NotoriousREV

FFS, he didn't have to "prove his innocence" at all. If you're pulled up by the police in your car, they will rightly ask that you have the appropriate licence, insurance, road fund licence and MOT certificate as required by law. Is that also proving your innocence?

If you see a guy sneaking around your neigbours house at midnight, you'd call the police. If it turned out to be their cousin who's staying for a few nights but had lost his key and was trying the back door there'd be releif all round.

Dress it up as state control all you want but the truth is that a Tesco employee was obviously concerned that there may have been a crime comitted (probably someone who's never seen a gun in their lives and only thinks of guns in the context of them being "illegal") and thus having the courage of their convictions reports the potential crime to the law enforcement agency i.e. the police.

The police, duty bound to investigate such a complaint and unable to shrug it off with a "s'alright, he just a hunter, he's probably got a firearms certificate just like that bloke from Hungerford", go along to the guys house. He produces the appropriate certificate, they probably double check his gun cabinet for security and with a "mind how you go, sir" put the whole thing to rest.

Reality

We'd better hope that Shaun doesn't forward any logs to the coppers.

We'd all be fooked .

Defending Tesco's in this incident at least shows us who the potential animal rights terrorists are amongst us - maybe Shaun should forward the names to the police so they can be investigated thoroughly.

I'm sure King Tony would be pleased with his recent sound-bites on animal testing.

Bubba po

It's not the colour of his clothes, it's the paramilitary affiliations they represent. And jungle pattern camouflage would hardly be appropriate for the moors, would it?

Besides, deer see in monochrome, I believe.

Reality

So do the Police it would seem

TopBanana

You've completely missed the point, intentionally or otherwise.

You can't discard all biased sources - because all sources are biased.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

So by that logic, all people who are in a photograph and are driving a car must be checked up on that they have a driving license and insurance?

Reality

Only an Idiot would illegally own a gun, take pictures of themselves and get them developed at Tesco.

Only a ***** would forward it to the Police.

And only our Police would send 2 "overworked" police officers round to investigate what could have been done in 2 minutes over the phone.

Infact - My guess is that the Police have details of this guy on file - pretty sure the gun laws require you to hold a licence etc !!

Just think how many speeding drivers got off in the time it took to investigate this "crime".

Leslie

Whatever your thoughts are about field sports, which are perfectly legal by the way and it is also legal to possess and use a gun as long as you are licenced, the action by Tesco in this case is worrying. It is as though they have become politicised and feel they have to become an arm of the law.

If this sort of attitude prevails, we will have our "Stalinised" police state in no time at all where we may soon find children being encouraged to snitch to the authorities on their own family members.

It is worth thinking about what it would be like to live under that kind of repressive government.

Les

Reality

First thing you've said on this thread that we can all agree on

shaunywrx

I shop at the Barnstaple Tescos sometimes (only when i'm really desperate) but i won't be any more, just in case they deem my exhaust to noisy or number plates to dirty, and decide to report me. I think i know the person in the picture, and funnily enough Tesco are trying to get permission to build a store in a town near him, and theres a massive anti Tesco thing going on at the moment, it seem's that the whole town are against them, Tesco may well have shot themselves in the foot with this one, i wonder if they used a silenced rifle as well.

scoobynutta555

One of the most stupid statements among many on this thread.

The Snug Rhino

Is this not a PERFECT example of "if you are in the right you have nothing to fear"? this bloke was in the right (legaly) and he had no issues with the police....whats the problem? other than 30 mins to show his certificate whats the big deal?

on a seperate issue....whats the pic for? i know fisherman do that to show how big the fish was....is that a large bambi?

just cant quite see the point of the pic? i understand a head on a board if you think wild animals look good (dont like it but see the point) but dont get the "heres me in the mud with an animal i just killed" ???

vindaloo

I can't quite figure why the police would have to show up on this guy's doorstep at all. If he has a firearms cert. then surely, they can find that out with a simple computer search. If he didn't, I'd expect that he'd be greeting the police at 06:00AM in the morning when they raided him

That they didn't go in all tooled up convinces me they weren't expecting to find a loony gun wielding maniac.

The cynic in me says they know they can get convictions (and therefore bigger crime cleanup numbers) where "gun crime" is concerned. It would also make good press and the police would be seen to be useful by the public.

J.

CrisPDuk

Which is wrong in itself, seeing as how more people are killed by cars than guns

CrisPDuk

That argument in itself is why this country is fecked By the time all the Big Brother watching sheep in this country wake up and smell the coffee it'll be too late


In case nobody has ever explained it to you: You shouldn't have to prove your innocence, it's up to the authorities to prove your guilt. I believe the applicable phrase is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'!

Despite David Blunkett's best efforts, this basic tenet of law is fortunately still in place, allbeit hanging by a thread

Freak

If I was the guy- as the owner of the pictures, I would see if it was possible to sue tescos for breach of copyright by making themselves a copy

Martin_Aimless

I would imagine a good lawyer could find a number of grounds to sue Tesco over this. I'm sure separate action could also be brought against the individual employee responsible.

The Snug Rhino

maybe its just tough **** for the bloke?

maybe the lass at tescos likes little animals and the cop she passed it onto does as well.

these people combined to be able to **** off this bloke, but then he pisses of animals by blowing their brains out.

life is just a bit of give and take unless you want to live on the moon all alone....this bloke takes give sout plenty so shouldnt moan when things dont go his way (at least he still has his brains....one asusmes)

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Are you being obtuse deliberately or are you genuinely missing the point?

hedgehog

I think you've caught me out here.

The camo he is wearing looks something like the British army pattern which is designed to break up an outline but which is, as you say, too dark for almost any practical shooting use in the UK. I think the army take it on as a pattern that nearly works everywhere and so with a bit of work you can hide yourself. The reason many people end up wearing army camo is that the jackets tend to be very inexpensive if bought army surplus. You can get yourself a cracking set of Gore-Tex waterproofs for not much cash providing you don't mind the colour. Hence why it is not uncommon to see people who would never shoot, or even think of it, wearing army camo when out in bad weather.

It is always worth breaking up your outline although the deer don't, as you say, see colour but what is more entertaining about the science of their vision is that the best colour to wear in order not to be seen, as Monty Python might say, is bright pink. Due to the way deer vision works bright pink is believed to be rendered as a neutral colour that would blend in with nearly anything. So a pattern with various shades of bright pink would be ideal for stalking, though you'd never be invited back again.

645

Intersting. this reminds me of the "stop and search" debate in the press over the past few years, with particular reference to black people. Clearly, it is unfair to stop and check people just because they "look" dangerous (maybe to a racist policeman). I would think most of you posting against the poster here would agree with this principle? (and I agree, as I think it's an invasion of personal liberties and freedom to go about your own business).

However, when it's a type of person you don't care for, or an activity you personally find distateful (but lawful), you're all up for the "just check him out" route, after all what's the harm, he might be a killer without a gun licence? It seems a little hypocritcal to me.

Come on! Liberty is important, and it's there for all of us in equal measure. I would just say, put yourself in this position - ignore the gun/animal shooting part, I'm taking about the principle - it could have been ANY lawful activity that the Tesco employee didn't take a fancy to. Personally, I'd be seriously unchuffed about it if they did this to me.

hedgehog

Despite my having a bit of a laugh I agree that there is indeed a very important principle at stake here. No matter what is said there are more and more cases where the police are criminalising, or attempting to criminalise, generally law abiding citizens.

Recently it was revealed that one police force in the UK stopped and searched nearly 5,000 motorists in a 3 month period using the new anti-terrorist laws that we saw swing into action at the Labour Party Conference last year. When pushed on this matter, after a freedom of information request, they would reveal that during this period not a single person in the police area was arrested or charged with a terrorist or terrorist related offence. However, it was impossible to get any information from them as to how many of these "suspect terrorists" they stopped were charged with other offences. They claimed that they didn't keep such records! (Yeah, right)

Now, there are perfectly good laws to allow police to deal with most offences but yet we find that in one county in a three month period they use the anti-terrorist law as an excuse to stop nearly 5,000 motorists.

Of course there will be the usual rush to point out possible reasons why this happened (many other forces did not use anti-terror laws at all during the same period) but do those people on here who make a habit of defending the police state not notice that it is becoming a full time job? Do you not ponder that if one county has started using anti-terror law as a "catch all" to enable random stop and search then every county will soon be doing it? Is it not of concern that, instead of using a law in keeping with the potential crime, the police in Hampshire just reached for the "biggest" law they had and used it against everyone? Is not not worrying that this "big" law could be made to fit everyone, at least until something more minor could be pinned on them? Does it not alarm you that the police claim to have no records at all of what happened to any of the 5,000 people stopped as terrorists other than that none of them were actually terrorists? Anyone who isn't concerned about this is in for a big shock because some day it will come to their door and when it does they will find whole internet forums full of people willing to make excuses for the "bad apple" or the "one off incident" or whatever. The problem, of course, is that these are no longer isolated incidents, they are happening everywhere everyday and the only victims are innocent people.

The Snug Rhino

"ignore the gun/animal shooting part, I'm taking about the principle - it could have been ANY lawful activity"

like?

brumdaisy

Well that was an intelligent, considered and valued contribution to the thread. What's next, is your daddy's car bigger than mine?


Interesting comment there, so by applying your arguement, no one should ever be interviewed by the police on suspicion of being involved in a crime, unless the police can already categorically prove they were involved.

Its one opinion against another, not a matter of fact so take a chill pill and ease up on the insults children!

645

That fact you chose to pick me up on that point beggars belief - you're clearly not open to the central point of the debate here - personal liberty. Let me think of some examples off the top of my head:

- maybe a man with a child on his lap? (he could be paedophile, or maybe a loving father?)

- a photo of a subaru odometer with needle pointing to 150mph? (a dangerous thug on the road, or maybe on a trackday?)

- a man digging a hole in a church? (a grave digger, or a grave robber??)

- a man with a gun and a dead animal (game hunter, serial killer without a gun licence)

I'm sure others can do better!! Okay, my example might appear daft, but come on! I think you'd argue black is white so as not to accept anyone else's point of view!!!

Oh, and here's another nasty little twist on the privacy point, again involving our friends Tesco.

Clicky to Guardian article.