British False Flag Gun Grab

We have the BBC story. www.bbc.co.uk...

Twenty years ago next week, Thomas Hamilton shot and killed 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane Primary School, before turning the gun on himself. It remains the deadliest firearms atrocity ever committed in the UK.

And we have the other story.

5.0 out of 5 starsA shooter's view of the book
By Mr Richard V Malbon on 27 Mar. 2006
Format: Paperback
This is my second attempt to present a review on this site. if my first attmept, submitted several days ago, should eventually surface, please accept my apologies for submitting two.
I am the current Director of the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (the SA). The SA was formed in September 1996 to defend the legitimate sport of target pistol shooting which was under legislative threat following the atrocity committed at Dunblane by Thomas Hamilton.
The SA commissioned its own booklet entitled: Dunblane, The Untold Truths. I was involved in the production of that booklet. The booklet concentrated on the firearms aspects of the case and detailed the 18 mistakes in application of the then existing firearms laws in Hamilton's case made by the Central Scotland Police over a period of over 18 years from 1977, when Hamilton received his first Firearm Certificate up to the day of the massacre. This information was sufficient to demonstrate that Hamilton was not a fit person to be entrusted with firearms and that he should never have been granted a Firearm Certificate to enable him to possess guns 'legally'.
The failure of the Central Scotland Police to carry out their duties properly had disastrous consequences for those in the school on that day and for their families and for all those affected by the massacre. It also had consequences for decent people everywhere.
Sandra Uttley's book covers a much broader range of topics than did our own booklet and reflects the high quality of the research she has carried out, frequently in the face of obfuscation and obstruction from the 'authorities.'
We are also indebted to the persistence of Mrs Doreen Hagger (who tried for many years to get the authorities interested in Hamilton's activities with young boys - as described in the book) and of Mr William Scott who, single-handedly and after many years of effort, got the authorities to admit that they had no legal authority to place the 100 year closure order on the Dunblane documents.
I have been to the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh and seen some of the redacted evidence that is now available to the public following Mr Scott's efforts but this evidence, at least, the bits I have seen, do not tell us much that was not already known. However, Mr Scott and Miss Uttley have managed to obtain the statement made by the off-duty police officer who was present at the school just as the shooting stopped. His evidence about the state of Hamilton's body, how he was clothed, the number and type of pistols he had on or near him at the time differed significantly from that of the Scene of Crime Officer who attended the scene some hours later. the off-duty police officer's evidence was not even presented to the Inquiry nor was the officer asked to testify at the Inquiry. You may say: 'So what? If Hamilton murdered all those children and their teacher, does it matter how many guns he brought with him or how much ammunition he had or, even, how he actually died?' It only matters if the evidence was deliberately tampered with (as would appear to be the case judging by the book. One has to ask why that should have been done and that, alone, is cause for serious concern in my view.
There are many other indications in the book to support the view that the Public Inquiry just did not discharge its official remit, particularly with regard to the persistent rumours that Hamilton had some part in paedophilia in the region. A further inquiry is needed to either substantiate or quell, once and for all, those rumours.
The reluctance of the authorities to finish this job, taken in conjunction with their original imposition of the 100 year closure order, indicates to me that they have 'something to hide.' It is time this matter was properly investigated.
I recommend this book as a source of well-researched information to enable you to make up your own mind about the Dunblane Massacre. Ihope that you will read the book and then proceed to pressurise your own MP, wherever you live in the UK, to 'do something about it.'

www.amazon.co.uk...


If they're bringing this story back into the news again they must have a reason. What could that reason be?

a reply to: Kester

One to listen to.

"If they're bringing this story back into the news again they must have a reason. What could that reason be?"

Remembering History, Maybe?...

a reply to: Kester

You do know that gun control over here is pretty strict anyway?

I don't know how they could possibly conceive of a way to do a "gun grab".

a reply to: Kester

It is simply a commemoration of the event. There is no movement to reinstate general gun ownership, as that was never something we had anyway, nor is it something we want as a nation.
Just a commemoration of a terrible event.

Edit: I see what you are saying now. The letter seems to be written by someone who has an axe to grind. He is the head of the sports shooting association, and claims that Hamilton should never have had a gun in the first place, therefore by extension, that sports shooters should not have been punished by making it harder for them to use their guns in the aftermath of the event.
That he is making his points in a review to praise a book on Amazon is quite interesting, don't you think?

a reply to: Jefferton

There's no forgetting it. Survivors will be stunned to see it all surfacing in the news again. They'l catch the looks and feel all the pressure. To make a media spectacle out of it is cruel and callous.

The various disaster survivors are slowly becoming more vocal about the harm caused by commemorations and fund raising drives. Every time it's mentioned it all comes flooding back. Becoming more vocal about it entails remembering and bringing attention to it. The vicious circle that can only be broken by giving the survivors a chance not to be reminded.

No. There's no forgetting it, and no fair reason to put the survivors through the pain of remembering.

a reply to: TerryDon79

They did the pistol ban on the back of this awful event.

Gun control here isn't strict. It's well worked out and effective, but not strict. Unless you want to use a pistol. Then you'll have to fit into a small niche.

a reply to: Jonjonj

There's no civilised reason to put the survivors through the pain of being reminded.

When you say general gun ownership and want as a nation I feel you're talking as a town or city dweller. Having radically altered the balance of nature through wholesale slaughter of predators, only sensible shooting or other effective hunting methods can hold back the rapidly increasing populations of wild boar and deer. There are now more deer here than any time since the ice age. Their welfare depends on maintaining a sustainable population density.

But this isn't about hunting guns. This is about pistols, rarely used for hunting. Pistols are normally used for target shooting, enjoyment for those who enjoy shooting, humane slaughter occasionally, and use against humans.


Hamilton had a long history of protected and connected living. He appears to have had friends in high places.

The unofficial story is that Thomas Hamilton was supplying pornography, and possibly young boys, to top people including policemen and politicians; and Thomas Hamilton may have been murdered, to shut him up.

aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk...

Hamilton allegedly brought his guns to school inside a camera case. Or maybe he had film cameras inside that camera case, raising the possibility that a snuff film was made of the massacre. Four guns were found at the scene, according to an off-duty policeman who was first to arrive, raising the possibility of other gunmen.

I remember reading about some pretty prominent MP's in the Labour Party being implicated in this and there being some quite draconian government action to shut people up during the Blair years.

Britain is ruled by a cabal of pedophiles....Has been for a long time.....
The people haven't the means or the guts to take them on and kill them off.....

a reply to: Kester

I disagree, I read an article earlier today with relatives of victims and survivors telling their stories. They all want the event to be remembered and for many it is simply a way of marking an incomprehensible situation, one that they will never recover from, but gaining comfort through remembering their loved ones in a positive way. For example, the daughter of the murdered teacher, Gwen Mayor cannot stand to look at the iconic class room pic of her mother with the children who were attacked, but has a different, private photo of her, that allows her to remember her mother in a different way.

Also those victims families who successfully campaigned to ban hand guns are keen to remind people why that needed to be done and why, 20 years on, it is still relevant.

I remember Dunblane so clearly, my own daughter was just 2 years old at the time and I still get tearful when I think about it.

I hate guns...I really do

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: TerryDon79

They did the pistol ban on the back of this awful event.

Gun control here isn't strict. It's well worked out and effective, but not strict. Unless you want to use a pistol. Then you'll have to fit into a small niche.

While I would prefer the more relaxed American approach, I think our licensing system is actually quite good. It would certainly serve as a good basis for making more of the previously restricted items available to the average FAC holder.

It's a rigorous process to get one, but the demands are actually quite sensible. Somewhere safe to store, somewhere safe to shoot, no history or background that indicates a danger.

I really would like to see pistols and semi-auto moved back to section 1. The restrictions are mostly feel-good measures for the tabloid readers.

I would also prefer to see FAC slots being issued uncategorised.

At the moment, when you apply, you apply specifically for the calibre and type of rifle - ie, 2 x .22RF rifles, 1 x .22RF pistol, 1 x .44 revolver, etc. The number of slots is largely dictated by how many you can safely store and your shooting history. If you change your mind and see a nice .303 Lee Enfield at a good price but you don't have a matching free slot, you'd have to go through the looooong process of submitting a "variation" to the local police, to add a slot or change one of the unused slots to a ".303 Bolt Action" slot. You also get issued with ammunition limits for each calibre issued.

I'd rather see the FAC just issued with, for example, "7 long gun slots/3 handgun slots", based on what I can safely store. It really makes no difference to anyone but me if I'm using a .223 or .303 rifle if I've already established that I have somewhere safe to shoot them. Either will get issued to me regardless and, to be honest, my local Firearms Enquiries Officer is a lovely bloke but knows sod-all about non-shotgun firearms or calibres anyway. Having to specify, when applying for the FAC, which calibre/type I might potentially buy at some point in the next 5 years is ridiculous.

They've recently dropped the equally ridiculous purchase limits from the FAC, which is a great step forward. Previously you had a limit on how much you could buy in one purchase, as well as a limit on how much you can own overall. I'd like to see the ammunition limits dropped completely, as well as the whole palaver of filling in all the purchases on the ticket itself. The FAC shows that you have a reason for that ammunition - that should be enough. As it is, I mostly reload, so I could easily crank out several times the limit without anyone knowing, if I was so inclined. The ammunition limit is just another feel-good paper limit that does nothing more than screw you out of any bulk purchase savings.



*(pistols and revolvers in the UK are "long barrel" to meet minimum size restrictions; also you'll only find centrefire handguns as revolvers because semi-auto is restricted to .22RF. There are other legitimate ways to own "normal" handguns but that gets even more complicated)

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: Kester
Also those victims families who successfully campaigned to ban hand guns are keen to remind people why that needed to be done and why, 20 years on, it is still relevant.

I hate guns...I really do

No it didn't, and no it isn't.

originally posted by: destination now
I hate guns...I really do

I prefer to hate the people who do these things. I've yet to meet a gun, knife, or rolling pin, that has personally decided to randomly attack a passing stranger.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I disagree, why would anyone need to own a hand gun? And yes, whilst it is generally an unstable, evil or unhinged person who uses guns to kill people, the fact that they can take out so many lives in such a short period of time, than they could without, leads me to believe that guns are a big part of the problem.

Also, when you get to a situation like the US where so many people are armed, then that's when the accidental killings occur, not necessarily because the shooter was evil, just a bad shot.

No one will ever convince me that gun ownership for anything other than genuine hunting/pest control etc is a good idea

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: EvillerBob

I disagree, why would anyone need to own a hand gun?
...
No one will ever convince me that gun ownership for anything other than genuine hunting/pest control etc is a good idea

Be careful throwing around the "needs" argument. You need food, water, and shelter. Everything else is a luxury. Would you care to defend why you think you "need" that computer you're typing on, or the internet access you're posting with? Can you eat or drink either of them, or use either of them to keep you warm and dry during the winter months?

I would own one because I want to own one; because I've been shooting holes in paper since I was a kid and wish to do so using differently shaped pieces of metal, for no other reason than "I wish to do it". Exactly the same reason why you drive a car instead of walking. Because you want to. Oh, sure "blah blah blah job, work, school run". None of these are actual needs. You own one because you want to do those specific things in that specific way. The main difference between "owning a gun" and "owning a car" is that only one of them kill thousands of people every year in the UK alone. But, for some bizarre reason, you fixate on the other.

Your lack of the ability to imagine uses outside of what you've seen watching Rambo, should not constitute grounds for legislation controlling what I want to do, have safely done in the past, continue to safely do when outside of the UK, and wish to continue safely doing in the future.

a reply to: bandersnatch

Possibly not enough bullets.
To quote a dedicated fighter. "The reason it's so difficult to get anything done is because the system is run by pedophiles."

a reply to: EvillerBob

OK, re-phrase, why would anyone want to use a hand gun...yes, I know you've just given your reasons, but personally I can't see the attraction, and I do realise that is my personal belief, but I do worry about lots of people having access to lots of guns, therefore I was glad that access to hand guns are restricted in the UK.

As for cars killing people, yet again there are many factors that increase that risk, drunk and drugged drivers, excess speed, using a phone etc and I am equally appalled at people who get behind the wheel and do these things, but ultimately cars are not designed to kill..guns are.

Oh and I've never seen Rambo, I don't really go for movies with lots of shooting and explosions etc

a reply to: EvillerBob

Good show of knowledge, Bob.

Here is a video about that event for those who may not have heard of it.



Saddening story that's for sure.