licensing fees - ACPO proposal

[David63]

Hmmm, I think accusing me of a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest is a bit over the top, but I accept my post was poorly worded, hence my ‘correction’ later. I used the word ‘another’ and put ‘a’ in my first post.

Pity you jump on it and accuse me of not thinking its important enough for me to bother about, a silly comment by you when you consider that my job and thus income to entirely dependent on shooting!

We always encourage people to lobby their MP on what we class as key issue and details on how to lobby and contact your MP are on our web site and have been for years. How to lobby your MP

So if my posts have encouraged just one more person to get in touch with their MP on this issue then that’s a good thing.

David

 

[hottopic]

I agree with and support the BASC on this, but surely this is the time to ask for a centralised licensing office rather than each force having one. I believe that this could most efficiently be achieved if the task remained with the police as per firearms act, but with interested forces having to put in competitive bids against each other to get the contract. Local FEO's would be retained and report back a single (national) management team rather than the current duplicated, inconsistent and inefficient process. Of course if we don't ask for this all we will get is ACPO trying to screw as much money out of the shooting community as it can for a service which on occasion leaves a lot to be desired with no incentive to improve

That is a good idea to ask for a centeralised authority. It is something that the NGO did back in August 2011 see http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/news/67/

I agree with the NGO and they submitted this to the government. Well done them.

 

[flytie]

Hmmm, I think accusing me of a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest is a bit over the top, but I accept my post was poorly worded, hence my ‘correction’ later. I used the word ‘another’ and put ‘a’ in my first post.
And I gave you the chance to correct your mistake.
Pity you jump on it and accuse me of not thinking its important enough for me to bother about, a silly comment by you when you consider that my job and thus income to entirely dependent on shooting!
I would have thought if the matter was so important to you, as you claim, that your OP would have been the rallying cry I had hoped for. Asking people directly to write to their MP's instead of beating round the bush. Sorry if it appears silly to point out the inconsistencies in your posting.
We always encourage people to lobby their MP on what we class as key issue and details on how to lobby and contact your MP are on our web site and have been for years. How to lobby your MP
And where was this link in your OP? Nice that you finally put it in.
So if my posts have encouraged just one more person to get in touch with their MP on this issue then that’s a good thing.
I agree. It's something I constantly advocate on this site. Nice that you got round to it in the end
David

Yours in silliness, Simon

 

[southern_stalker]

Hmmm, I think accusing me of a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest is a bit over the top, but I accept my post was poorly worded, hence my ‘correction’ later. I used the word ‘another’ and put ‘a’ in my first post.

Pity you jump on it and accuse me of not thinking its important enough for me to bother about, a silly comment by you when you consider that my job and thus income to entirely dependent on shooting!

We always encourage people to lobby their MP on what we class as key issue and details on how to lobby and contact your MP are on our web site and have been for years. How to lobby your MP

So if my posts have encouraged just one more person to get in touch with their MP on this issue then that’s a good thing.

David

How patronising. What is your job there David BASC? Obviously policy related. Good thing its not membership retention or recruitment although I am sure the people in charge of membership recruitment may not be happy with how Flytie was spoken too.....

 

[finnbear270]

How patronising. What is your job there David BASC?

Obviously policy related. Good thing its not membership retention or recruitment although I am sure the people in charge of membership recruitment may not be happy with how Flytie was spoken too.....

Probably not too bothered really!, as long as the status quo remains!.

 

[flytie]

How patronising. What is your job there David BASC? Obviously policy related. Good thing its not membership retention or recruitment although I am sure the people in charge of membership recruitment may not be happy with how Flytie was spoken too.....

Probably not too bothered really!, as long as the status quo remains!.

Don't worry men, I am no shrinking violet.

I could say more, a lot more to defend my position, but it would dissolve into a BASC bashing thread and that is something I do not want.

I would much prefer David & his collegues to force this issue into the public domain and to lead a concerted effort into forcing the governments hand when they introduce the increase in fees, which I am sure the government will! I just want us to get something in return.

Simon

 

[jack]

The key points will need to be:

• 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.

Letter or e-mail is fine, top and tail with a bit of personal background about you, that’s what I will be doing in a letter to my MP!

David

To which I would add the comments made by the NGO quoted below, which I am greatly surprised that David has not mentioned.
Link News - NGO Anger at Proposed Firearms Fees Rise of 88%
"The ACPO FELWG paper claims, "Firearms licensing is not a part of core policing duties and therefore the cost of firearms licensing should not be borne by the public purse."

In fact the licensing of firearms has been a police duty, by law, since 1920 and ACPO's own paper acknowledges that, "The primary objective of the firearms licensing process is to protect the public from harm."
A spokesman for the NGO said:
"The licensing of firearms and shot guns is to keep the public safe. It has no benefit to the licence holder. Licensees have always paid about a third of the overall cost, which is more than their share for a system designed for the public benefit. Governments have accepted that the balance should come from central funds. For the police to argue now that licensing is not a police duty when legislation has required them to undertake it since 1920 is simply extraordinary. Whenever anyone has suggested that a civilian authority could be a more appropriate vehicle for licensing, the police have always insisted on retaining responsibility."


This proposal is the initiative of Andy Marsh, who is the newly appointed head or chairman of ACPO FELWG and it strongly smacks of someone trying to make waves before learning to swim.

 

[David63]

Morning Jack,
I mentioned the NGO in the OP and how pleased I was that they too were getting involved in this.

Simon,
I can assure you that BASC are very much at the front of this issue and there is a long way to go yet, as things develop they will be on the BASC web site and I promise to post any updates on here too.

Also, in the future when I post any key issue statements from BASC I will post up the ‘how to lobby’ link too.

My best to all

David

 

[jack]

I received a response to my email to Steve Webb, my MP, from Nick Herbert, the Home Office minister.
A std response articulating the issues.
To selectively quote:
1. Primary reason for firearms licensing is to protect the public from harm, achieved through assessment of the applicants and the continuous review (?) of the existing certificate holders. Also to provide a service to the applicant in terms of timeliness and quality.
2. Fees set in 2000 and 2001, unchanged since then. ACPO are examining costings arising from firearms licensing procedures. Further examinations and discussions are required to ensure a more accurate fee to be set. The Government will look carefully at the quality of service license holders receive from the police and the scope for making some of the current processes more efficient whilst maintaining the appropriate management of risk and ensuring public protection.

So discussions are continuing.
With BASC and NGO I hope.

 

[David63]

Afternoon Jack,

Yes very much still on BASC / NGO’s agenda. Although I can’t speak for the NGO per se, I am sure that based on correspondence I have had with them we are very much on the same page as it were.

This is, pretty much, a ‘standard’ reply as you say, not least of all because nothing has much moved forward within Parliament since ACPO made their ‘complaint’ at the back end of last year.

The Home Office have not moved, and the Treasury are doubtless still looking at ways of relieving the pressure on the public purse.

However, we are all still waiting to see how ACPO, can justify the costs they currently charge.

Although we have seen on another thread that there are many forces that are doing great job with the resources and funding they have, there are several that aren’t delivering- it’s a failing system, so why should shooters pay to prop up a failing system?

That’s the message that BASC have been putting to Parliament since 2011 when the HASC report came out, and indeed was part of our submission to the enquiry.

I am very glad indeed that you got a reply from your MP, and I would encourage others to lobby their MP , the more of us that do them more the Home Office and other ministers will get the message!

Best to all,

David

 

[timbrayford]

Afternoon Jack,

Yes very much still on BASC / NGO’s agenda. Although I can’t speak for the NGO per se, I am sure that based on correspondence I have had with them we are very much on the same page as it were.

This is, pretty much, a ‘standard’ reply as you say, not least of all because nothing has much moved forward within Parliament since ACPO made their ‘complaint’ at the back end of last year.

The Home Office have not moved, and the Treasury are doubtless still looking at ways of relieving the pressure on the public purse.

However, we are all still waiting to see how ACPO, can justify the costs they currently charge.

Although we have seen on another thread that there are many forces that are doing great job with the resources and funding they have, there are several that aren’t delivering- it’s a failing system, so why should shooters pay to prop up a failing system?

That’s the message that BASC have been putting to Parliament since 2011 when the HASC report came out, and indeed was part of our submission to the enquiry.

I am very glad indeed that you got a reply from your MP, and I would encourage others to lobby their MP , the more of us that do them more the Home Office and other ministers will get the message!

Best to all,

David

+1 I have just heard back from my M.P. with Mr Herbert's response which appears to be identical to what jack received, hopefully if enough people write to the Minister there will be a positive outcome. atb Tim