Home Office and Plymouth "Tragedy"
- Thread starter coire257
- Start date
Franchi Matt
Well-Known Member
I did not know that thanks
Totally understand parliament being loathed from day one though, so much greed and corruption. I mean now we are use to being treated like idiots, however that must of come as a real shock to folk back in the 13th century
Can't give a figure but £67 seems very low. Move to a web based input system, single click "update details" for the renewal if nothing has changed. Have this side run by a delegated organisation that is UK wide thus reducing inconsitencies. Dealers access the same system to add ammunition or firearms purchase, offering a better one-for-one variation option. We've thrown this around on here before that we could create a better system and I think most folk were for it. I'll stand corrected, but I'm fairly certain there is no right to own firearms. The firearm act is couched in a way that says if we have a reason then a licence should be granted, but that isn't a right. So we should pay for the licence that allows us to have our hobby. I pay £300+ annually to be allowed to be a vet, so £67 every 5 years is nothing
FACs and SGCs only benefit society as a whole. They have zero benefit to gun users. That is why the tax payer ought at the very least bear part of the cost.
Do you mean that FAC holders ought to sign a blank cheque for any degree of incompetence and waste in the system? Or that the police have been proven to be quite capable of performing all the necessary checks within the existing fee so all forces ought to?
And we all know how much a vet charges
if you only want shooting to be participated by middle to high income earners and throw the working class and probably a lot of pensioners under a bus then high fees are certainly going to move it forward that way. I fear for the next generation if that is the case and pessimistic for the future if we condone and encourage high licence fees, we should be resisting such.
If there were no right to own firearms, would it not be called a Firearms or Shotgun Licence, rather than a Certificate?
As I've mentioned before, there can be few lawful firearms-users who are unaware that firearms 'licensing' is not intended to be a benefit them personally: we benefit from in only it than in that we are members of the public.
A small fee to discourage vexatious applications has been thought appropriate since the 1920 Act.
It is clear, though, that the HO considers increasing cost to applicants as one of the tools they have to reduce lawful firearms use: keeping which in mind, I never fail to be surprised by certificate-holders who welcome fee-increases of any kind - let alone 'full cost recovery' - which, as we saw with the BASC-welcomed applicant-funded GP involvement, could result in some disagreeable outcomes: at least, for those who lack the funds.
If you've plenty money, of course, you'll be fine!
The GP thing is also a scam…started as £15-£35 now some have ramped up the cost as they know there’s little choice for applicants…
Licences to print money in some cases.
Should FAC Costa go up? Probably, yes, but for that to be the case the service really needs to be improved, streamlined and more consistent as some of the militant FEO’s rocking up imposing their version of requirements is getting out of hand.
Regards,
Gixer
Licences to print money in some cases.
Should FAC Costa go up? Probably, yes, but for that to be the case the service really needs to be improved, streamlined and more consistent as some of the militant FEO’s rocking up imposing their version of requirements is getting out of hand.
Regards,
Gixer
Oh dear !
The Masons may push work to one another because they know each other - they may have favoured members to join professions but, as a Christian organisation at heart, (my relatives were Masons) they would not - any more than any of us allow a demented slime like Hamilton access to guns.
I am afraid we have to look elsewhere for a motive not the ever -convenient and wrong Masonic thing. Maybe someone will come up with something other than conjecture.
The Masons may push work to one another because they know each other - they may have favoured members to join professions but, as a Christian organisation at heart, (my relatives were Masons) they would not - any more than any of us allow a demented slime like Hamilton access to guns.
I am afraid we have to look elsewhere for a motive not the ever -convenient and wrong Masonic thing. Maybe someone will come up with something other than conjecture.
IMHO, ownership of firearms is neither a right nor a privilege
I would call it a "conditional right" because the firearms act clearly states that if the applicant meets the conditions laid down in the act, the chief constable SHALL issue a certificate - hence a "conditional right"
Cheers
Bruce
I would call it a "conditional right" because the firearms act clearly states that if the applicant meets the conditions laid down in the act, the chief constable SHALL issue a certificate - hence a "conditional right"
Cheers
Bruce
But you won’t get any of those things, you’ll get the same inefficient and inconsistent system we already have, that is costing far more than it should, and you’ll be liable for the full cost so they’ll never improve it.
You’ll also have a licence fee so high it will be a huge barrier to new entrants to the sport who are literally the only way to safeguards its future!
So which should come first then ....................... Improvements, Or price rises.?
improvements, like any business they should be looking at how to increase productivity reduce costs and improve efficiency, generally business that do not do so have no long term future as they become uncompetitive.
So government should be no different, was that not one of the goals of selling off the likes of BT, etc.
So government should be no different, was that not one of the goals of selling off the likes of BT, etc.
Northwest
Well-Known Member
The Police ARE well funded, just not well managed. I think that is pretty obvious.
And what, exactly, is that cost. There are oceans of threads on here bemoaning the incompetence of Licensing departments, we are to fund this? You cannot possibly reward those really incompetent departments by giving them yet more money and suppose we did does anyone on here believe that the Police would use the extra funds ONLY for firearms licensing? Of course they would.
Where this all needs to start is training, a Firearms Licensing Officer is the ONLY job I know that currently requires absolutely no qualifications at all. To date there is no Professional Practice standard. This needs to change, urgently.
Here we go again….. the cost of fac and sgc has to be borne by the public as firearms licensing was brought in for the publics safety. Yes, we should make a contribution and we do. How much is your driving licence ? A weapon that causes many more deaths than legally held firearms do ….. If you agree to pay the full cost of the licence in a matter of no time you’ll be paying many thousands of pounds at whatever frequency acpo state for their own incompetency/ over bureacracy
But you flip that on its head it’s not to protect the public, it’s to allow people with good reason to own firearms. The simplest (and cheapest) way of protecting the public from legally owned firearms is to remove them completely.
I don’t agree with raising the fees, but don’t be under the illusion that any of the general public think that licensing is for them rather than for the benefit of shooters!
I am under no illusion. FLA was actually brought in to protect govt from trained, disillusioned men who returned from war
The world has moved on from then as has the public’s perception of shooting sports and shooting in general.
So I would say you are either under an illusion or simply living in the past.
Similar threads
