Thanks. Members of the Armed Forces are issued with firearms and ammunition as and when their duties require, and must hand them back or account for them afterwards. A soldier is no more entitled to keep unlawful weaponry at home than you or me. There was a case a few years ago of soldiers (NCOs) bringing quantities of arms back from Iraq to UK, and passing them to criminals in exchange for cocaine. The services place a high priority on discouraging this sort of thing.
If by chance the police happen to come across stolen property, illegal drugs, terrorist bombs, or dead bodies even whilst on other business, it is their duty to take action. Even if they were not actually looking for Sgt Nightingale's weaponry when they found it, that is wholly irrelevant.
I think we need to look at the intent of the law and in this case it was to protect the public. I have not seen anything that would suggest that Sgt Nightingale by his actions represented a threat to the public. It could be argued that his inaction, by not checking the contents of the goods returned from Iraq, allowed the potential for a threat to develop, but thatwould be a slippery slope down which to descend. We have, by attempting to create laws that protect us from every eventuality, created a situation whereby discretion and common sense are removed yet at the same time fail to provide the safety we desire. I am not a lawyer and recognise drafting legislation is a difficult task but I feel strongly that what has happened here is wrong. It seems that Sgt Nightingale has been sacrificed for the benefit of the law and not for the benefit of the public. Dunblane and Hungerford were perpetrated by evil people, I see nothing to suggest that Sgt Nightingale was evil, infact quite the opposite.
All good points and all well made ofcourse but isnt it somewhat ironic that Danny has been completely trusted to do some very difficult and arguably dirty work for queen and country in the most testing of circumstances with vastly more effective weapon systems abroad but is not trusted by the same people to conduct himself properly in this country with a "trophy".?? It is"likely" that he has had to carry a similar system whilst on duty in this country and on several occations but can assure any doubters who may be losing sleep over this fact that he and any other agency colleagues are perfectly safe. Now that I have dealt with that,the unfortunate referrences made with respect to firearm massacres in this country just highlight the issues that have brought about the changes in the way that this country now expects,deals with,and reports. PS,i love a good banter BTW and thanks for welcomes.
The purpose of our Armed Forces is to deploy extreme violence in a disciplined way, to further British government policy. Members of the services are equipped with lethal weaponry so they can fulfill that role, and we are immensely grateful for their efforts. Nothing in that entitles any service person to breach any law, or commit any illegal act with impunity - it never has done. I don't see anything at all "ironic" in this.
You are perfectly welcome to sign any petition on any topic under the sun, if it amuses you. But back in the real world, ex-Sgt Nightingale's case will not be affected one iota, whatever its merits or otherwise. Criminal sentencing is not dependent on public petitions.
And increasingly public opinion too,thats why we have the likes of Abu Qatarda still wondering our streets at our expense.
He's going to find that hard to do from a New York jail cell. Public opinion stoked by the red-tops is no basis for a judicial system. We have laws and they are administered independantly of what Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch want this week in their efforts to sell more tabloid sensationalist garbage mixed with soft porn and packaged as news. As a senior NCO in the Army Danny Nightingale would have been responsible on many occasions for taking a declaration from junior soldiers to the effect that they "have no live rounds, empty cases or pyrotechnics in my possession" as part of the duties in accepting that declaration he would also have informed them that should they ater find they have inadvertently not handed all their ammunition in that it can be handed in at any time and nothing further will be said. He knew full well that having unauthorised weapons and ammunition is a court martial offence, there is no excuse for it. His undoubted bravery and skill as a soldier do not give him carte blanche to pick and choose which laws to obey, the very fact that he is in a position allowing access to weapons and ammunition to a certain extent should count against him for having stockpiled a small arsenal in his spare room.
My reading of the limited information in the article I linked to was that the pistol was put in with his dead comrades effects, for shipping back from Iraq, without his knowledge and that he did not check the contents when they were received, he was also suffering from memory loss as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. I have assumed, rightly or wrongly that the ammunition was similarly transported. You can't declare what you don't know.
According to the BBC he had It quite clearly states that the Glock had been sent back by colleagues, who if they were british should have known the rules as well, it doesn't make any mention of where the ammunition came from. As an excuse for having that amount of ordnance lying around "it was sent to me by my mates and I didn't know" makes me wonder if the IQ requirements for the Army have dropped since my day.
I can understand a reluctance to open dead colleagues belongings. Were the colleagues who packaged the pistol and ammunition in Iraq investigated, charged or brought to trial ? This man was either guilty by omission through no fault of his own or a dangerous criminal; what I have read doesn't suggest he is a dangerous criminal.
Those are by no means the only possible headings he can be filed under, it's entirely possible he was stupid or a liar or arrogant enough to think the law only applies to other people or plotting armed revolution. His intent is immaterial. The law on possession of an unlicenced firearm is clear, a mandatory 5 years inside. The fact that he's been allowed 18 months in a military detention centre suggests to me he has been treated extremely leniently. Unless the rules have changed since my time (and it was a regrettably long time ago, Centurion was a rank not a Tank) time served in a military detention centre and "convictions" in a military court do not carry over to civilian equivalence so when he comes out he won't have a criminal record either. Compared to what you or I could expect that is virtually a slap on the wrist.
Indeed, Shadow. The media have reported circumstances alleged as mitigation in the defendant's favour. Those allegations may or may not be true, or be relevant, or be believed by the probation officer preparing the Pre-Sentencing Report, or be accepted by the court. Some posters on this thread seem to be simply believing all defence allegations as true without question! In fact Court Martial convictions are recorded in the Police National Computer in just the same way as Crown Court convictions, but yes, the sentence does seem very lenient; so much so the Court Martial in failing to pass the 5 year mandatory minimum may have stretched a point, to say the least. You or I would get 5 years prison for sure, if not more. Detention at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) Colchester is very different from prison. Inmates are retrained in military skills (if they are to soldier on), or are given extensive training in civilian skills if they are leaving the service. On release, they are very likely to get a reasonable job. An 18 months sentence means 12 months or, with extra time off for good behaviour, as little as 9 months [the calculation is different from civilian prison] minus detention time already served. The MCTC regime is designed mainly to turn bad 20 year old soldiers into good soldiers, and anyone much over 30 would no doubt be let off the more strenuous parts. Ex-Sgt Nightingale may well be the oldest inmate.
You aren't going to like this......but........... If anyone knows about the UK Gun Laws, these guys in particular do........Northern Ireland would have taught them all that. ....he might be a really brave soldier but whether his illness was real or not, he received the gun obviously intending to bring it back to the UK at some time..... ....instead his mates parcelled it up and sent it to his home in the UK. Whatever the reason his house was subjected to a police search (which strikes me as a bit peculiar anyway........perhaps the parcel was x-rayed and plod knew there was a possibility of there being a gun in the house) and an unlicensed illegal weapon was found on the premises, which carries a heavy jail penalty... .....he says he can't remember having the gun, which is a bit like saying he didn't know it was illegal......ignorance cannot be used as an excuse. Whatever, someone was bl**dy stupid and is paying the price. If he ends up at Colchester, he will have an easier time than he wold have done on 'selection'.
For the good people on here:- Wife of jailed SAS hero appeals to Prime Minister for help - Telegraph Once again,thanks for your support. Stu.
The Telegraph article is full of errors and inaccuracies. Don’t believe everything you read in the papers!
Just to throw a curved ball in, The Swiss seem to me to be a fairly sensible nation on the whole. I could be wrong (Gliddofglood can correct if necessary) but don't ex service men and women have their service rifle given to them when they leave the military? I don't hear of Swiss ex-soldiers going on rampage killing sprees very often. Maybe it's because they are well trained and disciplined. I for one don't feel threatened by ex-servicemen keeping fire arms as long as they prove they still have it when requested. I know this doesn't have any bearing on this particular case but just a thought anyway.
