SAS hero jailed: Sergeant sentenced to two years after gun found


Recommended Posts

Yeah I guess the British don't care one bit about their men in uniform. He probably nearly died several times but yep law is law who cares! :rolleyes:

Send in SEAL team six and extract him and bring him to the U.S lol.

They'll probably chuck in a grenade and kill the poor sod during the rescue, like they did with hostage Linda Norgrove. Seals are cowboys :D

Because it disarms the people because it has camera's on every block because it bans animals based on breed are just a few things and to me that would oppress me I would have to give up my dog which I consider family I would have to give up my right to protection I would have to give up my knives all because im considered dangerous with them. But if you really want to know what I was talking about when I said oppressive regimes I meant places like China.

Why do Americans have such an issue with Security Cameras, they're not "on every block". We don't even have "blocks" in the UK, they will be in major streets in Towns and Cities, Oh no they have some footage of me walking down the street. I have nothing to hide. Infact I was assaulted once, they caught it all on CCTV and that was all the evidence required to put that person in prison. As for Pitbulls, they are legal in the UK, they have some regulations required for their keeping as they are dangerous animals.

They must be neutered.

They must be insured.

They must be muzzled and kept on a lead in public.

They must be microchipped.

They must be registered.

Why do Americans have such an issue with Security Cameras, Oh no they have some footage of me walking down the street. I have nothing to hide. Infact I was assaulted once, they caught it all on CCTV and that was all the evidence required to put that person in prison.

Because the Majority of the people here hate big government, a lot of people came to the U.S from countries like china,north korea and others. They don't want to see our country go in that direction. Not saying the U.K is North Korea but when you take steps to control the citizenry where does it end?

Because it disarms the people because it has camera's on every block because it bans animals based on breed are just a few things and to me that would oppress me I would have to give up my dog which I consider family I would have to give up my right to protection I would have to give up my knives all because im considered dangerous with them. But if you really want to know what I was talking about when I said oppressive regimes I meant places like China.

It doesn't seem like you have a solid understanding of what life in Britain is really like.

Because the Majority of the people here hate big government, a lot of people came to the U.S from countries like china,north korea and others. They don't want to see our country go in that direction. Not saying the U.K is North Korea but when you take steps to control the citizenry where does it end?

People in America hate "Big Government"? The American Government feels like one of the biggest there is in the West.

People in America hate "Big Government"? The American Government feels like one of the biggest there is in the West.

if you want to talk about foreign policy that's a topic for another thread but domestically most people want to keep government as small as possible.

Because the Majority of the people here hate big government, a lot of people came to the U.S from countries like china,north korea and others. They don't want to see our country go in that direction. Not saying the U.K is North Korea but when you take steps to control the citizenry where does it end?

And America doesn't control it's citizens at all then?

Because the Majority of the people here hate big government, a lot of people came to the U.S from countries like china,north korea and others. They don't want to see our country go in that direction. Not saying the U.K is North Korea but when you take steps to control the citizenry where does it end?

Control the citizens? It's what the laws are for. It's a huge leap to say banning guns makes Britain into North Korea and China. I'm also surprised to hear about North Korean immigrants.

It's kind of the point a government, to govern the population.

And this is an example of why I don't want the U.S to turn into England+ having a "evil" gun that's "sole purpose is to kill" will get you prison time, that's B.S to the highest degree.

Personally I am an advocate of having the right to own a gun, but your quotation marks are annoying me. What are other uses for guns? Oh theres a cat stuck in the tree, let me shoot the branch down? Get real. They're PURPOSE maybe at some point in time used to be for making noise, or doing exactly what I said above, BUT unfortunately now, they're more times than not used to kill. So yeah I see why this man, an ex-combatant, who has the skills to kill, would be sentenced to jail. Nobody is above the law. It's just unfortunate that the Government does not think that to be the case.

Control the citizens? It's what the laws are for. It's a huge leap to say banning guns makes Britain into North Korea and China. I'm also surprised to hear about North Korean immigrants.

It's kind of the point a government, to govern the population.

Yes of course laws are for controlling citizens but when there are to many laws that's when it becomes a slippery slope. I never compared Britain to North Korea all I was saying is you pass one law there will be more to follow and where will it end? Americans aren't used to the government controlling their lives like that. Thomas Jefferson said the only legitimate use for a government is to secure the rights of the people. Passing laws that restrict me is not securing my rights. I don't want to see my country restrict me.
Because it disarms the people because it has camera's on every block because it bans animals based on breed are just a few things and to me that would oppress me

What are you talking about? The US bans animals based on breed as well. If you're referring to the restrictions on certain breeds of dog that's because they are dangerous, just like firearms. As for cameras, there is criticism of that policy in the UK but most cameras are owned by private companies and there is usually no legal obligation to hand such footage over to the police/government. And most of the cameras cover town and city centres - there are no cameras on any road near where I live; heck, I'm not even sure our town centre has any cameras (apart from private businesses). More importantly that's a pretty ridiculous criticism when US police forces are using unmanned drones for law enforcement.

You have a very poor understanding of UK culture.

What are you talking about? The US bans animals based on breed as well. If you're referring to the restrictions on certain breeds of dog that's because they are dangerous, just like firearms. As for cameras, there is criticism of that policy in the UK but most cameras are owned by private companies and there is usually no legal obligation to hand such footage over to the police/government. And most of the cameras cover town and city centres - there are no cameras on any road near where I live; heck, I'm not even sure our town centre has any cameras (apart from private businesses). More importantly that's a pretty ridiculous criticism when US police forces are using unmanned drones for law enforcement.

You have a very poor understanding of UK culture.

Do you think I agree with that? Do you think many others agree with that? I can point you to a forum where its pretty much a given where no one agrees with drones being used. Its happening and a lot of people don't like it. I guess that's where we differ the British seem to except laws regardless. As far as the U.S banning dogs. No the U.S doesn't ban any breed that I know of. Certain cities have bans but as a whole the U.S doesn't.

Yes of course laws are for controlling citizens but when there are to many laws that's when it becomes a slippery slope. I never compared Britain to North Korea all I was saying is you pass one law there will be more to follow and where will it end? Americans aren't used to the government controlling their lives like that. Thomas Jefferson said the only legitimate use for a government is to secure the rights of the people. Passing laws that restrict me is not securing my rights. I don't want to see my country restrict me.

And you don't think the US has passed laws restricting people's rights?

And you don't think the US has passed laws restricting people's rights?

Sure I do, do I think its wrong yes I do. Do I think they restricted us as much as some other countries no I don't.

Do you think I agree with that? Do you think many others agree with that? I can point you to a forum where its pretty much a given where no one agrees with drones being used. Its happening and a lot of people don't like it. I guess that's where we differ the British seem to except laws regardless. As far as the U.S banning dogs. No the U.S doesn't ban any breed that I know of. Certain cities have bans but as a whole the U.S doesn't.

There is seriously something wrong with you.

The law is the law, he doesn't get special privileges no one forced him to sign up to the SAS.

I hate this typical and stupid, asinine argument that people like you always seem to bring into situations like this. No **** nobody forced him to sign up.

Yes he broke the law. It is ironic though that he can serve the military and not have a weapon at home. But it is your law, which is way different than the law in the US. In my view, maybe this SAS Sergeant should have come the the United States, where if he is not mentally screwed up or a felon, then he can buy as many guns and ammo that he wishes.

Also, 300 rounds is not a lot of ammo.

Even if you disagree with a law you can't be allowed to break it just because you don't agree with it.

It's odd people are saying he should have gone to America. If you break a law in your country do you go and live somewhere else where it's legal?

on one hand they , the country want to label him a hero but treat him worse then dirt. and I'm happy for my 2nd amendment right. governments Looooove to disarm their subjects. helps them to keep them under an iron fist. Hence why the 2nd amendment was written for we the people in the US. I love the founding fathers for that great foresight

crazy how they hype the gun to be semi automatic. of course, the glocks are all semi-auto.

Yep, Laws are created by the public support. If public wants to ban guns then the government follows through it.

Guns are not entirely banned in Australia, just restricted. They created the law to restrict weapons because the public cried "ban guns!" and voted people to see it into law. Guns exists for one purpose - kill. That all it does is to launch projectiles that can harm people. Because we are born upon human rights - a right to live, even criminals. That is why we don't have the death penality since 1960s.

They don't ban computers because computers exists for good terms - helping our lives. Same as cars, even though they are used as weapons by some. The good points outwheight the bad and therefore no reason to ban computers or cars. Can you define one GOOD reason why guns exist. And no self-defense is not one of them. Because you kill someone, you live, he don't. What if the criminal have a famiily that suffered because you killed him on the basis of self-defense. That is not something we want live with.

So, people voted for guns to be banned because they have no purpose here other than to kill which contracts human right to live.

Kingcracker, I'm sure in your country it is ok to kill people but it is NOT okay in other country. Please show some respect fo other countries and their cultures.

Yep, Laws are created by the public support. If public wants to ban guns then the government follows through it.

Guns are not entirely banned in Australia, just restricted. They created the law to restrict weapons because the public cried "ban guns!" and voted people to see it into law. Guns exists for one purpose - kill. That all it does is to launch projectiles that can harm people. Because we are born upon human rights - a right to live, even criminals. That is why we don't have the death penality since 1960s.

They don't ban computers because computers exists for good terms - helping our lives. Same as cars, even though they are used as weapons by some. The good points outwheight the bad and therefore no reason to ban computers or cars. Can you define one GOOD reason why guns exist. And no self-defense is not one of them. Because you kill someone, you live, he don't. What if the criminal have a famiily that suffered because you killed him on the basis of self-defense. That is not something we want live with.

So, people voted for guns to be banned because they have no purpose here other than to kill which contracts human right to live.

Kingcracker, I'm sure in your country it is ok to kill people but it is NOT okay in other country. Please show some respect fo other countries and their cultures.

Saying that you shouldn't kill someone that's trying to kill you because of the criminals family is hilarious. You think the criminals family gives a damn about me if I die? Funny though when ever some thug gets killed or arrested for murder their family come out and say he was a good kid or the cry and say my baby! My baby! Sure ur baby just got killed because your baby was trying to kill someone else.

on one hand they , the country want to label him a hero but treat him worse then dirt. and I'm happy for my 2nd amendment right. governments Looooove to disarm their subjects. helps them to keep them under an iron fist. Hence why the 2nd amendment was written for we the people in the US. I love the founding fathers for that great foresight

He broke the law. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand.

There's no "iron fist" here, we're a democracy. I wouldn't call it foresight considering most nations with restricted guns seem to be doing just fine. I can't imagine them going "yup, in 2012 they'll be needing guns".

Maybe it made sense to allow people to have guns at the founding of America to protect the republic in its infancy, but now? Hardly.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!