Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

.17 Hmr


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#31 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 02:22 pm

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.



#32 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 02:32 pm

 

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.

 

 

The Home Office goes to a lot of trouble and expense to provide a guide to the Police so they can interpret the Law in an even handed fashion throughout the country.

 

Then there is ACPO etc that also agree terms.   We all know that it is not interpreted the same way throughout, but if people simply roll over and accept things it never will be.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone asking for clarification of the Police stance (other than balls) and if you/anyone have a problem with that get the BASC (other shooting organisations are available) to ask on your behalf.

 

The BASC are very good at putting the regions straight and have got people fox conditions in these circumstances many times, I believe there are threads on THL about it!

 

If you are concerned about the specific mention of fox then don't be, vermin or Any Lawful Quarry is fox!  The latest Home Office Guide quite clearly interprets Vermin to mean fox, etc, NO police region would ever bring any prosecution against you for shooting fox under Vermin or ALQ, when all your brief needs to do is wave the Home Office guide under the Judges nose, no court would ever convict in these circumstances, and would most like bollock the region for wasting public time/money!

 

:thumbs:


Edited by Deker, 05 September 2016 - 02:36 pm.


#33 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 02:48 pm

 

 

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.

 

 

The Home Office goes to a lot of trouble and expense to provide a guide to the Police so they can interpret the Law in an even handed fashion throughout the country.

 

Then there is ACPO etc that also agree terms.   We all know that it is not interpreted the same way throughout, but if people simply roll over and accept things it never will be.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone asking for clarification of the Police stance (other than balls) and if you/anyone have a problem with that get the BASC (other shooting organisations are available) to ask on your behalf.

 

The BASC are very good at putting the regions straight and have got people fox conditions in these circumstances many times, I believe there are threads on THL about it!

 

If you are concerned about the specific mention of fox then don't be, vermin or Any Lawful Quarry is fox!  The latest Home Office Guide quite clearly interprets Vermin to mean fox, etc, NO police region would ever bring any prosecution against you for shooting fox under Vermin or ALQ, when all your brief needs to do is wave the Home Office guide under the Judges nose, no court would ever convict in these circumstances, and would most like bollock the region for wasting public time/money!

 

:thumbs:

 

I'm not concerned about anything Deker, I simply pointed out that North Wales Police don't view .17 HMR as a suitable round for fox. It doesn't concern me.


Edited by stuartpengs, 05 September 2016 - 02:49 pm.


#34 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 03:03 pm

 

 

 

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.

 

 

The Home Office goes to a lot of trouble and expense to provide a guide to the Police so they can interpret the Law in an even handed fashion throughout the country.

 

Then there is ACPO etc that also agree terms.   We all know that it is not interpreted the same way throughout, but if people simply roll over and accept things it never will be.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone asking for clarification of the Police stance (other than balls) and if you/anyone have a problem with that get the BASC (other shooting organisations are available) to ask on your behalf.

 

The BASC are very good at putting the regions straight and have got people fox conditions in these circumstances many times, I believe there are threads on THL about it!

 

If you are concerned about the specific mention of fox then don't be, vermin or Any Lawful Quarry is fox!  The latest Home Office Guide quite clearly interprets Vermin to mean fox, etc, NO police region would ever bring any prosecution against you for shooting fox under Vermin or ALQ, when all your brief needs to do is wave the Home Office guide under the Judges nose, no court would ever convict in these circumstances, and would most like bollock the region for wasting public time/money!

 

:thumbs:

 

I'm not concerned about anything Deker, I simply pointed out that North Wales Police don't view .17 HMR as a suitable round for fox. It doesn't concern me.

 

 

:hmm:  :hmm: :hmm:  

 

We've done that bit haven't we, my whole point is that there are very probably ways of straightening out N Wales and getting HMR for Fox, either directly or under the heading Vermin or ALQ, as the vast majority of HMR are conditioned for vermin, that IS fox!!!

 

:thumbs:



#35 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 03:36 pm

 

 

 

 

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.

 

 

The Home Office goes to a lot of trouble and expense to provide a guide to the Police so they can interpret the Law in an even handed fashion throughout the country.

 

Then there is ACPO etc that also agree terms.   We all know that it is not interpreted the same way throughout, but if people simply roll over and accept things it never will be.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone asking for clarification of the Police stance (other than balls) and if you/anyone have a problem with that get the BASC (other shooting organisations are available) to ask on your behalf.

 

The BASC are very good at putting the regions straight and have got people fox conditions in these circumstances many times, I believe there are threads on THL about it!

 

If you are concerned about the specific mention of fox then don't be, vermin or Any Lawful Quarry is fox!  The latest Home Office Guide quite clearly interprets Vermin to mean fox, etc, NO police region would ever bring any prosecution against you for shooting fox under Vermin or ALQ, when all your brief needs to do is wave the Home Office guide under the Judges nose, no court would ever convict in these circumstances, and would most like bollock the region for wasting public time/money!

 

:thumbs:

 

I'm not concerned about anything Deker, I simply pointed out that North Wales Police don't view .17 HMR as a suitable round for fox. It doesn't concern me.

 

 

:hmm:  :hmm: :hmm:  

 

We've done that bit haven't we, my whole point is that there are very probably ways of straightening out N Wales and getting HMR for Fox, either directly or under the heading Vermin or ALQ, as the vast majority of HMR are conditioned for vermin, that IS fox!!!

 

:thumbs:

 

As far as I'm aware there's no legal definition of 'vermin'. If you're using the generic definition from a dictionary it will also include "people perceived as despicable and as causing problems for the rest of society", and rightly or wrongly you can't use a rimfire on those either, just because "Vermin" is wrtitten on your FAC. If it specifically states not to be used on Fox then I would advise against trying to interpret it to suit your own perceptions. If you're wanting to test the wording the by all means be my guest, however for me North Wales police are the judge and jury as far as licensing stipulations, and as is often the case trying to be the smart arse would probably end up being a one way ticket to losing your ticket. As far as I'm aware North Wales police aren't the only ones that specifically prohibit .17 HMR on foxes.


Edited by stuartpengs, 05 September 2016 - 03:45 pm.


#36 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 05:19 pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Wales police won't entertain HMR as suitable for fox. It's bizarre the apparent variations from one constabulary to another.

 

With all due respect someone needs to challenge them, the Home Office (in simple terms the Police regions Head Office) says the HMR is fine for fox, who is a regional office to argue/question/go against a Head Office ruling?

 

To what end though? Whether we like it or not we're all subject to the arbitrary policy decisions of individual Chief Constables, ranging from calibre suitability, ammunition quantity allowed to be held, and a myriad of other idiosyncrasies. Calibre suitability will always be subjective, even between shooters (as this thread demonstrates), it's hardly surprising to see a similar subjectivity between individual police forces. Challenging such policies will do nothing other than bring about clarification that, irrespective of Home Office guidelines, policy decision ultimately lies with the head shed.

 

 

The Home Office goes to a lot of trouble and expense to provide a guide to the Police so they can interpret the Law in an even handed fashion throughout the country.

 

Then there is ACPO etc that also agree terms.   We all know that it is not interpreted the same way throughout, but if people simply roll over and accept things it never will be.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone asking for clarification of the Police stance (other than balls) and if you/anyone have a problem with that get the BASC (other shooting organisations are available) to ask on your behalf.

 

The BASC are very good at putting the regions straight and have got people fox conditions in these circumstances many times, I believe there are threads on THL about it!

 

If you are concerned about the specific mention of fox then don't be, vermin or Any Lawful Quarry is fox!  The latest Home Office Guide quite clearly interprets Vermin to mean fox, etc, NO police region would ever bring any prosecution against you for shooting fox under Vermin or ALQ, when all your brief needs to do is wave the Home Office guide under the Judges nose, no court would ever convict in these circumstances, and would most like bollock the region for wasting public time/money!

 

:thumbs:

 

I'm not concerned about anything Deker, I simply pointed out that North Wales Police don't view .17 HMR as a suitable round for fox. It doesn't concern me.

 

 

:hmm:  :hmm: :hmm:  

 

We've done that bit haven't we, my whole point is that there are very probably ways of straightening out N Wales and getting HMR for Fox, either directly or under the heading Vermin or ALQ, as the vast majority of HMR are conditioned for vermin, that IS fox!!!

 

:thumbs:

 

As far as I'm aware there's no legal definition of 'vermin'. If you're using the generic definition from a dictionary it will also include "people perceived as despicable and as causing problems for the rest of society", and rightly or wrongly you can't use a rimfire on those either, just because "Vermin" is wrtitten on your FAC. If it specifically states not to be used on Fox then I would advise against trying to interpret it to suit your own perceptions. If you're wanting to test the wording the by all means be my guest, however for me North Wales police are the judge and jury as far as licensing stipulations, and as is often the case trying to be the smart arse would probably end up being a one way ticket to losing your ticket. As far as I'm aware North Wales police aren't the only ones that specifically prohibit .17 HMR on foxes.

 

 

N. Wales are NOT the judge and jury, if it really came to it the Courts are.

 

The latest Home Office guide lists FOX as VERMIN, and there is absolutely no doubt that ALQ includes fox.

 

If you have Vermin or ALQ on your FAC then N Wales don't have a leg to stand on if you shoot fox.

 

Please read my posts, why are you determined to crawl up N Wales Arse and not even bother asking them WHY?

 

Like I said, if you don't have the balls then get the BASC to sort them out, they are very good at it!

 

I will strongly suggest some people in N Wales have Vermin and or ALQ and shoot fox totally within the terms of their FAC.

 

:thumbs:

 

Edit

I have never heard of anyone with a condition that says Vermin and/or ALQ but also says EXCLUDES FOX, if by any chance you have a condition that specifically excludes fox then that may be an issue, but if it also states Vermin and/or ALQ then you have more than reasonable cause to question that stupid/contradictory condition..


Edited by Deker, 05 September 2016 - 05:27 pm.


#37 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 05:26 pm

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.



#38 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 05:44 pm

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 

I don't need to, it was you who suggested N Wales don't/won't, all my rimfires (inc.22lr) are ALQ, so I don't have to question anyone.

 

If someone in N Wales wants Fox then Vermin/ALQ on their FAC covers it, end of, it doesn't have to say fox, read my posts, it doesn't matter what N Wales "say", if they give you Vermin/ALQ and do not specifically exclude fox they don't have a leg to stand on!  If they flatly refuse any suggestion of fox then ask the BASC to sort it.

 

For someone who doesn't care you are making a lot of fuss and creating a false impression.

 

:thumbs:



#39 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 06:17 pm

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.


 

For someone who doesn't care you are making a lot of fuss and creating a false impression.

 

:thumbs:

 

Bar-stool and internet lawyers, don't you just love them. :D



#40 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 06:47 pm

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.


 

For someone who doesn't care you are making a lot of fuss and creating a false impression.

 

:thumbs:

 

Bar-stool and internet lawyers, don't you just love them. :D

 

 

Yes chap, an awful lot of people here and elseware  value my comments and help. I have resolved many Police/Firearms issues for many people over many years, commonly pointing out where inept FEO/Regions have it wrong.

 

You have no idea about my situation/background/experience or Police/Home Office relations.

 

You have been given accurate information which you flatly refuse to accept and appear to want to crawl on your belly through life.

 

Fine, but don't taint the rest of the world with your ineptitude.

 

Grow some balls and stop saying can't/won't, when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D



#41 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 06:49 pm

 

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D

 

Because I told you, cloth ears - it doesn't concern me. :D



#42 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 06:50 pm

 

 

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D

 

Because I told you, cloth ears - it doesn't concern me. :D

 

 

Probably best you keep quiet then about things you obviously have no specific detailed knowledge of.



#43 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 06:56 pm

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D

 

Because I told you, cloth ears - it doesn't concern me. :D

 

 

Probably best you keep quiet then about things you obviously have no specific detailed knowledge of.

 

That's not what I said either, I said the fact NWP don't allow HMR for foxes doesn't concern me. Do you actually read posts Deker, or do you just go off half-cocked at everything?

 

Why don't you take up the challenge and put your money where your mouth is Deker? Their contact details are readily available. You seem more upset about it than I do. Crack on, report back here.

 

http://www.north-wal...-licensing.aspx


Edited by stuartpengs, 05 September 2016 - 07:02 pm.


#44 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 05 September 2016 - 07:06 pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D

 

Because I told you, cloth ears - it doesn't concern me. :D

 

 

Probably best you keep quiet then about things you obviously have no specific detailed knowledge of.

 

That's not what I said either, I said the fact NWP don't allow HMR for foxes doesn't concern me. Do you actually read posts Deker, or do you just go off half-cocked at everything?

 

 

Good grief, I have given you many reasons why they WILL, but you seem determined to bury your head in the sand.

 

I have outlined many areas of information, you have simply ignored me or said can't, won't, don't.

 

You have not come back with anything except veiled abuse.

 

Are you seriously suggesting NOBODY in N Wales can shoot fox with a HMR. :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

 

Do you have a HMR, (or a FAC at all) are you actually in N Wales, if it doesn't concern you then you either have a HMR conditioned for fox, or don't and have never tied, so how do you know?

 

If you want to continue this debate send me a PM.



#45 stuartpengs

stuartpengs

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Location:North Wales

Posted 05 September 2016 - 07:07 pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's getting slightly repetitive Deker. As said if you want to question NWP's licensing criteria - crack on. I'm already told you it doesn't concern me. Try reading my posts. Ta.

 when did you ask N Wales WHY NOT, and what was their response?.

 

:D

 

Because I told you, cloth ears - it doesn't concern me. :D

 

 

Probably best you keep quiet then about things you obviously have no specific detailed knowledge of.

 

That's not what I said either, I said the fact NWP don't allow HMR for foxes doesn't concern me. Do you actually read posts Deker, or do you just go off half-cocked at everything?

 

 

Good grief, I have given you many reasons why they WILL, but you seem determined to bury your head in the sand.

 

I have outlined many areas of information, you have simply ignored me or said can't, won't, don't.

 

You have not come back with anything except veiled abuse.

 

Are you seriously suggesting NOBODY in N Wales can shoot fox with a HMR. :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

 

Do you have a HMR, (or a FAC at all) are you actually in N Wales, if it doesn't concern you then you either have a HMR conditioned for fox, or don't and have never tied, so how do you know?

 

If you want to continue this debate send me a PM.

 

See edited post above. Crack on, report back here. Put your money where you mouth is. ;)


Edited by stuartpengs, 05 September 2016 - 07:09 pm.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users