Utectok
Well-Known Member
They cost a couple of quid I have two or three for flytying and looking for coolant leaks in my landrover groanAll well and good but how many private sellers have a UV torch to hand?
D
They cost a couple of quid I have two or three for flytying and looking for coolant leaks in my landrover groanAll well and good but how many private sellers have a UV torch to hand?
D
I prefer to dump the whole transfers and payment issue on my local RFD and I'm more than happy to pay for the privilege.It's not an alleged problem. There have been multiple instances of fake FAC's acquiring firearms. The only immediate solutions would create significant additional strain on already stretched resources.
Did they get it second hand from the post office?Don't forget the police firearms had a multi million £ computer system to link all the different licencing departments the length of Britain!
Does anyone know if they got it working, last I heard was that it never worked!!
My understanding is the forgeries are not done to a high standard and only need to be inspected by the man selling the firearm who have little idea what to look for. I think they are photoshop jobs. Next time I’m selling a firearm I’ll take along a uv torch a simple no brainer seems to me.If criminals can successfully forge a passport to the point that it can pass all the checks at an airport, what chance do the authorities have with an FAC?
Where are these published/recorded? If there are so many you would think someone could cite a few….It's not an alleged problem. There have been multiple instances of fake FAC's acquiring firearms. The only immediate solutions would create significant additional strain on already stretched resources.
Yeah, just like how GCHQ publish what they've thwarted.Where are these published/recorded? If there are so many you would think someone could cite a few….
Using an uninformative americanism to describe a number which you state may be either as low as two instances every 56 years or as high as a million times a minute, doesn't do anything to enlighten.It's not an alleged problem. There have been multiple instances of fake FAC's acquiring firearms. The only immediate solutions would create significant additional strain on already stretched resources.
Yeah, just like how GCHQ publish what they've thwarted.Let the criminals know which ones they know about so they can work out how to improve their methods.
You don't need to be a mensa member to work out how easy this type of fraud is. Even RFD's don't check the status of an FAC with the police, there is no requirement to do so.
The current procedure of transfer is deeply flawed from a security perspective. Instances of fraud go back decades it amazes me it's not more frequent to be honest.
Nope…it’s about risk assessment, to know how high the risk is we need to know the probability of the occurrence, otherwise it’s wasted efforts that could be used elsewhere in a hugely flawed system.Sometimes I think forums are mad. All this…. we must know how often it happens…. it’s a conspiracy…. the system is broken nonsense?! I mean if it happens once that’s a problem right?
I’m grateful that there has been a campaign to highlight the existing safety features in the certification and happy to use them if I sell some firearms in the future. It seems as simple as that…… all the rest is bunker mentality which I can’t be bothered with. Keep life simple I say.
Surely you’d have been better asking the NCA to provide the figures that constitute the ‘surge’ they refer to. Or to ask Polis Scotland to provide you with the figures they provided the NCA. Either way this should be a quick & easy thing to do as they form the basis of the argument in the first place… cynical, moi, of course not
Both should lead to the same response. It should be data that was already defined and sorted - that’s why I’m not really buying it.Surely you’d have been better asking the NCA to provide the figures that constitute the ‘surge’ they refer to. Or to ask Polis Scotland to provide you with the figures they provided the NCA. Either way this should be a quick & easy thing to do as they form the basis of the argument in the first place… cynical, moi, of course not![]()
Try narrowing the question you ask, or redrafting it in such a way to make it more specific. it might be that it’s breadth that’s causing too many man hours to sift through data and provide an answer.Both should lead to the same response. It should be data that was already defined and sorted - that’s why I’m not really buying it.
To say there is an issue they must’ve mined the data already.
Och, I don’t think it’ll matter…it likely won’t make any difference to the outcome i’m afraid:Try narrowing the question you ask, or redrafting it in such a way to make it more specific. it might be that it’s breadth that’s causing too many man hours to sift through data and provide an answer.
Surely it is possible to tell. All transfers are notifiable. All legally bought from new and sold secondhand firearms are traceable. If you sell a firearm to someone with a fake certificate and the notify the plod as you must, they will surely work out (immediately or eventually) that the buyer had a fake certificate?So no actual numbers have been published because there is no way of knowing how many fraudulent transactions have taken place.From my way of looking at it this is someone looking at our system and now realizing how easy it would be to produce a counterfeit licence and using it to acquire from private individuals.But looking at the guns etc used in crime most of them are illegal hand guns so you don’t need a certificate.