Ralph Bambers firearms and Shotgun Certificates (Essex Police)...

[ngb1066]

So according to this statement Jeremy didn't possess a firearms certificate? He obviously used the farm guns? So does it mean that he was covered under Ralphs certificate?

Jeremy could use the rifle legally as long as he was using the it at WHF with Nevill's permission.  There is an "estate rifle" provision in the firearms legislation which covers this.

 

---------------

would same rule apply to Sheila, in view of her medical condition?

Mike - Sheila's medical condition would have precluded her from obtaining either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.  She did not work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to her.  She therefore could not legally have gone out shooting on her own but she could have used the rifle under the supervision of Nevill as the certificate holder.

---------------

Just for the purpose of being absolutely specific, would that rule also extend to relatives and family friends, children, or as the case may be any visitors to the farm, including complete strangers?

Anyone could use the rifle at WHF under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the firearm certificate.  Only an estate employee or contractor could use the rifle without direct supervision from Nevill under the "estate rifle" provision.  Those were and still are the rules, but I suspect that they were not rigidly enforced and there may well have been others permitted by Nevill to use the rifle unsupervised at WHF even though it was strictly illegal for that to happen.



 

-----------------

What about use of the weapon by relatives who visited the farm from time to time?

Strictly illegal unless under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the Firearms Certificate covering the weapon.  As far as I am aware no relative other than Jeremy was employed or contracted to work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to them.

   

[mike tesko]

So according to this statement Jeremy didn't possess a firearms certificate? He obviously used the farm guns? So does it mean that he was covered under Ralphs certificate?

Jeremy could use the rifle legally as long as he was using the it at WHF with Nevill's permission.  There is an "estate rifle" provision in the firearms legislation which covers this.

 

---------------

would same rule apply to Sheila, in view of her medical condition?

Mike - Sheila's medical condition would have precluded her from obtaining either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.  She did not work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to her.  She therefore could not legally have gone out shooting on her own but she could have used the rifle under the supervision of Nevill as the certificate holder.

---------------

Just for the purpose of being absolutely specific, would that rule also extend to relatives and family friends, children, or as the case may be any visitors to the farm, including complete strangers?

Anyone could use the rifle at WHF under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the firearm certificate.  Only an estate employee or contractor could use the rifle without direct supervision from Nevill under the "estate rifle" provision.  Those were and still are the rules, but I suspect that they were not rigidly enforced and there may well have been others permitted by Nevill to use the rifle unsupervised at WHF even though it was strictly illegal for that to happen.



 

-----------------

What about use of the weapon by relatives who visited the farm from time to time?

Strictly illegal unless under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the Firearms Certificate covering the weapon.  As far as I am aware no relative other than Jeremy was employed or contracted to work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to them.

 

...................

and so, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings, when Anthony Pargeter took possession of the Bamber rifle, silencer, and telescopic site, out of the gun cupboard at whf, whilst Ralph Bamber was absent from the farmhouse, he was technically in illegal possession of it?

[ngb1066]

So according to this statement Jeremy didn't possess a firearms certificate? He obviously used the farm guns? So does it mean that he was covered under Ralphs certificate?

Jeremy could use the rifle legally as long as he was using the it at WHF with Nevill's permission.  There is an "estate rifle" provision in the firearms legislation which covers this.

 

---------------

would same rule apply to Sheila, in view of her medical condition?

Mike - Sheila's medical condition would have precluded her from obtaining either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.  She did not work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to her.  She therefore could not legally have gone out shooting on her own but she could have used the rifle under the supervision of Nevill as the certificate holder.

---------------

Just for the purpose of being absolutely specific, would that rule also extend to relatives and family friends, children, or as the case may be any visitors to the farm, including complete strangers?

Anyone could use the rifle at WHF under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the firearm certificate.  Only an estate employee or contractor could use the rifle without direct supervision from Nevill under the "estate rifle" provision.  Those were and still are the rules, but I suspect that they were not rigidly enforced and there may well have been others permitted by Nevill to use the rifle unsupervised at WHF even though it was strictly illegal for that to happen.



 

-----------------

What about use of the weapon by relatives who visited the farm from time to time?

Strictly illegal unless under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the Firearms Certificate covering the weapon.  As far as I am aware no relative other than Jeremy was employed or contracted to work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to them.

 

...................

and so, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings, when Anthony Pargeter took possession of the Bamber rifle, silencer, and telescopic site, out of the gun cupboard at whf, whilst Ralph Bamber was absent from the farmhouse, he was technically in illegal possession of it?

Yes he was.

[VORTEX]

Mike / NGB1066 - What doesn't ring true for me is Anthony Pargeter's gun was apparently always kept at WHF but the week
before the murders was removed and taken home to his home some distance away in Bourne End Buckinghamshire. This
seems quite a big coincidence does it not? .... that the first time he ever takes his gun away from the premises one of worst crimes in recent UK criminal history occur.
In fact it is such a big coincidence that I'm not able to stretch my imagination far enough to believe it to be true. I know Anthony
claims that he often took the "bolt" home with him so the gun couldn't be fired in his absence but surely the second he
removes the actual gun from WHF he was in illegal possession of a firearm? The certificate only allowed it to be kept at White
House Farm. I have 2 questions:

1) Why would Anthony Pargeter want to make out his gun wasn't there on the night of the murders?
2) Why wasn't Anthony Pargeter charged with illegal possession of a firearm if he had taken it home?

Anthony Pargeter can't have it both ways - he either lied to Police about the location of his weapon on the 7th of August
OR he was in illegal possession of a firearm at his house in Bourne End. Which is it?

(Note: Apologies for the paragraph spacing on this post! It was correct when written and previewed but comes out strange
on the posted version - I've tried to change / correct it but it won't allow me to)
 
 

[chochokeira]

So according to this statement Jeremy didn't possess a firearms certificate? He obviously used the farm guns? So does it mean that he was covered under Ralphs certificate?

Jeremy could use the rifle legally as long as he was using the it at WHF with Nevill's permission.  There is an "estate rifle" provision in the firearms legislation which covers this.

 

---------------

would same rule apply to Sheila, in view of her medical condition?

Mike - Sheila's medical condition would have precluded her from obtaining either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.  She did not work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to her.  She therefore could not legally have gone out shooting on her own but she could have used the rifle under the supervision of Nevill as the certificate holder.

---------------

Just for the purpose of being absolutely specific, would that rule also extend to relatives and family friends, children, or as the case may be any visitors to the farm, including complete strangers?

Anyone could use the rifle at WHF under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the firearm certificate.  Only an estate employee or contractor could use the rifle without direct supervision from Nevill under the "estate rifle" provision.  Those were and still are the rules, but I suspect that they were not rigidly enforced and there may well have been others permitted by Nevill to use the rifle unsupervised at WHF even though it was strictly illegal for that to happen.



 

-----------------

What about use of the weapon by relatives who visited the farm from time to time?

Strictly illegal unless under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the Firearms Certificate covering the weapon.  As far as I am aware no relative other than Jeremy was employed or contracted to work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to them.

 

I wonder if Nevill might have designated visitors as seasonal employees for the duration of their stay at WHF? Would that have covered them under the "estate rifle" provision? or would only long term, permanent staff be covered?

[ngb1066]

Mike / NGB1066 - What doesn't ring true for me is Anthony Pargeter's gun was apparently always kept at WHF but the week
before the murders was removed and taken home to his home some distance away in Bourne End Buckinghamshire. This
seems quite a big coincidence does it not? .... that the first time he ever takes his gun away from the premises one of worst crimes in recent UK criminal history occur.
In fact it is such a big coincidence that I'm not able to stretch my imagination far enough to believe it to be true. I know Anthony
claims that he often took the "bolt" home with him so the gun couldn't be fired in his absence but surely the second he
removes the actual gun from WHF he was in illegal possession of a firearm? The certificate only allowed it to be kept at White
House Farm. I have 2 questions:

1) Why would Anthony Pargeter want to make out his gun wasn't there on the night of the murders?
2) Why wasn't Anthony Pargeter charged with illegal possession of a firearm if he had taken it home?

Anthony Pargeter can't have it both ways - he either lied to Police about the location of his weapon on the 7th of August
OR he was in illegal possession of a firearm at his house in Bourne End. Which is it?

(Note: Apologies for the paragraph spacing on this post! It was correct when written and previewed but comes out strange
on the posted version - I've tried to change / correct it but it won't allow me to)

Vortex   - I agree that the evidence surrounding the Pargeter rifle and sound moderator are very strange.  If it was a specific condition on his Firearms Certificate that the rifle should be stored at WHF then he would certainly have been breaking the law by taking it home.  In addition it does seem strange to say the least that although he says it was normally kept at WHF, for some inexplicable reason he had taken it home shortly before the shootings.  He could have no legitimate reason for wanting it at home as under the provisions of his Firearms Certificate he was only allowed to use the rifle at WHF itself.  It does appear that he was very keen to make the point that his rifle and sound moderator were not at WHF on the night of the shootings, even though by making that point he was potentially opening himself to the possibility of prosecution under the Firearms Act and revocation of his Firearms Certificate. 

     

[Jerry]

Mike / NGB1066 - What doesn't ring true for me is Anthony Pargeter's gun was apparently always kept at WHF but the week
before the murders was removed and taken home to his home some distance away in Bourne End Buckinghamshire. This
seems quite a big coincidence does it not? .... that the first time he ever takes his gun away from the premises one of worst crimes in recent UK criminal history occur.
In fact it is such a big coincidence that I'm not able to stretch my imagination far enough to believe it to be true. I know Anthony
claims that he often took the "bolt" home with him so the gun couldn't be fired in his absence but surely the second he
removes the actual gun from WHF he was in illegal possession of a firearm? The certificate only allowed it to be kept at White
House Farm. I have 2 questions:

1) Why would Anthony Pargeter want to make out his gun wasn't there on the night of the murders?
2) Why wasn't Anthony Pargeter charged with illegal possession of a firearm if he had taken it home?

Anthony Pargeter can't have it both ways - he either lied to Police about the location of his weapon on the 7th of August
OR he was in illegal possession of a firearm at his house in Bourne End. Which is it?

(Note: Apologies for the paragraph spacing on this post! It was correct when written and previewed but comes out strange
on the posted version - I've tried to change / correct it but it won't allow me to)

Could it be that he was told that the twins were coming to stay and he felt it would be better to take the gun home with him for safety reasons?

[mike tesko]

Mike / NGB1066 - What doesn't ring true for me is Anthony Pargeter's gun was apparently always kept at WHF but the week
before the murders was removed and taken home to his home some distance away in Bourne End Buckinghamshire. This
seems quite a big coincidence does it not? .... that the first time he ever takes his gun away from the premises one of worst crimes in recent UK criminal history occur.
In fact it is such a big coincidence that I'm not able to stretch my imagination far enough to believe it to be true. I know Anthony
claims that he often took the "bolt" home with him so the gun couldn't be fired in his absence but surely the second he
removes the actual gun from WHF he was in illegal possession of a firearm? The certificate only allowed it to be kept at White
House Farm. I have 2 questions:

1) Why would Anthony Pargeter want to make out his gun wasn't there on the night of the murders?
2) Why wasn't Anthony Pargeter charged with illegal possession of a firearm if he had taken it home?

Anthony Pargeter can't have it both ways - he either lied to Police about the location of his weapon on the 7th of August
OR he was in illegal possession of a firearm at his house in Bourne End. Which is it?

(Note: Apologies for the paragraph spacing on this post! It was correct when written and previewed but comes out strange
on the posted version - I've tried to change / correct it but it won't allow me to)

Could it be that he was told that the twins were coming to stay and he felt it would be better to take the gun home with him for safety reasons?

-----------------

Ok, but why leave his shotguns and ammunition at whf?

[tyler]

He said that he took the rifle home as he was going to be attending a shoot.But it would not have been legal to do that either,would it?

[ngb1066]

So according to this statement Jeremy didn't possess a firearms certificate? He obviously used the farm guns? So does it mean that he was covered under Ralphs certificate?

Jeremy could use the rifle legally as long as he was using the it at WHF with Nevill's permission.  There is an "estate rifle" provision in the firearms legislation which covers this.

 

---------------

would same rule apply to Sheila, in view of her medical condition?

Mike - Sheila's medical condition would have precluded her from obtaining either a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate.  She did not work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to her.  She therefore could not legally have gone out shooting on her own but she could have used the rifle under the supervision of Nevill as the certificate holder.

---------------

Just for the purpose of being absolutely specific, would that rule also extend to relatives and family friends, children, or as the case may be any visitors to the farm, including complete strangers?

Anyone could use the rifle at WHF under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the firearm certificate.  Only an estate employee or contractor could use the rifle without direct supervision from Nevill under the "estate rifle" provision.  Those were and still are the rules, but I suspect that they were not rigidly enforced and there may well have been others permitted by Nevill to use the rifle unsupervised at WHF even though it was strictly illegal for that to happen.



 

-----------------

What about use of the weapon by relatives who visited the farm from time to time?

Strictly illegal unless under the direct supervision of Nevill as holder of the Firearms Certificate covering the weapon.  As far as I am aware no relative other than Jeremy was employed or contracted to work on the farm so the "estate rifle" provision would not have applied to them.

 

I wonder if Nevill might have designated visitors as seasonal employees for the duration of their stay at WHF? Would that have covered them under the "estate rifle" provision? or would only long term, permanent staff be covered?

I am sorry keira I have only just noticed your question.  Nevill could have designated visitors as employees for the purposes of the "estate rifle" provision but they would have to be genuinely engaged in estate work.  As a magistrate I imagine Nevill would have been aware of the risks involved in "stretching" the circumstances in order to get around the relevant firearms legislation. 

 

[ngb1066]

He said that he took the rifle home as he was going to be attending a shoot.But it would not have been legal to do that either,would it?

It would not have been legal, as he was only permitted to use the rifle at WHF.   

[VORTEX]

He said that he took the rifle home as he was going to be attending a shoot.But it would not have been legal to do that either,would it?

It would not have been legal, as he was only permitted to use the rifle at WHF.

I'd be very surprised if the firearm was actually taken away from WHF especially if Nevill was aware of it. I just can't imagine
a law abiding Magistrate like Nevill allowing it in any shape or form. The certificate was issued for WHF and nowhere else and
I'm sure Nevill would of played by the rules (after all it was Nevill's Firearms licence and nobody else's to lose). Anthony
Pargeter's insistence that his weapon was  not at WHF on the night of the murders troubles me, especially when you examine
interview evidence which confirms he changed his story on this point (Mike may be able to help if anyone wants to see this).

[clifford]

He said that he took the rifle home as he was going to be attending a shoot.But it would not have been legal to do that either,would it?

It would not have been legal, as he was only permitted to use the rifle at WHF.

I'd be very surprised if the firearm was actually taken away from WHF especially if Nevill was aware of it. I just can't imagine
a law abiding Magistrate like Nevill allowing it in any shape or form. The certificate was issued for WHF and nowhere else and
I'm sure Nevill would of played by the rules (after all it was Nevill's Firearms licence and nobody else's to lose). Anthony
Pargeter's insistence that his weapon was  not at WHF on the night of the murders troubles me, especially when you examine
interview evidence which confirms he changed his story on this point (Mike may be able to help if anyone wants to see this).

If Pargeter removed his rifle from the farm, he was breaking the law.
Apparently the police overlooked this, as they did a number of things where the family were concerned.
Tampering with evidence ect.
How can it be that items were bought to court, and accepted as evidence. even though they had been interferred with. would you like this.
By any stretch of the imagination this was NOT a fair trial.
The piss up after the trial, and the presents awarded to the cops afterwards stinks to high heaven.
The icing on the cake is one of the investigating officers was given a job at the caravan park.
Get real Vidic, and take off those rose coloured specticles.

[tyler]

That is really odd! In RW's book,it states that Jim Carr was already an employee at the caravan park at the time of the murders.Was it his son Robert that was a policeman? I believe he was the one that was giving RB inside information about the case and had a meeting with senior police office with the intent of getting them to change the course of the investigation.I have to say,that this unsettles me greatly.

[Alias]

He said that he took the rifle home as he was going to be attending a shoot.But it would not have been legal to do that either,would it?

It would not have been legal, as he was only permitted to use the rifle at WHF.

I'd be very surprised if the firearm was actually taken away from WHF especially if Nevill was aware of it. I just can't imagine
a law abiding Magistrate like Nevill allowing it in any shape or form. The certificate was issued for WHF and nowhere else and
I'm sure Nevill would of played by the rules (after all it was Nevill's Firearms licence and nobody else's to lose). Anthony
Pargeter's insistence that his weapon was  not at WHF on the night of the murders troubles me, especially when you examine
interview evidence which confirms he changed his story on this point (Mike may be able to help if anyone wants to see this).

If Pargeter removed his rifle from the farm, he was breaking the law.
Apparently the police overlooked this, as they did a number of things where the family were concerned.
Tampering with evidence ect.
How can it be that items were bought to court, and accepted as evidence. even though they had been interferred with. would you like this.
By any stretch of the imagination this was NOT a fair trial.
The piss up after the trial, and the presents awarded to the cops afterwards stinks to high heaven.The icing on the cake is one of the investigating officers was given a job at the caravan park.
Get real Vidic, and take off those rose coloured specticles.

Is that even legal? What gifts did they get (and accept??!)