From: "Derek Bernard", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't have a problem with the police investigating what has happened
> to Section 5 weapons due to sloppy record keeping, but on the other I
> don't think Sir Malcolm should be hung out to dry either, as I doubt that
> he personally was the one keeping the records.
>
> Steve.
Sorry Steve, but I disagree with you on both points.
"Section 5" weapons have absolutely no additional significance in evilness
or genuine "risk to the public" than any other firearm, or kitchen knife, or
hammer, or can of petrol et al. The firearm classification categories have
about the same usefulness in crime control and overcoming social ills as the
classification of witches had in the 16th century. Fishing expeditions for
sloppy record-keeping on ANY type of firearm is an appalling waste of what
we are constantly told are scarce and inadequate resources.
Be that as it may be (and I have little doubt that both the investigation
and prosecution were vicious, wasteful and anti-social activities), if Sir
Malcolm was the operational boss, he should carry a significant part of the
responsibility for any sustained failure in the organisation he was running.
Derek Bernard
--
We'll have to agree to disagree because I think the police are justified
in investigating what happened to some machineguns that were not properly
accounted for.
Of course he bears some of the responsibility, the question is whether
a clerical error is something that should forever bar you from a public
position. I don't think either of us think the answer to that is yes.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
