FEO calling old references

[Leglas]

I’m in the process of my first renewal and I’d changed my references - both were people I worked with last time, and now both are friends with FACs. The FEO called the old references asking if we’d fallen out or if there’s any reason I shouldn’t have a gun.
Is this normal? It’s quite a clever move, but has left me slightly paranoid.

 

[Stalker62]

Standard due diligence by your FEO.

Well done them.

 

[Jamouk]

Yes normal!

 

[Leglas]

Thanks both, that’s good! I think I was looking at it like a job interview rather than an inspection

 

[WalkedUp]

Your choice of referees should be given great consideration. About 12 years ago I put some business colleagues down as they were intelligent, sensible people who saw me frequently. I eventually left that company to found a rival firm and ruffled a few feathers along the way. A couple of years later on renewal I suddenly realised that my now business rivals may well be getting a call from the FEO with the power to be malicious. Nothing ever came of it, I don’t know if they were just not called or if they were called and kept business rivalry out of it. They may be called in future but by now so much water has passed under the bridge.

 

[Donkey Basher]

Changed one of mine this time around but only because he is now a serving met police officer so not able to act as a referee. As far as I know, none of my refereees have ever been contacted at renewal.

 

[VSS]

I have used different referees for most of my renewals (35 years SGC, 15 years FAC).
I think it looks better that way. Otherwise the FEO might think I'm a miserable loner who's been through his whole life with only 2 friends.
(OK, so I am, but they don't need to know that ).

 

[timbrayford]

I suppose my FEO could hold a seance if need be?

 

[Essexsussex]

I can’t even remember who I used last time or the other times.

 

[Stalker62]

I suppose my FEO could hold a seance if need be?

Funny thing.

Am now in the same boat...

 

[User00056]

I think that's a question your FEO should've asked you yourself rather than contacting people out of the blue who you most likely have perfectly valid and innocent reasons for not using as referees. The requirement is that you offer two names who've agreed to be contacted, nothing more. The fact your FEO takes it upon themselves to go even further should, in my opinion, be challenged.

What next? Will he decide to contact your primary school teachers at the next renewal?

 

[Stalker62]

The fact your FEO takes it upon themselves to go even further should, in my opinion, be challenged.

They (who are this 'they'?), are entitled to make all and any equerries, into your suitability to hold firearms as 'they', deem fit.

As it should be.

Who here has nominated 'referees' they don't get on with?

 

[Apthorpe]

Strikes me as rather shifty behaviour. The process requires that you supply referees to support your application made at that time. The referees from a previous application are not valid for subsequent times, their agreement to act as a referee is not eternal. If they were, you would not have any need to seek referees on renewal. It is an obvious and deliberate abuse of process.

The law requires that your application is supported by two referees of good character. It does not provide that the police go on fishing expeditions looking for counter-opinions, especially by using consents which have expired.

 

[Rhodesianjess]

I've used employers as referee's since the rules came about. Way back then, the FLO ,who was a personal friend, told me that as your employer sees more of you than most people,barring the wife, they'd have seen you in all sorts of situations or stressed at work, happy,etc.
Stood me in good stead so far.

 

[User00056]

They (who are this 'they'?), are entitled to make all and any equerries, into your suitability to hold firearms as 'they', deem fit.

I disagree. There exists a process and a set of requirements. These should be adhered to. Your own personal opinion is effectively irrelevant, as is mine.

What is irrefutable however, is that we already see many instances of FEOs and departments going rogue and subjectively interpreting the requirements, and this merely contributes to the messy system we have in place. My personal view is that there should be 100% consistency in how the existing requirements are adhered to.

I suspect that is a big ask though.

 

[Stalker62]

Your own personal opinion is effectively irrelevant, as is mine.

Absolutely - except I was not expressing an opinion - they can make what enquiries they deem appropriate.

 

[Apthorpe]

They (who are this 'they'?), are entitled to make all and any equerries, into your suitability to hold firearms as 'they', deem fit.

Equerries? Surely royal sidekicks aren't necessary?
Surely there are limits? You're not claiming that they are entitled to tap my telephone or make clandestine searches of my house. The Police, as you know, are not simple entitled to act as they please. Where is the legal entitlement? Certainly the Statutory Guidance doesn't condone such activity.

As it should be.

Who here has nominated 'referees' they don't get on with?

That is an irrelevant question. When I have agreed to act as a referee to an applicant, that consent is to provide a referee for that application. It is not a consent to be contacted after the duration of that certificate. I'd question whether it is compliant with data protection legislation.

 

[Stalker62]

Equerries? Surely royal sidekicks aren't necessary?

Speak for yourself...

 

[Stalker62]

That is an irrelevant question.

No.

It was a rhetorical question, but go on some more, about how they are breaching your Civil Liberties.

 

[Apthorpe]

Speak for yourself...

View attachment 383272

I like your blue outfit, but I always thought you were taller.