jimmydean Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 It remains to be seen whether these increases help provide an improved service offering until then we continue subsidising a shoddy and inconsistent requirement that is for the publics benefit please dont lose sight of that. I believe that any negotiations between partners with equal interests involves a useful and relevant trading of interests. Fee increases for longer periods between renewals is beneficial to both. A good and nationally consistent service level agreement is a very good trade-off for increased fees. We have here a cost increase with no promises, except a COST review in 12 months. There doesnt seem to be a recognition amongst equals here. The future cost is undecided, no fee structure increase is agreed in principle, no service improvement or even consistency agreed and it could all be reversed by the incoming government. It may only appear to cost £1.50 a month more over a five year period but is that the best we can do for a group of 1.5 Million who appear to be more an inconvenience than typical examples of the most lawful in society. I had hoped for a lot better personally. Are we all sure this is the best we could achieve or more like what the Police wanted and could justify without political fall-out ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) We are pleased with this result, as you know the proposals were for fees to go up way over this and as the report on our web page says we spent allot of time working on this with the HO. They tried a similar increase here, the BASC lobbied against the increases and won. Its a bit strange that the BASC in the rest of the UK is welcoming the increases. Northern Ireland Justice Committee rejects proposals for increased firearms licensing feesPosted on Jun 28, 201 Speaking after the Committee for Justice meeting at Stormont, BASC NI director Tommy Mayne said: “BASC NI welcomes the Committee’s decision and the fact that the Department for Justice will now have to reconsider their proposals to substantially increase licensing fees. It was very clear during the meeting that members of the Committee were not convinced that the proposed increases are justified. Has the BASC had a change of heart, does the increase apply in Northern Ireland. ? Edited March 13, 2015 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 No it does not apply in Norther Ireland, the authority for firearms fees are devolved to Stormont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS404) Home Office Written Statement made by: The Minister of State for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone) on 12 Mar 2015. Increase to firearms licensing fees ................................................................................... The Government will also work with the police to introduce an on-line licensing system to drive down costs across the system overall. This will be reviewed in twelve months to assess whether costs are being fully recovered with a view to increasing fees further if it is not. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... It would seem that the link to service improvement is bent, if not broken. I trust someone will be challenging the costs to be provided to justify a further increase. It is however clear that full cost recovery is the aim and with grossly inefficient service delivery and not just internet apps being a problem, of an apaprently secondary nature. Is the ten year cert dead? is a seven year cert dead. Is everything dead except cost recovery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) The police do not want to make firearm licencing more effective and/or efficient for shooters! if they did they would support/agree to save 50% on resources, and at the same time resolve their lamentable performance and double police efficiency by introducing a ten year certificate, but no! Obviously they merely want to take more money from certificate holders without committing to any service improvement whatsoever! Our negotiators have failed because they have won nothing except a short term smaller rise in fees than the police claimed they needed/wanted?.....with no protection, assurances or guarantees on future cost whatsoever! I accept it is difficult to negotiate an advantageous outcome with opponents who are bullies, always want their own way and hold all the power with which to get it..........but please don't dress up being shafted as any sort of victory for shooters! Edited March 14, 2015 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I agree that if the measure of success here is what is achieved and 50% of your aims are the breakeven point, shooters and shooting have lost out and this cant counted a success except for the one item a lower than the absolute max fee increase. (Max because that was the police assessment of £200) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Take a pessimistic view if you want to, but the clear fact is that the police are under pressure to improve their efficiency - thats exactly the key point BASC were, and will continue to make,and push for. The police cannot claim for higher fees if their licencing system is inefficient, it is totally unjustifiable to claim higher fees when the police are adding to the costs of licencing through their self imposed inefficiency A 10 year certificate is still on the tabe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1961 Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I personally don't mind the increased fee but police need to get there act together any give a better service there seems to be vast discrepancy in fire arms licences being issued how can one force process applications in weeks and others months all force's have had cutbacks yet some still managed to do a good job mine south Yorkshire arnt to bad others are appalling Edited March 14, 2015 by chris1961 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Phew, that's more than lucky! From a personal and somewhat selfish point of view, I think I've cracked it. In view of recent events I think I'll get to keep lead shot for the duration and as I'll be renewing my coterminous licences for the last time later this year, I've also got away without any undue expense as a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 It is no good speculating (hoping) that advantageous developments may happen in the future.....because once they have what they want there is no need for them to give anything, so if the authorities decide they don't want things advantageous to shooters to happen......they won't! And we have no recourse because we have nothing to bargain with and they already have what they want! If you are selling an item do you let the purchaser walk away with it in the hope they will return and pay for it next month? Of course you don't, in the same way the police should not have been given agreement to an increase in licence fees until shooting got something worthwhile in exchange such as a service level agreement from the police based on a ten year licence term! How can one look on this apparant debacle other than with pessimism? I hope I'm wrong! Only time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 It is no good speculating (hoping) that advantageous developments may happen in the future.....because once they have what they want there is no need for them to give anything, so if the authorities decide they don't want things advantageous to shooters to happen......they won't! And we have no recourse because we have nothing to bargain with and they already have what they want! If you are selling an item do you let the purchaser walk away with it in the hope they will return and pay for it next month? Of course you don't, in the same way the police should not have been given agreement to an increase in licence fees until shooting got something worthwhile in exchange such as a service level agreement from the police based on a ten year licence term! How can one look on this apparant debacle other than with pessimism? I hope I'm wrong! Only time will tell. If I remember correctly the view was taken early on - no service improvement no fee increase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 The police cannot claim for higher fees if their licencing system is inefficient, it is totally unjustifiable to claim higher fees when the police are adding to the costs of licencing through their self imposed inefficiency Is that not exactly what happened, they increased the fees without any thing in return. In this part of the UK for example something the BASC negotiated bellow with no fee increase. For some time a system has been in place to allow “one off – one on” exchanges of shotguns in Northern Ireland. From 1st December 2011 the system was extended to other firearms. The exchange of rifles and pistols may only take place with registered firearms dealers (not between certificate holders) and firearms may only be exchanged for another of the “same calibre and type”. Prohibited weapons are excluded from the provision. Transfers must be notified to PSNI within 72 hours by both the firearm certificate holder and Registered Firearms Dealer. Click here to see the provision . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyb79 Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 In response to a very similar thread, I raised the concern that a rise in fees would not assist the processing of licenses or increase efficiency, but rather go straight into the main budget pot for police forces to be spent elsewhere, thus not improving anything licensing relate at all. It seems my local PCC is taking credit for this rise and if I've read her statement correctly will use the rise to pay for 18 more police officers operationally, rather than use the funds for licensing. If that's correct, we pay more and get the same (or less) for our money which is frankly unacceptable. http://www.kent-pcc.gov.uk/home.php?entry_id=1426256226 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Take a pessimistic view if you want to, but the clear fact is that the police are under pressure to improve their efficiency - thats exactly the key point BASC were, and will continue to make,and push for. The police cannot claim for higher fees if their licencing system is inefficient, it is totally unjustifiable to claim higher fees when the police are adding to the costs of licencing through their self imposed inefficiency A 10 year certificate is still on the tabe I dont think its a pessimistic view - read the other concerned input. I also regret that what is not a victory, at best a small success is made to look like a world shattering win. It isnt, as other comments on here and their evidence shows. I seem to remember, as I said above, that the line adopted by BASC was 'no improvement, no increase in fee'. Then, that a fee increase should be traded for a uniform and improved service. Also service improvements to improve cost, some police, as we know are abysmal. Why is it a 'clear fact' that police are under............ Please read the post above. The police Have claimed higher fees and their licensing system is innefficient, I dont expect the future situation to ve changed overnight ! The NGO and the CA arent exactly 'shaking the tree', but claiming great success in these circumstances doesnt reflect well on BASC either. (just my opinion, maybe I am a pessimist or more likely perhaps a realist?) Edited March 15, 2015 by jimmydean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 In response to a very similar thread, I raised the concern that a rise in fees would not assist the processing of licenses or increase efficiency, but rather go straight into the main budget pot for police forces to be spent elsewhere, thus not improving anything licensing relate at all. It seems my local PCC is taking credit for this rise and if I've read her statement correctly will use the rise to pay for 18 more police officers operationally, rather than use the funds for licensing. If that's correct, we pay more and get the same (or less) for our money which is frankly unacceptable. http://www.kent-pcc.gov.uk/home.php?entry_id=1426256226 Yep, after reading your link it is apparent that the extra revenue from this rise will be used in the way you describe, namely to recruit, or keep, officers in jobs rather than a more proficient licensing service. So we do in fact have an increased license fee for no improvement in service; in Kent anyhow. It is obvious the increase is to subsidise police budget cuts and there is nothing to suggest it wont be the same in other licensing authorities. So we've gained nothing, with the likely prospect of more increases in the future for the same gain...nothing. Why am I not surprised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 The police cannot claim for higher fees if their licencing system is inefficient, it is totally unjustifiable to claim higher fees when the police are adding to the costs of licencing through their self imposed inefficiency Well said David, now please phone DURHAM quoting the above, it is now 120 days at least for an abismal service... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 BJ, a very valid point, if you want, please email me the letters or emails you have already sent to Durham on your issue, together with their reply's and I will do all I can to help you. JD - good post re Kent, I am onto it David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly47 Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 BJ, a very valid point, if you want, please email me the letters or emails you have already sent to Durham on your issue, together with their reply's and I will do all I can to help you. JD - good post re Kent, I am onto it David look forward to hearing the outcome of this one, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 BJ, a very valid point, if you want, please email me the letters or emails you have already sent to Durham on your issue, together with their reply's and I will do all I can to help you. I'll be applying for my FAC soon David, due in September, if I've issues I will be in touch. A shooting bud ATM has just applied for his S/G cert & been told 120 days at least, 1-1/2yrs ago my S/G cert was 1-1/2 months over the renewal date, so Durhams record is still abysmal & certainly hasn't improved since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Does replacing a long-magazine FAC shotgun with a centrefire rifle qualify as like-for-like? Other CF rifles already held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Well said David, now please phone DURHAM quoting the above, it is now 120 days at least for an abismal service... My renewal went in on the 26/11/14 it expires 25/03/15, haven't heard a thing in all that time other than a couple of weeks ago when I called to progress chase to be told I hadn't sent it in lol.Handed it in in person on 26/11/14(SG RENEWAL) as I was calling in to get a replacement FAC as had no space left for bullets.Funny that I was accused of not sending it in as Durham cashed my cheque on the 03/12/15.You really have to LOL,well guns will be going into the RDF on the 24/03/15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Does replacing a long-magazine FAC shotgun with a centrefire rifle qualify as like-for-like? Other CF rifles already held. It qualifies as a free 1 for 1 variation the same as swapping any other rifle or sound moderator would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 I applied for a renewal a month before mine ran out. It used to take about a week. It's now a month since they ran out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 My renewal went in on the 26/11/14 it expires 25/03/15, haven't heard a thing in all that time other than a couple of weeks ago when I called to progress chase to be told I hadn't sent it in lol.Handed it in in person on 26/11/14(SG RENEWAL) as I was calling in to get a replacement FAC as had no space left for bullets.Funny that I was accused of not sending it in as Durham cashed my cheque on the 03/12/15.You really have to LOL,well guns will be going into the RDF on the 24/03/15. If the delay is down to Durham then they should issue you a S7 permit, then you can keep your guns at home. I have a familiar sense of deja vue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) If the delay is down to Durham then they should issue you a S7 permit, then you can keep your guns at home. I have a familiar sense of deja vue. The guns are going in to RDF mate as I don't trust Durham,the quote a S7 can not be issued until a cert expires meaning that my cert expires on 25/03/15 I can not ask for a S7 till 26/03/15.When my mate asked for a S7 a couple of years back, before he left for the Riggs (as expiry was while he was offshore)they said ok..He got of the rigs and was calling me from the heliport in a right panicas he rec a call from them telling him to get them to an RDF on Xmas eve or he would be arrested,Bearing in mind he is over 200mls from home and it's 2pm on exams eve.They denied he made the call before going offshore and then tried to say aS7 doesn't exist,thankfully BASC sorted this.I am taking no chances knowing Durhams history.A fee increase at this time with this kind of service Mmmmmm,I don't mind paying a fair increase for a fair service,oh and that lady at Durham I wish she would not refer to me as that old man.Maybe the increase would also require them to pay the fee payer some respect. Edited March 16, 2015 by Davyo 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.