TIGHTCHOKE Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Are you all arguing over unsubstantiated speculation, again It would appear so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 It would appear so! AND no one has said that I can have a senior citizen's concession like my fishing licence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Because it's a public safety issue. The public should pay for it. If shooters want the licensing authorities to provide non-public safety related additional services on their behalf then they should be chargable but optional. If my car gets stolen I don't get a bill from the police, CPS or courts for dealing with the offender. They deal with him from funds sourced from general taxation because the 'service' is of public benefit. If firearms need to be licensed for reasons of public safety then the state should pay for that. J. my car is licensed should the state pay that as well? or my dog or marriage license, if you believe that the taxpayer should fund your sport you had better pop through your wardrobe door and get back to Narnia. KW It's just been announced that it's going up to £10K per year from tomorrow. Still don't care? J. nope just means more land available, dont want the riff raff on do we KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 (edited) AND no one has said that I can have a senior citizen's concession like my fishing licence. Do you catch many senior citizens?, is there a general concession or a yearly quota on how many you can catch? Edited June 10, 2013 by phaedra1106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchesterpete Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Im not too fussed providing its affordable for all and a good service. A few thoughts though. Would this lead to charges for registering firearms when bought and sold? If somebody uses the nhs more than I do does this mean they have to pay more for the service, does somebody in the countryside pay more to be air lifted to the nearest hospital rather than driven, or do I/everybody else subsidise it? The licencing process is a service for everybody in the country which is required as part of the law of the land, its not our fault that only a few choose to use it, if you see what im saying. And the public are a bit hypocrytical sometimes, they call for taxation when it doesnt effect them, but suggest tax increases to fund nhs over spending and everyone goes nuts. Death and taxes, inevitable I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Do you catch many senior citizens?, is there a general concession or a yearly quota on how many you can catch? Hooked an old trout once.......... Jasper, don't even think about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I wonder if civil servants trail the idea of charges on forums like pigeon watch to see, anonymously, what the reaction would be ? If this is speculation then why leak it through the news ? If the fee goes up surely we should ask what price an addition to a cert, will 1 for 1's remain free, how much to visit and approve and categorise land. How much will target shooters pay as opposed to 'hunters', Will requests for ammo changes be charged for, will there be a new charge for adding guns to certificates etc., etc., Those who find the increase acceptable to £200 (if thats what it is, probably have this information. I dont and £200 is too expensive anyway. Speculation it may be but I hope those who plan for the increase take note that more appear to be against this sort of level of charge than those who find anything proposed acceptable. All 'brother in arms' of course. I wonder if the likes of the RSPB etc are consulted on proposed fees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominicrobed Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Oh well , 100 is not that bad for 5 years !! But if it is costing the tax payer money other hobbies need looking at , cyclists fall of bikes and going to A and E cost tax payers money , car crashes cost tax payers money , people having kids cost the tax payer money , horse riders on the road when things go wrong cost the tax payer money !! All of the above I don't do or have so put a tax on them ? Dunno if people would go along with that. But like I said £100 ain't that bad to pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaz Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I wouldn't be adverse to any increases on the current price, as its cheap as chips now. I used to fish 4 rods which cost in excess of 50 quid a year so at 100 pound for 5yrs and unlimited to any amount of guns it's a bargain in my mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini52 Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 This has been on the cards for a while,lets be honest 100 quid for five years is still not a bad deal,my ticket is up for renewal next year,i will pay it what ever,i have to pay 30 quid a year to have my garden waste bin emptied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 My thoughts are that the public shouldn't have to sub us. I know some don't agree but the "I pay my taxes" rant doesn't really come into this I don't think. Yes there are loads of issues of money being wasted elsewhere but is that really relevant? As someone who doesn't agree with subbing other folks activities with my taxes it would be rather wrong of me to expect the public to fund my hobby. But its government that demands you have a licence as has been stated elsewhere and the public are hardly funding your hobby are they, the licence being an insignificant part of the cost ! How do you feel about the TV licence ? Fancy paying Sky like fees ........................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 first the increase then it will end up the more guns you have the more you pay,,just food for thought, but if you went the petrol station and found out it was £14 a gallon would you just say oh its ok cos I need my car,,cos that's what some of you seem to be saying now,i personally don't care how much it costs but a 100% increase and some of you are happy,well I know a few on here that wont be mind you £1000,s to shoot pheasant no wonder some of ya don't care you must have more money than sense, oh and before all you big wigs with the money start,,as I said I don't care what it costs :whistling: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I don't get the argument comparing a rod license with firearms certificates. They are two completely different beasts. Rod licenses give anglers a benefit "Money raised through rod license sales is invested in fisheries work to benefit all anglers" whereas a FAC/SGC is of no benefit whatsoever to the shooter, rather, it's only use is in the name of public safety, to prevent unsuitable persons from owning a firearm. Just because, in recent years, the government decides it wishes to vet me before I can buy a shotgun doesn't mean I should roll over and pay through the nose. It's their choice and of no particular benefit to me. I'm pleased to note BASC's stance on the matter and even ACPO acknowledges that if the cost is to increase then so should the service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveco36 Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 Isn't it just the british way.we will stand for anything,most replying would happily pay more ,and be thankfull to pay double.why is it we are so subservient .nobody ever kicks up a fuss.ohh we will have a good moan about it but that's all we will do,We will say thank you very much and think we got off lightly. Exactly my thoughts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 I don't get the argument comparing a rod license with firearms certificates. They are two completely different beasts. Rod licenses give anglers a benefit "Money raised through rod license sales is invested in fisheries work to benefit all anglers" whereas a FAC/SGC is of no benefit whatsoever to the shooter, rather, it's only use is in the name of public safety, to prevent unsuitable persons from owning a firearm. Just because, in recent years, the government decides it wishes to vet me before I can buy a shotgun doesn't mean I should roll over and pay through the nose. It's their choice and of no particular benefit to me. I'm pleased to note BASC's stance on the matter and even ACPO acknowledges that if the cost is to increase then so should the service. Yep, but I still want a discount, I've bought loads so want one free. Exactly my thoughts! We're subjects, would the French stand for anything they don't like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 Yep, but I still want a discount, I've bought loads so want one free. Buy one, get one free and I get my OAP discount. Sounds a good deal to me !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 BASC statement. Also posted under under new topic. Certificate fees: a fair price for a fair service. Firearm and shotgun certificate holders and applicants should pay a fair price for a fair service, according to the UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has submitted a proposal to the Government to increase certificate fees from £50 to £94. The last revision of fees took place in 2001. BASC recognises that some costs will have increased but believes there are still efficiency savings and service improvements which can be made by the police, some with no cost attached. BASC also recognises that Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the ACPO lead on firearms licensing is committing time, effort and resources to make improvements. However, the licensing system is currently patchy at best, with significant differences in delivery across different police forces and long delays in some areas. Bill Harriman, BASC director of firearms said: “BASC’s specialist firearms team handles more than 500 calls every month from people who are trying to negotiate their way through the system. This puts us in a unique position to be able to assess how firearms licensing is operating across the UK. Service delivery is inconsistent. Some police forces produce long and unacceptable delays in the process. We are seeing improvements in some areas, but not in all. The police have official Home Office guidance which should be setting consistent standards, but our experience shows that in practice, this is far from the case. Certificate holders should pay a fair price for a fair service and BASC wishes to see that fair service put in place. Neither certificate holders nor the taxpayer should have to pay for inefficiency. BASC is talking to the police and to the Government and discussions are on-going.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Thank you for the update Simon. I'm particularly interested in your second paragraph. " The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has submitted a proposal to the Government to increase certificate fees from £50 to £94. The last revision of fees took place in 2001". A few straightforward questions if I may. 1. Is this proposal in the public domain yet? 2. Are the current costs per police force available to the public? 3. To what extent in % terms are the non-shooting (shotgun and firearms licence holders) paying towards the total costs now and then after the ACPO has implemented his proposed change? 4. What guarantees will the ACPO make to the shooting community in terms of the improved service, responsiveness and speed in exchange for this increased tax (levy)? 5. What is the IT budget allocated (or applied for) to facilitate this change? The police have a notoriously bad record of delivering change which could impact nationally. My post # 41 on here also flirts with the risks associated with raising licencing fees to a level that means people would simply give up shooting. There should be a piece of work done that evaluates this and the loss of revenue to the public, government (inc, police) both in monetary and social terms. Thank you in advance. Edited June 11, 2013 by Whitebridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 my car is licensed should the state pay that as well? or my dog or marriage license, if you believe that the taxpayer should fund your sport you had better pop through your wardrobe door and get back to Narnia. KW LIke I say above, this isn't the same thing. Vehicles are licensed, at least in part, so that they can be taxed. Marriage is a choice and not an essential public safety issue. You still pay a dog licence??? You're being ripped off as they haven't existed in years. Firearms are only subject to licensing and registration because it provides a public benefit in the form of enhanced public safety. That's reason given at any rate. If the public wants a public benefit then the public should pay for it. The public wants a health service which is free at the point of service delivery which it funds though genearal taxation. It want's it because it is a public benefit to have a healthy population and that people should not suffer illness because they cannot afford to pay for treatment at the time it is needed. If firearms licensing provides a public benefit then the same should apply. If it provides anything additional to a strict public benefit then that is the point at which taks of charging should start. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 jonathanL, I take it your not happy with this proposed increase also as many others are,, but I have to say there are a lot of people on here who have money to throw away as their saying they don't care how much it costs because they will still get one, also if I am correct fishing is the second most popular past time and their are certainly more fishermen than shooters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 11, 2013 Report Share Posted June 11, 2013 If the fee goes up surely we should ask what price an addition to a cert, will 1 for 1's remain free, how much to visit and approve and categorise land. How much will target shooters pay as opposed to 'hunters', Will requests for ammo changes be charged for, will there be a new charge for adding guns to certificates etc., etc., Those who find the increase acceptable to £200 (if thats what it is, probably have this information. I dont and £200 is too expensive anyway. None of this stuff can be charged for unless Parliament changes the law. The Firearms Act provides that the Home Secretary can set the level of fees for grants, renewals and certain variations, along with things like fees for replacement certs if they are lost. There is no power to create charges for changes of address, variations which do not increase the number of firearms, ammunition variations, land variations, changes of use or anything else. Parliamenet could change the law to allow that but I think they have way too many far more pressing matters to deal with and mucking with very trivial matters isn't a vote winner for any party. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted June 12, 2013 Report Share Posted June 12, 2013 Thank you for the update Simon. I'm particularly interested in your second paragraph. " The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has submitted a proposal to the Government to increase certificate fees from £50 to £94. The last revision of fees took place in 2001". A few straightforward questions if I may. 1. Is this proposal in the public domain yet? 2. Are the current costs per police force available to the public? 3. To what extent in % terms are the non-shooting (shotgun and firearms licence holders) paying towards the total costs now and then after the ACPO has implemented his proposed change? 4. What guarantees will the ACPO make to the shooting community in terms of the improved service, responsiveness and speed in exchange for this increased tax (levy)? 5. What is the IT budget allocated (or applied for) to facilitate this change? The police have a notoriously bad record of delivering change which could impact nationally. My post # 41 on here also flirts with the risks associated with raising licencing fees to a level that means people would simply give up shooting. There should be a piece of work done that evaluates this and the loss of revenue to the public, government (inc, police) both in monetary and social terms. Thank you in advance. The proposal is in the public domain. ACPO went to the press over the weekend and our statement was issued yesterday, once we had confirmed the figure of £94. Costs per force are not routinely published, but you could approach your PCC. We are aware that costs vary enormously and are seeking an explanation. ACPO and others are claiming that there is a "taxpayer subsidy" running at around 50%. This is not entirely accurate but there is a discrepancy between costs and fee income. Costs are one of the elements that BASC is focusing on. ACPO's lead on firearms, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, has stated that he is intent on reducing the costs generated by the police. This, for us, is an essential part of the process. Police IT budgets are not available to us. We are firmly resisting any rise which could be seen as punitive, or designed to reduce the number of shooters. As our statement (above) mentions the proposal has been made to Government by ACPO and we are in discussion with both. Simon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 12, 2013 Report Share Posted June 12, 2013 Any idea on Co-terminous tickets or would they try and slip in 94 each while they are about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabarm gamma boy Posted June 12, 2013 Report Share Posted June 12, 2013 id pay because shooting is my life i live and breath the countryside and im happy to pay to keep what i love! atb fab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted June 12, 2013 Report Share Posted June 12, 2013 Any idea on Co-terminous tickets or would they try and slip in 94 each while they are about it? We will be keeping an eye on this, but I don't think we have seen a figure on coterm. tickets yet. 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.