999

[gbal]

well, we are pretty close on most things other than asking the police what they would like ( they are to serve us and the queen not the reverse, that's back door legislation ) and emigration ( its my country, I vote and reserve the right to complain as it is not a dictatorship or communist state ) Politics and policy should start with the man in the street not in the halls of " He who knows best and must be obeyed".have you a particular dislike of the BDS as a training org.? I feel they have proved to be one of the better ones personally

 

". Some courses are recommendable..as perhaps the BDS" was meant as in favour,but I have not done it

 

For me cooperating with the police just makes sense,and I don't see asking as the thin end of any edge,certainly in comparison with non cooperation.Of course,I do think about the general area of enquiry,but here I'd simply make the trade off of one phone call to minimise hassles-but also be fairly sure on my permissions,the call in won't be asked for-note asked for not insisted on.

Nothing really against democracy,but like the weather if you get fed up,you can leave.The problem with the man in the street decides policy etc etc is that the voters in the street don't agree,but should be headand common sense has two weaknesses,it isn't common(as just stated,ie it's not the same for everyone),and it has no guarantee of sense either.The alternate straw man (knows best must be obeyed) is less than convincing too.It seems more to me that considerable discussion with quite a lot of informed input is more typical,from quite a variety of sources,is more representative of how things work.That of course does not mean everyone agrees,but that decisions are less likely to be catastrophic.I don 't think that everyone's input is equally valuable,or well informed,especially on complex issues,but I don' t see much chance of one person' s opinion impinging totally unreasonably on whether I have to make a phone call or not.But then,I' m happy to do it anyhow,in the specific context of shooting.

USA seems one emigration option,apparently one of the most powerful men in the world did not get obeyed ,though the reasons may be complex,beyond simple public opinion,and simplistic generalisations.In my limited experience,East Germany was less tempting as a shooting democracy! Compared eg to Switzerland.....

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sonic]

the problem with calling in as I see it is

you make the call its answered by civi staff logged into computer who then do they tell if anyone.

The police get a call saying there's a man with a gun etc, your info is on computer how is it flagged to whoever takes that call.

You are the officer in charge do you

a. decide its ok thats only so n so we know he's there so do nothing

b. send local unit to confirm its you and that you're behaving.

c. send ARU heli etc just in case its some nutter on the rampage.

 

You're on a pest control job on an industrial estate you call in get incident number and get on with shooting. Someone walking their dog dials 999 OIC goes with option c to cover their arse. you get full on response. At best you covered your arse when you quote your incident number.

 

unless and until there is a system in place to give info in real time to the right people and the infrastructure to cope with the extra calls then I don't think calling will do much more than cover you in case they turn up mob handed.

[gbal]

the problem with calling in as I see it is

you make the call its answered by civi staff logged into computer who then do they tell if anyone.

The police get a call saying there's a man with a gun etc, your info is on computer how is it flagged to whoever takes that call.

You are the officer in charge do you

a. decide its ok thats only so n so we know he's there so do nothing

 

 

 

 

b. send local unit to confirm its you and that you're behaving.

c. send ARU heli etc just in case its some nutter on the rampage.

 

You're on a pest control job on an industrial estate you call in get incident number and get on with shooting. Someone walking their dog dials 999 OIC goes with option c to cover their arse. you get full on response. At best you covered your arse when you quote

 

 

your incident number.

 

unless and until there is a system in place to give info in real time to the right people and the infrastructure to cope with the extra calls then I don't think calling will do much more than cover you in case they turn up mob handed.

 

Hi Dave,

I agree with you on this.

I think the problems of effective use of information are complex-on a larger scale there are plenty examples of this from the military.

You summarise the police decision dilemmas very clearly.

All this is what I tried to summarise as their 'operational procedures"'.

My focus is on your last point,as this is something shooters can do at very little cost to themselves.Cover their a**.

To me that is well worth while for several reasons.

One,it is a bit less likely my shooting will be interupted.

Two,if it is,it it is likely to be a bit less heavy handed

Three,and maybe most important in the bigger scheme of things, I will have acted as a reasonable ,prudent citizen,and FAC holder,so there is minimum comeback against all legitimate shooters from any accumulation of incidents.That matters a lot to me,and it should to us all. I think for most shooters the police will only want one call- so they know who may legitimately be on the land,and won't want an every time call.Surely giving them this one off information is well worth while;the police can get it anyhow,in la much less convenient way for the shooter.( the heavies turn up when you are there!).

 

Atb

Gbal

 

 

 

[sonic]

The only problem with one call is if you don't tell them you have finished the OIC says oh it's ok it's only X. You're sat at home and some poor sod gets the good news from the nutter with a gun. extreme I know but I think unless you're really somewhere that causes regular call outs the call/calls my cause more problems than they solve.

Better training for the police with regard to legitimate shooters and where they might be. then the risk assessment will more likely be send a couple of ARU boy's rather than the cavalry.

[gbal]

The only problem with one call is if you don't tell them you have finished the OIC says oh it's ok it's only X. You're sat at home and some poor sod gets the good news from the nutter with a gun. extreme I know but I think unless you're really somewhere that causes regular call outs the call/calls my cause more problems than they solve.

Better training for the police with regard to legitimate shooters and where they might be. then the risk assessment will more likely be send a couple of ARU boy's rather than the cavalry.

 

Yes,agreed about the risk in that the OIC make a mistake-which was why I suggested the permission holder call the police once only,when they first get permission to shoot a particular piece of land,so the police then know

someone may be there legitimately,rather than call in every time- but clearly there is a risk trade off.My idea was maybe it's better to let the poice have the choice ,if you shoot where there are regular call outs.Alas,the nutter problem just does not have any solution- as the police acknowledge.

Better training is always good,though I don't quite see how the police can know where legitimate shooters might be,if they don't ever get that call from the legitimate shooter(s) when the legitimate shooter first gets permission on some particular land.

If the police know it MIGHT be X,with legitimate authority,then as you say,the response is more likely to be proportional ,rather than the real heavy cavalry.

I fear there is no perfect advice that will keep everyone happy.Maybe there just isn't much of a problem,at least over most ground?

Gbal

 

 

[sonic]

Ok scenario 1 999 call there's a man with a gun round the back of the houses. then gives address on edge of town.

 

scenario 2 999 call there's a man in camo waving a gun about hiding in the corner of the field rural address given

 

better training would be more use as then OIC could say in the first case it justifies helicopter and multiple ARU's.

and for two send an ARU for a look it's probably just a pigeon shooter have back up standing by.

 

I think training is far more use as its always where it needs to be information no matter how good it is is no good if its not passed on or up to date.

[kent]

Ok scenario 1 999 call there's a man with a gun round the back of the houses. then gives address on edge of town.

 

scenario 2 999 call there's a man in camo waving a gun about hiding in the corner of the field rural address given

 

better training would be more use as then OIC could say in the first case it justifies helicopter and multiple ARU's.

and for two send an ARU for a look it's probably just a pigeon shooter have back up standing by.

 

I think training is far more use as its always where it needs to be information no matter how good it is is no good if its not passed on or up to date.

In certain locations riding down the road on a quad with an uncovered and likely loaded gun across the handlebars won't raise an eyebrow. A Bit different attitude might be taken in town

[gbal]

Ok scenario 1 999 call there's a man with a gun round the back of the houses. then gives address on edge of town.

 

scenario 2 999 call there's a man in camo waving a gun about hiding in the corner of the field rural address given

 

better training would be more use as then OIC could say in the first case it justifies helicopter and multiple ARU's.

and for two send an ARU for a look it's probably just a pigeon shooter have back up standing by.

 

I think training is far more use as its always where it needs to be information no matter how good it is is no good if its not passed on or up to date.

 

I agree,better training would make these OIC judgement calls more proportionate more of the time.

Information needs to be current and used effectively too.My point was that the shooter can do something about the information being given to the police(but is not compelled to do so)but can do nothing at all about police procedures or efficiency after that.

 

In scenario 2 above,if the shooter had advised the police that he had permission and his vehicule registration,just once-not every time he goes shooting- the OIC might be able to use that information ,especially if if the vehicule is reported too.There is then a fair probability this is a known legitimate shooter,and it can be investigated appropriately,with back up in reserve.

 

Gbal

 

 

 

[gbal]

In certain locations riding down the road on a quad with an uncovered and likely loaded gun across the handlebars won't raise an eyebrow. A Bit different attitude might be taken in town

 

I agree .Location is a factor.That includes 'lifestyle,common practice,tradition 'etc.

One newer issue is that there are more people living in the countryside than there once were,who have not been brought up with all that.

They may be much less tolerant of it,or actively anti shooting.

Whatever their motives,they may report shooter sightings etc rather more often than traditional country livers did.

The police of course have to respond in some way,even if the probabilty of a false alarm is higher than it might be in an urban environment.

 

Gbal

 

 

 

 

[sonic]

If your reg number is phoned in they know you live at x hold sgc fac etc it's on the PNC. if it's just a bloke in a field then a historic call will not come very high on the risk assessment

you pretty much made my point in your last sentence. they have to respond only training will give them the "tools" to make a reasonable risk assessment and send the appropriate response.

[gbal]

If your reg number is phoned in they know you live at x hold sgc fac etc it's on the PNC. if it's just a bloke in a field then a historic call will not come very high on the risk assessment

you pretty much made my point in your last sentence. they have to respond only training will give them the "tools" to make a reasonable risk assessment and send the appropriate response.

 

Hi,

OK,agreed.I! Not totally up to speed about Information databases like PNC .It won't though tell the police that that person has legitimate permission to be on that landwhich information is relevant.

I am sure we agree that good training to get 'tools'/proceedures/heuristics/etc in place together with good intelligence/information to which these tools cn be applied is desireable.Probably the shooting organisationsare the most effective shooting input to the training,

(BDS,BASC etc-I think BASC have already started something along these lines,and the individual shooter can decide on what information he thinks appropriate in his specific circumstances.

 

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bewsh]

AND, if you are stopped you'll be back doing what you want to be doing far quicker if you can quote a log number to the officer.

well that is not always the case,

especially if the numpty involved in the call is making wild assumptions about Al Queda and AK47's killing cows!

 

I shoot in the city centre

I call it in all the time, but then I am overlooked on all sides by blocks of flats. it doesn't stop the clever crew having a pop if they feel like it and it will be me that has the explaining to do if anything comes of an altercation.

 

 

Outside of town I can not imagine how bored the Police must be to follow up "a guy is shooting in a field near me" with an ARU and a helicopter!?

at what point is that a measured sensible response!?

We sometimes forget that these chaps can get bored and a bit of a jolly is often used as an impromptu practice session

 

As for whether you have permission to shoot on the land.....

The Police round my old home never once responded appropriately to direct calls about poachers whilst in progress but yet they are likely to be concerned as to whether a bloke zeroing has authority?

[kent]

I agree .Location is a factor.That includes 'lifestyle,common practice,tradition 'etc. One newer issue is that there are more people living in the countryside than there once were,who have not been brought up with all that. They may be much less tolerant of it,or actively anti shooting. Whatever their motives,they may report shooter sightings etc rather more often than traditional country livers did. The police of course have to respond in some way,even if the probabilty of a false alarm is higher than it might be in an urban environment. Gbal

 

ve av vays of assimilating vem!

[sonic]

resistance is futile

[triggersqueezer]

just to say thanks for all your views,i don't agree with having to call in at all but i'm going to start if in a built up or problem area.the moment i see a helicopter or an officer with a bad attitude then i won't bother again.

in fairness 99% of rozzers are cool.