Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Inefficient FLDs - No Surprises!

  1. #1

    Inefficient FLDs - No Surprises!

    Headed up by the usual suspects.

    https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com...oes/#more-5602

    Edit: Should credit the CA (Shouting Out For Shooting?) for compiling the data:

    http://www.countryside-alliance.org/13087/
    Last edited by Orion; 21-04-2016 at 20:23.

  2. #2
    Well done (again) Orion - I mentioned doing a survey prior to the new legislation - It's good to know CA are up to the job even if others are not concerned.

    Who was it who said, " plan for the worst, hope for the best ? Whoever it was (and I do know), it would seem a wise precaution in the face of past 'problems' hence my suggestion of a 'before and after' fact finding survey.
    Last edited by kes; 21-04-2016 at 20:25.

  3. #3
    The one very noticeable thing is that most FLDs dramatically ramped up the number of temporary permits in 2015 over 2014 (and previous years). There must be a common reason for this and it's not that FLDs suddenly became inefficient it's that something dramatically increased the workload for which previously their resources were adequate but were suddenly stretched. I suspect that it's therefore not entirely fair to jump on them with claims of inefficiency. What happened between 2014 and 2015 to cause the sudden increase in workload?

    My own home FLD (North Wales) is highlighted as being poor but my experience has been relatively positive. I renewed my SC in 2015 and had a letter from my FLD advising me to get my application in in plenty of time because of heavy workloads. I submitted my application less than the recommended time ahead of the expiry date although I recall with 8 weeks to run. About 3 weeks before expiry I received a temporary certificate but as it turned out my SC came through just before expiry. This temporary certificate would presumably be in the stats but need not have been issued.

    My FAC was due for renewal at the end of February 2016, again I had a letter advising an early submission and this time I got my renewal in by early December, the FLD agreed to me holding onto my current FAC in case I needed it. I had my security visit in early Feb by a very nice young man who managed to determine that one of the serial numbers on my current FAC was wrong and he changed it. I asked for AOLQ on both rifles and despite the fact that I have no "named ground" or permissions I got it witth no issues, plus I got a phone call to say that for quite a small extra payment they'd make my SC and FAC co-terminus, I agreed, sent a cheque and got both certificates back a week before my FAC expired with a polite request to return the other certificates. Job done!

    From my point of view I had a perfectly good service from a police force singled out for criticism. My point is that there needs to be a look at what is behind the statistics and not just leap into criticism. Sure there are poor FLDs but more because they or their Chief Constables rewrite the law the way they want it with unreasonable conditions way beyond Home Office Guidelines.

  4. #4
    I am not sure about section 7, as up until 2015 hants would tell you that you did not need one, they have always been late.

  5. #5
    While it's well done to the CA for starting the ball rolling but the following part does rather annoy me.

    30 police forces responded to the Countryside alliance, meaning 13 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales either refused to reply or simply did not reply at all.
    While it is almost the default position for police forces to avoid answering all but the most basic, non contentious, enquiries, either by saying it would take too long or just ignoring the request completely, it's a shame that the next steps were not taken, i.e. the appeal and then a complaint to the Information commissioner. The figures show that damned near a third of forces were not willing to comply with the law. If 30 police forces can manage to answer the question then it is entirely within the capability of the 13 others to do so, so why didn't they?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Shootist View Post
    While it's well done to the CA for starting the ball rolling but the following part does rather annoy me.



    While it is almost the default position for police forces to avoid answering all but the most basic, non contentious, enquiries, either by saying it would take too long or just ignoring the request completely, it's a shame that the next steps were not taken, i.e. the appeal and then a complaint to the Information commissioner. The figures show that damned near a third of forces were not willing to comply with the law. If 30 police forces can manage to answer the question then it is entirely within the capability of the 13 others to do so, so why didn't they?
    In fact the FOI law requires a response to every request within 21 days, if the response is a refusal they have to state on which of the permitted grounds under the Act they are refusing to release the requested information. There aren't many.

    A failure to to respond at all or unreasonable withholding of information can be appealed to the Information Ombudsman who may direct them to respond or, if the reason for refusal is valid, uphold the decision not to release. The CA should pursue those forces who failed to respond, the fact that so many did makes a legally sound withholding unlikely.

  7. #7
    Disappointed but not surprised that the outgoing CC of Hampshire Police, and NPCC lead on Firearms, whom the BASC seem to have a lot of regard for, for reasons not explained, has failed to make any improvement during his watch. An increase from 79 S7s in 2010 and one of the better forces at that time. issued 1205 S7s in 2015. which exceeds the (growing trend) of sum of the preceding 5 years. And yet the fee increases that were conceded in return for efficiencies have had no impact. Every force that bothered to fulfil the FOI request has shown in increase in 2015 over 2014, some dramatically.

    Dave (BASC) did ask to know what other organisations were doing for shooters. Well Dave, the CA has shown the BASC how to go about it. Perhaps the "fully engaged" BASC could drop a line to Andy Marsh and ask him to explain in a Shooting Times article how well he thinks he has served the interests of shooters, and how his own force has failed under his leadership. Perhaps Marsh should relinquish being NPCC lead when he takes his new job up as CC for Avon & Somerset (which incidentally failed to comply with the FOI request from the CA).

    The next question would be to ask how long it took after issuing the S7, to complete the renewal process. Over to the BASC I think Dave.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Greymaster View Post
    Disappointed but not surprised that the outgoing CC of Hampshire Police, and NPCC lead on Firearms, whom the BASC seem to have a lot of regard for, for reasons not explained, has failed to make any improvement during his watch. An increase from 79 S7s in 2010 and one of the better forces at that time. issued 1205 S7s in 2015. which exceeds the (growing trend) of sum of the preceding 5 years. And yet the fee increases that were conceded in return for efficiencies have had no impact. Every force that bothered to fulfil the FOI request has shown in increase in 2015 over 2014, some dramatically.

    Dave (BASC) did ask to know what other organisations were doing for shooters. Well Dave, the CA has shown the BASC how to go about it. Perhaps the "fully engaged" BASC could drop a line to Andy Marsh and ask him to explain in a Shooting Times article how well he thinks he has served the interests of shooters, and how his own force has failed under his leadership. Perhaps Marsh should relinquish being NPCC lead when he takes his new job up as CC for Avon & Somerset (which incidentally failed to comply with the FOI request from the CA).

    The next question would be to ask how long it took after issuing the S7, to complete the renewal process. Over to the BASC I think Dave.

    Fully engaged to me means that a probe has been successfully engaged, make of that what you will!
    (The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Uneatable.) " If I can help, I will help!." Former S.A.C.S. member!

  9. #9
    I see our lots not on the list gmp,,i told you they dont answer anyone,and i also think as i said last year the reason for the increase in waiting times /extra s7,s is not the (extra) work its just them deliberately dragging their heels because of at the time all the expected cuts in staff and or jobs/money, etc,ps our lot got extra staff,
    Last edited by AN DU RU FOX; 22-04-2016 at 17:57.
    DONT START

  10. #10
    The police are anticipating a review to look at the 'true' costs of administering firearms so they understaff and break the rules re S7. When the time comes to assess the likely costs of firearms certs, the cost will go through the roof. You heard it here first. Sad day that few (excepting CA) gives a rats ***. Another failure to explain away ?

Similar Threads

  1. DSC1 Surprises or Expectations
    By nun_hunter in forum Training and Qualifications
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 15:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •