BASC’s 2020 firearms licensing league table

I think that's perhaps a bit harsh. See the following recent updates:



I think BASC have fallen into the same trap the uk government have. UK = England & Wales, Scotland and NI can go sort themselves out.
Please start acting like you represent UK shooting, not devolved versions thereof.
 
BASC’s 2020 firearms licensing league table has exposed a cavernous gap between high-performing police forces and those at the other end of the spectrum.

Our fourth annual review of firearms licensing details a shocking lack of consistency in application processing times across the UK.

Without question, Covid 19 has presented significant challenges for police forces across the country. Even taking this into account however, the situation is, in essence, a postcode lottery.

How did my local police force perform?

The league table includes firearm (FAC) and shotgun (SGC) certificate grants and renewals from individual forces across England and Wales. It also features figures for coterminous grants and renewals.

Nationally, the best performing forces, based on average application processing times were, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Warwickshire and Thames Valley. Notably, certification across the first three of these forces is undertaken by a single, amalgamated licensing department.

The most impressive single turnaround time stat came from this group, belonging to Cambridgeshire police. The force charted an average of 16 days each for coterminous grants and renewals respectively.

At the other end of the performance spectrum were South Wales, Durham, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Avon & Somerset police forces.

The worst result of all sits with Durham, who recorded an average processing time of 226 days for a firearm certificate renewal application.

Improvements and deteriorations

Thames Valley, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Warwickshire showed the greatest improvement in turnaround times in 2020 compared with 2019. The forces with the greatest deterioration in turnaround times were Durham, Northumbria, Northamptonshire, Cumbria and Metropolitan.

What can be done to improve performance

The variation in performance levels demonstrates a need for firearms licensing to be dealt with on a national basis.

BASC has sought the support of Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) candidates to drive the improvement of badly performing firearms licensing departments.

We will also be pushing for the effective use of technology to boost the efficiency of processes post lockdown. This includes online applications and interviews completed via video call.

Click the link below to view BASC's 2020 firearms licensing league table:

😂 - No Scottish statistics. Guess the Scots have left the UK according to BASC? Pointless drivel.
 
Lost opportunities when this first came in - no lobbying for anything then just 'supine passivity'.
I'm with NGO.

Chocolate fireguard springs to mind.

Maybe not but there's one org who, uncontrolled, will lose all shooting freedoms as quickly as they can write another 'advert'.
Three rather unconstructive comments since you recently joined the forum and using rather familiar language and rhetoric. Could you confirm if you are @kes posting with a new username?
 
Three rather unconstructive comments since you recently joined the forum and using rather familiar language and rhetoric. Could you confirm if you are @kes posting with a new username?
Three rather unconstructive comments since you recently joined the forum and using rather familiar language and rhetoric. Could you confirm if you are @kes posting with a new username?
Not rhetoric..... facts I’m afraid
 
@Conor O'Gorman, I've been a BASC member for 20 years, still a member, but possibly not for much longer.

The issue with the whole lead ban question is your approach to it. You have a very clear indication from your members that they don't trust the non lead alternatives, from centre fire to 22 subs, and they remain unproven, yet you are charging ahead, cosying up to the politicians and pushing through a "voluntary ban" without addressing those issues. No wonder your membership is getting upset.

Would a better approach not be to push back a potential lead ban on the grounds of animal welfare until you have proven to your members through investment in testing that non-lead is suitable for the job, whether than be copper, tin, expanding or fragmenting. Test and report on the limitations of the alternatives and prove the change will not cause an animal welfare issue, until that's done you should be representing your members scepticism of the change.

It's BASC who should be supporting Tim Pilbeam's testing and enabling him to delve into the subject more deeply than he is currently. You would be seen to be doing something other than blowing hot air and repeating biased views of others, the testing would be financed properly and done more thoroughly and your bonus is the Fieldsports Channel publicise it for you. Win/Win.

At the moment you're pushing a change aggressively against your members will without any proof that it will not negatively impact animal welfare. Not a great position for you to adopt and one that needs to change before you loose many more members. With 45% of the 20,000 SD membership also members of BASC you have a lot to loose if you continue as you are, yet a lot to gain if you get it right.
 
@Conor O'Gorman, I've been a BASC member for 20 years, still a member, but possibly not for much longer. The issue with the whole lead ban question is your approach to it. You have a very clear indication from your members that they don't trust the non lead alternatives, from centre fire to 22 subs, and they remain unproven, yet you are charging ahead, cosying up to the politicians and pushing through a "voluntary ban" without addressing those issues. No wonder your membership is getting upset. Would a better approach not be to push back a potential lead ban on the grounds of animal welfare until you have proven to your members through investment in testing that non-lead is suitable for the job, whether than be copper, tin, expanding or fragmenting. Test and report on the limitations of the alternatives and prove the change will not cause an animal welfare issue, until that's done you should be representing your members scepticism of the change. It's BASC who should be supporting Tim Pilbeam's testing and enabling him to delve into the subject more deeply than he is currently. You would be seen to be doing something other than blowing hot air and repeating biased views of others, the testing would be financed properly and done more thoroughly and your bonus is the Fieldsports Channel publicise it for you. Win/Win. At the moment you're pushing a change aggressively against your members will without any proof that it will not negatively impact animal welfare. Not a great position for you to adopt and one that needs to change before you loose many more members. With 45% of the 20,000 SD membership also members of BASC you have a lot to loose if you continue as you are, yet a lot to gain if you get it right.
@Conor O'Gorman, I've been a BASC member for 20 years, still a member, but possibly not for much longer. The issue with the whole lead ban question is your approach to it. You have a very clear indication from your members that they don't trust the non lead alternatives, from centre fire to 22 subs, and they remain unproven, yet you are charging ahead, cosying up to the politicians and pushing through a "voluntary ban" without addressing those issues. No wonder your membership is getting upset. Would a better approach not be to push back a potential lead ban on the grounds of animal welfare until you have proven to your members through investment in testing that non-lead is suitable for the job, whether than be copper, tin, expanding or fragmenting. Test and report on the limitations of the alternatives and prove the change will not cause an animal welfare issue, until that's done you should be representing your members scepticism of the change. It's BASC who should be supporting Tim Pilbeam's testing and enabling him to delve into the subject more deeply than he is currently. You would be seen to be doing something other than blowing hot air and repeating biased views of others, the testing would be financed properly and done more thoroughly and your bonus is the Fieldsports Channel publicise it for you. Win/Win. At the moment you're pushing a change aggressively against your members will without any proof that it will not negatively impact animal welfare. Not a great position for you to adopt and one that needs to change before you loose many more members. With 45% of the 20,000 SD membership also members of BASC you have a lot to loose if you continue as you are, yet a lot to gain if you get it right.
@Conor O'Gorman, I've been a BASC member for 20 years, still a member, but possibly not for much longer.

The issue with the whole lead ban question is your approach to it. You have a very clear indication from your members that they don't trust the non lead alternatives, from centre fire to 22 subs, and they remain unproven, yet you are charging ahead, cosying up to the politicians and pushing through a "voluntary ban" without addressing those issues. No wonder your membership is getting upset.

Would a better approach not be to push back a potential lead ban on the grounds of animal welfare until you have proven to your members through investment in testing that non-lead is suitable for the job, whether than be copper, tin, expanding or fragmenting. Test and report on the limitations of the alternatives and prove the change will not cause an animal welfare issue, until that's done you should be representing your members scepticism of the change.

It's BASC who should be supporting Tim Pilbeam's testing and enabling him to delve into the subject more deeply than he is currently. You would be seen to be doing something other than blowing hot air and repeating biased views of others, the testing would be financed properly and done more thoroughly and your bonus is the Fieldsports Channel publicise it for you. Win/Win.

At the moment you're pushing a change aggressively against your members will without any proof that it will not negatively impact animal welfare. Not a great position for you to adopt and one that needs to change before you loose many more members. With 45% of the 20,000 SD membership also members of BASC you have a lot to loose if you continue as you are, yet a lot to gain if you get it right.
The problem is that many ( yourself included ) continue to hand over the cash to basc despite their dire performance and arrogance , they’ll never change , why would they when people keep renewing membership?? The only way to force them to change is to leave in drives that is the only thing that will make them sit up , but looking at some of the responses some seem inexplicably happy with basc so not much hope there
 
@Conor O'Gorman, I've been a BASC member for 20 years, still a member, but possibly not for much longer.

The issue with the whole lead ban question is your approach to it. You have a very clear indication from your members that they don't trust the non lead alternatives, from centre fire to 22 subs, and they remain unproven, yet you are charging ahead, cosying up to the politicians and pushing through a "voluntary ban" without addressing those issues. No wonder your membership is getting upset.

Would a better approach not be to push back a potential lead ban on the grounds of animal welfare until you have proven to your members through investment in testing that non-lead is suitable for the job, whether than be copper, tin, expanding or fragmenting. Test and report on the limitations of the alternatives and prove the change will not cause an animal welfare issue, until that's done you should be representing your members scepticism of the change.

It's BASC who should be supporting Tim Pilbeam's testing and enabling him to delve into the subject more deeply than he is currently. You would be seen to be doing something other than blowing hot air and repeating biased views of others, the testing would be financed properly and done more thoroughly and your bonus is the Fieldsports Channel publicise it for you. Win/Win.

At the moment you're pushing a change aggressively against your members will without any proof that it will not negatively impact animal welfare. Not a great position for you to adopt and one that needs to change before you loose many more members. With 45% of the 20,000 SD membership also members of BASC you have a lot to loose if you continue as you are, yet a lot to gain if you get it right.
Thanks @NigelM I will pass your comments back to colleagues.

The OP is about firearms licensing and there are a number of threads on lead ammunition and I hope the following is a helpful summary from comments in other threads.

The voluntary transition being encouraged by the shooting organisations is about phasing out lead and single use plastic in shotgun ammunition for taking live quarry. Not rifle ammunition.

At the same time BASC is continuing fighting against any proposed restrictions on lead in shotgun ammunition and any proposed restrictions on lead in rifle ammunition and air rifle ammunition because a key principle is that further restrictions on lead ammunition must not be imposed until effective and affordable types of sustainable ammunition are available in sufficient volumes to meet demand.

Recent challenges are the European Chemicals Agency proposals for wider lead ammunition restrictions and a consultation on a revised UK woodland assurance standard which proposes a lead ammunition ban in approved woodlands.

We are arguing against these proposals and considerations do indeed need to be made, for example, around accuracy and lethality of non-lead air rifle and rimfire ammunition, availability of non-lead rimfire ammunition, availability of safe and effective non-lead ammunition for antique and muzzle-loading firearms and availability of safe and effective non-lead ammunition for certain shotgun bores (especially 16 bore, 28 bore and .410).

Hope that helps.
 
.......At the same time BASC is continuing fighting against any proposed restrictions on lead in shotgun ammunition and any proposed restrictions on lead in rifle ammunition and air rifle ammunition because a key principle is that further restrictions on lead ammunition must not be imposed until effective and affordable types of sustainable ammunition are available in sufficient volumes to meet demand......
Should we (i.e. our organisations) be demanding properly scientifically reviewed evidence to prove that lead in ammunition is hazardous before agreeing to reduce/eliminate it? I know there is some evidence to suggest that expended shotgun pellets can be ingested by, in particular, waterfowl, but what evidence exists to show that rifle and air rifle ammunition is detrimental and to who/what? We appear to be backing down to the Countryfile/Chris Packham schools of thought which would see all quarry shooting ended.
 
Back
Top