From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<No, this figure of 5% is just pure rubbish and IG knows it,
he probably just chose it because it sounds catchy. If it
were correct I certainly wouldn't be associating with this
type of person and if it were right I would be getting rather
worried, and I'm not. >>
Well, I'm sure you are in a better position than me to judge.
I *know* its not rubbish, but I include applicants in this figure, as well
as people who make spurious applications for variations, etc. (you know,
when you get as far as checking out good reason for possession, you find
there actually isnt one. Things like that).
Not a question of sounding catchy. 90% would be much more catchy!
I also doubt if you have the investigative resources open to me when
enquiring about people. It might surprise you to learn about the background
of some people that you think are perfectly OK. (I speak in general terms of
course. I am sure all of your shooting associates are perfectly fine and
upstanding citizens)
IG
--
So you're saying people who the police decide don't have "good reason"
for a variation (but hold an FAC) fit your list of being dodgy?
You must be joking. All that means is that they don't fit into
whatever legal definition the HO have foisted upon your licensing
dept. Otherwise they are probably perfectly respectable people.
We've had long threads on here about collecting. I have been turned
down twice for collector's authority, so by your definition I must
be a dodgy person!
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
