To declare or not declare?

[Dannyboy220]

You can either chose to be upfront and declare everything, even if you aren't sure it counts.

 

Or you can chose to be a bit of a smart Alec, who points out that the form is a bit ambiguous and possibly doesn't cover cautions properly. If you chose that route, the Police may well form an opinion which counts against you.

 

Why, why take a chance? Just be honest and upfront.

 

 

Daaahdaaaaaaah. Common sense prevails. Be smart point out all the flaws in the system and risk ******* them off. Or put ya hands up admit once upon a time you did summit stupid and I'm sure they will understand.

[Mungler]

It's a truth test, that's the long and short of it.

 

Do you think 3 points for speeding is relevant to a SGC application? It's not, it's a test of your ability to tell the truth and follow the instructions on the form.

[bedwards1966]

It's a truth test, that's the long and short of it.

 

Do you think 3 points for speeding is relevant to a SGC application? It's not, it's a test of your ability to tell the truth and follow the instructions on the form.

 

You're partly right, however if you have a lot of points that can concern them as it does show a disregard for the law, which they don't like. Someone I know was moaning that the FLD were unhappy with the points he had - but he had 9, then as soon as 3 expired he quickly got another 3, and the FLD don't like that!

If there are enough things like that then they may feel you aren't a very law abiding person, so in small amounts cautions and points may be just to check you declare everything, but if there are enough of them it may concern them.

[mikky]

tell them everything..i knew someone who had their sgc refused because when they checked his medicals he did not declare that he had once suffered from depression...apparently he never did have depression ,his doctor made a note that it was possibly depression...turned out to be work overload and he just needed a holiday..this was more than a decade prior to getting his sgc...he had to to the docs and get a letter off him saying he didnt have depression..he got his sgc in the end..

 

mikky

[Sprackles]

To be fair, my honest opinion on the declaration of convictions is thats its a measure to dissuade an application.

There are many out there who would love to shoot but are put off by having to declare convictions, possibly from a long forgotten past which his present company knows nothing of and he does not wish to rake over old coals.

The Police know what we have all been up to regardless of what we declare and should make decisions accordingly.

Its a pointless question IMHO, why ask a question when the answers are already known.

[JonathanL]

To be fair, my honest opinion on the declaration of convictions is thats its a measure to dissuade an application.

There are many out there who would love to shoot but are put off by having to declare convictions, possibly from a long forgotten past which his present company knows nothing of and he does not wish to rake over old coals.

The Police know what we have all been up to regardless of what we declare and should make decisions accordingly.

Its a pointless question IMHO, why ask a question when the answers are already known.

 

I think this is pretty well spot on. It probably started off as having a good point to it when records weren't so easily checked prior to computerisation.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

There are some people who would argue the most minute detail, just to be awkward, even if they ended up losing out. I pity such people. :no:

JonathanL - it is no use withdrawing statements. You have made them and can't back them up. How does this sit with:-

 

 

You were quick to stuff that down our throats. Over to you. That is how it works. :lol:

 

Okay, I can't back it up. What would Sir like me to do next if he won't accept my woithdrawal of the statement?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Much of what has gone beforeon this thread is bull **** in my opinion. The facts are a matter of record, thats it . THEY will make the decision. If you come over as an evasive person it will be obvious. Be up front honest and factual. Tell it how it was. there is nothing to be gained by being otherwise.

 

I know somebody who has a SGC despite having two DD convictions. He told it straight, I was pretty wild, I was a biker and in a lot of bad company. But I'm married now, I have two kids and a job. I don't see the old crowd and I don't mix with them. They believed him and granted the certificate. He hasn't let them down. Neither has he let himself down, he loves his shooting and he is no way going to f88k up.

 

How can you poosibly come over as 'evasive' by not answering something you haven't actualy been asked in the first place?

 

J.

 

Vince - can't disagree. :good:

 

You can either chose to be upfront and declare everything, even if you aren't sure it counts.

 

Or you can chose to be a bit of a smart Alec, who points out that the form is a bit ambiguous and possibly doesn't cover cautions properly. If you chose that route, the Police may well form an opinion which counts against you.

 

Why, why take a chance? Just be honest and upfront.

 

No it isn't. It asks you to list your convictions. A caution is not a conviction. No amniguity there.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

tell them everything..i knew someone who had their sgc refused because when they checked his medicals he did not declare that he had once suffered from depression...apparently he never did have depression ,his doctor made a note that it was possibly depression...turned out to be work overload and he just needed a holiday..this was more than a decade prior to getting his sgc...he had to to the docs and get a letter off him saying he didnt have depression..he got his sgc in the end..

 

mikky

 

That's quite unusual as they don't check medical records as a matter of routiene. They usually only do if you declare something on the form or they have some other reason why they think they need to.

 

J.

[Big Marty]

Tell everything as holding something back could look suspicious if found..

[MartynGT4]

For goodness sake :no:

 

Why on earth would anyone suggest someone not declare something on the form just because of a perceived technicality? The OP just wants a SGC and possibly one day an FAC, so surely the best way to help him get one is to advise him to take the safest route and declare everything. He'd be pretty ****** off, and very let down, if he left the caution off the form and got a grilling from his FEO! Bloody pointless!

 

OP - ignore the b'**** going on here and just declare everything, enjoy the chat with the FEO and get out there and enjoy your sport. Just a shame you had to be introduced to **** like this on what is normally a great forum!

 

Just my 2p

[mikky]

That's quite unusual as they don't check medical records as a matter of routiene. They usually only do if you declare something on the form or they have some other reason why they think they need to.

 

J.

 

it happened cos i had to buy and put his shotty on my ticket till it was all sorted

 

mikky

[Gordon R]

Okay, I can't back it up. What would Sir like me to do next if he won't accept my woithdrawal of the statement?

 

JonathanL - now we have established your double standards - other people need to prove their statements, whereas you withdraw them when you can't - I would appreciate it if you would stop patronising me and other posters.

 

You seem to enjoy seeking out little technicalities, without ever seeing the big picture. Please don't say you don't understand - that is becoming ever more obvious.

 

Now can we call a halt to your sniping? I don't like to kick a man when he is down. :rolleyes:

[JonathanL]

Total rubbish. I can't prove it so have withdrawn it. That's how sensible people engage in debate. I've never asked anyone to prove something they are willing to withdraw. You simply have a problem here because you weren't prepared to either back up or withdraw a statement on another thread. I suspect that, actually, you probably believe my point about cautions for non-existent offences but are just pushing the issue as you know I haven't got facts to hand to support it. Personally thoughn it bothers me not whatever you think.

 

So how about answering my question? What would you like me to do? I can't prove it and you have some problem with me withdrawing it. What's the next step?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Lots and lots of cautions are highly suspect in that many people who have accepted them would never have been convicted, or even prosecuted, had they actually been charged. There are even some people who have accepted cautions for offences which don't even exist! I know for certain that there have been people who have accepted cautions for possessing shotgun ammunition without an SGC and there is not such offence!

 

I will be generous - you don't have to prove it to a legal standard, beyond all reasonable doubt. Just publish the details of the alleged offences (which don't exist) for which cautions have been issued. A list of these, the circumstances and which Police Force(s) did this will suffice.

 

I can't prove it so have withdrawn it. That's how sensible people engage in debate.

 

I've never asked anyone to prove something they are willing to withdraw.

 

 

If you state something as being true then you must be prepard to back it up with evidence.

 

Double standards - plain and simple. You can wriggle all you want, but those are your words.

 

:o :o :o :no: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

[njc110381]

Yawn.... Here we go again!

 

Just declare it fella. They know about it anyway so it's not going to go against you.

[MartynGT4]

ding ding, round 5

[JonathanL]

I will be generous - you don't have to prove it to a legal standard, beyond all reasonable doubt. Just publish the details of the alleged offences (which don't exist) for which cautions have been issued. A list of these, the circumstances and which Police Force(s) did this will suffice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Double standards - plain and simple. You can wriggle all you want, but those are your words.

 

:o :o :o :no: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

 

Not exactly my point but this case illustrates the problem nicely.

 

De Sousa case

 

'A Norfolk police officer who tricked innocent people into accepting cautions and warnings to improve his detection rates has been jailed for three years.'

 

'The judge said de Souza, who was based in Wymondham, Norfolk, targeted "young men who were hanging around" and had been trying to meet targets and boost promotion prospects.

 

The Pc questioned and searched teenagers, then conned them into accepting cautions for drug offences and possession of offensive weapons, the court was told.

 

Jurors heard that he forged a signature and falsified dates of birth to make youngsters appear older than they were and therefore eligible to be cautioned.

 

This shows the point as to why CAUTIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE GIVCEN ON THE FORM. They are open to SERIOUS ABUSE in the way a convition before a court are not so cannot be used to reliably judge a persons character!

 

J.

[MartynGT4]

You've still got to accept a caution though and as someone else has already said, only after you've admitted the offence! If you're stupid enough to accept a caution for an offence you haven't committed then you've only got yourself to blame!

 

If you've accepted a caution, it's on record, so what on earth is the point in not declaring it? And more to the point, what have you got to gain by advising someone not to declare it when neglecting to declare something 'could' result in an SGC or FAC not being issued. The mind boggles!

[JonathanL]

You've still got to accept a caution though and as someone else has already said, only after you've admitted the offence! If you're stupid enough to accept a caution for an offence you haven't committed then you've only got yourself to blame!

 

The case of the bent cop I've just posted makes the point perfectly. People can easily be coerced into accepting a caution when they were never guilty in the first place.

 

If you've accepted a caution, it's on record, so what on earth is the point in not declaring it? And more to the point, what have you got to gain by advising someone not to declare it when neglecting to declare something 'could' result in an SGC or FAC not being issued. The mind boggles!

 

Please READ what I've written. I'm NOT advising people not to declare anything. I'm saying you aren't REQUIRED to declare cautions because you have not been asked. That being the case, the police CANNOT draw a negative inference from a failure to disclose a caution and could never, ever under any curcumstances refuse to issue a cert because of it.

 

J.

[poontang]

 

 

 

This shows the point as to why CAUTIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE GIVCEN ON THE FORM. They are open to SERIOUS ABUSE in the way a convition before a court are not so cannot be used to reliably judge a persons character!

 

J.

 

Good grief.

 

Are you seriously suggesting the police and the Home Office take no notice of cautions on application because they know they're open to abuse?

[JonathanL]

Good grief.

 

Are you seriously suggesting the police and the Home Office take no notice of cautions on application because they know they're open to abuse?

 

Seriously, are you actually reading what I'm writing? Well, you clearly are but I do wonder if you are actually understanding it!

 

I've never said that they take no notice of it, in fact, I've actually pointed out that they do. Someone has even posted a paragraph from the HO guidance saying that cautions are one of the things that the police should consider when processing an application.

 

What I am saying - all that I am saying - is that you do not NEED to disclose it on the form. The form asks you to disclose CONVICTIONS, nothing else. The police cannot refuse the grant of a cert on the basis that you failed to disclose a caution BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ASKD YOU TO, nor can they draw any negative inference from that.

 

They have not asked so you do not need to disclose. Why are so many people having such a problem with that? It seems like so many people on here feel the need to bend over backwards in deference to authority even when there is no reason to do so. Too many people seem to be utterly and irrationally terrified of the police.

 

J

[Dannyboy220]

Boring now isn't it time to lock this thread, seems to happen when the bitching gets out of control on the other topics.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Dannyboy220

[Mungler]

A caution is an admission of guilt for a petty offence which is thus disposed of summarily.

 

JonathanL, you want to take more ice with it mate

 

 

EDIT:

 

Have a look here:

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm

 

And you will already be aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to SGC and FAC applications. Accordingly, a caution will need to be disclosed.

 

EDIT EDIT:

 

Application form here- see page 4 and the "guidance notes".

Edited March 11, 2012 by Mungler

[MartynGT4]

The case of the bent cop I've just posted makes the point perfectly. People can easily be coerced into accepting a caution when they were never guilty in the first place.

 

 

 

Please READ what I've written. I'm NOT advising people not to declare anything. I'm saying you aren't REQUIRED to declare cautions because you have not been asked. That being the case, the police CANNOT draw a negative inference from a failure to disclose a caution and could never, ever under any curcumstances refuse to issue a cert because of it.

 

J.

 

Oh I've read it alright!

 

Even if you don't outright advise people not to declare cautions, you have tried to convince others that your interpretation of a technicality is correct. People could, rather dangerously, take that as being good advice! As for the police not being able to draw a negative inference from failing to declare a caution, sorry but thats complete and utter rubbish. For instance, someone gets a caution for affray one week and then in the following week fails to declare it on an SGC application. Do you really think the police would say, "hmmm he had a caution last week and didn't put it on the form, no bother, we're not allowed to take it into account". The wording on an application form isn't guaranteed to be a true reflection of policy. Whilst you might not have committed and offence by neglecting to declare a caution, that doesn't mean they wouldn't take it into account.

 

At the end of the day its duty of the cheif constable to use all the information at his \ her disposal to make decisions that protect the safety of the public.