The end of English shooting YouTube channel

[Fedaykin]

Ironically it was probably the BBC appearance where the reporter clumsily asks him some questions that he then clumsily answered is probably what put him in the headlights of his local Police Licensing.

Checking the BBC's own Youtube channel that still has the report up it happened two years ago which is bang on for his revocation, if you watch it his full name is given and the name of his Youtube channel. The second it appeared on TV his local Firearms licensing must have immediately had a look at his Youtube channel and come down on him like a ton of bricks. They might not even have known about his social media presence until he did his BBC appearance!

Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT3cPwV4uTk&t=1s

[JS569]

I watched his videos a couple of times but that was it. As intimated above, they were, to my mind, amateurish and boring, regardless of how “well intentioned”.

Watching the video in the OP, because of the tone of this thread where he may have been a “victim”, I do t think he is. By his own admission, he was the orchestrator of his own downfall. Obviously he has found himself in a nasty situation. Allegations have been made and he’s been given a warning about his behaviour that has perhaps come to light after the allegations have been withdrawn. He, again by his own admission, failed to heed these warnings. He has no doubt fvcked up in a big way and the BASC told him “to keep his head down”, so chances are they also knew he’d been a knob...

It may work out for him, it may not, but as opposed to the police being the bogey man here, they can actually only work with what’s in front of them. Don’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. Not all coppers are miserable, corrupt bullies....

I'd agree with this. We don't actually know what he said/ did that caused the police to take an interest in him. If comments were associated with self-defence etc and coming from him then there seems good ground for revoking. However, what we do know is that he (as pointed out above) repeatedly said he cocked up and didn't change his behaviour/ activity further giving the police grounds to remove his license.

I think he probably did a lot of good helping newer, less aware people get into shooting in the UK. Had he never created a single video some people might not have taken up the sport so hats off to him for taking the time to create content in an accessible environment. I think when you've been involved in a 'community' in this case shooting in all its various forms, it's easy to know the answers. If you were starting from scratch based on a tit-bit of info you'd picked up you could easily stumble across his videos that would be helpful in guiding you to get started.

I hope he's made the right decision to ensure he can possess firearms if the police think he's a viable candidate.

[JammyGuns]

I agree that we can't make an informed judgement/opinion because we just don't know the details over exactly what it was that led to this - other than it somehow involving the content of at least one video he did on defence. I would like him to confirm that it wasn't in relation to negative opinions expressed on the gun bans (people have asked, and many seem to be stating it - though unless Iv'e missed something Iv'e yet to see Callum himself say this?). To me that truly is scary and a complete overstep by the authorities otherwise. If MARS and Lever Release etc are banned at some point, are we then unable to discuss/criticise it for fear of being visited by the police? Being held accountable for views expressed by other social media users that used his channels to do so, is also going too far.

[Sim G]

Ironically it was probably the BBC appearance where the reporter clumsily asks him some questions that he then clumsily answered is probably what put him in the headlights of his local Police Licensing.

I remember seeing that Victoria Derbyshire article. But I don’t think it was that. Nor do I think it was someone “discovering” his social media.

In his “goodbye” video he makes reference to mistakes he made, a private life he doesn’t want on line, allegations which were later withdrawn and then the police’s reaction to his behaviours and his social media, as well as BASCs “lack of action”. Had it been simply his YouTube channel, BASC would have been all over it.

Reading between the lines, my money is on simply a domestic situation that escalated. It may have involved allegations and counter allegations and all sorts of stuff happening in the heat of the moment, which it often does. It has been his private life that has brought him to the attention of the police, who have then given him a warning about how he presents his public life, which he has ignored or paid li service to. No doubt the police have seen this as an indicator to his “true personality” and believe he now poses a risk to public safety.

Only time and appropriate behaviour will restablish a previous good character. Some people do some phenomenally stupid things when the tempers in a relationship explode...

[Christel]

FEOs have been looking at social media for a while already - I would be absolutely AMAZED if none of them have registered on here for a look around !

They have been on here in the past, just skimming :)

[TattooedGun]

Is it just me or do I seem to remember a video he posted online around the time where he had a friend from America over where he gave them access to a long barrelled pistol to compare the lbp to the non-abomination models in the states.

It seems to me he's been a little thoughtless to the law and posted himself doing something illegal online (giving access to a firearm where an exemption to hold one is not in place) which has prompted further action.

Subsequently from the closure video it seems an awful lot like some personal life stuff has also gone on during the last 2 years where the police don't see him as fit to own firearms.

I think it's less to do, as being reported by the likes of Mike Lindsay, with thought police and having opinions on proposed changes to legislation, and more to do with doing something illegal and being caught and trying to find a scapegoat to blame.

BASC telling him to keep his head down sounds a bit like "you've been caught, there's no legal case to fight, just keep your head down and re-apply in due course"...

Further, as a follower of EnglishShooting - I have repeatedly noticed that the group on facebook is/was a safe-haven for misinformation and often found the only things I posted in there were correcting vastly incorrect statements people were making about the law regarding firearms, often taking the time to find relevant legislation in black and white, because people were adamant that the "wrong" information they were spouting was factual. I for one will not be sad to see it go.

[Fedaykin]

Further, as a follower of EnglishShooting - I have repeatedly noticed that the group on facebook is/was a safe-haven for misinformation and often found the only things I posted in there were correcting vastly incorrect statements people were making about the law regarding firearms, often taking the time to find relevant legislation in black and white, because people were adamant that the "wrong" information they were spouting was factual. I for one will not be sad to see it go.

I found myself doing that on the comment section of his Youtube channel quite often, it was either explaining to Americans that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply here or UK based fantasists with various chips on their shoulders. What really surprised me is how many apparent UK gun owners were not clear about some even rather basic facts when it comes to UK Firearms legislation.

Then there was the can of worms when it comes to self defence and around events like the Tony Martin case.

[joe]

Surly, just expressing an opinion about self defence ( not encouraging doing anything that would break the law ) is not being an extremist and getting revoked only on that basis is not only bang out of order and also prob illegal ! ? (Unless the government is worried about their propaganda being exposed)
But as others have stated already it’s prob more to it then just that ! I did think, there might be some domestic issues at play when I watched his goodbye video

[breacher]

Surly, just expressing an opinion about self defence ( not encouraging doing anything that would break the law ) is not being an extremist and getting revoked only on that basis is not only bang out of order and also prob illegal ! ? (Unless the government is worried about their propaganda being exposed)
But as others have stated already it’s prob more to it then just that ! I did think, there might be some domestic issues at play when I watched his goodbye video

Firearms revocation appeals are one of the few legal processes where heresay is permitted.

Your suitability to have your FAC restored rests on the Judge and its very subjective. You are basically there to impress him/her.

Expressing an opinion supporting something illegal ( possessing firearms for self defence ) may not in itself be a problem but it paints a picture for the Judge to consider when trying to evaluate your character.

By voicing such opinion or beink known as a supporter of such opinion, leaves you starting off on the wrong foot !

Its not illegal to set up beer bottles on your own land and plink at them. But if your FAC was in the balance would you want the judge to see that or see you shooting at paper bullseyes targets.

Likewise if you were ever found with a firearm in your possession and for whatever reason the officer felt you were not actually on your way to the range...........do you think frequent online support for possessing firearms for self defence is going to help your case ?

Its all about image. Its unfair. But its a fact !

[Dark Skies]

There's an awful lot of 'reading between the lines' and speculation going on "that is like, just your opinion, man."

I don't see the point of playing 'guess the reason'.

Actual facts would have been helpful.