NEWS FLASH!!!!! Double the licence fees

[Bluebarrels]

About £1.65 per month over the 5 years so if some find the proposed price hike expensive,are they bothering with insurance? BB

Edited June 9, 2013 by Bluebarrels

[delburt0]

Dare I say if they employed more energetic clued up staff we wouldn't moan about how long renewals and variations took they wouldn't be putting the price up because instead of chatting for 4 hrs through the day the should shape up or **** out

[Oli]

In terms of the original post, you shouldn't just accept cost rises from the public service, without competiton efficiency has to be questioned and that goes for every public service in the country

[kdubya]

it makes me laugh,they want to put the fees up because they are at a loss, yet they want to give 350 million away to help feed another country(as in other thread)

 

something doesn,t add up

slight difference in case you had not noticed 350 million is to feed (hopefully starving kids) whilst the requirement for a fair and reflective license fee is on a need basis IE if you cant afford it you don't need it.

 

KW

[Paddy Galore!]

what actually costs the most money though? initially i can see there's a lot of time and effort put in with land checks, interviews etc for new apps, but renewals are a different matter, they already know the applicant, a simple phone call to the docs and land owner where permission is located should suffice to gather info.

[Oli]

what actually costs the most money though? initially i can see there's a lot of time and effort put in with land checks, interviews etc for new apps, but renewals are a different matter, they already know the applicant, a simple phone call to the docs and land owner where permission is located should suffice to gather info.

Keeping bums on seats I suspect is where most of the money goes

[HDAV]

£0.75-1 million a year doesn't go very far........

[Twistedsanity]

what actually costs the most money though? initially i can see there's a lot of time and effort put in with land checks, interviews etc for new apps, but renewals are a different matter, they already know the applicant, a simple phone call to the docs and land owner where permission is located should suffice to gather info.

This government like every government before it is cutting budgets,so in order to keep bums on seats the police force need to find ways to squeeze more money from whoever they think will be a soft target , which in this case is us , or motorists who tailgate , hog the middle lane etc

[Scully]

I believe the licensing system is largely there for the safety of the general public,and should therefore be largely met by that body(although I don't mind subsidising the cost),but I suppose the same could be said for the driving license.

A quick,reliable and consistent service throughout the country would possibly justify a proportionate rise,but I think we're a long way from that.

[Blunderbust]

 

I agree Bleeh, If it goes up it goes up and it's excellent VFM even with the pending price hike. I'm not giving up my coterminous license even if is goes up treble what it is now.

Norfolk/Suffolk do a really good job and as long as this continues things are all rosy in the garden for us. It's not as slick in other areas though and maybe they are pressing for ways to improve their efficiency through extra funding?

I don't expect people who hold gun licences to stump up for all the costs, this would be wrong. The bulk of the overhead should come from central funding because the tax payer (non-shooter) is a stakeholder and the police are there to make sure they have taken reasonable steps in the interests of public safety.

We should be mindful that shooting does put a lot of people in work and is important not to price the shooting community out of shooting. If a license went up to silly money a lot of folk would pack it in. So, they buy no guns, ammo, accessories, game days, stalking, etc.etc. so it all needs thinking through properly. Obviously is isn't just about the knock on effect on jobs, there is lost income to the government by way of import duty and VAT revenues.

I agree 100% on these comments. :good:

[beeredup]

They should put the fee up as high as needed to cover the actual costs , why should the taxpayer "have to carry the burden" you moan about everyone else receiving some form of benefit,so how ironic is it that we are all on it

 

 

KW

Well said KW!!!! spot on the button!!! i don't care what my license costs as long as the system is administered properly, fairly and safely!

[chrispti]

I think the current fees reflect the service Hampshire provide!!! Waited 7 months for my renewal.....

Edited June 10, 2013 by chrispti

[Madness]

I don't claim any sort of benefits whatsoever, i pay my way in life whether i like it or not. Anglers pay £27 per year to fish with two rods, carp anglers £54 for two more rods. That's alot more than shooters pay.

 

I have my HGV licence, after september next year i will need to have my driver cpc completed (bus drivers september this year) which cost £60 per module x5 which is £290 for 5 years

 

If my fac/sgc costs me £20/30 per year then so be it if it covers the costs then i'm happy to pay it. I know alot of pensioners shoot so just like a rod licence they should get it on a concessionary fee

[team tractor]

I don't claim any sort of benefits whatsoever, i pay my way in life whether i like it or not. Anglers pay £27 per year to fish with two rods, carp anglers £54 for two more rods. That's alot more than shooters pay. I have my HGV licence, after september next year i will need to have my driver cpc completed (bus drivers september this year) which cost £60 per module x5 which is £290 for 5 years If my fac/sgc costs me £20/30 per year then so be it if it covers the costs then i'm happy to pay it. I know alot of pensioners shoot so just like a rod licence they should get it on a concessionary fee

Anglers have a lot done for their money .they strip the good fish for breeding ,build fish ladders of late up wiers, clear the weed , constantly watch water levels etc . My feo doesn't even answer her phone :( it took me 5 months last year for renewal

[HDAV]

If they started laying on the venues and the targets like they do for anglers £200 would be fine...........

[njc110381]

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.

[al4x]

the only issue really is giving firearms dept's carte blanche to spend money if they can recover it from license holders. I agree we should pay costs but when a lot of the costs are made up of sloppily run departments working at snails pace the costs are going to be higher than were it a well run streamlined operation.

[JonathanL]

I'd like to see a better service. If doubling the fees is what it takes then fine, I'm happy with that. It would still be cheaper than a rod license to go fishing.

 

Lets face it they do the checks, send an officer out for an interview and a land check too often enough, then free variations if it's a one for one - I wouldn't offer that service to my customers for £50 over five years and I don't suppose anyone else here would either? You'd go bankrupt pretty quickly, or at least not make the minimum wage! It's easy to moan, but why should the general public pay for us to get a certificate? It's our choice to have one at the end of the day - they're not making anyone pay anything!

 

It's not a service though, it's a requirement. The police are not a private company, they are there for the public benefit and so is, we are constantly told, the licensing system. If the police can't support the role then it should be placed into the hands of a dedicated national agency like vehicle & driver licensing is.

 

Firearms are licensed (or rather their owners are) because there is a public need to on the grounds of public safety. That being the case, the public should pay for it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Christ almighty, you guys are tightasses.

 

Call out a plumber to replace a valve, it's £100.

 

What does a mechanic charge? £25/£35 an hour.

 

Locksmith for 20 minutes? - £150

 

What does you bank charge for over draft fees? - £7 - £20 a go.

 

I honestly can't see how anyone can look at all the work that goes into the system and say that's it's not worth the money.

 

All of these are optional though. Ok, I know they aren't really but none are prescribed by law. If the law requires you to do something for the purpose of public safety or benefit then the public should pay for it.

 

J.

 

Just because it's a legal entitlement doesn't mean it has to be free. It will have to go up like everything else it's the justification used that spells danger.

There big problem will be when we pay for ourselves and they will have to justify all the variations it will also make negotiations problematic.

John.

 

But if you charge for something which someone is entitled to then it's not an entitlement.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

if they charge £100 hopefully they could afford a few improvements to service in terms of waiting time apart from waiting time they are pretty good

 

But if the opening post of this thread is correct they won't. If the CC in the story gets his way and fees are doubled then they will still be recouping less than 50% of what they spend (I have to admit that I find it difficult to blieve that they spend £25M annually on firearms licensing). If that figure is representative of all forces then surely a dedicated national licensing agency is the better way to go with the economies of scale and suchlike?

 

Like I say, if the public want it then the public should pay for it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

They should put the fee up as high as needed to cover the actual costs , why should the taxpayer "have to carry the burden" you moan about everyone else receiving some form of benefit,so how ironic is it that we are all on it

 

 

KW

 

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.

[leeds chimp]

I have to pay £27 a year for fishing £245 and £125 every three years just to do my job

If the service improved NATIONALLY then fair enough

[JonathanL]

I believe the licensing system is largely there for the safety of the general public,and should therefore be largely met by that body(although I don't mind subsidising the cost),but I suppose the same could be said for the driving license.

A quick,reliable and consistent service throughout the country would possibly justify a proportionate rise,but I think we're a long way from that.

 

The difference though is that driving licenses and the vehicle registration scheme in general, is not 100% safety focused. Licensing vehicles is tied in with general revenue raising as well. Every government for the past century has consistently said that the only reason why firearms regulation exists is because of public safety considerations. That being the case, the public should pay for it.

 

J.

 

Well said KW!!!! spot on the button!!! i don't care what my license costs as long as the system is administered properly, fairly and safely!

 

It's just been announced that it's going up to £10K per year from tomorrow. Still don't care?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

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.

 

The public isn't subsidising your hobby though. You are required to comply with certain licensing requirements and are charged for that purely because the 'public' want you to. The taxpayer does not give you cheap guns or ammo and nor do they provide ranges or public shooting/hunting lands.

 

J.

[four-wheel-drive]

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.

You have hit the nail on the head as with so many things in this country when they first had car road tax it was now doubt about £5 a year or petrol tax at 5 pence a gallon we did not mind as the money will go on the roads then there was the TV licence I think that started at 5 shillings a year then one day we wake up and the price has gone through the roof but its to late to start complaining they say that the money is needed for other things and what do we do give them the money with a smile on are faces after all we are British you know.

Edited June 10, 2013 by four-wheel-drive