Countryfile and Firearm Licensing

[old man]

David, with all respect, we don't think that you are or do and that's the fundamental issue.

If one press release came out with all the names and signatures, then that would do the trick.

Some Joined-Up-Thinking wouldn't go amiss here, so please take that back to the ranch. We don't really care who kicks it all off, but you all need to get around one table and work out what the heck you're going to do, as shooting needs a single voice like air right now!

That's the correct answer in my book.
Surely you can all see that divided can be conquered? Eventually no membership, no fees, no organisations?

If you all can't come together at some level over this issue which is a clear breach of the HO Guidance what chance is there for any future? Not a real issue for me due to age but I'm a fair bit rankled over the complete lack of respect shown to the Guidance.
Give in over this and you can tear the document up once and for all?

David, Alex, and others, with respect I am having to stifle a yawn as clearly to me none of you really appear to give a fig.

 

[JohnT]

BASC CEO - shooter
BASC Director communications - shooter
BASC Director operations - shooter
BASC head of marketing - shooter
BASC head of firearms - shooter
BASC head of game & deer - shooter
BASC head of press - shooter
BASC business development manager - shooter
BASC head of rural development - shooter
BASC regional and Country directors - all shooters...I could go on but perhaps I have made my point - we all have a vested interest in shooting, not just as a business but as shooters and conservationists

You have addressed the secondary postulation without focus on the primary comment,which seems to have gone without adress by the (my) organisation itself.
I am put in mind of the then proposed ban of handguns. The shooting fraternity refused to coutenance such a overeaction to a situation that became increasingly obvious as the failure of senior police involvement to override cogent argument put forward by officers on the front line. No-one believed that the government would carry out such an ill-considered and unjustifiable ban, especially since we had only recently given up our semi-auto centrefire rifles.

The shooting organisations need to realise, this is simply the latest assault on our passion and sport as well as a safe way to gain political kudos with very little to no chance of losing a significant number of voters. As soon as the politicians and Antis have acccomplished their goal there will be no need for shooting organisations.

Until the various organisations remove their corporate heads from the sand and determine to work together for the common cause, no progress will be made against those that would deprive us of our guns. They will, in fact, have assisted the demise of shooting by their own dogged determination to appear to do it their way.

 

[JohnT]

That's the correct answer in my book.
Surely you can all see that divided can be conquered? Eventually no membership, no fees, no organisations?

If you all can't come together at some level over this issue which is a clear breach of the HO Guidance what chance is there for any future? Not a real issue for me due to age but I'm a fair bit rankled over the complete lack of respect shown to the Guidance.
Give in over this and you can tear the document up once and for all?

David, Alex, and others, with respect I am having to stifle a yawn as clearly to me none of you really appear to give a fig.

Gentlemen ( O.M., I.F.), Nothing more needs to be said. You have encapsulated the requirements very clearly indeed. The problem appears to be that our organisations do not appear to want our collective will to get in the way of their demonstrating what effective executive officers they are. That would never do.

 

[Miki]

That's the correct answer in my book.
Surely you can all see that divided can be conquered? Eventually no membership, no fees, no organisations?

If you all can't come together at some level over this issue which is a clear breach of the HO Guidance what chance is there for any future? Not a real issue for me due to age but I'm a fair bit rankled over the complete lack of respect shown to the Guidance.
Give in over this and you can tear the document up once and for all?

David, Alex, and others, with respect I am having to stifle a yawn as clearly to me none of you really appear to give a fig.

Old Man, they are together, their membership (majority of) has spoken and said - "No problem, we are happy to pay the doctors" ... (isn't that right BASC David ?)

What is it you want BASC, SACS and the CA to put a stop to exactly ?
If (as I suspect) you are voicing outrage to the 'No pay = No licence/ignoring of HO guidelines" then none of the organisations are adopting that stance. None.
Because their membership has said "we are happy to pay" and the organisations are duty bound to do what their membership wants.

What is wrong is the inequality of the system across the UK both from the Police FELD's and the GP's .... [I should add here that I am not at all happy that we are being forced/blackmailed into paying this additional fee and I am deeply saddened that the majority of SGC and FAC holders have stated that they are 'happy to pay' but I don't know how to get more than 50% of the various organisations membership to agree with me. So unless you do, then we all have to pay this additional cost or give up shooting altogether and the shooting organisations will continue to do what their members ask them too ...)

 

[kes]

Old Man, they are together, their membership (majority of) has spoken and said - "No problem, we are happy to pay the doctors" ... (isn't that right BASC David ?)

What is it you want BASC, SACS and the CA to put a stop to exactly ?
If (as I suspect) you are voicing outrage to the 'No pay = No licence/ignoring of HO guidelines" then none of the organisations are adopting that stance. None.
Because their membership has said "we are happy to pay" and the organisations are duty bound to do what their membership wants.

What is wrong is the inequality of the system across the UK both from the Police FELD's and the GP's .... [I should add here that I am not at all happy that we are being forced/blackmailed into paying this additional fee and I am deeply saddened that the majority of SGC and FAC holders have stated that they are 'happy to pay' but I don't know how to get more than 50% of the various organisations membership to agree with me. So unless you do, then we all have to pay this additional cost or give up shooting altogether and the shooting organisations will continue to do what their members ask them too ...)

Which, I suggest is why we need a campaigning organisation which we do not currently have. Nothing more needs to be given away - nothing more should be given away, even by the default position of saying some are happy to pay - that doesnt matter - unless we all stick to a 'principled approach', the job is over and we no longer need shooting organisations.
They will then blame us for being spineless.

 

[finnbear270]

Just had my renewal inspection / visit, forms a little different this time, more in depth chat & time spent here this time around, I was given the impression that any doctors fees involved would become payable by me ........ Soooo, on with the pooter & signed into my med records , on with the printer, there you go chuck help yourself.

 

[David63]

Had my renewal this year with Cheshire, filled in all the forms, sent them off, heard nothing until the renewed licence slipped through the letterbox, so it seems Cheshire are playing it by the book

 

[old man]

Old Man, they are together, their membership (majority of) has spoken and said - "No problem, we are happy to pay the doctors" ... (isn't that right BASC David ?)

What is it you want BASC, SACS and the CA to put a stop to exactly ?
If (as I suspect) you are voicing outrage to the 'No pay = No licence/ignoring of HO guidelines" then none of the organisations are adopting that stance. None.
Because their membership has said "we are happy to pay" and the organisations are duty bound to do what their membership wants.

What is wrong is the inequality of the system across the UK both from the Police FELD's and the GP's .... [I should add here that I am not at all happy that we are being forced/blackmailed into paying this additional fee and I am deeply saddened that the majority of SGC and FAC holders have stated that they are 'happy to pay' but I don't know how to get more than 50% of the various organisations membership to agree with me. So unless you do, then we all have to pay this additional cost or give up shooting altogether and the shooting organisations will continue to do what their members ask them too ...)

Wrong interpretation I'm afraid, also no outrage!

In my book the payment of a reasonable extra fee is the third item of personal concern.
The second being the decision by some Doctors to ignore the agreement made by their representing body.
Firstly my real gripe is the seeming total lack of respect by the Police to The Home Office Guidance, which I understood to be the cornerstone of this issue? Once they tear the book up the real fun will start?

I suppose I was bought up to honour all agreements made which doesn't seem to be the case at more?
Nowadays it's a free for all. How sad for society at large?

I also don't remember being asked my opinion about fees but maybe I forgot?

As said I am not concerned too much personally due to age but the youngsters need to wake up maybe?
Whilst the majority of us snooze on the Gun Control Network will never give up.

Nothing more to say and no more comment from me on this item.
It's over to all of the dreamers.

 

[Heym SR20]

As well as a letter from your GP, police Scotland are also for a contract or letter of employment

 

[JTO]

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/firearms-licensing/?utm_campaign=284763_Eroute%20-%2019%2F01%2F18&utm_medium=dotmailer&utm_source=Countryside%20Alliance&dm_i=44G9,63Q3,1MIPQP,NUUS,1

 

[finnbear270]

As well as a letter from your GP, police Scotland are also for a contract or letter of employment

She, my new FEO did enquire of my full time employment status.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Old Man, they are together, their membership (majority of) has spoken and said - "No problem, we are happy to pay the doctors" ... (isn't that right BASC David ?)

What is it you want BASC, SACS and the CA to put a stop to exactly ?
If (as I suspect) you are voicing outrage to the 'No pay = No licence/ignoring of HO guidelines" then none of the organisations are adopting that stance. None.
Because their membership has said "we are happy to pay" and the organisations are duty bound to do what their membership wants.

What is wrong is the inequality of the system across the UK both from the Police FELD's and the GP's .... [I should add here that I am not at all happy that we are being forced/blackmailed into paying this additional fee and I am deeply saddened that the majority of SGC and FAC holders have stated that they are 'happy to pay' but I don't know how to get more than 50% of the various organisations membership to agree with me. So unless you do, then we all have to pay this additional cost or give up shooting altogether and the shooting organisations will continue to do what their members ask them too ...)

Good post Miki.

imho the payment problem has come about as Scotland has, yet again been used as a testing ground. (unannounced visits from Police Scotland)

FAC and SGC holders have been allowed to become isolated by their representatives, facing the prospect of pay or no certificate.

Having already paid and NOW asked, have told their orgs to **** off (metaphorically speaking) your too late to help.

The crows are now coming home to roost. The policy is moving south. We have read here ad nauseam, Scotland pays England doesn't.

Well it looks like we are all together again, we all pay or no certificate. My invoice from the GP was £25.00 or £5.00 per year. I am sorry for those of us who have GP managers, who are little more than crooks in suits, charging astronomical fees. john.

john

 

[JTO]

She, my new FEO did enquire of my full time employment status.

Perhaps she had to assess whether or not you could afford an appeal.

 

[McKenzie]

She, my new FEO did enquire of my full time employment status.

Just had my renewal processed & I certainly wasn't asked for proof of employment; anyway, I'm self-employed so short of giving a list of major clients I don't really know what I'd have done other than prove I've managed to get away with it for the last 25 years so chances are it will continue.

 

[Miki]

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/firearms-licensing/?utm_campaign=284763_Eroute%20-%2019%2F01%2F18&utm_medium=dotmailer&utm_source=Countryside%20Alliance&dm_i=44G9,63Q3,1MIPQP,NUUS,1

This is not applicable in Scotland (only England and Wales) as there is a specific "Not in Scotland" clause in the current HO guidelines.

 

[JTO]

This is not applicable in Scotland (only England and Wales) as there is a specific "Not in Scotland" clause in the current HO guidelines.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a Scottish thread.
So, you won't be signing?

 

[AN DU RU FOX]

my reply from the beeb,business as usual! and i still think gp,s police and all the shooting orgs are taking the proverbial ,and coming up with stock excuses to keep memberships
by saying our members want this is just an outright lie! and until they can prove to me otherwise they can all go swivel!! [FONT=&amp]Thanks for getting in touch about ‘Countryfile’ on 7 January.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]I understand you had concerns with regards to Tom Heap’s item on gun licensing and very much appreciate the time taken to provide this feedback.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This report looked at how for some people, the new Home Office rules and guidance have caused confusion and in some rural areas sparked a row between GP’s and gun owners.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Tom’s report here explored this issues involved and whilst I note your comments – the report did look at and include different viewpoints, as well as providing background information to the rules. Tom’s report looked at one of the key issues in the debate – medical suitability to own a gun and how the guidelines now require a doctor to verify this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This was a two part report, in the first section we spoke to gun owner, Mark Glover who clearly voiced his concerns about having to pay a GP to renew, as well as Liam Stokes from The Countryside Alliance – who again raised concerns about the GP checks and charges and referred to the BMA for causing confusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]We then later in the programme spoke to Dr Kieran Sharrock – a GP who advises other GP’s on this issue. As well as including comment from the Home Office – who we approached for input. We also spoke to the police in Lincolnshire – who have a process in place for dealing with firearms applications.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The BBC never takes a position on anything - with reports like this our aim is to provide our audience with the information and range of viewpoints that will enable them to make up their own minds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]However, I’ve put your complaint about this on a report that is made available to all members of the BBC, including the ‘Countryfile’ team as well as senior BBC management. This ensures your comments and others we receive are considered across the BBC.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Kind Regards[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Nicola Maguire[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]BBC Complaints[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]www.bbc.co.uk/complaints[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provid don,t get me wrong my renewal went ahead no worries even with medical info etc but my concern as is everyone elses ive spoken to is that all this crap is creaping in ,allready in - in scotland,and all the shooting orgs are doing diddly squat except throwing out lies about how their members are ok with it!! no they are not!! and until they prove to me and all my mates otherwise they can all go swivel!![/FONT]

 

[FrenchieBoy]

Had my renewal this year with Cheshire, filled in all the forms, sent them off, heard nothing until the renewed licence slipped through the letterbox, so it seems Cheshire are playing it by the book

If that is the case then why in heaven's name can BASC not start making sure that ALL other constabularies acted (As you put it) BY THE BOOK because I suspect that an "I'm all right Jack" attitude will not wash with BASC members any longer
If BASC want to gain/regain membership it's high time they started really fighting for their members rather than pussyfooting around when constabularies (Like Lincolnshire) decide that they can completely ignore Home Office Guidelines in the misguided belief that they are "above reproach" or that they are "a law unto themselves"!

 

[Highlandsjohn]

If that is the case then why in heaven's name can BASC not start making sure that ALL other constabularies acted (As you put it) BY THE BOOK? (Or are you saying " I got my certificate so that will do me")
If BASC want to gain/regain membership it's high time they started really fighting for their members rather than pussyfooting around when constabularies (Like Lincolnshire) decide that they can ignore Home Office Guidelines in the misguided belief that they are "a law unto themselves"!

Great post FB AND very good point.. Hope you are well. john c

If that is the case then why in heaven's name can BASC not start making sure that ALL other constabularies acted (As you put it) BY THE BOOK?

 

[Orion]

Had my renewal this year with Cheshire, filled in all the forms, sent them off, heard nothing until the renewed licence slipped through the letterbox, so it seems Cheshire are playing it by the book

If that is the case then why in heaven's name can BASC not start making sure that ALL other constabularies acted (As you put it) BY THE BOOK because I suspect that an "I'm all right Jack" attitude will not wash with BASC members any longer
If BASC want to gain/regain membership it's high time they started really fighting for their members rather than pussyfooting around when constabularies (Like Lincolnshire) decide that they can completely ignore Home Office Guidelines in the misguided belief that they are "above reproach" or that they are "a law unto themselves"!

Indeed.

I find it rather strange that at the time of the last HMIC report into Firearms Licensing - 'Targeting The Risk' - the following was stated:

2.8.
In our inspection, however, we assessed the way in which forces dealt with
firearms licensing in the light of the guidance and the practice. We were not
advised in any instance of specific consideration being given to not complying
with them as being the best way of dealing with any given case.

2.9.
Accordingly, we take the view that a failure to abide by the guidance and the
practice are signs that a force is not doing as it should.

So were the police forces involved 'economical with the truth', or did HMIC have it's head in the clouds?

https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...ads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

More importantly to my mind is the fact that none of the shooting organisations appear to be pursuing action or applying pressure via the newly created S.55A(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended):

(4) A chief officer of police must have regard to any guidance issued under this section.

Some of them made a big thing of it when the clause was first mooted, with the promise that it would force chief constables to toe the line and align their force's firearms licensing with the Home Office Guidance. What's happened there then?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/55A