kyska Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Dont think it would apply over here cause correct me if iam wrong you cant get a FAC over here untill your 17,Not sure why anybody knows tell me please :good: Its an evolution thing, its takes you lot 17 years to learn to write and be able to fill out the forms.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 When my daughter applied for her 1st SGC about 7 years ago (she was 15) the police contacated the school for references. The school had no problems with providing a charater reference. The usual questions, is she trustworthy, has she any disiplinary issues, does she attend and not play truant etc. The headmistress at the time told my daughter the police had been in touch. My view is that if you can't behave at school or have behavoural or disiplinary issues then you are not fit/mature enough to hold an SGC. If you do not behave responsibly at school then you are not responsible enough to have an SGC. As long as the school can evidence their responses then I have no issues, if they say they do not feel that the child is not responsible enough then they should provide evidence to back that claim up. Thats my view anyway..... I agree with what you say. However, what is happening here is that the police are insisting that they talk to the school and will refuse to grant if you don't let them. There is zero basis in law for that - Parliament has provided that yuou need to provide two people as referees and nothing else. It is akin to an adult being required to allow the police to speak to their employer. It is a private matter and nothing more. If the police suspect that there may be behavioural issues then that is a different matter - possibly! However, to do it as a metter of routeine is not on. The police don't even contact your doctor as a matter of course so why a school? There may be very good reasons as to why you don't want anyone else to know your business - security being a very important one. The bottom line is that the fact that you may be applying for a SGC is between you and the police, it is none of anyone elses business and is a gross invasion ofa persons privacy. If you are happy for the police to do this then fair enough but it is unacceptable that hey make it a requirement. Where does it end? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 This is nothing new. My son's headmaster was contacted (and we were happy for this to happen) 5 years ago when he first applied for SGC at 9 years old. He also had the interview from police and got his licence no problem. Don't see what the fuss is about unless there's something to hide? And that is the attidude that really gets to me. You are saying that any level of state intertference and questioning is perfectly acceptable in any all all situations for the greater good. If you take it to the logical extreme then the police should be allowed to put a camera in every room of your house and record all your telephone conversations - after all, you have nothing to hide, do you? There is, in reality, 'something to hide' - a person's privacy. Just because you want to keep somethings private doesn't by definition mean that you are doing something wrong or illegal. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Oh I agree, but, any sponsor or your Dr could do the same, saying that someone isn't suitable just to suit your general opinion of shooting is lying. That isn't the point though. It is a private matter and should remain that way. If Parliament decides that it is too important to eep private (as they have done in the case of referees) then they should amend the law after having debated it. J. I don't see this as an issue... many many years ago when I applied to join the Navy (before I saw the error of my ways and joined the Army) the first thing they did was wrote to school for a character reference... After all, they are best placed to offer an unbiased opinion.. I presume by this point that you were anadult though. Also, you could have refused just as you can with any job application. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Marty Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Its an evolution thing, its takes you lot 17 years to learn to write and be able to fill out the forms.... Well if nothing else were taught manners something you missed out on I doubt.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 So how many of you demanding BASC intervention have had your son/daughter apply for a ticket at an early age? If you are told it would be a good idea to get a school reference as it will be seen in a good light down at HQ then why on earth wouldn't you agree? I've been helped out plenty of times by the local firearms dept and I'm on good terms with them. Asking if it's ok to contact the school is hardly police brutality and at least in our case we could give his head a prior warning before getting a call from the firearms dept about one of his pupils. These people see our kids far more often than our GPs and probably more than the other 2 referees who we choose anyway. If you are a complete little **** at school in terms of behaviour then you shouldn't have a licence - end of. Seems when there is already enough pressure against young responsible people having access to guns that some people on here still want to poke a stick in the hornets' nest. They are not 'asking' they are insisting. They would not progress the application without this authority being signed. Parliament has not conferred that power upon them - they are simply making up rules and enforcing them as law when they are no such thing. Does that not make you a wee bit worried? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I agree with I would put this to BASC for their advice!! Indeed, contact your shooting org and get advice off them before proceeding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I see these arguments arising in so many of the threads about UK firarms law. They always have a different pretext (recently this thread, the one about ringing the police before lamping and weather to disclose cautions on a cert application - although some of that was debating what the law is) but essentially it is the same. It always boils down into two camps: those who think we should obey the law and no more and those who think we should obey the law and also comply to other non-legally binding requests which law enforcement may impose. The views are generally as follows: Firearms have the potential to be dangerous - no amount of legislation can change that. It is our personal responsibility to make sure that we are always safe with guns. Because of this any further measures to increase safety are seen as positive by the community and not to be feared due to the fact that as safe owners of guns these restrictions are nothing but good or often reinforcing common sense. On the other side firearms legislation is a battle ground. We are not painting minatures in our spare time - our sport is under constant attack by a dedicated group of activists who have plenty of time and funding. If we are not willing to excerices our rights they are much easier to be taken away, and if there is one thing antis love it is taking away the rights of shooters. Therefore any further restriction on our sport needs to be looked at to make sure that all it does is increase safety, rather then restrict potential responsible gun owners from being able to go about their business, because compliance with measures which do the latter would inevitably result in legislation being passed making it manditory. Edited March 26, 2012 by Bombadil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beretta28g Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 When i applied for my first SGC grant, my school was contacted and i had no problem with this. The reasoning was(if i remember correctly) that the school staff are the ones who you spend most of your time with and therefore they would be well placed to make a character reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think it's a good thing How many lawyers, judges, etc is a 15 year old going to personally know? By personally know I mean could give an unbiased reference - regardless of parental pressure. Moreover even if they are friends of the family how much more are they going to know than what is shared over a dinner party table? Let's face it few parent share with other parents if their child is a bit of a **it. If we are all agreed that a suitable referee (who can talk knowledgeably and meet the criteria specifeid on the application form) should be sought for all applications then I don't see an option other than a school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 As an aside, regardless of it you meet the criteria, how many of you would feel comfortable giving a reference for a 15 year old that you know? Looking at both sides of the coin, if you felt they were not suitable given what you knew, but it risked your friendship with their parents would this alter the reference you gave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 When i applied for my first SGC grant, my school was contacted and i had no problem with this. The reasoning was(if i remember correctly) that the school staff are the ones who you spend most of your time with and therefore they would be well placed to make a character reference. Oh yes, that is entirely sensible. I'm not saying I have a problem in principle with the idea. The problem is that it is an invasion of your privacy which Parliament has not sanctioned and is being done in a very heavy-handed manner. It would be easy for Parliament to do so as there have been many recent legislation amendments and it would be relatively easy simply say that if the applicant is of school-age then one of the referees must be a teacher, for instance. The school may well be in a very good position to comment on a childs character - they are also in a very good position to make unwarranted assumptions or to make the child's life difficult if they wanted to. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think it's a good thing How many lawyers, judges, etc is a 15 year old going to personally know? By personally know I mean could give an unbiased reference - regardless of parental pressure. Moreover even if they are friends of the family how much more are they going to know than what is shared over a dinner party table? Let's face it few parent share with other parents if their child is a bit of a **it. If we are all agreed that a suitable referee (who can talk knowledgeably and meet the criteria specifeid on the application form) should be sought for all applications then I don't see an option other than a school. Good points but that does not change the fact that the police are administering this as though it has the force of law, which it does not. Regardless of whomever else may be acting as referee the police insist on informating the school that the child is applying for a certificate. As I say, it may well be a sensible way of doing things but that is for Parliement to decide - not the police. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Good points but that does not change the fact that the police are administering this as though it has the force of law, which it does not. Regardless of whomever else may be acting as referee the police insist on informating the school that the child is applying for a certificate. As I say, it may well be a sensible way of doing things but that is for Parliement to decide - not the police. J. I take your point, I don't know the law and regulations that apply well enough to comment so am bowing out now. I was more commenting on how a youngster was to meet the required referee levels if they didn't involve the school. This is what happens from reading first post and skin reading the remainder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Jonathan As a point of reference I would draw your attention to the Administration of Explosives and Firearms Licensing Procedural Good Practice Guide. I quote the relevant section from the guide............. 1.2 Applicant a) Checks required on applicant • PNC/CRO • DVLA (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Criminal Intelligence • Domestic Violence/Child Abuse (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Complaints and Discipline (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Special Branch (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Checks should also be made elsewhere for information which may be held in respect of the applicant. • Check firearms department files for any information about the applicant (e.g. shot gun file/previous revocation/refusal etc.). B) Visit applicant, to enquire into: • Character • Good Reason • Security of Premises. This must be in accordance with the Home Office “Firearms Security Handbook” published in March 2000 as a minimum acceptable level. to: • Provide security and crime prevention advice. • Assess and record potential secure storage capacity. • Consider character of applicant and third parties (family, friends, associates, other residents) and where appropriate conduct PNC/CRO and criminal intelligence checks. Please note the bullet point ""checks should also be made elsewhere. With a child the obvious place would be the school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Jonathan As a point of reference I would draw your attention to the Administration of Explosives and Firearms Licensing Procedural Good Practice Guide. I quote the relevant section from the guide............. 1.2 Applicant a) Checks required on applicant • PNC/CRO • DVLA (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Criminal Intelligence • Domestic Violence/Child Abuse (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Complaints and Discipline (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Special Branch (where concern dictates this is appropriate) • Checks should also be made elsewhere for information which may be held in respect of the applicant. • Check firearms department files for any information about the applicant (e.g. shot gun file/previous revocation/refusal etc.). B) Visit applicant, to enquire into: • Character • Good Reason • Security of Premises. This must be in accordance with the Home Office “Firearms Security Handbook” published in March 2000 as a minimum acceptable level. to: • Provide security and crime prevention advice. • Assess and record potential secure storage capacity. • Consider character of applicant and third parties (family, friends, associates, other residents) and where appropriate conduct PNC/CRO and criminal intelligence checks. Please note the bullet point ""checks should also be made elsewhere. With a child the obvious place would be the school. That is quite a way from insisting that such checks should always be made as a matter of routiene. It is a very long way indeed from saying 'sign this so that we can invade your privacy or we won't grant your certificate'. Just because it can be done, or might be warranted in some circumstances, does not mean it should be done all the time. It's no different from telling an adult that the police want to contact their employer and if they don't agree then they won't get a cert. The fact remains that it is a private matter and you have a reasonable expectation that your private matters will stay private. There are lots of very good reasons as to why you may not want anyone to know that you have firearms in your house. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) John. Teachers are bound by pretty much the same confidentiality about any personal matters concerning children under their care, with the same consequences if a Policeman or a Doctor or any other similar professional have if they started blabbing about personal information. Secondly, I think you'll find that most teachers have to care, and deal, with more serious matters such as parental sexual abuse, drugs, bullying, etc etc, that mostly goes untold to the general public because of these laws, I understand your worried but I think you might be over thinking the whole situation. If you want to make sure that it's kept private, write a short email explaining your beliefs and It will legally have to be followed. Edited March 26, 2012 by Bleeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think the police have to power to request information from anyone they think might have a relevent input. I have heard of ex-wives being asked in the past. Now that really is worrying. A 15 year old would only be allowed to shoot under supervision anyway and wouldn't have the keys to the cabinet, so its not as though they are going to be out on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Absolutely not true Vince. Children of 14 or older can shoot unsupervised with their own gun, complying with their FAC. They most certainly DO have access to the cabinet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonwolf444 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 It's nothing to do with the school though. There is no reason why they need to know about any of it. Dont see the fuss, i have nothing to hide, i may not be a top student or try my hardest all the time, and it didnt effect me. I think its great that the school is at least notified, north yorkshire were very good and informative by all accounts. Afterall your child is spending 50% of its life in school, they are going to know a good bit about you, your temprament, turency, how you conduct your self, i think this is all extremely vital information for a licencing force that has met you once and knows you by the reference number that gets stamped across your application form, and i think this information is a pretty good way to judge someone's character, just my 2p's worth When my daughter applied for her 1st SGC about 7 years ago (she was 15) the police contacated the school for references. The school had no problems with providing a charater reference. The usual questions, is she trustworthy, has she any disiplinary issues, does she attend and not play truant etc. The headmistress at the time told my daughter the police had been in touch. My view is that if you can't behave at school or have behavoural or disiplinary issues then you are not fit/mature enough to hold an SGC. If you do not behave responsibly at school then you are not responsible enough to have an SGC. As long as the school can evidence their responses then I have no issues, if they say they do not feel that the child is not responsible enough then they should provide evidence to back that claim up. Thats my view anyway..... Exactly my view aswell, Its a good idea. Its always been like this, i was 15 when i applyed and in the interview i was told they would write or ring the school, they check on classroom behavior and general behavior, i dont beilieve its a particularly long conversation. I knew my school would be contacted, anlong with my GP and i believe if you have a job, ie not in full time education, they can talk to your boss aswell. This doesnt bother me at all and dont see why you would get worked up about it. I aranged to speek to my headmaster prior to them ringing and just explained that i had a very keen interest in shooting sports and that i had applyed for my shotgun certificate, which i had to explain what it was, and told him that it was part of the process and to expect a call from the firearms department in the future, just checking on my general behavior ect. He said that was fine, and would let me know when they had called. Two weeks later he called me back to his office told me that they had called and had explained it all to him again and the whole process ect. and that he had answered all the questions. I think the police have to power to request information from anyone they think might have a relevent input. I have heard of ex-wives being asked in the past. Now that really is worrying. A 15 year old would only be allowed to shoot under supervision anyway and wouldn't have the keys to the cabinet, so its not as though they are going to be out on their own. This is untrue, i was 15 years old when applying in North Yorkshire, i have noone in my family that shoots or holds any kind of FAC SGC. During my interview i was told that i could shoot wherever i had permission by the landowner ( not supervised ) poviding it was safe etc, and as long as the quarry was legal, to which the lady did say something about the general licience (had already read it) and i was also told that it wouldnt be aloud for my parents to have any kind of access to the cabinate as it didnt pertain to any of their property as far as the certificate is concerned, as far as my SGC is concerned the only part my mother or father played was buying the buscuits for the interview and countersigning the forms. My parents trust me a great deal so it has never been a issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) As an aside, regardless of it you meet the criteria, how many of you would feel comfortable giving a reference for a 15 year old that you know? Looking at both sides of the coin, if you felt they were not suitable given what you knew, but it risked your friendship with their parents would this alter the reference you gave? I signed a licence for my mates lad the other year, he was 14, have known him since birth, I pick him up to go beating for us, last year he came as a guest a few time, happy to have him, this year someone left he took the place, I am happier standing next to a known 15 yr old than some unknown adults. the hardest part is getting the little b*gger out of the driving seat since he realised he can drive on private land. always offering to run the other team to the far end of the drive, in my car, edit for spellin Edited March 26, 2012 by bobt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonwolf444 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Children of 14 or older can shoot unsupervised with their own gun, complying with their FAC. They most certainly DO have access to the cabinet. Not true for shotguns though i believe the law is 15 for a shotgun not 14, i have read a good bit of literature about the subject a while ago but im sure i could dig it out for you if needed. 15 - shoot with a shotgun without supervision on private land where you have permission to shoot 14 - to shoot with an air rifle without supervision on private land where you have permission to shoot aged 14 you cannot have anything on your FAC anyway, but you can use your fathers/landowners/family members ect if you have a FAC on private land. Thats why i havent bothered to apply for FAC, and wont till im 18. *watching this space.....* Edited March 26, 2012 by demonwolf444 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 John. Teachers are bound by pretty much the same confidentiality about any personal matters concerning children under their care, with the same consequences if a Policeman or a Doctor or any other similar professional have if they started blabbing about personal information. Secondly, I think you'll find that most teachers have to care, and deal, with more serious matters such as parental sexual abuse, drugs, bullying, etc etc, that mostly goes untold to the general public because of these laws, I understand your worried but I think you might be over thinking the whole situation. If you want to make sure that it's kept private, write a short email explaining your beliefs and It will legally have to be followed. The police insist that you give them permission to contact the school so it clearly isn't being followed. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Jonathan As a point of reference I would draw your attention to the Administration of Explosives and Firearms Licensing Procedural Good Practice Guide. etc Please note the bullet point ""checks should also be made elsewhere. With a child the obvious place would be the school. You omit to say that the guide to which you refer is not LAW as such, it is the musings of a self-appointed cartel of senior police officers (ACPO), who seem to think they MAKE law. They do not make law, they are officers of the law sworn to uphold the law, as made by Parliament. ACPO happens to be a private limited company funded in part by police forces selling DVLA information to private businesses so that they can snoop on you and collect parking "fines", as well as grants of public money. They recently blew over £1m of this money on an annual "conference". They remain a private limited company which puts them beyond the reach of public accountability and the freedom of information act. They are vehemently opposed to the introduction of elected and accountable police commissioners. Naturally as they will have the power to remove them from their fiefdoms. In my view, and that of BASC is that Firearms Licensing should be independent of the police. More on ACPO Edited March 26, 2012 by Greymaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think the police have to power to request information from anyone they think might have a relevent input. I have heard of ex-wives being asked in the past. Now that really is worrying. A 15 year old would only be allowed to shoot under supervision anyway and wouldn't have the keys to the cabinet, so its not as though they are going to be out on their own. Anyone has the power to ask anyone anything they please. It is a very different matter when a public authority insists that you sign away your privacy before they will carry out their job! It is no different to the DVLA insisting that you sign something allowing a school to realse information on an applicant for a driving licence. It may well be a good idea (that's not the point I'm making) but Parliament has not given them the power to do it. J. 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.