David BASC Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Just checked up on the situation in NI. In 2011 we were reliably informed by Dept of Justice that their review would include fees and there has been much speculation as to how big the inevitable increase would be. However, there is going to be a consultation with the shooting community before any final decision is made, first we were told that this consultation was going to start last autumn, nothing happened, then we were told it would be Jan / Feb this year, we are still waiting… If a proposed fees increase is contained in the review, BASC NI will be lobbying for any increase to be proportionate and justifiable and that the money accrued will be ring-fenced to ensure that the service provided by PSNI Firearms and Explosives Branch is efficient and professional. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yes, I had to wait 6 months for my SGC, then when I later applied for a FAC that took 5 months. I had land available, no convictions etc to cause concern, it simply took that long. Regarding open certificates I was meaning those who don't automatically get granted them, therefore resulting in FEO's driving round passing every piece of land people want to shoot on - it seems a waste of money. I like North Yorkshire because we get open certificates, and they seem to be a sensible force to deal with, however they are understaffed and the times I've had to wait are not good. Before fees are increased I think all police forces should follow the HO guidelines in the same way, the differences between forces is stupid, and all applications need to be dealt with in a timely manner, all round the country. Indeed it is waste of time traveling about unless they 1. know what they are looking at without using check boxes etc. 2. dont ask questions off the applicant who should be questioned on site. NO land is safe it should and used to be a way in which they could vet an applicant on safety measures and risks on the ground in question North yorks policy scares me and puts us a short step away from complsary training when someone gets it badly wrong one day. It is cost saving at potential risk to public safety Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Marty Posted March 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Thank David makes it alot clearer.. :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 OK, it's fair to say that we are due a rise but it must be realistic. More often than not, it seems that BASC is 'reactive' to circumstances (often by their nature this is unavoidable). However, on this matter we are forewarned. Why not be 'proactive' for a change and publish the statistics mentioned by David now. With this in the public domain, a few minds may just be concentrated. That'll be a "no" then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 It’s not a mater of not wanting to post our stats on here for any other reason than to ‘keep our powder dry’ for the meetings with have with ACPO and the HO. Most of the constabularies seem to be getting it right most of the time, there are a few real ‘stars’ out there and a few’ villains’ either taking a ridiculously long time for grant / renewal or issuing daft conditions in FAC’s. Cheshire, for example, is known to be awkward in some cases on FAC and slow on SGC renewal. However, recently my SGC was renewed and from when I posted off the renewal to when the new ticket arrived was under a month, so maybe they have turned a corner? Given that several licensing teams can turn around applications, variations & renewals quickly, who follow the HO guidance and ACPO best practice, and don’t make ‘rods for their own backs’ with additional conditions and seem to run a tight ship; it begs the question why can’t others do the same rather than remain apparently inefficient and bleat they want more money to do the job? If they want to save money then the simple answer is for all of them to follow and adopt the work programmes of the top exemplars. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 It’s not a mater of not wanting to post our stats on here for any other reason than to ‘keep our powder dry’ for the meetings with have with ACPO and the HO. Most of the constabularies seem to be getting it right most of the time, there are a few real ‘stars’ out there and a few’ villains’ either taking a ridiculously long time for grant / renewal or issuing daft conditions in FAC’s. Cheshire, for example, is known to be awkward in some cases on FAC and slow on SGC renewal. However, recently my SGC was renewed and from when I posted off the renewal to when the new ticket arrived was under a month, so maybe they have turned a corner? Given that several licensing teams can turn around applications, variations & renewals quickly, who follow the HO guidance and ACPO best practice, and don’t make ‘rods for their own backs’ with additional conditions and seem to run a tight ship; it begs the question why can’t others do the same rather than remain apparently inefficient and bleat they want more money to do the job? If they want to save money then the simple answer is for all of them to follow and adopt the work programmes of the top exemplars. David Thankyou, David. I hear what you say. Posting on here is preaching to the converted. When I say publish, I had our new media suite in mind and a press release, whatever, to all of the national media broadcasters/outlets. That way, the 'villains' would know that they'd been rumbled. Yep, but I reckon when you renewed your SGC, using t' Mill as your address may have helped a tinsey winsey little bit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Marty Posted March 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Have to say at the minute the PSNI have got there act together as far as speed of return of FAC is concerned,your looking at about 3 weeks even for first timers.. At least round here maybe differnt in other parts of the North..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradders Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 All in all, the cost going up isn't as much an issue as the time it takes to process an application and the differences between police forces. The biggest problem is either the inefficiency of a particulat force or the number of applications they have to process. All of the checks with referees etc, as far as I know are done remotely, it's only the applicant that gets a personal visit. Therefore why can a busy force off load some of the paper work/remote aspects to a less busy force thus freeing up some time. Ok so the local Chief has to "sign" the ticket but does it really matter where the check are done. I say centralise all the back office stuff and leave the face to face stuff for local FEO's. Also, the fee should be more granular on or on a sliding scale and liked to the service provided. For example the fee is £150 and the application will be processed end to end within 6 weeks or the fee is drastically reduced or waived. What is the total man power effort to process an application, certainly no more than a couple of days..... Does anyone have information regarding appliaction processed, variations etc per year by force and the average processing time. I would be interested to see those figures..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoJackRussells Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Been here before! Lets All get one thing straight, just because the cost is going up doesnt mean the standard of service follows suit!Secondly although I agree that even a rise to £150 still represents a reasonable charge for a 5 Year licence DONT think it will stop there, in 2 years time it will go up again and so on until we will be asked to cough up £1000 a Year in ten years time!Has anyone noticed an improvement in traffic congestion or the condtions of Britains roads? No but the cost of car tax gets ever higher, Your Community Charge is anoter fine example of Rising cost to Jo public with nowt to show, why think this proposal will be any different, just another way to empty Our Wallets! Rant over, time for a Beer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Been here before! Lets All get one thing straight, just because the cost is going up doesnt mean the standard of service follows suit!Secondly although I agree that even a rise to £150 still represents a reasonable charge for a 5 Year licence DONT think it will stop there, in 2 years time it will go up again and so on until we will be asked to cough up £1000 a Year in ten years time!Has anyone noticed an improvement in traffic congestion or the condtions of Britains roads? No but the cost of car tax gets ever higher, Your Community Charge is anoter fine example of Rising cost to Jo public with nowt to show, why think this proposal will be any different, just another way to empty Our Wallets! Rant over, time for a Beer! Exactly! The best way to get good/better sevice from a public body is to make sure that the people who are in charge of it (politicians, ultimately) are scared for their jobs if you don't get what you want. In short that means that what we need are more shooters! If some politician thought he would lose his seat because shooters were getitng a bum deal then no one would wait 6 months for a cert. I think this makes even more significant when it comes to future restrictions on firearms ownership. I firmly believe that we did not see proposals for restrictions on shotguns after Cumbria and Peterlee primarily because that there are nearly 600,000 SGC's out there covering 1.3 million guns, that is a lot of people to annoy and a big industry to destabilise. It was easy to ban semi-automatic rifles in 1988 and pistols in 1997 becuase there were only about 7,000 and 57,000 people affected respectively. Personally, I think that it should be every shooters duty to introduce a new shooter to the sport each year. By that I mean that everyone should have the goal of recruiting at least one new certificte holder each year. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Personally I think £50 for a shotgun licence is cheap, I can't get a plumber to my house for half an hour for that, and it lasts for 5 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.I.A Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) i wouldnt mind paying £150 at all aslong as i never end up having to wait an excessive amount of time (like some of the horror storys on here). That said Thames valley have been reasonably efficient, i have no complaints what so ever against them Edited March 13, 2012 by M.I.A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Personally I think £50 for a shotgun licence is cheap, I can't get a plumber to my house for half an hour for that, and it lasts for 5 years! That's not really the point though. The two are not comparable. The most important point is that you have no choice regarding getting an FAC/SGC. You are free to have no central heating but you can get locked up if you don't renew your FAC/SGC. If an FAC/SGC on ly exists for the public benefit then you should not be charged for it. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 i wouldnt mind paying £150 at all aslong as i never end up having to wait an excessive amount of time (like some of the horror storys on here). That said Thames valley have been reasonably efficient, i have no complaints what so ever against them A very interesting point given that Thames Valley has, I think, the largest number of FAC's & SGC's omn issue. If they can do things efficiently then why can't anyone else??? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 The most important point is that you have no choice regarding getting an FAC/SGC. In the same way that you have no choice in getting a driving licence if you wish to drive. I trust you agree that, whilst a more obvious test is in place for vehicles, it is still imperative that only those deemed to have met a certain standard are allowed unsupervised access to cars. Why should it be any different with guns? You are free to have no central heating but you can get locked up if you don't renew your FAC/SGC. If you choose not to heat your house then you must buy firewood. If you choose to not renew your SGC/FAC then you must employ the services of a pest controller to avoid breaking the law by owning guns illegally. I pay my gas bill so I can have heating, I pay my SGC fee so I can shoot. If an FAC/SGC on ly exists for the public benefit then you should not be charged for it. Same argument as a driving licence. Driving licence is there to protect the public from being mown down by unqualified drivers. SGC there to ensure people of sound mind/non criminals have access to guns. I want to drive a car, I understand the costs involved and what this pays for (checking I am qualified to do so), and deem it worthwhile to pay these. I wish to own a gun, I understand the costs involved and what this pays for (checking I am qualified to do so), and deem it worthwhile to pay these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant hit rabbits 123 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Just a point of interest, and by no means am I saying this should be even considered, but for SGC applications, I was once told how, in theory by a computery person, the checking of records etc could be done automatically by computer if an electronic application was filled out, and a human would only have to attend to the application if an offence was flagged up. Now, I'm sure alot of us will have some small motoring thing or similar in our history, but imagine the tima and effort it would save, with the only real human effort going in is the home visit after the computer declares the applicant as fulfilling the required conditions for an SGC or if the computer flags up an offence that needs human consideration and judgment. Might save a bit in the long run and speed up the process. Again, I'm not advocating this, just putting another slant on the whole effeciency debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Cheshire, for example, is known to be awkward in some cases on FAC and slow on SGC renewal. However, recently my SGC was renewed and from when I posted off the renewal to when the new ticket arrived was under a month, so maybe they have turned a corner? Or you were flagged for special treatment? In the same way that you have no choice in getting a driving licence if you wish to drive. I trust you agree that, whilst a more obvious test is in place for vehicles, it is still imperative that only those deemed to have met a certain standard are allowed unsupervised access to cars. Why should it be any different with guns? I agree to a point to driv eon the roads you need a certificate (different to a licence) not so at a track, you dont need FAC/SGC to shoot at a clay ground or rifle range or to use an "estate rifle". But you do to own one keep it at home and use without supervision. This is generally sensible, just as there are unlicensed drivers on the road there will still be a few un certificated shooters (some legally with sub 12ftlb air and some not) it is not as straight forward. The DVLA arent perfect but do a decent job as do the passport office why can't firearms be handled by a national body? More legislation required (and over due) I feel the driving licence model is the best to use with an entitlement basis like with driving (HGV/PSV/etc) a chip card which can be updated by RFD's to 1 for 1 etc (although why this is needed i dont know) all linked to a central database no more posting bits of paper round the country to be lost, chased and ultimately entered into a computer system and showing entitlement to own/buy etc different categories of firearm. The world, policing and technology are indistinguishable from what they were in 1967. MOT's are all computerised so is vehicle tax yet firearms is done by home visit and post (state of the art in 1950) while many homes didn't have a telephone in 1967 most now have broadband internet! This could save costs long term deliver immediate benefit for the police, gun industry and public alike! IT wise its a pretty simple process, the hardware exists and so does the software...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I doubt I was flagged for special treatment! D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onefulham Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradders Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 When you consider how much we spend once we have our SGC/FAC I think £30.00 a year (£150.00 for the 5) is negligable really. Most of the complaints on this forum are about time it takes process an application, variation, address change etc. It does need centralising/standardising, much of the process could be out sourced with just the home visits for security checks etc done by a local police officer. I have no problem if it's armed response coppers who do the security checks/serial number checks at least they will know one end of a gun from the other. Also it might help the situation when they get that call from someone about you when you are out enjoying a lawful activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Marty Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Lot of good stuff there lads.. :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought I must admit that I am always amazed at the "I'm all right Jack I can afford it" attitude of some. What may be a trifling amount to some represents more than a weeks pension to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought Certainy not my thinking on any of this The more shooting folk there are the more likely we will be respected, understood, and be able to fight our corner in legal situations. The more people that shoot the more facilities that will be sustained and the more investment into the sport there will be. Look at how many thousands of acres are dedicated to golf or other sports; were there as many shooters as golfers these huge acreages could be assigned to shooting grounds. These two coupled with the fact that the more demand there is for guns, carts, and general supplies will keep the prices lower through both supply and demand as well as there being more gun outlets and thus more competition within an area. Edited March 15, 2012 by LondonLuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) You'll always get a mix of social classes in shooting, keeps the good old Baikal Vs Purdey pub stories going The problem with shooting is that it is not sexy in the Governments eyes and they certainly don't want to been seen to be making it easier to get an FAC / SGC in the non shooting voters eyes. Hence why they will never improve the current system even if they increase the price of the FAC / SGC. What shooting needs is a single national body like the NRA to fight for our rights and to get kids interested at grass roots level. I'm the second youngest at our rifle club and i'm 31!! :yp: Success in the Olympics might do us the world of good Edited March 15, 2012 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought When you consider how much we spend once we have our SGC/FAC I think £30.00 a year (£150.00 for the 5) is negligable really. Bradders has given a decent answer to that one. From my point of view I'd hate to see poorer folk being pushed out of the sport - I'm not rich myself but at the same time I do think that peoples view of money these days is a little clouded! If you can afford to be in the que at the shooting ground regularly then you can afford £30 per year for the certificate can't you?! I gave up clay shooting because I didn't want to afford £20 per week for cartridges and clays. I can't say I can't afford it because I can, but it certainly didn't help the bank account because things are tight for me. I'm not that well off myself and that sort of money makes a difference. I consider my FAC and SGC a really important part of my life. £150 for 5 years isn't cheap but it isn't a lot either. If you can afford ammo for any powder burner, even a .22lr, then you can afford £30 per year to own it too. It's less than a pund per week - if you can't forward plan and save that then you need to seriously consider whether you should be shooting! 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.