kent Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Guys, i know directly of a bloke who nearly lost his licence coz an anti at work said he had drink issues. It was total fabrication and all got sorted thanks to an understanding FEO, but no charges were brought the anti's way. I believe they are quite commonly doing this. The HR person should have an official grievence lodged against them, play them at thier own game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) I've got a drinking problem :( Edited July 27, 2012 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Poon Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Very interesting read all this was :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I've read this one with interest as I work in and around that field (of work, not his shooting Permission). Aside from the specifics of this case on which I don't intend to comment, most HR people I know would be hyper-ventilating and screaming for their legal dept before taking unilateral action to go direct to a firearms department about an employee. They would see it as a very very very big deal indeed. To the OP, please keep us posted on the apology, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Don't believe everything you read on a forum. How would an HR department know about someone's firearms ownership? How would they know who to phone or even what an FAO is or does? Even if having made a load of enquiries and they ultimately phoned plod, who would have the time, energy and inclination to make a report like that unless they themselves thought it serious enough to be worth doing? The chain of information looks like half a story gets passed on and halved again and so what's on here represents but a fraction of the whole true picture. There we go. It could well be a load of rubbish, but it could well all be true - surprising things do happen. A HR dept may have someone who knows he holds a SGC - not all shooters are hush hush about their sport, some people (myself included) try to tell as many people as possible what we do. An anti or someone with a grudge could find out who to speak to if they're 'concerned' about someone with firearms, without too much difficulty, the whole thing is quite possible. As I've already said, if the FEO was really worried in any way about the person, he/she could have revoked the certificate without delay, but calling and speaking to the person, and their parent, hardly sounds like he/she thought there was any real danger - perhaps they thought that what they'd been told was silly but want to be seen to act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I've read this one with interest as I work in and around that field (of work, not his shooting Permission). Aside from the specifics of this case on which I don't intend to comment, most HR people I know would be hyper-ventilating and screaming for their legal dept before taking unilateral action to go direct to a firearms department about an employee. They would see it as a very very very big deal indeed. To the OP, please keep us posted on the apology, etc. I can think of one HR lassie where hot-headed decisions/phone calls would be made... a bit worrying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloggs Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Is it possible that someone in the HR dept actually possesses a SGC and immediately knew who to contact? :blink: Just a thought.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 hellfire, I took our HR manager (and a few more staff) clayshooting, they all loved it, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmy1100 Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) possibly been doing some bird in hr dept and dumped her and shes thought payback Edited July 27, 2012 by remmy1100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry31 Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Many is the word spoken in jest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowblind66 Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Seems unlikely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 :lol: He might have said he has had a breakdown Good darts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Don't believe everything you read on a forum. How would an HR department know about someone's firearms ownership? How would they know who to phone or even what an FAO is or does? Even if having made a load of enquiries and they ultimately phoned plod, who would have the time, energy and inclination to make a report like that unless they themselves thought it serious enough to be worth doing? The chain of information looks like half a story gets passed on and halved again and so what's on here represents but a fraction of the whole true picture. There we go. I am aware of a situation where somebody I know spoke of his shooting interests at work and somebody else in the office took exception to it and started a whispering campaign against him saying he was some kind of a nutcase who runs around killing animals for fun. This got really out of hand, to the point that doctored pictures were being pinned on the notice board and people were being encouraged to call him Rambo. Never underestimate the nastiness that can occour in the workplace. People can go to a lot of trouble just to put the boot in for somebody else Edited July 28, 2012 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Did his lose is guns / ticket ? Answer, no. Gay people get picked on at work, along with Muslims, blacks, fatties, gingers.... And shooters. C'est la vie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 MUngler - can I just clarify? These are all examples from your office - are they? :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 No, we don't pick on fatties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 No, we don't pick on fatties (Cogito) ergo sum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorevans Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I applied for my SGC I had to provide details of employment as did a workmate who applied a few months previous, in my case the firearms Dept./FEO didn't contact my place of work but they did in relation to my workmate. So maybe that's how his employer or their HR Dpt. would be aware of him having access to guns. Still all seems a bit over the top, did they have someone watch over him at work all day to keep him away from windows, cutlery, glasses etc. and take his belt and shoe laces too? Lol. Sounds mad but in these days of elf and safety completely bilievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 It might be exactly as posted, but I find it hard to accept that we have the full script. The original poster may well have correctly reported the facts as he knew them, but it is hard not to think that the conversation at work was that short - having a bad day. I cannot conceive that the Manager and HR Department faithfully reported just those three words. The Firearms Section would hardly react to three words. Was anything else said, or said previously or has the Manager or HR Department added more to the three words - possibly adding an opinion to go with them? If I were to lose my SGC under those circumstances, I would be seeing a Solicitor and putting the Manager and HR under a microscope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
station Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Did his lose is guns / ticket ? Answer, no. Gay people get picked on at work, along with Muslims, blacks, fatties, gingers.... And shooters. C'est la vie. Don't forget the Welsh Is it possible that someone in the HR dept actually possesses a SGC and immediately knew who to contact? :blink: Just a thought.... Quite a good one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southeastpete Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 so is there any further news yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 When I applied for my SGC I had to provide details of employment as did a workmate who applied a few months previous, in my case the firearms Dept./FEO didn't contact my place of work but they did in relation to my workmate. So maybe that's how his employer or their HR Dpt. would be aware of him having access to guns. Still all seems a bit over the top, did they have someone watch over him at work all day to keep him away from windows, cutlery, glasses etc. and take his belt and shoe laces too? Lol. Sounds mad but in these days of elf and safety completely bilievable. Sorry but that is shocking if true. I have the same problem with this that I had a few weeks back when I posted about the police contacting a school when a child applied. It is NOTHING to do with anyone else and certainly nothing to do with an applicants employer. In fact, unless you have given them permission to do so then contacting anyone and telling them they you have made an application then the police are almost certainly breaking the law relating to data protection. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 As someone who has been on the receiving end of such a visit I would tell all the nay payers to think again. I had an unannounced visit and check because of my daughters school contacting el plod. How they knew I had guns I don't know but after checking my security and asking if I was a drunk/depressed etc they went on their way only for me to get a further visit from the FEO asking me to explain my medication in the report they had got from my doctor. I still have my guns. As to the OP, a particularly troublesome employee of the company I work for was taking the mick with his sickness so HR contacted the police with concerns for his welfare and he received a home visit too. He was a SGC holder but I believe he then subsequently gave up or was relieved of his weapons. I do know he was selling everything including his dog shortly afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootingman Posted July 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Well, the good news is that it's all sorted ,no apology from the firearms dept, because as they say(which I can understand & agree with)when any type of issue/report or complaint is received, they MUST investigate it , but they do agree with us that the manager & HR dept involved were a little over zealous in their actions . My son,last Friday,requested an interview with the HR dept, expained the stress caused by them & when she realised just how much inconvienience she had caused to all concerned, she admitted she didn't know anything about the procedure that had to be adhered to by the FAO in order to ensure all was correct. She has verbally apologised to my son . The strange thing about it all is that when my son arrived at work this morning, he was informed by his work colleagues that both ladies, (the manager & the HR manager) have both gone on sick leave.I expect they're having A BAD DAY . To all those members who offered support,we thank you yery much, to the few doubting thomas's, I sincerely hope you never experience anything similar. Thank you all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Well, for crying out loud! Why didn't you say they were female; we could have told you from the off what the matter was - PMT - which is why they're off now. 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.