The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[ngb1066]

I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere, but I understood that a locked cabinet only became a requirement a couple of years later, 1987 I think, or just after, following the Hungerford Massacre.

It varied Hartley, depending upon where you lived.  In the 1970s and 80s I was based in London and the Metropolitan Police required a BS fixed safe.  At the same time my father in Scotland was not required to have a safe at all, even for a firearm (rifle) as well as a shotgun.

 

[-Harters-]

It varied Hartley, depending upon where you lived.  In the 1970s and 80s I was based in London and the Metropolitan Police required a BS fixed safe.  At the same time my father in Scotland was not required to have a safe at all, even for a firearm (rifle) as well as a shotgun.

 

Dictated by the local police force I guess?

[ngb1066]

Again, I may be wrong, but I also understand that ammunition does not need to be stored in a locked cabinet, although it's obviously common sense to do so.

You are correct Hartley, it does not need to be stored in a safe although it should be kept safely.  The main fear of the police is not accidents in the home but weapons and ammunition being stolen. Normally shotgun cartridges are not stored in a safe as usually a large quantity is held and that is bulky.  Typically rifle ammunition is stored in a safe.   

[ngb1066]

Dictated by the local police force I guess?

Yes.  Now all police forces require weapons to be stored in a safe or secure gunroom.

[Bridget]

Again, I may be wrong, but I also understand that ammunition does not need to be stored in a locked cabinet, although it's obviously common sense to do so.

It was a long time ago now but I think you are right. I would have been applying in around the early 90's I think and yes, my gun was kept in the secure cabinet and the cartridges were in another cupboard.

[JackiePreece]

Hartley
Have you had a banter/argument with Patti, I think you will enjoy it

[-Harters-]

I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.

I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?

[Bridget]

I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.

I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?

I suppose eating them probably wouldn't be too good for you - but most 6 year olds are past that 

Minus the gun I don't know what danger they might be, what happens if you put them in the Aga?

[-Harters-]

I suppose eating them probably wouldn't be too good for you - but most 6 year olds are past that 

Minus the gun I don't know what danger they might be, what happens if you put them in the Aga?

I'm not sure they should be eaten whether cooked or not. 

[Bridget]

I'm not sure they should be eaten whether cooked or not. 

Ha ha!

[-Harters-]

Hartley
Have you had a banter/argument with Patti, I think you will enjoy it

I don't understand your interest, but yes Patti and I have participated in many forum discussions in the past.

[ngb1066]

I seem to recall a discussion a while back on the forum, which suggested that the .22 ammunition discovered on the kitchen sideboard (as allegedly left there by Jeremy the previous evening), was dangerous to the twins.
The argument was that they were dangerous and if Jeremy had left them out, then Nevill would have put them away due to the danger they posed to the children.

I guess what we're saying (and what I recall NGB saying at the time), was that the loose bullets would not have posed much of a risk to the children, and therefore it is quite plausible that Nevill would not have put them away?

Yes, that is what I said a few months ago.  Separate from the rifle, the .22 ammunition is not dangerous.  Mind you, I seem to recall that Grahame responded talking about a prank at school, where a .22 round was placed in a vice and was then struck with a hammer on the detonator.  It exploded and a piece of metal hit someone in the neck causing a minor injury.  I suppose almost anything can be dangerous if handled in a stupid way.

I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away.  The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter.  Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.

 

[-Harters-]

Yes, that is what I said a few months ago.  Separate from the rifle, the .22 ammunition is not dangerous.  Mind you, I seem to recall that Grahame responded talking about a prank at school, where a .22 round was placed in a vice and was then struck with a hammer on the detonator.  It exploded and a piece of metal hit someone in the neck causing a minor injury.  I suppose almost anything can be dangerous if handled in a stupid way.

Yes of course, there is no substitute for common sense.

I would not consider it irresponsible, even now, for someone to leave ammunition on a kitchen table even if 6 year old children were in the house. I do not believe Nevill would necessarily have cleared the ammunition away.  The attitude towards shotguns and rifles is a different matter.  Standards were far more lax in the mid 1980s, but now it is accepted good practice (and in fact a legal requirement) that all weapons should be kept safely stored when not in use.

I think the point that I am trying to put across, is that the storage of firearms at WHF, was not unusually lax for the mid 80's. Or at least that is what I have so far concluded.

[maggie]

Yes of course, there is no substitute for common sense.

I think the point that I am trying to put across, is that the storage of firearms at WHF, was not unusually lax for the mid 80's. Or at least that is what I have so far concluded.

I'm sure your'e right Hartley and I'm not trying to say otherwise, or blame anyone.  However, I am saying that if it was Sheila who shot the family, it would have been unlikely, in my opinion,that she would have coldly aquired the gun and shot them.  The fact that she lost it and the guns were at hand would have been the reason for the carnage.  We have no idea whether Sheila was attacking the other people in the house for some reason or in fact if she believed she was defending herself....such is the nature ofschizophrenia.imho

[-Harters-]

I'm sure your'e right Hartley and I'm not trying to say otherwise, or blame anyone.  However, I am saying that if it was Sheila who shot the family, it would have been unlikely, in my opinion,that she would have coldly aquired the gun and shot them.  The fact that she lost it and the guns were at hand would have been the reason for the carnage.  We have no idea whether Sheila was attacking the other people in the house for some reason or in fact if she believed she was defending herself....such is the nature ofschizophrenia.imho

I never suggested that you did or were Maggie.