andrewluke Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) £200 for 5 years is still less than a pound a week to do something you enjoy doing. Have you ever been to a premiership football match? I haven't but at a guess they are a bit more than a pound a week. I have no issues paying it as I love shooting and the licence cost is insignificant. I would have no objection to paying 50% more on my road tax if it was to improve the roads and get rid of the congestion. a pound a week is nothing but £200 in one payment can be a problem to some, andrew Edited February 21, 2011 by andrewluke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 are you suggesting they put it on direct debit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 a pound a week is nothing but £200 in one payment can be a problem to some, andrew Start saving a pound a week now then, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermincinerator Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I am renewing in 4 months time so whatever they decice to do i hope the hold off untill after i have renewed. Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I am one of these people that will find the money-I have back up funds here and there. However on variation I will sit down and think of all the guns I want and apply all in one go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Don't let any of them fool you, by the time the paperwork lands on their desk it has gone through all the background checks, what happens then is 99.9% down to what they say! You are missing my point, at the final stage as I pointed out above, whether they visit you or not, question you or not, it is their report that says what you get and don't, they are the last line in the process and do have a LOT of say at this point! As regards a VITAL ROLE, ...absolutely NOT in my book, with more and more mentoring conditions being imposed these days, even for rimfire, I believe you could do away with the FEO totally with a little re jigging of the system! ATB! I'm not missing your point at all dekers,you make it sound as if the FEO has the final decision....99.9%?Absolute rubbish.They're nowhere near the 'last line in the process'.Sounds like I'm not the one being fooled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 The FLO is a key decision influencer but by no means are they the final arbiter. The FLO is there to do the face to face checks, gather evidence that backs up your application / renewal / variation, check security etc. The FLM will have a major say in if your application / renewal / variation is granted and they will act on ‘policy’ which is encouraged / endorsed by senior uniformed officer who is responsible for that department. It’s where we see these ‘policy’ decisions such as conditions where we see some of the greatest level of discrepancy in firearms licensing in the UK with a small number of constabularies. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 For those with both FAC and sgc the costs would be a little steep. I would possibly be looking at loosing the sgc and put in for an fac shotgun. Not if you apply for a co-terminous one. Get your FAC and Shotgun licence to expire the same time, and save yourself some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Don't let any of them fool you, by the time the paperwork lands on their desk it has gone through all the background checks, what happens then is 99.9% down to what they say! You are missing my point, at the final stage as I pointed out above, whether they visit you or not, question you or not, it is their report that says what you get and don't, they are the last line in the process and do have a LOT of say at this point! As regards a VITAL ROLE, ...absolutely NOT in my book, with more and more mentoring conditions being imposed these days, even for rimfire, I believe you could do away with the FEO totally with a little re jigging of the system! ATB! I'm not missing your point at all dekers,you make it sound as if the FEO has the final decision....99.9%?Absolute rubbish.They're nowhere near the 'last line in the process'.Sounds like I'm not the one being fooled! Sorry chap but you have simply not taken in what I have said! When the FEO gets your paperwork most decisions have been made, as I thought I made clear above, it is for him to then confirm or argue with those decisions following his visit, or knowledge of you and your situation. Whatever, when he writes his report it will seldom be questioned, he is the last line in this process, whatever he says at this point will, in the vast majority of cases, be what ends up on your FAC. I did not and never have said, he makes ALL the decisions! And it would be very rare for him to write a report suggesting you should have that .338Lap Mag for use in your back garden when the region have failed to grant you the FAC air rifle you wanted! He will commonly agree with the regions findings already, therefore confirming the decions already made, if paperwork comes down to him 50/50 on something whatever he says will then almost be guaranteed to happen! Sorry, but I thought I made it clear enough, are you with me now? ATB! Edited February 22, 2011 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I understood you from the start dekers,I just don't happen to agree with you,that's all.David basc is nearer the mark from what I know of the process,but from my experience I still don't agree with the amount of influence they have.Are you with me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I think that if there were any major issues that would prevent you from being granted / renewed then the FEO would not be sent out – they would simply let you know straight away that it was a non starter. The FEO will gather additional evidence during their visit, and then pass it higher up the chain of command for a final decision. Although I agree if the FEO looked you in the eye and was unsure about your suitability for any legitimate reasons, then that will go on their report and that certainly could put a stop on things. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I think that if there were any major issues that would prevent you from being granted / renewed then the FEO would not be sent out – they would simply let you know straight away that it was a non starter. The FEO will gather additional evidence during their visit, and then pass it higher up the chain of command for a final decision. Although I agree if the FEO looked you in the eye and was unsure about your suitability for any legitimate reasons, then that will go on their report and that certainly could put a stop on things. David Fair enough David,I can understand that,and I agree with your last paragraph 100%,which is why I think FEO visits should be more often and more regular.Feo's are often retired police officers,and as such are street savvy and a good judge of character(they've usually been there and got the t-shirt)and regular visits to a ticket holder (much like the long gone local bobby)can profer a wealth of information.Expensive mind!But nevertheless I think the proposed cutbacks are off target. I'll just sit back and wait for the flak now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartB Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I am interested in what people would do if they suddenly increased the FAC&SGC renewal to £200 as was suggested in the thread by DavidBASC. Are the scaremongers correct that people will hand in their FAC/SGC in large numbers because they can't afford £40/year or £3.33/month. The cost is only one aspect of the problem. When you get into all the nitty gritty of the proposals, you start to see how the whole thing shapes up into something we are very familiar with and it's time, yet again gentlemen, to bend over and get well and truely shafted by the biased and the ignorant! The meek won't be inheriting the earth any time soon! BASC, kindly note! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartB Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Following the other thread by David at BASC, It seems that BASC and chums are making some inpression after all. So well done. I'm off to eat some humble pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Sorry to be contentious here but what do we pay subs for? Is it to be constantly thanking for something that is paid for, or recognising that your subs are well spent? Ok BASC should know how you feel as its only reasonable to do that and shooters are reasonable people but you dont thank the utilities for supplying gas , water, whatever - or do you? I expect good representation and the provider not to be told endlesly how good a service is. Its a service we pay for it ! If its good, then rejoin or say thanks but the slavish well done BASC bit is overmuch for me. David does his job well, and I hope he knows we all think that, more than many at BASC - well done David. But I expect it of BASC, why are you all so creepy ? David IS a good bloke but he's going the extra mile for an organisation which does not necessarily fully mirror his commitment IMHO ? Kick some BASC butt David, if they were all like you I'd pay £80 - but the insurance had better be bl++dy good ! Cheers all, Kes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 David BASC has done forum members a favour by reporting back at an early stage. I see nothing wrong in PW members expressing their appreciation of the effort of David and BASC staff. Some of the PW members who have shown their appreciation are not BASC members, maybe they should be asking the question of their respective associations as to why they were not represented at the meeting. I have it on record from the leader of SACS that he is quite happy to sit back and let BASC do all the spade work. So much for representing members interests. One day, maybe the penny will drop. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 David BASC has done forum members a favour by reporting back at an early stage. I see nothing wrong in PW members expressing their appreciation of the effort of David and BASC staff. Some of the PW members who have shown their appreciation are not BASC members, maybe they should be asking the question of their respective associations as to why they were not represented at the meeting. I have it on record from the leader of SACS that he is quite happy to sit back and let BASC do all the spade work. So much for representing members interests. One day, maybe the penny will drop. webber YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN You cant give it rest can you. you must be a sad old ******. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Mark, I agree BASC's entire promotions/media budget must be PW. Doesn't anyone think they should do something good for £60? I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Kes I think that BASC are doing something for their £60, don't you. I also happen to think that some of the other organisations should also do what they claim to do for their £30; but it would appear that most were absent from the meeting. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 When you've finished yawning, read the extract from a reply made to me by Ian Clark of SACS on open forum. It goes some way to explaining the absence of SACS. My main point is that if this isn't an issue that demands maximum support to protect members interests, I'm at a loss to understand what would motivate some organisations to get a move on if they share a similar attitude. webber Firstly, on the questions you raised last week - I have to make value judgements on every action I or SACS takes. That is my responsibility as Director, and I do it to the best of my ability. I have found from LONG experience (38 years!)working within Government circles, that a great deal of the so-called lobbying that goes on is a complete waste of time and money. Public petitions, while emotive to those involved, are almost entirely useless, as are time-consuming and expensive public demonstrations - as the Countryside Alliance have proved. I have also found that, where there are other organisations making sensible representations on a particular topic, there is no need to me to waste our members' money and my time producing exactly the same representations on different headed paper. In simple terms, that means that there are cases where there are public consultations to which SACS does not publicly respond. That does not mean we are not involved - merely that we are content that someone such as BASC will get it right without our help, or that we are speaking quietly to the politicians in the background, which is how the REAL battles are won. Make no mistake, though - if we think BASC or someone else is getting it wrong, we will wade in and lay about us. That's why we don't have the stupid and unrealistic lead shot ban that you poor souls do in England. If SACS had been involved at that time, we would never have rolled over and allowed that to be imposed. In Northern Ireland, as we speak, their lead shot regulations are being considered, and I'm proud to say that, based on our recommendations, it looks as if the regulations will follow our Scottish model. What a pity we didn't have members in England when your regulations were being discussed! I have a wide range of personal contacts in all areas of government and officialdom throughout the UK, and of course I have 'stool pigeons' in ALL of the organisations which seek to cause trouble for sportsmen. For obvious reasons, I am not prepared to name these people, and I'm sure you will agree that this is (sadly) a part of the dirty game of politics and accept that. I use these people regularly to feed the information I choose to wherever it will do most good - and when the correct result is achieved, I have no need to trumpet about the fact that I was in some way resopnsible. In fact, to do so would compomise some of the people I have in place helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Webber Seems to be a very sensible response from SACS and one that I suspect many lobbying organizations make. For instance at the last Devon & Cornwall firearms liaison committee meeting, I notice that BASC who have Jamie Stuart as a committee member and Alan Booth from BASC HQ both sent their apologies. Now there is nothing wrong with this, they probably had better and more important things to do but a cynic posting on a forum might suggest that at least one of them should have attended. After all it in such meetings that consistency in firearms licensing is forged. However I guess that BASC took the SACS approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Charlie You make a fair point; but I do feel that there is a significant difference between negotiations made at a national level opposed to a local level. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon123 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 It says on the sporting gun website that the price may be going up to £200 to cover the costs, lets hope not though :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 When you've finished yawning, read the extract from a reply made to me by Ian Clark of SACS on open forum. It goes some way to explaining the absence of SACS. I dont need a rambling old pot boiler to point me in the direction of sacs info, if and when i need it i will phone him and ask. Sacs do for me exactly as i need, when i need it. I dont have to phone them and Hope they will help me with a problem like some do on here with there own organisation. the web is full of folk who can interpret basc wasting money on one thing or another, if you like i could find some and post them on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 the web is full of folk who can interpret basc wasting money on one thing or another, if you like i could find some and post them on here. Go on then greengrass, I dare ya. :good: BTW Mark, I hear there's a house for sale next door to Marford Mill. Could you recommend it to anyone d'ya think? 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.