The question I was talking about referred specifically to a "joint" bank account. A joint account would be accessible by both partners, equally. Nothing there to do with control. In fact, I would say that where partners keep all of their money in joint accounts this is indicative of a trusting, loving, sharing relationship. There is no need for partners in a stable relationship to have separate bank accounts. To me, if partners feel that they need separate bank accounts, that indicate that perhaps the relationship isn't so stable after all.
Op Titanium
- Thread starter BobJones
- Start date
I have a feeling you can
Well basc need to be publicising what they are doing and nothing was published on here to forum members about the project so ive posted it to be informative and called it how i see it and no i dont have a monopoly on slating any one organisation, but anybody who isn't doing their job or shouting about what they are doing to help us.
I don't dismiss everything that is said, just the blatant bullsh*t.Inflammatory!?You must be very close to the police then
look take it or leave it. This forum is about information exchange. What are you doing here if you dismiss everything thats said. I don’t have to justify my cv to you but tune in to any future posts and you might start believing I know my stuff. My customers have every faith in the advice I give. It is always explained and referenced.
The police certainly did by involving domestic violence teamsI have a feeling you can
Perhaps your clients don't understand punctuation either!Inflammatory!?
By all means PM me a couple of referees who can confirm your profession otherwise, as stated, I simply don't trust you and I don't think I'm alone
Sounds good to me.
BTW Welcome
The Estate rifle is one that pops up with numerous replies where none of the replies by members explain how to become the "servant/occupier" as there is no guidance on this matter.
The guidance notes explain pretty much all the requirement's for applications appeals renewals variations forms with boxes to fill in but nothing explaining where to start and finish.
This below is often quoted however nothing in the Gnotes to explain the letter you are given is correct!!
The ‘Estate Rifle Exemption’ allows a person who is over the age of 17 without a certificate to borrow a rifle from the occupier of a private premises and use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or the occupier’s servant as per s16(1) of the Act. Use of the rifle under the Estate Rifle Exemption must comply with the conditions outlined on the lender’s certificate. There has been some discussion as to the difference between the s11(5) Shotgun Exemption and the Estates Rifle Exemption. It appears on the face of it that the latter is less onerous than the Section 11(5)
Well there you go.
Two sides to the coin.
A fine example of why that question (and others like it) is totally inappropriate. Because no matter what the answer is, it can be given a negative slant.
Conor, when you say BASC is challenging it, what mechanism do BASC use to do so? MP, PCC, Chief Constable, solicitors, JR, other?
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
But these aren't questions they're asking you. They're questions that they're asking someone else (your partner) about you. And if that person replies "no comment" it will most likely be assumed that it's a coercive relationship and that they're afraid to speak out.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
We have raised our objections at a recent meeting of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group, written to the chair, and supportive MPs are raising our concerns with the Home Office. That's the starting point. I will post an update once published by BASC.
My understanding of this is on the face of it the questionnaire was almost certainly written by psychologists. They have a habit of trying to compartmentalise everything into one box or the other . As has been stated box A is deemed negative and the only other option B is slightly negative but negative none the less . Some of the questions certainly seem to be very LEADING in nature .
To be granted FAC s in the first place we have to be law abiding and suitable people ,it therefore it stands to reason our partners are lawful law abiding decent citizens . When we consider our partners and entire household have to be declared to Licensing departments. For someone's wife partner to have the police question Them ? If that's the correct word could be very intimidating and frightening experience for them . Some may not wish to partake in it.which has been said it could be interpreted as coercion or control . Domestic abuse is a terrible thing for anyone to suffer .Anyone that does it isn't fit to own or possess firearms .There are mechanisms in place for the police to seize firearms in genuine cases. This to me appears to require serious scrutiny . Is it Neccessary, fair ,reasonable ,or proportionate . ?
To be granted FAC s in the first place we have to be law abiding and suitable people ,it therefore it stands to reason our partners are lawful law abiding decent citizens . When we consider our partners and entire household have to be declared to Licensing departments. For someone's wife partner to have the police question Them ? If that's the correct word could be very intimidating and frightening experience for them . Some may not wish to partake in it.which has been said it could be interpreted as coercion or control . Domestic abuse is a terrible thing for anyone to suffer .Anyone that does it isn't fit to own or possess firearms .There are mechanisms in place for the police to seize firearms in genuine cases. This to me appears to require serious scrutiny . Is it Neccessary, fair ,reasonable ,or proportionate . ?
Hi,
So section 11(5) of the 1968 Act & section 16 of the 1988 Act (entitled; “Borrowed rifles on private premises”) has been repealed and replaced with section 11A (inserted by the Policing & Crime Act 2017). Section 16 was referred to as the ‘estate rifle exemption’ but it was an unofficial description.
The term ‘servant’ is not relevant to lending rifles (it is only relevant to employees of firearms dealers) and nor is ‘occupier’ as this was a term in section 16 (now repealed). It was a word that caused so much upset that it led to the new 11A to avoid use of what was viewed as an ambiguous word.
11A has three parts to it…..
S11A (1) - A person (“the borrower”) may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow a rifle or shot gun from another person on private premises (“the lender”) and have the rifle or shot gun in his or her possession on those premises if—
(a) the four conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) are met, and
(b) in the case of a rifle, the borrower is aged 17 or over.
(2) The first condition is that the borrowing and possession of the rifle or shot gun are for either or both of the following purposes—
(a) hunting animals or shooting game or vermin;
(b) shooting at artificial targets.
(3) The second condition is that the lender—
(a) is aged 18 or over,
(b) holds a certificate under this Act in respect of the rifle or shot gun, and
(c) is either—
(i) a person who has a right to allow others to enter the premises for the purposes of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or
(ii) a person who is authorised in writing by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) to lend the rifle or shot gun on the premises (whether generally or to persons specified in the authorisation who include the borrower).
So there we have it. A clear new rifle exemption that you can now easily apply to every quarry or target situation whether it be shooting over land or ranges, indoors or out.
Hope this helps!
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
This is a relevant question as most abusers do start with hurting animals before people.
These questions are pretty much the standard DA questions that would be asked of any partner where there was a concern.
Personally I have no issue with them and think they will be more beneficial to public safety than the entire GP letter and markers on your NHS record. The questions aren't a pass/fail they will still be evaluated by the FEO and if there are concerns then they'll be looked into further.
As to anyone complaining about spurious allegations or answers, you've got more to worry about from a partner saying that than if you get to keep hold of your FAC/SGC. If anything it'll give you a nice early warning that you need that person out your life asap.
Similar threads
