Thames Valley Police - requesting proof...

NeilG

Well-Known Member
My wife`s uncle, who has shot game, and clays ( for GB ) for the last 45 years, has applied for a .222Rem for Fox control to protect the pheasants / partridges on his little walked up shoot. This is for a coterminous ticket to run with his SGC.

This morning I was really shocked to hear that before the TVP FEO will propose the application for grant of the FAC, he has asked for written proof from the two FAC referees, that the uncle has shot foxes with them on different outings, safely.

I cannot believe despite this being totally again HO Guidelines, police forces are expanding their own rules from deer to vermin where this request of proof is concerned..... I have advised for him to get on to BASC, or just refer the FEO to the HO Guidelines, but I fear this will be another `go with the flow` for the sake of the ticket....

It seems that any representation from the shooting community associations at the ACPO meetings is just a waste of time and effort !!!!!

Will update what happens.

All the best.

Neil
 
I cannot for the life of me see a problem. The request is reasonable. I am a witness for Gazza and Gazza is a witness for me. This was at the suggestion of the flo. It does not stop the flo phoning both parties for conformation that we are both safe shots. It is a box they have to tick. Pure and simple. Jim
 
Hi Neil

Thats TVP at this time - may get worse as they have merged (as I understand it) with Hampshire Firearms (no information at this time on their stance on firearms matters) as of early October.
I have held a FAC for 25+ years, 'open' for the last 15yrs?', including a variety of calibres and do use them abroad - in the renewal process they are checking all the land I have access to around the UK for suitability to use one of them.
According to Home Office guidance (their comment '..its only guidance..') if I satisfy the 'prime reason' (use abroad) then I should be able to use this calibre in the UK (something I have been doing in the previous 5yrs) '...due to an admin error ...' on their part.

In my opinion it is a clear example of members of a Firearms Department (and I mean particular members as some of the FEO are pragmatic but have to tow the 'line') doing 'their own thing' based on personal opinions/thinking/interpretation/beliefs or as 'cascaded down from the top' and needs to be challenged.

However, herein is the difficulty - my last 'renewal' took 12mths+ - BASC's (Mike Eveleigh) took up the matter in a meeting with TVP only to be (in his words) 'stone-walled' - I had given written permission to both sides to discuss the matter and try to to it forward.......................in the meantime I only had the right to possess the firearms and no mechanism (conditions) to use them.

I think the phrase is '...don't hold your breath...'

Cheers
L
 
Last edited:
Sorry,

I don't see the issue - yes he may have shotgun experience, but no rifle experience, so the FLO is simply verifying this - it will save him getting the mentor clause.

Far easier to have supplied suitable references in the first instance, stating on the reference forms (as I have just done for a new application for a friend) that I have first hand experience of them shooting foxes in a safe manner.
 
Ditto - I don’t see a problem at all with their line of enquiry.

I had years of shotgun experience before applying for an FAC and I had many questions from the FEO at time of applying - it is often just their way of establishing what type of person you are - are you willing to co-operate and provide answers and supporting information or are you going to be confrontational, belligerent and start quoting guidelines and the law? The fact he shot for GB is irrelevant, and there is a big difference in little lead balls running out of energy after a few yards rather than a rifle bullet a few miles.

Is it really too much of a problem for the referees to give written evidence?
 
Last edited:
Exactly the same experience i had with Devon and Cornwall police 20 years ago, i didn't have a problem with it, and 12 months later they gave me an open certificate.
Cheers
Richard
 
TVP are difficult with some aspects of licensing but the Home Office advised that an applicant should have experience with rifles. Shotguns and air weapons are not rifles.

The police should be conducting a basic check to ascertain that the applicant is capable of taking a safe shot every time. They should not be asking silly questions where a person shoots a smaller calibre over land and seeks a larger cartridge. The thought process is identical regardless of species. In essence a safe backstop must always be present.

the police won't hand out rifles on first grant just like that and would we want them to?

species specific experience e.g. dmq courses are not part of the licensing process and should be resisted at all costs. Demonstrating experience e.g. Though use of the "borrowed rifles on private premises" exemption is enough.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top