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

[HDAV]

Doing something about nothing is still doing something .....

 

Which is what they are doing! They have always had the right to ask to inspect security if they concerns. The link to terrorism and the hotline were the contentions

[phaedra1106]

Durham - BASC took the front foot on this and will continue to do so with them or any other constabulary that puts daft barriers in the way of licencing

 

David, have you read the current thread here, http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/298056-medical-forms/

 

Here's most of what was said

 

"I was talking to the girl at the reception when I was abruptly told that I had to download them by a lady who said she was the fire arms licencing supervisor?.

After explaining my printer was broken I was reluctantly given the forms plus medical forms.

The officer mumbled something along the lines,it was now home office requirement or something.

I wasnt listening fully as she made me feel like I shouldn't even be in the building.

When I got home I noticed the med form now has the Home Office logo"

 

Durham are still giving out incorrect information and implying that the medical request forms are a Home Office requirement and putting the H.O. logo onto the forms.

 

It can be seen on page 5 here, https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licensing/Documents/Current%20GP%20scheme%20letter%20to%20applicant%20%28V5%20Oct%202014%29.pdf

 

They are also suggesting that a firearms department may revoke a particular section one status, two of us on PW (both under Durham) applied for variations for a VZ58 trigger release action rifle, this took several weeks as Durham were not convinced the Home Office had classed it correctly. After eventually getting the variation we both got letters enclosed with out certificates saying that another firearms department were not happy with it being section one and it may have it's section one status removed. This is complete rubbish, the rifle has been granted section one approval and firearms departments have no say whatsoever whether they like it or not. Another example of Durham wasting their (and our) time creating problems that don't exist in an effort to divert attention away from their incompetence at running an effective firearms licensing office.

Edited November 15, 2014 by phaedra1106

[David BASC]

Yes I am aware, further meetings with Durham this week.

 

Only the official forms have to be filled in , forms and more info on renewals here : http://basc.org.uk/firearms/certificate-renewals-2015/

 

If any member wants me to send them a hard copy of the forms just PM me

[Bazooka Joe]

Yes I am aware, further meetings with Durham this week.

 

Only the official forms have to be filled in , forms and more info on renewals here : http://basc.org.uk/firearms/certificate-renewals-2015/

 

If any member wants me to send them a hard copy of the forms just PM me

 

David, Durham are now 120 days behind on the renewals.

 

They are very reluctant/won't issue Temp Certs, it might be worth while mentioning this at your meeting.?

[Scully]

Yes I am aware, further meetings with Durham this week.

 

Only the official forms have to be filled in , forms and more info on renewals here : http://basc.org.uk/firearms/certificate-renewals-2015/

 

If any member wants me to send them a hard copy of the forms just PM me

Maybe it would be more pertinent if our shooting organisations sent their members a hard copy to enclose with their applications to their licensing authorities, of the reasons why they will not be complying with requests to contact their GP's? It could include that members logo at the head; it would certainly be more genuine than the HO logo atop Durhams forms.

Do you know if there are there any plans to simply ask Durham why they have included the HO logo on their forms? Their answer would be interesting.

[David BASC]

Bazooka Joe, thank you for the feedback, very useful and yes I will certainly pass that on

 

Sully, again thank you, and again I will pass it on

 

David

[panoma1]

I am personally getting fed up of hearing reports of police forces acting ultra vires (or plain lying?) when dealing with firearms licencing, perhaps our representative bodies should make them accountable by reporting every single such incident to the IPCC? the Police have had every chance over years and years to get things right and accurate in line with HO guidelines, but seem unable to resist making applicants jump through unnecessary hoops, by making up their own rules! for what? to prove they have bigger ***** than us.........or just because they can?

Then they have the audacity to ask for more money for providing this "service" what sick joke!.......the Police want to save money? well they could do so easily by passing responsibility for firearms licencing to a private organisation who would be accountable to their customers and could at least provide a professional and consistent level of service to shooters!

[Scully]

I am personally getting fed up of hearing reports of police forces acting ultra vires (or plain lying?) when dealing with firearms licencing, perhaps our representative bodies should make them accountable by reporting every single such incident to the IPCC? the Police have had every chance over years and years to get things right and accurate in line with HO guidelines, but seem unable to resist making applicants jump through unnecessary hoops, by making up their own rules! for what? to prove they have bigger ***** than us.........or just because they can?

Then they have the audacity to ask for more money for providing this "service" what sick joke!.......the Police want to save money? well they could do so easily by passing responsibility for firearms licencing to a private organisation who would be accountable to their customers and could at least provide a professional and consistent level of service to shooters!

[Kes]

Durham - BASC took the front foot on this and will continue to do so with them or any other constabulary that puts daft barriers in the way of licencing

If 'the front foot' means achieving nothing to help individual shooters, not exposing Durhams chronic inefficiency and not exposing the fact that this situation arose in the wake of a fatal example of their ineffectiveness then we need a new 'positive metaphor'.

Greylags - nothing to do with licencing or the current issue under discussion - so lets keep this thread on track, if you wish to resurrect the greylags issue then please start another thread

This thread, or at least my posts, are consistently about failures to achieve desired outcomes for shooters, in this case knowing better than the membership. That seems relevant to the thread, or at the very least the principle of listening more to members than other 'outside shooting' organisations.

Terrorism - in what way have BASC been implicated in this?

By not challenging the link which ACPO made to ensure their joint initiative with BASC 'demonised' shooters and chimed with the Police view that the PUBLIC should not have guns. Also accepting flawed stats to justify a link which anyone knew did not exist - By all means fall back on 'everyone supports safe storage of firearms but that view makes my point - damage limitation, or perhaps it shold be closing the membership door after the ACPO pony has bolted.

The word largely may not excite you, but our removal of it from the ACPO letter prevents random visits, I am sure Kes you welcome this.

To be honest David random visits dont bother me at all, I think we should be treated the same as any other member of the public as a matter of principle,given our safety record but keeping guns unsafely isnt what I do. If BASC had issued a joint communique via the press, asking shooters to take extra care with their guns in ANY situation because of hightened national concerns, without mentioning false stats and spurious links to the ungodly - I would not have reacted by complaining to my MP like thousands of shooters - some of whom may be BASC members.

ACPO have reminded certificate holders of the need to keep firearms securely and in their letter explained the context of their firearms security initiative.

This David is silly - name me any firearm user who doesnt know he has to keep firarms securely - its on FACs and SGCs explicitly - why should we need reminding - perhaps so they could place a judiciously judged boot between public opinion and shooters and benefit in their aim of removing guns from public ownership ?

As far as I can see all the organisations support this reminder to certificate holders of their responsibility and have taken their own initiatives to alert their members.

I am sure the CA/NGO support the view that cert holders should keep firearms safely - they did and do so, whilst changing public opinion positvely rather than being complicit in negative publicity which works against their members wider interests - and then some organisations suggest they were 'irresponsibly hasty'.

BASC agrees that its important that certificate holders take the security of their firearms seriously, and we have reminded the shooting community of that, on our web site, in the shooting press and our latest magazine

See responses above - good on BASC and the link to terrorism to justify this reiteration of security concerns - deemed to be in Members interests or that of the wider shooting community ? Possibly about as much as one fieldsports organisation openly criticising another ?

 

Proactiveness doesnt come close, members interests seem secondary to 'influence', Meanwhile, the Police invent new hoops (Durham) and remain unchallenged - I could go on but why bother ? I am sure Dekers or some other supporter will be along shortly to rubbish these concerns and confirm BASC are doing a great job.

 

I wonder if music lovers in Italy smiled supportively whilst Nero assuaged his concerns whilst Rome burned.

 

Nothing personal about these comments but since you put forward BASC's position it may seem so - my apologies - it should not be taken that way.

David

[David BASC]

Panoma and Scully, good points - and we always ask our members to complain when they are unfairly treated, keep it simple, keep it polite and keep it accurate, and pass a copy to us. This will give us excellent ammunition to use when we take these sorts of issues up with senior officers within the licencing authority

 

Kes -

To say BASC has achieved nothing in Durham is completely wrong

To suggest that BASC was in anyway responsible for ACPO mentioning the current terrorist alert status of the UK is ludicrous

BASC have already sent out communication on the need to comply with security arrangements as I have said, it seems you choose to ignore that fact.

You may be happy with random visits, but you fail to explain why shooters should be treated any differently from non certificate holders if they have done nothing wrong - so explain please

To say BASC don't challenge bad practice in licencing authorises is wrong

And again to try and accuse BASC in the ACPO announcement on terrorism twice in the same post is utterly wrong

But I have no doubt that you will carry on taking pot shots at BASC, but get your facts right.

[Kes]

David,

What has BASC achieved in Durham - plenty of examples of BASC advice being - comply with medical requirements even if they are illegal - a trawl through the posts will confirm this.

Re BASC and the terrorism thing, Wasnt BASC the organisation which, with BSSC, was in discussion with ACPO immediately prior to the issuing of this initiative? That being the case, isnt the reason the Minister suggested that the shooting community were aware and involved, solely because BASC and BSSC were involved in the discussions? Or did ACPO just invent a reason for their new initiative without BASC being aware or involved, post discussions? CA seem to view this differently.

When it all went pear-shaped CA became directly involved and missed the word 'largely', according to what I have read.

My point about compliance is, we dont need BASC to advise us to do it - we need BASC to advise the HO, ACPO, Ministers and the mothers Union that shooters are compliant because if they are not they lose their weapons, their sport and for many, their livelihood. Reinforcing the obvious isnt praise-worthy. robustly defending those who are compliant, challenging false evidence and not criticising sister organisation which do both very effectively is - praise-worthy.

Bad practice in Licensing Authorities - BASC may say it is 'sorting out' Durham but there is precious little evidence of it visible - I'd like to see how anyone is challenging Durham - just read a few posts, section 7 permits etc, plenty of examples.

2 'Terrorisms' - just show me where BASC have criticised ACPO and where it has been recorded that BASC have challenged the data and the wording of the ACPO initiative. Show me and I'll agree I'm wrong.

If BASC thinks these are pot-shots then. apart from a bit of ridicule, tell me what is a big issue for BASC ?

I am not interested in BASC anymore - I'm not a member - I am interested in shooting and protecting shooting for anyone. The performance of all shooting orgs should be under scrutiny by all shooters therefore. Our future is, in large part, in your hands, I had hoped anything of detriment to shooting would be a major issue for all orgs but it seems only CA and to a degree, NGO rose to this particular occasion.

I may be wrong in what I have read but I dont see where?

Thanks for the response.

 

My facts are right - because you work for BASc doesnt mean 'your' 'facts' are - here the Greylag surfaces again.

[David BASC]

Durham - The facts are that we have helped loads of members overcome Durham's actions, and got commitment from a senior office to work with us further, yes there is more to do and the practical feedback I have received on this on here is far more useful than your comments

 

You may not be aware but the CA are on BSSC just as BASC are, check with them, they were at the same meetings...

 

As I said on post 21 we, along with all those on BSSC, were consulted on the proposed change to the wording of the guidance. The amendment to the guidance does not at any time, mention terrorism

 

There is nothing in the ACPO press release that mentions terrorism

 

The only time terrorism was mentioned, as far as I can see, was allegedly in a statement made by Andy Marsh to the Telegraph

 

Andy Marsh subsequently made it clear in their letter thanks to lobbying by several organisations, that there was no intention to link legitimate certificate holders with terrorism or crime, because as they said there was little evidence of any such a link

 

The word 'largely' was not in the original guidance, but only appeared in the first ACPO letter… which BASC challenged ACPO on and we got changed and the new letter was released earlier this week

 

In post 48 you say’ BASC should have asked for the shooting community to respond to fears of security’ when I point out that we have you then say that ...’ we dont need BASC to advise us to do it’...?

 

If you don’t think shooters need reminding about security, how do you explain the number of shotgun and section 1 firearms lost every year? Yes the numbers are going down, but never the less, its evident that the message on firearms security is not heard by some. ACPO are, of course, within their remit to remind shooters of the need for security arrangements. All the shooting organisations endorse the need for good firearms security

 

I am still interested in your answer please to why you seem to think that random visits are acceptable, ie that certificate holders should be treated differently if they have done no wrong?

 

The big issues that BASC are working on are on the home page of our web site and include: the EU firearms Directive, the forthcoming general election, the RSPB bird crime report

 

David

[Kes]

Durham - The facts are that we have helped loads of members overcome Durham's actions, and got commitment from a senior office to work with us further, yes there is more to do and the practical feedback I have received on this on here is far more useful than your comments

Loads of members ? There are quite a few on here who seem to continue to have problems and at least one has quoted the BASC advice I metioned. Perhaps you would share some of your factual feedback since it is so enlightening and supportive?

You may not be aware but the CA are on BSSC just as BASC are, check with them, they were at the same meetings...

But responded in a way most people seem to think was appropriate and obviously with the same information.

As I said on post 21 we, along with all those on BSSC, were consulted on the proposed change to the wording of the guidance. The amendment to the guidance does not at any time, mention terrorism.

Did you say amendment to the guidance? Was this before or after the initial announcement made by ACPO ?

There is nothing in the ACPO press release that mentions terrorism

The only time terrorism was mentioned, as far as I can see, was allegedly in a statement made by Andy Marsh to the Telegraph
That does not seem to be the Ministerial interpretation now does it ?
Andy Marsh subsequently made it clear in their letter thanks to lobbying by several organisations, that there was no intention to link legitimate certificate holders with terrorism or crime, because as they said there was little evidence of any such a link

Despite the initial flawed statistics used by ACPO to reinforce the link and following intervention by CA, their members and 400+ MP's. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

When were those challenged?

The word 'largely' was not in the original guidance, but only appeared in the first ACPO letter… which BASC challenged ACPO on and we got changed and the new letter was released earlier this week

The less said about this as a 'major coup', the better.

In post 48 you say’ BASC should have asked for the shooting community to respond to fears of security’ when I point out that we have you then say that ...’ we dont need BASC to advise us to do it’...?

Simple matter of before and after the fact Before and it would have been a supportive, pre-emptive comment, brining on board the Police in a way which requested the co-operation of the gun-owning community. After the release of the ACPO letter it became anything but supportive and was a grasping at straws message to recover some influence. You must be able to see the difference ?

If you don’t think shooters need reminding about security, how do you explain the number of shotgun and section 1 firearms lost every year? Yes the numbers are going down, but never the less, its evident that the message on firearms security is not heard by some. ACPO are, of course, within their remit to remind shooters of the need for security arrangements. All the shooting organisations endorse the need for good firearms security.

This is the most worrying comment of all BASC actually believe the statistics they failed to challenge. Some are bound to be lost/stolen but our community doesnt include the police cock-ups. Nor should the stats have included parts of firearms (like moderators) when all those accidental and wrongful additions are stripped out are you telling me you could not have approached a 'reminder' in a more sensible and supportive way. Also, if it was such a concern, why not have done it before on your own initiative rather than follow on from law enforcement organisations who are very much more likely to have anti - gun reasons for doing so?

I am still interested in your answer please to why you seem to think that random visits are acceptable, ie that certificate holders should be treated differently if they have done no wrong?

You need to re-read what I said. My only reason for opposing them, is disparity in treatment between shooters and any other member of society. In principle I would have no problem with random vists to people suspected of terrorism, so, with the right legislation in place, no problem checking guns. I am NOT linking the two but as separate similar issues.. I also said mine are always in the right place. What I dont get is, despite realism, you can take a negative stance about this - even the police think we are 'the shooting community'

The big issues that BASC are working on are on the home page of our web site and include: the EU firearms Directive, the forthcoming general election, the RSPB bird crime report
When you look at the political agendas, you will find they are all personalised to the individual. More jobs for working people, lower taxes for working people, homes for a better life etc.

No-one talks about the scourge of Russia in the Ukraine - its taken as read. Its the small things affecting people negatively which are the real big issues for shooting like Durham and many others to me they are the big issues the rest is part of the job. Lead is perhaps the exception because it affects everyone who shoots personally.

We clearly will never agree but all my comments are genuine personal concerns - I have no axe to grind and no ulterior motive to defend something, except perhaps - principle.

David

• Quote
• MultiQuote

[David BASC]

Obviously I have never suggested the problems with Durham are fixed, they are on going, and we will do all we can to keep making improvements. The fact is we stopped their initial project on medical forms. But there is more work to do. Durham is not alone there are a few authorities that need to change their practices

 

The guidance was reviewed by BSSC before the ACPO press release and several weeks before the first ACPO letter was sent on the 5th November

 

As I have said earlier, we are contacting the HO about what they appeared to have told the minister

 

The issue with statistics was that they included licenced items under Sec 1 , never the less the number of whole section 1 and section 2 firearms lost or stolen is higher than anyone wants, I am sure you agree. We did challenge on the point that the figures are falling.

 

We have always promoted good firearms security, its been mentioned on our web site for years and we carry regular features on it in our mag, our push on firearms security is nothing new. But obviously it would be remiss of us not to tell members and others of the change in HO guidance.

 

The police have always had the authority to do random visits on suspected criminals or anyone suspected of wrongdoing, and we all support that I think? What we oppose is the principle that certificate holders should be treated differently, again I think we all support that.

 

What you need to realise is that the big issues we deal with can impact on all shooters, that's why we need to work on them, but I agree there are also local or regional issues that need to be worked on as well, that's why we have invested in our regional programmes so we have more people at local level to help members, as well as the HO resource

 

David

[Steppenwolf]

"Despite the initial flawed statistics used by ACPO to reinforce the link and following intervention by CA, their members and 400+ MP's. "

 

I contacted my MP for the unnanounced visits campaign and I am not a member of BASC nor of CA. I see this as a shooting issue and not necessarily a: I am a CA member, I have to contact my MP.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

S.W.

 

I am not a Countryside Alliance Member either, but I used their template to send my feelings to my MP.

[panoma1]

Despite reassurances to the contrary It seems the unanounced police visits may have started in N E Lincs? See under "visits" in this section! If so? I wonder what "intelligence" was forthcoming to prompt such visits? Or is this another example of the police ignoring agreed procedure and interpreting guidence to suit their own agenda?

[bostonmick]

Despite reassurances to the contrary It seems the unanounced police visits may have started in N E Lincs? See under "visits" in this section! If so? I wonder what "intelligence" was forthcoming to prompt such visits? Or is this another example of the police ignoring agreed procedure and interpreting guidence to suit their own agenda?

If you read the post you refer to you may see the officers arrived with a letter revoking a sgc.it was not a on the spot security check.

[HDAV]

If you read the post you refer to you may see the officers arrived with a letter revoking a sgc.it was not a on the spot security check.

Read it again 1 member got a "check" another mentioned revocation visit one of many allegedly

 

 

2 at the door let them in , the handed me a letter and a couple of books checked all guns serial numbers and gauges against there copy and against my licence checked my cabinet very thoroughly [i mean tried to pull it from the wall ] looked at size of bolts used ,then left was here around 40 mins

Edited November 16, 2014 by HDAV

[parrots2]

It was a unannounced visit the letter handed to me was not revoking anything

[hawkeye]

Obviously I have never suggested the problems with Durham are fixed, they are on going, and we will do all we can to keep making improvements. The fact is we stopped their initial project on medical forms. But there is more work to do. Durham is not alone there are a few authorities that need to change their practices

 

The guidance was reviewed by BSSC before the ACPO press release and several weeks before the first ACPO letter was sent on the 5th November

 

As I have said earlier, we are contacting the HO about what they appeared to have told the minister

 

The issue with statistics was that they included licenced items under Sec 1 , never the less the number of whole section 1 and section 2 firearms lost or stolen is higher than anyone wants, I am sure you agree. We did challenge on the point that the figures are falling.

 

We have always promoted good firearms security, its been mentioned on our web site for years and we carry regular features on it in our mag, our push on firearms security is nothing new. But obviously it would be remiss of us not to tell members and others of the change in HO guidance.

 

The police have always had the authority to do random visits on suspected criminals or anyone suspected of wrongdoing, and we all support that I think? What we oppose is the principle that certificate holders should be treated differently, again I think we all support that.

 

What you need to realise is that the big issues we deal with can impact on all shooters, that's why we need to work on them, but I agree there are also local or regional issues that need to be worked on as well, that's why we have invested in our regional programmes so we have more people at local level to help members, as well as the HO resource

 

David

Why are they still sending them out with renewals then Davyo has just had his renewals with the medical forms included.. So it seems that Durham don't take any notice of BASC ??

[David BASC]

The initial project by Durham clearly implied that the medical forms had to be filled it, this we stopped.

 

As we have said many times, only the official forms need to be filled in. Sending extra forms is of course a waste of time and money.

 

Appreciate all the feedback

 

David

[Scully]

The initial project by Durham clearly implied that the medical forms had to be filled it, this we stopped.

 

 

 

David

But the posts from Davyo confirm BASC hasn't stopped this, as you claim. Durham are still sending them out, but now with the HO logo atop.

[David BASC]

The first pilot was stopped, this is a 'new initiative' by them...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

The first pilot was stopped, this is a 'new initiative' by them...

 

AKA doing exactly as they wish rather than what should be done!