licensing fees - ACPO proposal
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
Rangefinder
Well-Known Member
It is and I trust you are using the FOI to its full potential to inform your stance David?
It's high time the kid gloves came off, & a start was made on some real talks with these idiots.
Orion
Well-Known Member
You really think Gas Safe operate the register without legislation in place to support their position, or without being appointed by HSE as per requirements within the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) regulations 1998?
Check out sections 3 & 4 - http://Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998
Nothing voluntary about being on the register or not if you want to work on gas.
Back on topic - totally agree with Rangefinder and hope that FOI is being used to effectively name and shame some of the forces. Look at the results of the 'renewal' info that was copied into another thread, totally shows up some of them for what they are. Is anything done about those that wouldn't/couldn't provide the requested information? Report to the Information Commissioner?
Last edited:
Using the Freedom of Information Act is only needed if we can’t get the information anyway.
As I posted originally, It has long been BASC’s position that before there is any increase in licence fees there must be a consistent approach. We want all police forces to follow Home Office guidelines which is not being done across the board.
They have got to conform to this standard. They cannot ask for ‘full cost recovery’ on licence fees before they show that they are efficient, that costs are minimised and that a standardised approach to licensing is applied across the country.
We want a full and thorough examination of licensing procedures across every police force in the country to make sure they are firstly adhering to Home Office guidelines and secondly applying a consistent and practical approach to firearms licensing.
If I can draw an analogy, and this if my personal view only…at the moment…
A few weeks ago I renewed my passport, I filled in the form, get some photos taken, got my referee to countersign the form and the photos. I then had it checked by a nice lady at the post office to make sure it was all filled in correctly, and my photos were o.k., it was put in the mail on a Thursday and within 12 days my new passport was on the doormat.
It cost me just over £85 for the application and for using the ‘check and send’ service.
The Passport office use optical scanners to ‘read’ the application form and extract and store on their database the relevant information. Assuming nothing on the application ‘red flags’, only a basic check will now be needed (they did not contact my referee for example). The passport is automatically printed, inserted into an envelope and wings its way to me.
So, for FAC or SGC demonstrably all the up front processing of application / renewal forms can be done quickly using modern technology, surely the police database could be checked automatically to see if the applicant had come to the attention of the police in the last 5 years but given that about 99% of people will be fine, I see no reason at all that the application / renewal cannot be processed within 2 weeks just like a passport.
The licenses could then be printed and sent to the relevant FEO’s ot other trained operational officer so they can make the appointment to come round to see you, have the chat, and assuming everything is ok, just like it is 99.99% of the time hand you your new shiny license!
Too bloody simple I guess!
David
As I posted originally, It has long been BASC’s position that before there is any increase in licence fees there must be a consistent approach. We want all police forces to follow Home Office guidelines which is not being done across the board.
They have got to conform to this standard. They cannot ask for ‘full cost recovery’ on licence fees before they show that they are efficient, that costs are minimised and that a standardised approach to licensing is applied across the country.
We want a full and thorough examination of licensing procedures across every police force in the country to make sure they are firstly adhering to Home Office guidelines and secondly applying a consistent and practical approach to firearms licensing.
If I can draw an analogy, and this if my personal view only…at the moment…
A few weeks ago I renewed my passport, I filled in the form, get some photos taken, got my referee to countersign the form and the photos. I then had it checked by a nice lady at the post office to make sure it was all filled in correctly, and my photos were o.k., it was put in the mail on a Thursday and within 12 days my new passport was on the doormat.
It cost me just over £85 for the application and for using the ‘check and send’ service.
The Passport office use optical scanners to ‘read’ the application form and extract and store on their database the relevant information. Assuming nothing on the application ‘red flags’, only a basic check will now be needed (they did not contact my referee for example). The passport is automatically printed, inserted into an envelope and wings its way to me.
So, for FAC or SGC demonstrably all the up front processing of application / renewal forms can be done quickly using modern technology, surely the police database could be checked automatically to see if the applicant had come to the attention of the police in the last 5 years but given that about 99% of people will be fine, I see no reason at all that the application / renewal cannot be processed within 2 weeks just like a passport.
The licenses could then be printed and sent to the relevant FEO’s ot other trained operational officer so they can make the appointment to come round to see you, have the chat, and assuming everything is ok, just like it is 99.99% of the time hand you your new shiny license!
Too bloody simple I guess!
David
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
+1 However with the ACPO representitive coming from Hampshire Police, possibly the least efficient force in the country in terms of FAC/SGC processing and apparently so ashamed of it that they do not respond to FOI requests, there is clearly a huge challenge ahead to make progress on this matter.atb Tim
flytie
Well-Known Member
Finn, I cannot but agree with all you say.
I was not surprised when I read David's opening sally and sadly read not one thing that the average shooter could do about the proposals. As always it was a hand wringing exercise, not a "man the barracades boys" rally to arms (excuse the pun) that I believe it should have been.
When this was first reported in the shooting Times I wrote to my MP. In which I outlined my veiws that before an increase in costs was applied to FAC holders, an improvement in service must be evident and an adhereance to Home Office guidelines and ACPO recommendations must be forthcoming. I also mentioned that an improvement in turnaround times would be good too.
If only we all did the same! Something along the lines of the American NRA?
There is a cause here which could provide something which all shooters could give their support to. But if we are invited to do such a thing in the manner of the OP there is little hope for shooter's rights.
Simon
Orion
Well-Known Member
Yup. Because it doesn't give the FEO any scope to work out his own individual or the FLDs prejudices or agendas.
flytie
Well-Known Member
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
David - I agree with what you are saying.
This may be pedantic, but I wish (and do think it important) that we continue to refer to the FAC as a certificate and not a license. Viewing it as a license may partly explain certain attitudes towards applying the Home Office guidelines. THe Police should also have a Firearms Certification Department and not a Firearms Licensing Department...
On second thoughts, yes it probably is pedantic, sorry...
This may be pedantic, but I wish (and do think it important) that we continue to refer to the FAC as a certificate and not a license. Viewing it as a license may partly explain certain attitudes towards applying the Home Office guidelines. THe Police should also have a Firearms Certification Department and not a Firearms Licensing Department...
On second thoughts, yes it probably is pedantic, sorry...
Last edited:
Excellent point Simon.
Perhaps BASC would be able to provide a common format for these letters so that all the points are addressed and the approach consistent?
If this format were posted on this forum (for instance) then all people would have to do would be to copy and paste, print off and sign.
This would save people time and provide a consistent approach from each correspondent to their respective MPs.
What think you David?
Thanks
Gareth
Orion
Well-Known Member
I think Gareth (Zaitsev) has put forward an excellent proposal for a co-ordinated campaign that anyone who has an interest in this subject can get involved with.
As he suggests, it could be made as simple as a cut and paste email campaign with a standardised email to your MP. It's literally only a couple of mouse clicks away if you use this website: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ you can even email them directly from the website.
However I would always suggest that a 'personalised' version is also sent to your MP by snail mail - address details available on the same website - as it is more likely to get their eye and provoke a response and maybe some action.
As he suggests, it could be made as simple as a cut and paste email campaign with a standardised email to your MP. It's literally only a couple of mouse clicks away if you use this website: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ you can even email them directly from the website.
However I would always suggest that a 'personalised' version is also sent to your MP by snail mail - address details available on the same website - as it is more likely to get their eye and provoke a response and maybe some action.
Last edited:
The key points will need to be:
David
- There must be a consistent approach in licensing / certification.
- We want all police forces to follow Home Office guidelines.
- We want them to conform to this standard.
- They cannot ask for ‘full cost recovery’ on licence fees before they show that they are efficient, that costs are minimised and that a standardised approach to licensing is applied across the country.
- There must be a full and thorough examination of licensing procedures across every police force in the country to make sure they are firstly adhering to Home Office guidelines and secondly applying a consistent and practical approach to firearms licensing.
David
flytie
Well-Known Member
David,
Why, I wonder, when you are representing an organisation purporting to be at the forefront of this issue, have you not written to your MP already?
Are you, as part of your job, not allowed to raise your head above the parapet? Or did you deem it not important enough?
Simon
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
+1 Good point
flytie
Well-Known Member
David, you confuse me. In one post you say you will be contacting your MP on this matter. A few posts later you say you already have. Is this a strategic ploy to get more people to do the same? Or is it just sophistry?
My MP (Harriet Baldwin) has responded to my missive by giving her standard reply. A letter confirming her reciept of my missive. But I also got her assurance that she will try and get to know the facts of the issue before voting one way or the other.
She has been of great help to me in the past and seems to be an excellent constituency MP who is an advocate of shooters rights.
Simon
Similar threads
