In a perfect world, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand! And as for a better service, well that's a postcode lottery and has been for the 40 years I've had an FAC. Thankfully I'm in Wiltshire.
Pay more for FAC to get better service?
- Thread starter Steve2_1
- Start date
You must also consider they do a lot of ”unpaid” work like, investigations into potentially revoking certificates, then issuing free certificates to section 1 gun clubs and section 11(6) exemptions for clay grounds and I guess other work to do with firearms and explosives. Yet they appear only to get financed by certificate applicants.
So no guarantee any extra we pay would improve the service we experience.
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
Very few full time FAO most are part time and retired officers to increase pensions. Lot of problems with the clerical side getting it all wrong and taking three or four times to send out the licence correct
Last edited:
They are part of the police service and as such are funded by the council and the government. For better or worse, it is a police function, just like roads policing or crime investigation. The contribution in the way of applicant's paying for their certificates is only one income stream and it'll go into the big pot, not being kept for any specific purpose such as firearms licensing. Anyway, applicants paying an extra £20 or so would really be peanuts in the great scheme of things. By all accounts, firearms licensing isn't the only police function that struggles to do well these days and it's all a case of priorities. You would think that the big driver for efficient and timely certificate renewals/grants would be public safety. But so long as the police can cover that aspect as far as they are concerned, apparently not.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
If you accept as fact that the FAC and SGC were introduced as a crime prevention measure, why should you be expected to pay at all?
Offhand I can’t think of any other grouping that’s expected to pay the police for their efforts.
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
First licence the full fee should be paid due to checks but after that cost should come down. We pay extra for any variations couple of mins paper work so no need to increase fees any concern's would be on your file.
So could be click and Go new licence done.
So could be click and Go new licence done.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Yes. Yet know they try to almost deny it and the cock not yet crowed three times! This from 2016:
Richard Ali BASC chief executive interview
Richard Ali, BASC chief executive, tells Helena Venables how his first three years have gone as the boss of Britain’s biggest shooting organisation.
www.shootinguk.co.uk
“What I’d like to get over is that while BASC has achieved visible things such as firearms legal insurance, our proposal on 10-year licence fees, our work on grouse moors, our Young Shots programme, Green Shoots and so on, much of what we do goes way beyond flag waving from the sidelines."
pjkaz
Well-Known Member
Hornet 6
Well-Known Member
In theory a good idea, but it falls apart as the police are not the right persons to do the job, won't treat all areas and people the same, so not suitable at all.
If the police continue to be the licensing authority, then shooting sports are doomed, and will end sooner rather than later.
Neil.
We would just pay more for the same or worse level of service.
Its a requirement to have, and its a requirement the police provides staff to produce.
Passports, Driving Licences- equally bad service for something people need for their living. Do we see society either asking drivers or travellers to cover the actual costs of DL or passport buraucracy? Does society ask to increase fees for the original service that should be provided?
You are falling into the trap.
Its a requirement to have, and its a requirement the police provides staff to produce.
Passports, Driving Licences- equally bad service for something people need for their living. Do we see society either asking drivers or travellers to cover the actual costs of DL or passport buraucracy? Does society ask to increase fees for the original service that should be provided?
You are falling into the trap.
That is very true and it was most clear to me during my May renewal that the FEO was all but 100% certain they would get the wording wrong on their 1st attempt. That he was correct was little comfort but the willingness to rectify and to accommodate a sneaky 11th-hour variation as part of the re-print was impressive and much appreciated.
What I don’t understand is why they don’t invite applicant feedback in how things might be improved but perhaps they think BASC have this fully covered?
K
My view is the Firearms service remains the poor relation when it comes to policing resources. Public opinion is focussed elsewhere and therefore so is the Chief Constables view.
There is only one solution take this service out of the Chief Constables remit - that would also appear to be what they want since they have so few resources allocated to this that the chance of another maniac appearing and going mad with a licenced gun is higher than before BECAUSE of their lack of focus. You would focus elsewhere for 2 reasons - one is above and the other, conveniently attached, is that when something goes wrong you can claim lack of resources and demand greater controls.
So take all the feo's that want to go - create an agency, based principally upon the internet form submission to provide a cheap but effective service - extend licence periods to 7 years and allow 2 years to settle - then review the fee in the expectation that 1. GP's will be required to help 2. the old fee was the starting point (less work with 7 year certs). Once manning levels have settled and training properly and thoroughly undertaken, then an independent review of the fee and effectiveness is undertaken.
This removes the Chief Cons ability to apply personal view especially if the HO Guidance becomes statutory. Make this agency review the fee structure after 2 years with cost effectiveness established and ENSURE all staff are performance reviewed and case reviewed regularly- failures removed pay reduced or ehnaced to embed efficiency and safety.
Sorry - hobby horse.
Oh and yes the right of appeal enshrined in legislation and a quick, efficent, and thus cheaper process devised for legal appeals against removal/refusal of variations/calibres against a set of objectives which weed-out the frivolous chancers.
There is only one solution take this service out of the Chief Constables remit - that would also appear to be what they want since they have so few resources allocated to this that the chance of another maniac appearing and going mad with a licenced gun is higher than before BECAUSE of their lack of focus. You would focus elsewhere for 2 reasons - one is above and the other, conveniently attached, is that when something goes wrong you can claim lack of resources and demand greater controls.
So take all the feo's that want to go - create an agency, based principally upon the internet form submission to provide a cheap but effective service - extend licence periods to 7 years and allow 2 years to settle - then review the fee in the expectation that 1. GP's will be required to help 2. the old fee was the starting point (less work with 7 year certs). Once manning levels have settled and training properly and thoroughly undertaken, then an independent review of the fee and effectiveness is undertaken.
This removes the Chief Cons ability to apply personal view especially if the HO Guidance becomes statutory. Make this agency review the fee structure after 2 years with cost effectiveness established and ENSURE all staff are performance reviewed and case reviewed regularly- failures removed pay reduced or ehnaced to embed efficiency and safety.
Sorry - hobby horse.
Oh and yes the right of appeal enshrined in legislation and a quick, efficent, and thus cheaper process devised for legal appeals against removal/refusal of variations/calibres against a set of objectives which weed-out the frivolous chancers.
Time was when the local bobby(remember him?) would decide who was suitable to have a FAC, but that could have drawbacks. We used to have a plod come beating, and he would boast about tearing up forms on an applicant's doorstep. He, himself, had shooting on 21 farms, but was so dangerous that some beaters would stay away on beaters day if he was coming.
Machine-gun-****son was his nickname in the force!
Machine-gun-****son was his nickname in the force!
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
A licence department should be run by staff who as done some type of shooting to get the job and have some under standing of the many types of shooting.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Maybe they should add a tax on cheap disposable kitchen knives as those are what's mainly used in stabbings.
saddler
Well-Known Member
....the ONLY way forward with such weapons is a full ban on un-licensed ownership.
When not in use in the home they should be locked in a Group5* monitored alarmed safe.
Anyone found with an illegal kitchen knife will be made to attend a re-education course consisting of an 8-hour video lecture from Chef Ramsey, with 5 minute breaks per hour where they have to cut slices off an over-ripe tomato with a plastic spoon. All available resources in tracking down & investigating such illegal owners HAS to be 100% focused in the white middle class community; anything else would not only be racist, but may actually end up fixing the problem, and we can't have that now can we??
If it saves just one life....
*other firms products may be allowed as long as the Chief Constable knows their MD from the golf club/Freemasons & has an agreement in place
I think the whole system needs to be revamped, to make it as stream lined, and efficient as possible. Until then, throwing money at it, will just disappear like in the NHS.
IMPO, the FLD's spend far too much time, fighting with FAC holders, over reasonable, and legitimate variation requests, and making up their own rules as justification, even when the guidance is very clear how to deal with most requests.
The way some FLD's, & FEO's act, is an absolute disgrace !
Sort this, and I'd happily pay more for a good hassle free, speedy service.
IMPO, the FLD's spend far too much time, fighting with FAC holders, over reasonable, and legitimate variation requests, and making up their own rules as justification, even when the guidance is very clear how to deal with most requests.
The way some FLD's, & FEO's act, is an absolute disgrace !
Sort this, and I'd happily pay more for a good hassle free, speedy service.
Similar threads
