Yes, there are factors in mitigation (reflected in his original sentence and the degree of leniency given by the original JA) but claimiong 'cos he's a hero, he shouldn't be put in prison' is complete and utter rubbish. I would look forward to the same degree of leniency if I faced similar charges* * except I declared the items under OP PLUNDER and took the necessary administrative actions on my return. But then I'm not special, and don't suffer from that hitherto undiagnosed condition of 'poor admin'. And I've been busy, too, even if I haven't claimed that my ears went pop! This case (and the hysterical medja and public reaction) has seriously undermined the Service Justice process. It will be interesting to consider how he will appeal his guilty plea. |
I think higher standards of intellect and weapons discipline would be expected from SF than from your average pongo. Nobody could think that having an serviceable unregistered prohibited handgun and compatible ammunition at your off-base home address for several years is OK. Having the thing kept at the armoury, deactivated or disposed of properly could easily have been achieved.
His release is a populist verdict to satisfy outraged public (whose hearts are in the right place, and support of HM Forces is admirable) but who have been whipped into a frenzy by media who have selectively reported the facts and distorted the issue. There is something fairly ugly about that, and when Facebook campaigns can start to influence the justice system. Most of us know that sometimes good people screw up and sometimes they must be disciplined, and a large proportion of those with first hand military experience thought Sgt N fell into that category. The CM system seemed to deal with him very leniently. The excuse of 'he's SF so it's fine' didn't work for his mate with a hand grenade in the house, so where do we draw the line? Perhaps the law of the land and that of the forces would be a good start. |
he was cleared fit for work and came back to work in the early part of 2010, and in the June to October had sufficiently recovered to be placed upon the 30-minute response counter-terrorism team, for the training for that team which took place between June and October of 2010, and during that time was made sniper coordinator of a fast reaction counter-terrorism team, which is a position of considerable responsibility, and as Doctor Young will tell you for him to have constructed strategies whereby his brain could heal itself and whereby he could return to that sort of operation is quite frankly truly remarkable, Anyway, have a good Christmas Danny :ok: |
Thanks chaps
I was clearly lacking a lot of relevant info. I see what some of you are getting at now. According to the TV last night he is now expected to appeal his conviction - a totally different exercise which now sounds to me as a much harder exercise than the appeal process that changed the original sentence. JF |
Rather a daft comment from someone who I suspect takes his information from the Daily Mail rather than the Court Martial transcript. I couldn't give a monkey's what Americans think of this case, as frankly the guns and crime situation in the USA is nothing for us to aspire to. There's a world of difference between professionals using weapons in the course of their duties according to their rules and the guns'n'ammo free for all you seem to desire.:ugh:
|
So much worry over a military man with a single handgun. Maybe if some of you are so worried you could ban the whole military and police from using weapons in any capacity, then you can all sleep easy :ugh: When the Americans look at this country they must think this place is a joke, especially when as civilians they are legally free to have far more than what Sgt Nightingale had and he was a special forces soldier. Its rather embarrassing really and disgusting. |
I think 20mph speed limit in school zones is a stupid law. Alright with you if I just wazz through those zones at 85mph, drunk? I used to be in the RAF - it'll be fine.:ok:
|
he has the misfortune of being in this pathetic little country S-D |
Advisory speed limits = no limit at all so why even have it?
Let's make all the laws advisory. That would certainly sort out the prison overcrowding issue. |
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. |
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. |
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...) |
OK, a very good man is home for Christmas. Is that good or not? |
+ 1 to the above. One of the best I have seen on any forum http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif 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... |
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. |
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. |
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. 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. |
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. |
No mention of low flying yet.....:E
|
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. |
|
When school was out the Holmes Beach Sheriff parked his cruiser at the crossing. |
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.:yuk: |
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack
(Post 7550281)
So, 'so many people' shouldn't be allowed to drive at all??
I wonder just how many of those who had licences and were banned also continue to drive? |
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. |
Good job he didn't have his armoury at home where one if his children could have got their hands on it!!!
|
"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... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.