The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.
https://full-bore.co.uk/

Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army rifle.
https://full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36607
Page 3 of 8

Author:  Mattnall [ Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Well, looking at the picture from the Daily Mail link above, the SA80 could be a DP, and the L96 has a deactivation certificate hanging in front of it, add the hint that the Browning was also deactivated and therefore not much in the way of firearms if that's the case - so the mandatory 5 years doesn't need to apply I would think.

Author:  Alan D [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Peters excellent publications and various fiream articles have been of huge assistance to many people over the years, myself included.

As ever, we only ever hear half truths regarding the trial, don't pay any attention to the utter toss that's printed in the papers too, journalistic sensationalism, to say the very least.

To sum this very sad affair up, I would just say, Peter is a decent man, who always helps anyone who asks, he made some bad decisions and he and his family are paying a very high price for those mistakes.

I wish him the very best and hope for an early release as possible.

Author:  Dark Skies [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Alan D wrote:
Peters excellent publications and various fiream articles have been of huge assistance to many people over the years, myself included.

As ever, we only ever hear half truths regarding the trial, don't pay any attention to the utter toss that's printed in the papers too, journalistic sensationalism, to say the very least.

To sum this very sad affair up, I would just say, Peter is a decent man, who always helps anyone who asks, he made some bad decisions and he and his family are paying a very high price for those mistakes.

I wish him the very best and hope for an early release as possible.


I second that. He gave me some sound advice when I was looking over a Lee Enfield back in the day when Dunmore Shooting Club in Oxfordshire was a thriving club. I still have my purchase. I believe it was Peter that handled my very first FAC application's inspection if memory serves.

Author:  DL. [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Hi Dark Skies, I recall you have a bit of legal understanding. Was this case tried under the double jeopardy laws being relaxed? I had previously understood that a jury had found in the defendants favour last year.

Is that the way things are going now, if the CPS don't like the result they just keep on lodging cases until they win?

Author:  Mattnall [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

DL. wrote:
if the CPS don't like the result they just keep on lodging cases until they win?

It seems to be the way of things these days; don't like the result - cry and bitch about it until you get a result you like.

Author:  Sim G [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

They were cleared of ten charges in the first trial and the jury was unable to reach a decision on some of the charges indicted, so were retried on those charges alone, of which they were found guilty.

Laidler stole whilst in a position of trust. He’s a thief. Smith handled some those items knowing, or believing them to be stolen.

And conversely I can’t say I’ve heard a good word about the man. I know he cost a member on here a large amount of money because he “decreed” a genuine rifle as a fake. I also have another friend who was not too complimentary about Mr Laidler neither.

And as a 72year old ex-copper, a three year sentence even in an Open Prison, is not going to be a pleasant time at all.

Author:  Dark Skies [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

DL. wrote:
Hi Dark Skies, I recall you have a bit of legal understanding. Was this case tried under the double jeopardy laws being relaxed? I had previously understood that a jury had found in the defendants favour last year.

Is that the way things are going now, if the CPS don't like the result they just keep on lodging cases until they win?


Sim has fielded this.
After the aquittals there remained four charges the jury couldn't reach verdicts on. They were then listed to be heard at Crown Court to determine whether there should be a retrial. Clearly they decided that there was enough going for the prosecution's case for there to be a viable second bite of the cherry and so it came to pass.

Author:  Alan D [ Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

You sound like you are enjoying Peters misery Sim.
Oh well, I guess some people just relish sticking in the boot when a man is down.

Author:  christel [ Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Peter Laidler, arrogant as they come when asked for advise.

Roger Smith, nice bloke, met him once.

That aside, they committed the crime regardless of what the newspapers are writing, in my book that means they have to do the time.

I am not in the least bit sad on their behalf, they have done the shooting community no favours.

Author:  Alan D [ Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warminster weapons trial Pair guilty over stolen army ri

Peter Laidler, arrogant as they come when asked for advise...

You take people as you find them I guess, I know of many People that Peter had gone above and beyond for to help and assist.

Arrogance, well he is a product of his service and to a lesser extent his generation.

It's important to remember that the culture of institutions such as the Small Arms Collection at Warminster are very different today than they were 20 years ago.

Some local interpretation of the rules by Peter (and superiors) that was retarded as fine then, brings a rabid response now, especially when certain individuals have an axe to grind!

It's difficult to retrospectively apply the rules (though legally of course they can and do).

The investigation was initially carried out by by MOD Plod, anyone who has had anything to do with this organisation will tell you two things.

A, they couldn't find their own arse with both hands....
B, they don't like loosing ... At any cost to the tax payer!

I can tell you that there are many individuals within the MOD (and other organisations) who exceeded their personal authority over the years and broke the rules of the day, should the Spanish inquisition desire to investigate them and retrospectively denounce them .... watch out.

People in glass houses best not throw stones shall we say....

I recall a particular small arms refresher coarse, some 25 years ago where a boozy lunch came before SMG range time .... Umm, now can I remember the names, let me think, best I call Mod Plod and the Daily Fail!

I recall a certain Prince who landed a certain MOD helicopter without permission to drop into Daddy's house for lunch, well sounds like a job for MOD Plod, arrest that Prince I say!

Let's see who else I can get arrested...

Page 3 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/