guest1957 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/22/cameron-blasted-battle-shotgun-licence-fees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 high five, David Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedster Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I suppose we're lucky in that Dave and his rich friends go shooting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I wouldn't have a problem if the price went up so long as the grant and renewal process was made more efficient and was more standardised. If it isn't properly funded isn't there a risk that firearms departments will end up getting outsourced or staffed by less experienced officers? Wouldn't you prefer to be dealing with an experienced FEO that knows what he or she is talking about? A few hundred quid for a five year certificate doesn't seem that bad too me considering the leg work involved. They do a difficult job and I wouldn't want to see my local FEOs job outsourced. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I wouldn't have a problem if the price went up so long as the grant and renewal process was made more efficient and was more standardised. If it isn't properly funded isn't there a risk that firearms departments will end up getting outsourced or staffed by less experienced officers? Wouldn't you prefer to be dealing with an experienced FEO that knows what he or she is talking about? A few hundred quid for a five year certificate doesn't seem that bad too me considering the leg work involved. They do a difficult job and I wouldn't want to see my local FEOs job outsourced. Thoughts? Are we not tax payers? The police are not subsidising gun owners....... They are implementing the law, If the full cost of gun licensing is to be met by legitimate certificate holders then why os the full cost of policing met by criminals? The reason is policing is a greater benefit, one that benefits society as a whole same with gun licensing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I wouldn't have a problem if the price went up so long as the grant and renewal process was made more efficient and was more standardised. If it isn't properly funded isn't there a risk that firearms departments will end up getting outsourced or staffed by less experienced officers? Wouldn't you prefer to be dealing with an experienced FEO that knows what he or she is talking about? A few hundred quid for a five year certificate doesn't seem that bad too me considering the leg work involved. They do a difficult job and I wouldn't want to see my local FEOs job outsourced. Thoughts? No one knows if it isn't 'properly funded' as the Police have failed as yet to show a breakdown figure of the cost of administering the licensing process. The cost of license administration is of no benefit to the shooter but is carried out 100% for the benefit of the safety of the general public, and as such should be subsidised by the tax payer. It was always thus.Nothing has changed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 This is the only time you will see socialists whinging about something being subsidised by the state . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I wouldn't have a problem if the price went up so long as the grant and renewal process was made more efficient and was more standardised. If it isn't properly funded isn't there a risk that firearms departments will end up getting outsourced or staffed by less experienced officers? Wouldn't you prefer to be dealing with an experienced FEO that knows what he or she is talking about? A few hundred quid for a five year certificate doesn't seem that bad too me considering the leg work involved. They do a difficult job and I wouldn't want to see my local FEOs job outsourced. Thoughts? For the last 15 years non of the enquiry officers FEOs that have visited me had ever shot in the field, so your point on experience is? There seems to be a definite move away from employing those with experience. Now I am just doing a renewal and they are sending someone out to interview me, check my safes etc yet all they need to do is run a fresh PNC and medical check if they feel it required imo, the fact I have no criminal convictions and have had over 20 years to do something nutty with my guns counts for nothing. All this has been done many times from when I was 18 yrs old and got my first ticket I am now in my mid forties. Land checks by persons who have never assessed a shot in the field? people who have never stalked a deer or lamped a fox talking about what I can and cannot use safely. Now its safe to shoot foxes at night with that .243 sir but don't you go shooting any rabbits in daylight now! Target shooter been under range orders 5 yrs? fine have an open ticket for deer no training no experience required you have already fired guns so your just fine and don't need to know all that stuff you never learn on the range No make it logical make it reasonable and don't needlessly waste my money that I pay in taxes and tickets! Every pound wasted on my next visit should go towards getting the illegally held firearms off the streets but I bet they nit pick and create unrequired hassles. The old firearms guys used to meet the applicant on site to do land checks and questions were asked of the applicant / shooter, these days its a tick box without them present convince me the system works because I have my growing doubts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Geordie Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I would like to see the license last for 10 years, instead of the current 5. Lets face it! They are now allowed access to doctors records at will AND have their own systems to flag up any incidents! There should be no reason to check you every 5 years, when they can check up on you every 5 minutes with the push of a button. I don't really see how they can claim it costs around £200 to issue a license, when a Passport is under £100 and is more stringent in reguard to background checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Knowing the local police fairly well and having lived next to a couple of senior coppers for 20 yrs I have no doubt real cost of SGC at least could be cut to a few quid. 99% of us need no special attention so renewal should be a formality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 The possible reason for this suggested 'hike' is that licensing admin' now feel under increased pressure and criticism following the shootings by Atherton. Perhaps they are requesting a GP's report on an applicant on each application or renewal, regardless of whether an applicant includes any potential anomaly in their declaration,in the hope (and fearful of missing anything relevant ) that it will highlight any possible risks. Knowing that HO guidance doesn't cater for this they realise they will be hit for the costs incurred and are therefore pushing for the 'hike' to cover this cost. Durham have introduced the GP's report scheme on a 'voluntary basis' but don't believe for one minute Durham did this 'off their own bat'. If unopposed the Police will soon be pushing for a GP's report to be compulsory.Their budgets are being squeezed if not cut, and with the inefficiency of licensing admin' they're desperate to find alternative methods of recouping this loss. They now have two possible solutions. The annoying thing is, neither will ensure any added safety for the general public. A £1000 license fee wont ensure this nor will a GP's report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 i cannot see the point of a gp's report, i doubt my doctor has met me more than 2-3 times. its just another attempt at a money raising exercise because of the licence monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I would like to see the license last for 10 years, instead of the current 5. Lets face it! They are now allowed access to doctors records at will AND have their own systems to flag up any incidents! There should be no reason to check you every 5 years, when they can check up on you every 5 minutes with the push of a button. I don't really see how they can claim it costs around £200 to issue a license, when a Passport is under £100 and is more stringent in reguard to background checks. A very valid point, when set they did not have the computers we have today. Also why do they need to look at my safes yet again? They looked when fitted, they looked when I renewed the shotguns, when I last renewed. A copper in his car can get a list of my firearms and serial numbers sent to him in minutes, I live on a farm and they have my doctors details and the doctor tells me they always check Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 i cannot see the point of a gp's report, i doubt my doctor has met me more than 2-3 times. its just another attempt at a money raising exercise because of the licence monopoly. I can, its the part I support. My doctor has had patients commit suicide with their firearms and a person should be checked as regards clinical depression, in deed I think the doctors themselves might even report it voluntarily during the term if they are conserned? Though still I suppose the real dangerous ones are the ones who are not seeing the doctor about it, wasn't the guy in Cumbria being treated? the fact remains that this can be done by e-mail to the practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) As you can see from the article, BASC are well on top of this and it's been rumbling on for quite a while now. The £200 price seems to have been plucked out of the air many months ago but despite repeated asking the police have not yet come up with any figures to back up their claim that this is the real cost of licencing. As many of us know the system in some forces is inefficient with the licencing teams adding extra administrative checks over and above what the Firearms Act or the HO guidance asks for. This adds time and cost for absolutely no benefit what so ever. Several forces stick to the guidelines and process applications quickly and efficiently, and there is absolutely no evidence at all that there is any greater risk to public safety in these forces. Its absolutely not fair for shooters to pay a high price for a poor service. So a price increase is probably due as costs have risen since the last fees rise, but we want a fair price for a fair and efficient service. David Edited April 23, 2014 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 i cannot see the point of a gp's report, i doubt my doctor has met me more than 2-3 times. My point exactly. the doctor tells me they always check I'm sure they do, and it's costing them. So what are the solutions to the above two posts? Compulsory visit to your GP and a satisfactory report as a prerequisite to a successful application / renewal? These would ensure costs were met and the Police have covered their aris, but still neither would ensure the safety of the general public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Here's a press release from late last year on this issue: Home Office convenes fees working group The Home Office has begun a co-operative process with the shooting community to assess the correct proportion payable by shooters for licensing services provided by police under the Firearms Act. BASC’s Bill Harriman, Director of Firearms, and Christopher Graffius, Director of Communications, attended the first meeting with civil servants and other members of the shooting community at the Home Office yesterday. Civil servants confirmed that the current position was that there would be no change in licensing fees in the short term with the expectation that the group would make recommendations to inform any changes. The group is expected to meet throughout next year – when a full inspection of firearms licensing may be conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary – and into 2015. The group will deconstruct and examine the processes involved in issuing and renewing licenses and attribute costs to each step. These can then be allocated to the shooting community or the public purse according to Treasury guidelines. The group will also discuss improvements in the efficiency and delivery of the licensing system. Bill Harriman said: “BASC welcomes the approach outlined by the Home Office. This promises to be the most thorough examination of the system which should produce a fair and just outcome on fees. We gave the Home Office an assurance that we will put the work in to achieve this and will engage constructively in the process.” Edited April 23, 2014 by Simon Clarke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) And one from last June: Certificate fees: a fair price for a fair service Posted on Jun 11, 2013 Firearm and shotgun certificate holders and applicants should pay a fair price for a fair service, according to the UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has submitted a proposal to the Government to increase certificate fees from £50 to £94. The last revision of fees took place in 2001. BASC recognises that some costs will have increased but believes there are still efficiency savings and service improvements which can be made by the police, some with no cost attached. BASC also recognises that Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the ACPO lead on firearms licensing is committing time, effort and resources to make improvements. However, the licensing system is currently patchy at best, with significant differences in delivery across different police forces and long delays in some areas. Bill Harriman, BASC director of firearms said: “BASC’s specialist firearms team handles more than 500 calls every month from people who are trying to negotiate their way through the system. This puts us in a unique position to be able to assess how firearms licensing is operating across the UK. Service delivery is inconsistent. Some police forces produce long and unacceptable delays in the process. We are seeing improvements in some areas, but not in all. The police have official Home Office guidance which should be setting consistent standards, but our experience shows that in practice, this is far from the case. Certificate holders should pay a fair price for a fair service and BASC wishes to see that fair service put in place. Neither certificate holders nor the taxpayer should have to pay for inefficiency. BASC is talking to the police and to the Government and discussions are on-going.” Edited April 23, 2014 by Simon Clarke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I can, its the part I support. My doctor has had patients commit suicide with their firearms and a person should be checked as regards clinical depression, in deed I think the doctors themselves might even report it voluntarily during the term if they are conserned? Though still I suppose the real dangerous ones are the ones who are not seeing the doctor about it, wasn't the guy in Cumbria being treated? the fact remains that this can be done by e-mail to the practice. To support a GP's report is fine in theory but it could only have a chance of working if an applicant was obliged by law to visit their GP on each renewal/application, and only then if the applicant revealed matters of relevance, surely? What do you mean by 'a person should be checked as regards clinical depression'? Do you mean all applicants? As a matter of course? By their GP? Or do you mean by a trained psychiatrist? Many experts testified to the mental state of Bird at the inquest, but this was after the event. As far as I'm aware he wasn't being treated for anything but I may be wrong. What can be done by e mail to the practice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighteye Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I personally would be all for paying the actual costs of issuing an fac or sgc as long as the service of every firearms department reflected this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 "What can be done by e mail to the practice?" Exactly what the practice tells me they do now ask if there are any concerns the practice wishes to raise. It might be alcohol or drugs abuse, depression or many things. Not a full medical report Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Look, I'm happy to pay the costs of licensing, in a world where you can't even get a sandwich from M&S for less than £4, the license (and everything that goes with it) for £0.83 a month is staggeringly good value. However, I think the issue isn't with bringing what we pay to meet the current costs, but refining, homing and sorting out the licensing system from it's unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, so the whole process ultimately doesn't cost £198 per person.(I know I said this in another thread, but the point stands) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Read some of the comments at the foot of the article. Priceless and reminds me why all Guardian readers should be harvested for Soylent Green. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 "What can be done by e mail to the practice?" Exactly what the practice tells me they do now ask if there are any concerns the practice wishes to raise. It might be alcohol or drugs abuse, depression or many things. Not a full medical report Sorry, but I'm finding it difficuilt to follow your train of thought or logic in this and your other post I quoted I'm afraid. If you haven't seen your GP since last renewal, and there were no issues then, or even if you saw your GP six months ago, again, with no relevant issues, then what will this achieve? All your GP can say is that he/she last saw you for an ingrowing toenail or whatever six months ago, two years ago etc etc. None of this will show up any of the problems you describe above unless the patient lets it be known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Sorry, but I'm finding it difficuilt to follow your train of thought or logic in this and your other post I quoted I'm afraid. If you haven't seen your GP since last renewal, and there were no issues then, or even if you saw your GP six months ago, again, with no relevant issues, then what will this achieve? All your GP can say is that he/she last saw you for an ingrowing toenail or whatever six months ago, two years ago etc etc. None of this will show up any of the problems you describe above unless the patient lets it be known. Its not asking the doctor to certify you as fit to hold firearms, its asking any concerns known. Anyhow just had a phone call ex-head of Lancs firearms is coming as my new FEO Friday on my own renewal. Nice run out for him for very little real purpose Fact is we have a small rural practice and people talk,my bet is its fairly routine across the country (clue is its on the forms) Edited April 23, 2014 by kent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.