Thread: Son Jailed After Father's Tip Off

As is the norm the newspapers leave out other details such as prior convictions and to sensationalize a story. Father puts in own son, wow what a cnut.
Quite possibly the boy has been in trouble with the law before and maybe informing the police was his last option.
3 years inside for a first offence is highly unlikely and quite possibly the lad had fallen off the rails long before this indiscretion.
I would always support my sons and until I couldn't support them anymore.

Originally Posted by Bluecat

I think Blackgang can explain better than me...

BG would have turned him in as well but not until he took the gun away and shot him in the leg!

I would not vote for a father like that for public office. He is a real shit

Originally Posted by November Rain

Good parenting includes teaching you respect of others & of the law, IMO.

Indeed so that you will never need to turn out your children.
And if you need to, well, it does not really qualify as good parenting...

^ That's the whole point, isn't it?

Originally Posted by jandajoy

A 19 yr old is not a kid.

Legally he`s not a kid, but still a kid in a lot of respects.

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

As is the norm the newspapers leave out other details such as prior convictions and to sensationalize a story. Father puts in own son, wow what a cnut.
Quite possibly the boy has been in trouble with the law before and maybe informing the police was his last option.
3 years inside for a first offence is highly unlikely and quite possibly the lad had fallen off the rails long before this indiscretion.
I would always support my sons and until I couldn't support them anymore.

According to the father during a radio interview, he stated his son had no prior dealings with the police.

Here's another report:

LONDON (Reuters) - A teenager was jailed on Friday for possessing a gun after his father handed him in to police when he found the weapon and bullets in his home.


Paul Metcalfe, 19, of Nelson, in Lancashire, was jailed for three years after his father, Neil, 45, turned him over to the authorities.
He had faced a maximum five-year term after he pleaded guilty to firearm offences at an earlier hearing.
The teenager hid the weapon -- a reactivated semi-automatic pistol with 11 live bullets -- for some older men because he was frightened of them.
After sentencing, his father said he had no regrets, although he did think the sentence was too long.
"I think I did the right thing," he told reporters outside court. "I don't think he should have walked out of court, but 18 months or two years maybe - people get less for GBH."
Detective Inspector Derek Jones, of Lancashire Police, said the judge had done the right thing in balancing the case.
He said the gun could have been used to commit murder or robberies if it landed in the wrong hands.
"The minimum sentence is still 5 years (for possessing a gun)," he told reporters. "The reason Metcalfe didn't receive that, is (because of) the circumstances of his case.
"I think his father has to be commended, but what he did is not unusual."
Before sentencing the teenager had told newspapers that he was scared of the consequences.
"Although I'm scared of going to prison, I feel dad saved me," he was quoted as saying. "I was angry with him at the time. Now I know why he did it and respect him for it. I'd got in with the wrong crowd."
(Editing by Peter Griffiths)


So, if the 19 year old is telling the truth, he was locked up because he was frightened into hiding the gun by other people. Locked up where he can be attacked by friends of the gun's owners!

My questions, by the way, were to do with how you would react if your own son had a gun, rather than someone that you don't know. Could you report your own offspring for an imprisonable offence?

Originally Posted by Bluecat

I'm still not too sure people get it.
If your children do not "behave" when they are adults, it is because of you, parents, not because of them.
You're the ones who taught them.
And you want to send them to jail because you did not teach them right?
Or love them right?
I can't accept that and I rest my case again...

I'm not sure I do understand what you're saying. Yes, if your children do not 'behave right' as adults, it's largely the fault of the parenting (though other factors could be involved).
As for wanting them to go to jail because of your failure (mine/whoevers) as a parent, no, I don't agree that that would be my sentiment. It would be more protecting society from my failure as a parent. If my son owned a gun & bullets in a country like UK where they are illegal, I think it would be reasonable to assume he owned them for a reason that would not be a benefit to society. OK, then, in that case, I've failed as a parent in teaching him right from wrong. I now have a number of choices. Most involve 'protecting' him from the realities of life & risking the safety of others in hoping that he's now going to listen to me. One involves people reviling me, but keeping society safe from him (this time) & hopefully being the shock he needs to put him back on track. As he's my son, I can't believe he's bad through & through. So, I take the latter option. Not a case of passing the buck as far as I can see, but the most caring choice.

Perhaps one of the drawbacks with a prison sentence for a 19 year old is that he would probably learn more about being a criminal than being a good citizen. He would probably be sodomised too. Add to that the fact that he may well turn his back on the parent who shopped him and go with the people who gave him the gun or whom he met in prison.

I can see the rational argument for allowing the law to deal with the problem provided that the result is correction rather than a punishment that could make matters worse. However, speaking about me and my own son, I don't think that I would be emotionally capable of reporting him. Unless he had turned into a hardened and dangerous criminal, I would probably do my best to help him get rid of the weapon and take any retribution on my own shoulders. Protecting ones young is a parental instinct and it's that which I would follow rather than objective reasoning.

The gun in this case is illegal in the UK and there is no legitimate reason for owning it. Putting a 19 year old in prison is a failure to get to the root of the problem unless other enquiries are being made. He must know some very bad people who should themselves be locked up.

Originally Posted by Bluecat

If your children do not "behave" when they are adults, it is because of you, parents, not because of them. You're the ones who taught them.

So all the tyrants, rapists and wrong doers of this world can blame their parents ? When it comes to court procedings we will now try the parents, cause it aint the kids fault they ended up in trouble. What a cop out clause.

The son got of lightly in that the minimum, under English law, is 5 years for gun possesion. Also the son refused to co operate with the police in revealing who he was minding the gun for. He will in fact only serve 18 months in a young offenders institution and the remaining 18 month outside on licence. I believe that to be parole.

Originally Posted by Bluecat

If your children do not "behave" when they are adults, it is because of you, parents, not because of them. You're the ones who taught them.

Partially true, yes. But there's no way you can attribute the way kids turn out to their parents 100% unless you're Austrian and lock them in a cellar for 18 years. I'd say parents have a much smaller role in determining the outcome of their kids than they'd like to think.

^ Agreed. That whole idea of blaming parents for the action of fully-grown children (19-years-old in this case) is garbage.

I am a product of my parents. They had some measure of influence on how I turned out. They are not to blame or applaud for actions I make as an adult.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Agreed.

Where's me farkin' green?!

[quote=Milkman;665101]

Originally Posted by buriramboy

I know, it's the UK, but how do you defend yourself against violence?

The law is vague on this point. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. Hand guns are illegal unless you are the old bill shooting Brazilian electricians on their way to work but more criminals carry them these days. So, if you are faced in your own home my a gun carrying intruder, for example, you may be allowed to hit him on the head. You won't know until the intruder sues you for assault and the Court decides whether you acted in self defence or committed a criminal act - I kid you not.

There's a backlash against this and the ineffectiveness of policing. People are more prepared to use household implements to defend themselves. The possession of a hand gun in the UK probably indicates a connection with drug dealing.

Originally Posted by astasinim

I think youd probably find it very hard to convince a judge that was self defence. You would be expected to answer why you chose to hit him over the head, as your first line of attack. Why not the arm that held the weapon? In the eyes of the law, your supposed to only use as much force as is necessary to allow you to escape from harms way.

I think you're correct.

Do you remember farmer Martin in Norfolk? He got so fed up with the pikies breaking into his home that he waited for them one night with his shotgun. He killed one and hit another in the leg. He was imprisoned for a while but in the face of a lot of criticism and was released early. The pikie with the leg wound sued Martin but his case was thrown our when secret video showed that his bad limp was faked.

Originally Posted by Milkman

But one question: what is the background of his son. If his son had a clean record, didn't run with gangs, than grassing him up is terrible.

If you read the full story and saw his photo you'd know he wasn't the sort to help old ladies across the road unless it was to rob them for drugs money. He was involved with drug gangs according to the news article and his excuse of holding the gun for someone else are his words. Nobody came forward to claim it. The little twat was up to no good and deserved the full 5 year term not 3. Keep the drug dealers off the streets.

How bad would your own son have to be before you shopped him?

As bad as the dude having the gun. By having the gun in the house he is also involving his family members. He obviously didn't give a shit about them so why be considerate to him.

It's all part of the
"Nature - Nurture" arguement.
And
" Parental vs Social influence".

One thing I'm sure of;

a lot of parents have completely given up on nurturing their kids and believe that teachers, social workers and the state will do it for them.
It's endemic in the UK and Australia for sure.

I commend the father for the stance that he took. He accepted responsibility and made a decision. Doesn't happen that often in the UK now. More's the pity.