Response from MP and Home Office, is someone telling porkies?

[HDAV]

So I got home tonight and waiting for me was a letter from the House of commons!

 

Below is the text of the letter: (personal details removed)

 

Letter from my MP

 

Letter dated 7/11/14

Dear Mr

Thank you for writing to me regarding your concerns about ACPO's Firearms Campaign and

the subsequent emails you have sent to me on this issue. I have noted in particular that you

believe the Crimestoppers dedicated number has now been dropped.

Following your original email, I raised your concerns from the Home Secretary and I have

recently received a response from the Home Office. l enclose a copy of that letter herewith

and I hope that you find it helpful.

Yours sincerely

MP

 

 

 

Letter dated 31/10/14

Thank you for your letter of 14 October to the Home Secretary on behalf of

Mr.........about the police-led initiative to make unannounced home visits to firearm and shotgun certificate

holders. I am replying as the Minister for Crime Prevention. The police launched a national campaign on 15 October to raise awareness of

behaviour changes that might indicate a risk in relation to licensed firearms. This is a police-led and funded initiative. Under the terms of the campaign, the police

may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder's firearms and shotguns. This will only be done on a targeted and risk assessed basis. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns. Our understanding is that the low key campaign was developed in close cooperation with the shooting community including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and agreed with the British Shooting Sports Council with the aim of reinforcing the safety of legally held firearms. Senior police officers have been clear that the campaign hopes to work with licence holders to raise awareness of security issues and provide a mechanism to report concerns. I would like to clarify that there are no new powers of entry for police or police staff when conducting home visits. When conducting such a visit, the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit to avoid any potential misunderstanding. In support of the campaign, Crimestoppers launched a dedicated, anonymous

phone line to encourage people to report any concerns about the behaviour of people in possession of firearms and shotguns. Crimestoppers will accept calls

regarding any concerns but are also specifically seeking information about people witnessing, or living in a home in, domestic turmoil where a firearm is

being stored or any sudden issues affecting a certificate holder. Such issues include physical or mental ill health or problems with drug, alcohol or substance

misuse. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and I am determined to keep it that way. I would like to assure Mr ... that firearms licensing remains a priority for me and for the Government both in terms of public safety and in ensuring that a fair and effective service is provided.

I hope that this reply clarifies the position.

 

[Jay_Russell]

Im not sure who is supposedly telling porkys?

Scratch that, crimestoppers still has plans for their dedicated hotline by all accounts

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Our copies of Norman Bakers letter arrived this morning.

[HDAV]

Our copies of Norman Bakers letter arrived this morning.

Same letter?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes a copy of Norman Bakers letter with a covering letter from one of my MPs staff

[panoma1]

In relation to "unannounced visits" there appears to be subtle differences between what ACPO/Government and the shooting representative bodies have been claiming in this matter!....thankfully they appear now to be singing from a similar hymn sheet?

 

For me the real concern is were these differences a question of honesty or competence? And by whom?

[HDAV]

For me the real concern is were these differences a question of honesty or competence? And by whom?

 

Indeed...... seems the people round the table have different ideas on what was agreed, and by whom...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I think I may write a letter to Norman Baker MP for some clarification.

[Scully]

So the response from the HO claims that they understood the 'campaign was developed in close cooperation with the shooting community ( I wonder who this consisted of exactly ) including BASC and agreed with the BSSC with the aim of reinforcing the safety of legally held firearms'. And all this prior to the announcement of the 'new initiative' ? So does this mean that contrary to what I believed, our shooting organisations not only had prior knowledge of this 'new initiative' but actually condoned it? It is clear that ACPO have decided legitimate firearms holders pose a security risk and need a wake up, but if the minister has got it right, am I right in thinking our shooting organisations agreed with them? Or am I right in thinking that our shooting organisations are powerless to do anything but agree with them?

Or has the Minister for Crime Prevention got it wrong? Or have I?

Am shooting with Lord ******* this Saturday. Will see if he can shed some light on this. He wont mind me asking; it's not as if talking will put him off his shooting.

[HDAV]

Scully my thoughts exactly...

[Kes]

Scully my thoughts exactly...

Mine too - even the wording is the same as the BASC website - I do wonder who wrote what for whom ?

[Guest stevo]

So the response from the HO claims that they understood the 'campaign was developed in close cooperation with the shooting community ( I wonder who this consisted of exactly ) including BASC and agreed with the BSSC with the aim of reinforcing the safety of legally held firearms'. And all this prior to the announcement of the 'new initiative' ? So does this mean that contrary to what I believed, our shooting organisations not only had prior knowledge of this 'new initiative' but actually condoned it? It is clear that ACPO have decided legitimate firearms holders pose a security risk and need a wake up, but if the minister has got it right, am I right in thinking our shooting organisations agreed with them? Or am I right in thinking that our shooting organisations are powerless to do anything but agree with them?

Or has the Minister for Crime Prevention got it wrong? Or have I?

Am shooting with Lord ******* this Saturday. Will see if he can shed some light on this. He wont mind me asking; it's not as if talking will put him off his shooting.

my thoughts too :-(

[wymberley]

I think I may write a letter to Norman Baker MP for some clarification.

Because I'm somewhat confused, I'm not too sure whether or not you'll get a sensible answer. Is the Minister for Crime Prevention part of the Home Office? Because if it is, hasn't he just resigned? Therefore, he would probably pass your letter on to his replacement who more than likely will turn around and say as he wasn't in post at the time............On the other hand, I suppose if he really is fed up with Theresa May he might just be inclined to answer but the, "our understanding is...." indicates the usual political speak for the 'I'm not saying' cop out so it will require a change of attitude for him to do so.

 

Either way, it smells a bit and as they say, there's no smoke.....

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Fair point!

[Dekers]

I'm not at all sure about the comment Our understanding is that the low key campaign was developed in close cooperation with the shooting community including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

 

That is not the impression created by the BASC.

 

But in essence I go back a few weeks to various threads where certain/many people were getting excited and upset about this home visit malarkey, what has happened then, who has had a visit and does this not make it pretty clear that no law abiding shooter has anything to be concerned about!?

 

The Hotline may be another issue!

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dekers

[Scully]

I'm not at all sure about the comment Our understanding is that the low key campaign was developed in close cooperation with the shooting community including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

 

That is not the impression created by the BASC.

 

But in essence I go back a few weeks to various threads where certain/many people were getting excited and upset about this home visit malarkey, what has happened then, who has had a visit and does this not make it pretty clear that no law abiding shooter has anything to be concerned about!?

 

The Hotline may be another issue!

If you want to go through all this again, then I'll play, but start another thread. It's the implied insinuation behind the reason for the incentive (new or otherwise) that many people resent, which others just don't seem to get, or aren't concerned about. If you're not concerned, then fair enough, but don't insult others who are by implying their reactions are hormonal. They're annoyed, nothing more nor less.

The seemingly apparent ineffectiveness of our representatives to curb this, or indeed their possible compliance in its making, are of concern also. Personally I couldn't give a monkies chuff about the hotline; the incentive for antis or an axe to grind has never been an issue for those who oppose us, I doubt a hotline will make much difference either way.

[Dekers]

If you want to go through all this again, then I'll play, but start another thread. It's the implied insinuation behind the reason for the incentive (new or otherwise) that many people resent, which others just don't seem to get, or aren't concerned about. If you're not concerned, then fair enough, but don't insult others who are by implying their reactions are hormonal. They're annoyed, nothing more nor less.

The seemingly apparent ineffectiveness of our representatives to curb this, or indeed their possible compliance in its making, are of concern also. Personally I couldn't give a monkies chuff about the hotline; the incentive for antis or an axe to grind has never been an issue for those who oppose us, I doubt a hotline will make much difference either way.

 

 

Come on Scully, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion as am I, but I am not a mind reader and cannot make comment on what you or anyone else considers is implied insinuation!

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dekers

[David BASC]

I'll get back to you all in a bit about this, with the facts.

 

David

[Guest cookoff013]

I'll get back to you all in a bit about this, with the facts.

 

David

 

cool.

[panoma1]

I'll get back to you all in a bit about this, with the facts.

 

David

Sorry David, but get back to us all with who' s facts?

[David BASC]

At BASC we are surprised at what the Home Office has said in their letter to Norman Baker, the former Home Office Minister. It is not an accurate representation of what happened.

 

BASC and all BSSC member shooting organisations were consulted on the wording of the Home Office guidance.

 

We have no power of veto but argued strongly for, and made sure that:

 

• Any unannounced visit must be based on intelligence, they cannot be random;
• The home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit;
• None of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry.

 

Like all other shooting organisations we told the police and the Home Office that the special firearms Crimestoppers line was a bad idea and we are all delighted at its removal

 

We will be contacting the Home Office to ask them to correct the errors in the letter.

Edited November 14, 2014 by David BASC

[Steppenwolf]

I think the Home Office is taking the shooting organisations for fools in my opinion. While meetings might happen and the shooting organisations will argue strongly in our favour, the media and their own press release say that these action were a CO-OPERATION between the Home Office and the shooting organisations.

 

This is blatant lying! It is not the first time that the government has claimed that we support an initiative when in reality we don't. I think shooting organisations need to start taking their own minutes of meetings or maybe even video record them to catch them (the government) telling a porkie.

[Dekers]

 

I note David BASC comment about the Hotline, is that correct that it has now been discontinued?

[wymberley]

At BASC we are surprised at what Norman Baker, the former Home Office Minister, has written. It is not an accurate representation of what happened.

 

BASC and all BSSC member shooting organisations were consulted on the wording of the Home Office guidance.

 

We have no power of veto but argued strongly for, and made sure that:

 

• Any unannounced visit must be based on intelligence, they cannot be random;
• The home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit;
• None of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry.

 

Like all other shooting organisations we told the police and the Home Office that the special firearms Crimestoppers line was a bad idea and we are all delighted at its removal

 

We will be contacting the Home Office to ask them to correct the errors in the letter.

David,

 

One point if I may, please.

 

The 3 bullet points that you mention were in the original release so it would appear that BASC et al were successful in these respects. However, from your post, it is not clear whether or not the 'hotline' aspect is not included in the points because you were not successful with regard to that one, or whether or not it is a separate entity. Consequently, could you possibly confirm at what point did BASC et al initially complain about its inclusion ie during the consultations or after the release and the resultant discontent it generated?

 

Many thanks.

 

Many thanks

[David BASC]

Yes, the dedicated hot line has gone,

 

It is my understanding that BASC, and the CA robustly argued against the separate hotline before the guidance was published.

 

We both continued to robustly complain after publication of the Guidance, and last week ACPO dropped it

Edited November 14, 2014 by David BASC