HDAV Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) "So far as is readonably practical" is the key bit...... Read the farrer article, anyone burdlaring a locked house is surely beyond reasonably practical.....if they know the location of the keys butfont of the cabinet what then? Or the location of the keys is inaccessible such as with a third party? Edited February 26, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 "So far as is readonably practical" is the key bit...... Read the farrer article, anyone burdlaring a locked house is surely beyond reasonably practical.....if they know the location of the keys butfont of the cabinet what then? Or the location of the keys is inaccessible such as with a third party? If the keys are with an unauthorised third party (Farrer) then that's not practicable, indeed it's illegal. As for being reasonably practicable, well that's just about taking proper precautions to prevent unauthorised access, and would be open to interpretation by the police or courts. If you left your keys on a key hook, or on top of your cabinet I suspect you wouldn't be taking the proper precautions expected of you. However, if you split the keys up and hid them, out of sight, in separate areas of your property, I would think that would be deemed to be appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 If the keys are with an unauthorised third party (Farrer) then that's not practicable, indeed it's illegal. As for being reasonably practicable, well that's just about taking proper precautions to prevent unauthorised access, and would be open to interpretation by the police or courts. If you left your keys on a key hook, or on top of your cabinet I suspect you wouldn't be taking the proper precautions expected of you. However, if you split the keys up and hid them, out of sight, in separate areas of your property, I would think that would be deemed to be appropriate. It's not. The third party would have to have unrestricted access to the guns to be in constructive possession. If they don't have access to the house then they do not have unrestricted access. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 It's not. The third party would have to have unrestricted access to the guns to be in constructive possession. If they don't have access to the house then they do not have unrestricted access. J. So by that reckoning I'd be ok to leave my keys with my next door neighbour, even though he has no certificate/licence? I reckon that'd lose me my guns quick smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 So by that reckoning I'd be ok to leave my keys with my next door neighbour, even though he has no certificate/licence? I reckon that'd lose me my guns quick smart. All depends upon circumstances. Does he have access to your house? If he doesn't then he cannot be in possession of the guns. On the other hand, if he is a known criminal with a propensity for burgling people then you could well be in breach of the security condition on your cert. Why you would want to leave your keys with a neighbour is another matter though. I can't really see the point. Actually this was the very thing that some police officer was recommending a while back. What is 'reasonable' security always depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. There is no 'one size fits all' answer. J. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) All depends upon circumstances. Does he have access to your house? If he doesn't then he cannot be in possession of the guns. On the other hand, if he is a known criminal with a propensity for burgling people then you could well be in breach of the security condition on your cert. Why you would want to leave your keys with a neighbour is another matter though. I can't really see the point. Actually this was the very thing that some police officer was recommending a while back. What is 'reasonable' security always depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. There is no 'one size fits all' answer. J. J. It was a hypothetical question after reading your previous post (below). You seemed to intimate a third party would be ok to have the keys as long as they had no access to your property. I was questioning that. It's not. The third party would have to have unrestricted access to the guns to be in constructive possession. If they don't have access to the house then they do not have unrestricted access. J. I would agree, as I said earlier, that what is 'reasonable' is open to interpretation by the CoP and, if necessary, the courts. I would also maintain my opinion that by allowing access to keys by unauthorised people you run a high risk of losing your guns. Edited February 27, 2012 by poontang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) It was a hypothetical question after reading your previous post (below). You seemed to intimate a third party would be ok to have the keys as long as they had no access to your property. I was questioning that. I would say as long as the 3rd party had no access to your property (i.e. they dont have your spare house keys) and they don't know that the keys are for gun cabinet then they cannot be in possession. Even if they know what the keys are for they would have to act unreasonably to get them. In Farrer is was concluded that as his mother lived at the same address and had the keys she was free to remove them at her will and this is what was in breach. There is a difference between members of your household and none members and Farrers case suggests that it is members of your own household which you need to be more concerned with than 3rd parties. Your keys need to be kept where only you can access them (bigger issue) but your spares can be in a draw at a friends..... Edited February 27, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would say as long as the 3rd party had no access to your property (i.e. they dont have your spare house keys) and they don't know that the keys are for gun cabinet then they cannot be in possession. Even if they know what the keys are for they would have to act unreasonably to get them. In Farrer is was concluded that as his mother lived at the same address and had the keys she was free to remove them at her will and this is what was in breach. There is a difference between members of your household and none members and Farrers case suggests that it is members of your own household which you need to be more concerned with than 3rd parties. Your keys need to be kept where only you can access them (bigger issue) but your spares can be in a draw at a friends..... It would be reasonable to assume that the 3rd party, although not resident at the property, would be a friend/family member? You wouldn't leave them with a complete stranger afterall. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to assume that the friend/family member may well visit at some point, and be in your property, quite possibly with the keys to your cabinet? Let's just assume the friend has had a bad day, smacks you round the swede with a rolling pin, nicks your gun and goes on a rampage. Do you still think the police would be happy that you'd taken all reasonable precautions to safeguard your guns? I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) It would be reasonable to assume that the 3rd party, although not resident at the property, would be a friend/family member? You wouldn't leave them with a complete stranger afterall. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to assume that the friend/family member may well visit at some point, and be in your property, quite possibly with the keys to your cabinet? Let's just assume the friend has had a bad day, smacks you round the swede with a rolling pin, nicks your gun and goes on a rampage. Do you still think the police would be happy that you'd taken all reasonable precautions to safeguard your guns? I don't. Interesting point but why bother if they have their own guns they could just ring the door bell and smack me in the swede with a 12gauge or 28g of 7.5 shot........... I know my guns are better but if going on a murderous rampage surely they would want to use their own? IF my spare keys are there cabinet makes even less sense to steal mine, only issue is if mine are in theres and theres mine and we go shooting together and both loose keys we're both screwed............. How about if you give one key to one person and one key to another? Then they would have to form a pact to steal my guns from my locked property (or bring an angle grinder ) If they visit with the keys to my cabinet and i am in it makes no odds as my keys are in the property anyway...... You must have some odd friends/family... I would only lodge my spares with an SGC holder as I have SGC. As an RFD friend once said, "if they come for guns, they'll just knock on the front door and ask for them politely and I'll hand them over, not worth being killed over is it" Would you die to protect your cabinet? Would you risk your family over it? Anyone wants them that badly they will have them no problem. Cabinets are designed to prevent "unauthorised" access and are the most common method but not the only one. They are designed to prevent opportunist thefts not a determined attack..... It's a shame the law is so woolly on these issues but that's the law, Farrer is the only case i know of and it is very different from what is being suggested. That resulted in a none renewal not a custodial sentence....... Perhaps cabinets should be like the nuclear missiles in the films where 2 people are required to turn a key, kept in different safes, at the same time stopping anyone having sole access? Edited February 27, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were talking about unauthorised people being in possession of keys. You keep bringing up the Farrer case, where the mother was unauthorised, so I assumed we were still going along that track? Would I leave my keys with another SGC holder? No. Would I want the responsibility of having someone else's keys? Definitely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deershooter Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 This post now has nothing to do with the original subject :o Deershooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) This post now has nothing to do with the original subject :o Deershooter :blush: Sorry have gone a bit off topic, Poontang I won't ask you to hold onto my spare keys for me mate. As for G4S taking over the dept (or the employers obligations for the dept) as part of a new Police HQ, I just dont see how thye save any money in this area: Same procedures, same staff on same pay, same fees, same volume of work.............. whether firearms was part of the sweetener for G4s as they wanted it or part of the sweetener for the authority as they wanted rid I'm not sure. FEO have been civilian staff in many areas for a long time. Dept managers are still police staff. Unless G4S can get them to improve efficiency it cant get any better, can it? Might get better for cert holders and applicants but how it can save the force money i dont know..... Edited February 27, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicW Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 When these changes of contractor deals take place the prospective contractor is allowed to examine the task and all it's aspects,including the wage bill which will be a major part of the cost. The contractor then goes away to assess the task and come up with a bid to do exactly the same job.In most cases the new contractor will not have the same overheads as the existing set-up in that they will not have to provide or maintain office accommodation for example,they take over what already exists. It may cost the customer £110M/year to do the job and the contractor bids £100M/year,gets the job and the customer saves £10M/year. The new contractor initially takes on the workforce and cannot change their terms of employment for six months but after that can set their own pay and conditions of employment and staff levels. Vic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 AS its part of a new HQ building and other facilities its wrapped up a complex way.... My Missus went through TUPE 3 years ago and it worked well for her..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazzab Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Hmmm interesting. I don't have FAC, BUT i did work for some time in the courts / jail system. I spent a bit of my time working for Reliance Custodial Services on the vans and in courts. During this like i collected and dropped off prisoners to lots of jails around the country. And an ever growing number of these jails were privately ran (one by g4s) and if there anything to go by man alive. we are in for a rocky time. For an outside contractor to do such a job is a down right joke. And for one very simple reason £££££. They are there purely for profit. Now i worked in a normal jail and the difference is incredible like chalk and cheese. So i hope that they are a damn sight better at dealing with FACs than prisoners!!! 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.