Thread: Anti-1080 protester has firearms licence revoked after delivering threatening letter

Originally Posted by Tahr

This isn't about freedom of speech. Its about "fit and proper". That's the acid test isn't it?

So long as they’re not using the ‘fit and proper’ justification as a reason why to harass someone who is clearly going against the whims of reigning authority. If he has threatened/ made threats to harm/kill, so be it.

As has being pointed out in earlier posts, no one really knows except the person concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With that hair and beard he looks like a grayer version of my mental brother in law.

How can he expect any normal person to take him seriously when he looks like a homeless wino?

Originally Posted by systolic

With that hair and beard he looks like a grayer version of my mental brother in law.

How can he expect any normal person to take him seriously when he looks like a homeless wino?

Don't judge the book by its cover. My old man taught me that, and it has served me well

Originally Posted by systolic

With that hair and beard he looks like a grayer version of my mental brother in law.

How can he expect any normal person to take him seriously when he looks like a homeless wino?

Clearly you have some issues and cannot be taken seriously at all.

make you feel good to describe someone as mental does it .
that statement says as much about you as your brother in law!
as a supposedly educated person?in some medical field as your moniker Systolic =top figure in blood pressure when heart is in pump phase.
recent psychological research suggests such name calling arises due to the need of the insecure to feel better by defining those about them as being lower functioning .Hitler is an extreme example.
you in this case are a minor but still discriminatory example ,moreso given the drive to open up mental illness and remove the stigma.
fpor a person who often posts worthwhile and intelligent posts(some of which are not to my taste)I find in this case youve fallen far short of your own standards!

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

So long as they’re not using the ‘fit and proper’ justification as a reason why to harass someone who is clearly going against the whims of reigning authority. If he has threatened/ made threats to harm/kill, so be it.
As has being pointed out in earlier posts, no one really knows except the person concerned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@tiroatedson

Impossible for only one person to "really know" if someone was ACTUALLY threatening someone else. Which of course he wasn't.

meh kill the pro 1080 kill the anti 1080, who cares? 1080 subject is as volatile as religion and politics so why not just ban 1080 conversations too?

Originally Posted by Pengy

Don't judge the book by its cover. My old man taught me that, and it has served me well

I once said "don't judge a dog by its coat" to someone (about some dodgy characters we just had encountered) and the quick retort was, "What then should you judge it by?" Truth is somewhere in the middle.

At best, the guy is not helping his anti-1080 cause by looking so unkempt.

As for @systolic making comments about his "mental" brother in law, I imagine he just hasn't found a more appropriate adjective. When he finds the right one I'm sure he'll prefer it over "mental".

Originally Posted by Paddy79

meh kill the pro 1080 kill the anti 1080, who cares? 1080 subject is as volatile as religion and politics so why not just ban 1080 conversations too?

@Paddy79

Don't worry, criticism and critics ARE being suppressed.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@timattalon

To re-quote Mel Aitken: "You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,".

"The mustbemoretothisstory" response is well and good but not as a knee jerk response. The quote of Mel Aitken clearly states what is the basis for her action: that calling someone's actions "terrorist actions" means (first logic jump) that you are "calling them terrorists" and that calling someone terrorists means [logic long jump here] that you "indirectly threaten" them [here's another long jump] "with lethal force" [when he himself only actually calls for an action on their part - that they "cease and desist"]. Mel Aitken may be acting ill advisedly, but I don't think she'd bother to do such mental gymnastics if it was a simple case of someone having made an actual threat of violence.


@Marty Henry

Re stashing his guns with a mate, he is not going to access his guns because he's a law abiding citizen. Also too busy enjoying dragging the cops to court, with reasonable expectation of getting his FAL back. I hope he has a good barrister - not a lot of money about on the West Coast, thanks in part to Twig & Tweet.

@Cordite ; The quote from Mel Aitken is very clearly incomplete; that much is clear to anyone who has read stuff. An indirect threat could well mean he has not threatened a particular person such as Mr Joe Bloggs, but more likely a position such as council employee.

I agree that the term "Terrorist" is not a indirect threat and this cannot be what Mel Aitken is referring to. But Stuff needs click bait and Terrorist is a very click baity word. That combined with Stuffs history of inflaming an issue by poor editing means that if I was a betting man I would put money on the fact there is more to this. Stuff cannot even get its spelling correct, how in hells name can they get a fact right?

If they have truly revoked his license because he called someone a terrorist, he wont need much of a lawyer to sort this out, but far more likely, I fully expect we are not getting the whole story.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I agree but yet there still no evidence to show he is not fit and proper.

They do not have to show joe public any evidence. That is for the courts and those directly involved. I suspect if we saw the actual letter, we would all be saying something quite different from the sound of it

Originally Posted by timattalon

They do not have to show joe public any evidence. That is for the courts and those directly involved. I suspect if we saw the actual letter, we would all be saying something quite different from the sound of it

Exactly right.

Imagine just for a moment, if yet another forum member's gun licence was under consideration to be revoked by the local chief of police.

Would he want the cops telling everyone it was because of what allegedly happened between him and his ex-wife and what he said and did when he was found out, or would he want it kept private?

This thread is going to run and run

If the cops took it without reason then a lawyer can sort it out easily enough so my logic is that if he doesn't get it back in say 6 months then he's either too stubborn to engage said lawyer or he really did make threatening comments and is not a fit and proper person

If anyone close to the case knows more I'd like to hear it

Originally Posted by Paddy79

meh kill the pro 1080 kill the anti 1080, who cares? 1080 subject is as volatile as religion and politics so why not just ban 1080 conversations too?

Doc would like you! Roll over and tickle me stupid!

Yeah but we've all read articles before where the main cause for concern was actually written properly. They (stuff) could of described a bit better the context of his threat? All we are left with is "terrorist" - But for now all we can do is take it for a grain of salt.

I do wonder though, would he of still had his license revoked if he was a PRO-1080 protestor?