315 posts • joined 15 May 2013
Re: This thread is being pre-modded.
It's more of a pre-emptive thing. I don't think very many comments at all have been pre-modded out of this thread at all, which rather restores my faith in humanity.
Re: Re: huh?
If you see factual cockups like this, please use the "send corrections link" at the bottom left of the article page. We'd rather edit it and have correct information up than duff info with everyone complaining about it underneath.
Re: Spot the difference
In fact neither of those was posted, looking through your comment history. One of them is sat in the pre-moderation queue, while the other simply seems not to exist.
Outrage level 1/10, show again spittle-flecked mouth.
Re: Random Spot Checks
Did you read the headline and skip straight into the comments again? READ THE ARTICLE. Here, I'll even make it as easy for you to do that as I physically can: Page 2 of article with all the answers you want to hear.
Something tells me you're determined not to believe that the random spot check campaign is a random spot check campaign unless Chief Constable Marsh himself turns up on your doorstep and says those exact words to you in person. If that is the case, please just say so and stop asking questions that have already been conclusively answered.
With clays you're constantly on the move, whereas with rifle and pistol you're trying to stay as still as possible. I've seen the same thing happen to my own scores ... practice makes perfect I guess!
Re: Legal Guns
This didn't actually happen, did it Pinocchio? You're clearly a windup merchant. If this did happen somewhere other than your imagination you'd have called the police straightaway to report this "unlicensed" "high powered rifle".
Re: Biting the hand that feeds what?
It's in the Weekend Edition, El Reg's off-piste offering for the regular readership. Do you also post the same thing on the car reviews and the Dr Who punditry?
*sigh* why do I even bother engaging with this sort of thing...
I have a theory about how this can be turned into a legally defensible method of carrying out truly random spot-checks. It's to do with constant monitoring of FAC/SGC holders, unaudited local "intelligence" databases full of gossip and innuendo ("can't be too careful with gun owners, you know, especially after Cumbria") and no requirement to state the actual piece of intelligence which led to the visit when on the doorstep.
Put it another way. If this gives the police no extra powers at all, then why bother going to the effort of having FELWG put it through top-level stakeholder consultation and getting the minister to sign it off? Qui bono?
My reading of this is that uniformed coppers could rock up on your doorstep unannounced. To stay within the letter of the guidance Plod just needs to say "We have received intelligence that gives us cause for concern about your suitability to hold an FAC. Please will you allow us in now for a chat," while his mate double-checks his list of lawful powers with which to force entry. You know exactly what will happen if you say no in that scenario. What other choice do you have than to let them in? Having let them in voluntarily, many of your legal safeguards are not engaged as they would be if a statutory power or search warrant was used, meaning the two officers have carte blanche to poke around your home on a fishing expedition.
All Plod needs to say, when he stands up in court later, is that an anonymous caller to the new Crimestoppers hotline said they heard raised voices from your home and saw you stomping around the living room with your shotgun. The police are duty bound to act on intelligence received; to preserve the integrity of Crimestoppers the caller's identity and motive cannot be speculated upon.
If enough adverse rumour, gossip or hearsay could be collected on every FAC/SGC holder in the land, that would give the police defensible grounds to carry out spot checks on all of those unfortunates. Hence the new Crimestoppers number.
I want to think I'm wrong, but the more I see of detailed police procedure in this country the more I'm convinced the worst-case scenario is usually the truth.
Re: Non story
Everyone knows that the police have the power to turn up unannounced if there's an actual problem. As the shooting orgs say, this latest change doesn't appear, on the face of it, to give them any new powers. If they've got genuine suspicions, they have the power to revoke FACs and/or get an arrest warrant from a judge.
Yet it does seem the way this has been communicated to police forces by ACPO, away from the public eye, is "You now have the go-ahead for unannounced spot checks".
I am absolutely not cool with the police having official blessing to turn up on my doorstep and "persuade" me to open the door on pain of "consequences".
Re: Non story
Given the level of discussion these stories generate, quite a few do seem to be interested.
As for the off-topicness, read all about the Weekend Edition here. You'll note (with some rare exceptions) my firearms writings only tend to be published on weekends, when the whole of the Reg goes off-piste.
Re: Re: Non story
Alright, as I'm not really a gambling man (or a rich one - perhaps the two are linked?) I'll stake you a tenner that FAC fees will rise by December 31st this year. Winner collects at Bisley Camp. Deal?
Re: Non story
I hold an FAC and I wrote the column (we even put it in the URL for you, just to make it easy), so thanks for that.
Read the other stuff I've written - particularly on the licence fee going up at the instigation of the Association of Chief Police Officers starting last year - and then come back to me.
You've had your head in the sand if you truly think the police aren't driving any of this, or even that the Conservatives aren't interested in firearms legislation. Norman Baker's Tory predecessor, Damian Green, vetoed ACPO's demand to quadruple FAC fees, and various muckrakers claim Cameron himself vetoed it again after Green was shuffled out for Baker.
Re: Is Old English The Only Real English?
Today I have learned something that I did not know before.
Signed, Vulture Central backroom gremlin.
Re: Re: Penetration Testing the System .... Out of this World Style
amanfrommars' posts are perfectly logical and reasonable.
If the platform's gone titsup, how do you think we're going to post it on there? *facepalm*
It got caught in the manual moderation filter. Something evidently tripped it off, possibly the length. Either way it should have appeared by now.
Re: Re: A NEW HUDL2 HAS ONLY 9.25 GB AVAILABLE TO USE NOT THE 16GB TESCO CLAIM??
Please turn your capslock off. It's considered bad etiquette to have it on constantly.
Re: confused report
When you say "there is a lot of confusion in this report", what you actually mean is "I read the headline and jumped straight into the comments without reading a word of the actual report which goes into depth about half-rate codecs and networks' misuse of a fallback option as the default setting for 4G customers".
Another day, another commentard.
Oddly enough, that exact scenario is dealt with by law already. It's the end of the day so I can't be bothered searching for the exact act and section, but teachers are entitled to automatic anonymity in respect of complaints made by school pupils - up to the point where the police persuade the CPS to make a formal charge.
Not much of a protection against false allegations (the police aren't interested in the truth, only probability of conviction) but it strikes the right balance between protection against immature children and open justice.
Re: Re: Insufferable Pothead Re: sisk
Folks, the case is still active and as El Reg is a British website you're bound by the Contempt of Court Act and the laws of defamation. Please familiarise yourselves with these post-haste.
Re: Re: AC @Matt Bryant
a) Usual weekend disclaimer applies to comments; sometimes they'll be bound over until Monday because we're all putting our feet up
b) Please avoid calling people cretins. Make your point civilly.
You got the meaning, though.
Re: "NAE, Jimmy"?
Och aye the noo, etc.
Re: Re: Pedant/Correction Alert
Er, yes, about that. Brain/finger interface malfunction between ms and µs when abbrev'ing the units. Mea culpa.
And your point, because I'm sure you have one?
Re: Re: Apologies for not arguing at all
Actually no - we're not cool with people being personal about Reg scribes. Your previous comment was just over the line from fair comment into a personal jibe, which ain't cool.
Re: Re: Bytes?
Next time why not use the "tips and corrections" link bottom right of the article?
Re: Not bad enough...
This IS CoTW ...
Sigh. Clearly my work here is unappreciated.
General moderator comment
Keep it civil, please, folks.
Re: Re: So if you find any errors or omissions...
Indeed it does - though it also seems to think HMS Belfast is a street running along the South Bank and not the WW2 cruiser moored alongside it.
Re: It is the defined centre of London
Ah, the danger of Wiki. The statue is not the centre point of London, although it is very close - there is, in fact, a small brass plate let into the road surface which defines the true centre of London. Which, incidentally, was the original location of the Charing Cross monument. The one outside Charing Cross station, in the forecourt, was a tourist gimmick erected by the owners of the hotel which sits on top of the station.
Re: How long until the lawsuits?
Strangely enough, "abstracting electricity" is a criminal offence in England and Wales. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/abstracting_electricity/
Re: Re: Independence?
Are you for real?
Re: So basically, Lovecraft was right?
I read The Rats in the Walls years and years ago but never did remember the title. Thanks for triggering my memory, I've been looking out it for it ever since.
It's all done at top secret level so we can't discuss it further. You didn't think we'd reveal ALL the secrets of the Great Register Machine of Tardmangling in one screencap, did you?
Re: Just went to log in to upvote a comment
I really hope you have changed your password in the two hours between your posting this and me approving it...
Re: Rich toffs?
"£10 a year" is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum comparison - you don't say that your annual rail season ticket costs £14.30 a day when you're actually coughing up £5,000 upfront. It's a fixed statutory cost that must be met in full; shooters don't have the luxury of depreciating it over a number of years.
Ammo - for competition grade ammunition that I shoot in county level matches I'm looking at between 96p and £1.01 per round for top-grade factory stuff. By shopping around and compromising a bit on quality I could probably knock 10 or 15p per round off that price; more if I handloaded my own ammunition. Practice ammunition runs at anything between 35p/rd for dodgy ex-military stuff recycled from machine gun belts and 40-50p/rd for ammo that will at least hit the target reliably, if with little consistency.
A typical match for me is between 24rds and 50rds fired in a day, and some matches last for a full weekend; that could be up to £100+ that literally goes up (off) in smoke.
Even for pottering with my old Enfield, I'm still paying 45p+ per round. That adds up quite quickly when you're playing with the world's fastest bolt-action rifle...
Re: Did you read this?
Have you read beyond the headlines?
Re: HP Storage ROCKS!!!!
Well, at least you're open about your affiliation.
Re: Here is a hypothetical for you
It's not often I feel driven to say this with my work hat on...
You, sir, are talking complete horseshit. Kindly do not accuse Reg staffers of fabricating stories again.
In the interests of transparency, I spotted the tweets and tipped off Jasper myself. He then did all the legwork, contacted Neil Cooper and wrote the story. The "bomb" tweet is very clearly screencapped in the article itself. Cooper seems to have protected his account just after we published the story.
Enjoy permanent pre-moderation, by the way. You don't get away with making accusations like that about us in our own house.
Re: Manufactured story
Your tinfoil hat's slipping, AC. You seem to have confused El Reg with the Guardian.
No Register journalist manufactures stories. If they were (bearing in mind we have a subs' desk precisely to interrogate and corroborate everything we publish - there's no unverified/subless publishing here), they would cease to be a Register journalist in short order. Easy as that.
Please feel free to continue posting your conspiracy theories on a website whose URL doesn't end in theregister.co.uk.
I can confirm that's pretty much the same as what I heard him ask the plod press office down the phone.
Re: Quit news period!?
And the IT angle for those is what, exactly?
Re: And the point is?
You have to remember that senior police employees are obsessed with image and reputation management. A bit of lighthearted fun by the troops distracts the media from the deadly serious PR battle for control of the pages and airwaves. Such distractions could result in a missed promotion opportunity or a smaller pension ... and that just isn't acceptable in modern British policing.
Re: Errr neither post was criticising El Reg
Calling something on the Register a "complete non-story" is criticism, my dear chap.
End of correspondence. Have a nice day.
Re: Why are you not allowing me to comment on this story
Because you're a) a new user, and so subject to manual pre-moderation on all posts, and b) you're directly criticising El Reg, which is not permitted hereabouts. Read the comment guidelines to learn more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/01/register_comments_guidelines/
Let's hope so.
Quite a few times, though admittedly it's the version that begins "A Frenchman went to the lavatory..."
- Ex-Soviet engines fingered after Antares ROCKET launch BLAST
- NASA: Spacecraft crash site FOUND ON MOON RIM
- Hate the BlackBerry Z10 and Passport? How about this dusty old flashback instead?
- Review Pixel mania: Apple 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display
- Google's Mr Roboto Andy Rubin bids sayonara to Chocolate Factory