walshie
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a classic case of the police making it up as they go along. I've been with 2 different forces and neither of them have asked me that.
You'd think they'd all sing off the same songsheet wouldn't you?
Getting a lodger?
- Thread starter Gaothead
- Start date
That sounds like a classic case of the police making it up as they go along. I've been with 2 different forces and neither of them have asked me that.
You'd think they'd all sing off the same songsheet wouldn't you?
Druid
Well-Known Member
We had a lodger, good dozen years ago. Never a problem, wasn't even asked about them.
i have never come across other members of the same house being checked out, good lord, what about the many twenty or thirty something doing house shares?
plenty of shooters don't have a place of their own.
i have never come across other members of the same house being checked out, good lord, what about the many twenty or thirty something doing house shares?
plenty of shooters don't have a place of their own.
There are a number of documented situations where certs have been suspended when chaps take up with another woman whose kids etc etc. Equally I know a chap who lots of lady friends and thus cause for 'angst' and he never informs the police. I would if there were a good reason to - you pays your money and makes your choice - literally.
Druid
Well-Known Member
E
xactly. if you feel the need to check up on someone why on earth would you have them as a lodger in the first place?
I quote from the Administration of Firearms Licensing Procedural Good Practice Guide 2002.
• Consider character of applicant and third parties (family, friends, associates, other residents) and where appropriate conduct PNC/CRO and criminal intelligencechecks.
Considerable care must be taken when conducting these checks as thereis likely to be an infringement of Article 8 European Convention on HumanRights (ECHR). The Family, Friends and Associates of the individual applying have a right to respect for their privacy and family life and Firearms Controllegislation makes no provision for this right in respect of these persons to beinterfered with. Any such interference must be shown to be necessary in theinterests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or theprotection of the rights and freedoms of others.
• Consider character of applicant and third parties (family, friends, associates, other residents) and where appropriate conduct PNC/CRO and criminal intelligencechecks.
Considerable care must be taken when conducting these checks as thereis likely to be an infringement of Article 8 European Convention on HumanRights (ECHR). The Family, Friends and Associates of the individual applying have a right to respect for their privacy and family life and Firearms Controllegislation makes no provision for this right in respect of these persons to beinterfered with. Any such interference must be shown to be necessary in theinterests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or theprotection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Noah
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Jagare
Well-Known Member
I'm amazed at some of the thing writen in this thread as well. Crap sums it up well
I'm just applying for my FAC as we speak, I informed the FEO when he did the home security visit that i had a lodger and the only question he asked was did i know them, I replied with 'yes it's a mate' end of story no more questions. I'm in the Thames valley and so far it's been over 6 months with letters of competency to, 2 written permissions and a visit to one of them to as neither was registered ( the other was in a different county). I obviously have no idea if this is the norm as it's my first application.
Wapinschaw
Well-Known Member
You and Taff may think it's crap, but stand back for a moment and ask why are otherwise rational people becoming near paranoid over an apparently minor issue. It may look different when viewed from New Zealand but maybe our over complicated law and those responsible for it's administration have a role in inducing this state of mind.
Jagare
Well-Known Member
I had a UK FAC and SGC for over 35 years. I've never been paranoid over the police or the goverment. I've never been in trouble with the police and worked and payed taxes since i was 15 years old. I don't have victim printed on my forehead and have found in life that you have to show people how to treat you. That includes the police. I've never put up with the tricks they,ve tried to pull over the years.
Who i have in my house is my concern, no body elses. Having checks on your inlaws because they come and live with you
. What the phuck are people thinking about.Some of the things i read on SD regarding the police just leaves me with a sad smile on my face.
A friend of mine , many years ago said the UK was heading for a police state. I thought he was talking out the back of his head. Now I'm not so sure.
Hi there I am in NZ at the moment, but have had a UK licence since the early 80s, I have never had problems with the police over my FAC , and know many people who have had lodgers and B&Bs none of those have had problems, the main problem with UK police is they take to long to do the simplest of things.
What if the in-laws come to stay for the weekend? Or the brother's family from down south for a couple of weeks? Or you have the decorators in. Or the son gets a girlfriend who stops now and again? Or the daughter and husband move in while they sell a house? Or you adopt a child? Or you run a hotel or B&B? Or...or...or....
It would be a wonder that any police force would be able to get renewals done on time.
It would be a wonder that any police force would be able to get renewals done on time.
baconbuttie
Well-Known Member
My brother and his wife split up back in the spring, so he asked me if he could stay with me for a few weeks. I let him, on the understanding that any trouble with the law (his brains not what it could be) meant he was out. Within 2 weeks a local officer that I know fairly well let me know that he was not only known to them, but that they had been to my house twice in the past week as his estranged wife was worried about his behaviour and he had been smashing doors to get into the FMH. He was given a warning by me, but I had to kick him out (he wasn't paying anything towards bills either ... another issue though) when another bobbie turned up looking for him as he'd threatened a girl he had been seeing.
My tickets shouldn't have been a risk, he had no idea where the keys were etc, but given the police activity at my house, and the domestic violence possibility, did I do the right thing ? I think so.
My tickets shouldn't have been a risk, he had no idea where the keys were etc, but given the police activity at my house, and the domestic violence possibility, did I do the right thing ? I think so.
I'd say so.
I was interested in the comment about a police state.
It certainly seems like the police (chiefs) have a policy, often openly confirmed, that 'the public should not own guns'. They choose (or not to) interpret the Home Office advice on myriad issues, my own experience is calibres, need, ammunition totals. They have a rather 'subversive' organisation to deal with their propoganda, a private limited company which has been roundly criticised and abolished by the Home Office Minister, only to see it reappear in precisely its previous form.
Chief Cons of bigger police forces expect a 'Sir' for getting there. Some are prepared to defend their positions against the indefensible - football disasters and the like. They have been criticised for taking self determined action too far, albeit sometimes in diffcult circumstances at lower levels. Etc.
Whilst these and other criticisms (descrimination etc ) can be levelled at many organisations. Should not the police be the 'best of the best' and if they feel they dont need to be individually and collectively, is this above, not evidence of needing to be seen to do the right thing internally?
If doing what the boss says overtakes the police oath, then we are heading somewhere I dont want to go.
It certainly seems like the police (chiefs) have a policy, often openly confirmed, that 'the public should not own guns'. They choose (or not to) interpret the Home Office advice on myriad issues, my own experience is calibres, need, ammunition totals. They have a rather 'subversive' organisation to deal with their propoganda, a private limited company which has been roundly criticised and abolished by the Home Office Minister, only to see it reappear in precisely its previous form.
Chief Cons of bigger police forces expect a 'Sir' for getting there. Some are prepared to defend their positions against the indefensible - football disasters and the like. They have been criticised for taking self determined action too far, albeit sometimes in diffcult circumstances at lower levels. Etc.
Whilst these and other criticisms (descrimination etc ) can be levelled at many organisations. Should not the police be the 'best of the best' and if they feel they dont need to be individually and collectively, is this above, not evidence of needing to be seen to do the right thing internally?
If doing what the boss says overtakes the police oath, then we are heading somewhere I dont want to go.
With everyone, and their dog, seeking compensation for every slip up, in any circumstances, I don't suppose the police are being over-cautious in a lot of situations. It must be frustrating for a lot of would-be sellers, having to wait months for a would-be buyer to get a variation/renewal.
Similar threads
