Response from MP and Home Office, is someone telling porkies?

[Dekers]

Yes, the dedicated hot line has gone

 

Thank you.

 

So, after the reply comments from the Government listed earlier in this thread (like you David I have concerns about their apparent untruths) it would appear this whole new initiative has been little more than a publicity stunt and a damp squid from day one.

 

I have not seen any comments on any threads here, or any other shooting forums, from those who have had a home visit since it was announced!....but then again, perhaps they are all banged up now and not willing to share their experiences!

[wymberley]

 

It is my understanding

 

 

Someone else has just said that. Think under the circumstances, David, you could have chosen a better phrase.

[David BASC]

OK let me be more clear

 

BASC certainly robustly argued against the separate hotline before the guidance was published.

 

BASC certainly continued to robustly complain after publication of the Guidance

 

David

[wymberley]

OK let me be more clear

 

BASC certainly robustly argued against the separate hotline before the guidance was published.

 

BASC certainly continued to robustly complain after publication of the Guidance

 

David

Many thanks for taking the time, David. Unlike previously, to me that is a perfectly clear and concise answer.

[David BASC]

You are very welcome

[Scully]

 

 

I am not a mind reader and cannot make comment on what you or anyone else considers is implied insinuation!

But that's exactly what you have been doing; commenting by way of ridicule, others for getting 'excited' and 'upset' about matters that are of concern to them, but not you.

Like I say, I'm not too concerned about the hotline as anyone can make a malicious and anonymous phone call and the authorities are duty bound to respond; damned if they do and damned if they don't, and the question of whether I could say 'no' was answered unequivocally by my present shooting organisation.

It would appear we now have the topic of this thread some way to being cleared also, which just leaves the matter of ACPO's deliberate peripheral link to the media and the general public between legitimate shooters and terrorism, and the demise of one troll, and we should be done. I too like a good emoticon.

[Dekers]

But that's exactly what you have been doing; commenting by way of ridicule, others for getting 'excited' and 'upset' about matters that are of concern to them, but not you.

Like I say, I'm not too concerned about the hotline as anyone can make a malicious and anonymous phone call and the authorities are duty bound to respond; damned if they do and damned if they don't, and the question of whether I could say 'no' was answered unequivocally by my present shooting organisation.

It would appear we now have the topic of this thread some way to being cleared also, which just leaves the matter of ACPO's deliberate peripheral link to the media and the general public between legitimate shooters and terrorism, and the demise of one troll, and we should be done. I too like a good emoticon.

 

Can't you chill out? You have got all excited about something I fail to see has materialised in any way shape or form, if you want to continue to be concerned about implied insinuation, feel free, I simply don't get it!

 

That is my opinion and you are welcome to yours!

 

Have a nice day!

 

[HDAV]

ACPO have dropped the hotline, have crime stoppers?

 

David please post any response BASC obtain from the home office.

[Scully]

 

Can't you chill out? ​I've just got back from my hol's; am totally chilled.

You have got all excited about something I fail to see has materialised in any way shape or form, ​Our shooting organisations must have got excited also, to the extent that they felt it necessary to issue a link to shooters whereby they could lobby their MP's? It's nice to be amongst friends don't you think?

if you want to continue to be concerned about implied insinuation, feel free, Ta.

I simply don't get it! I know.

 

That is my opinion and you are welcome to yours! Thankyou.

 

Have a nice day! I've had a great day, thank you very much, and you too. Tomorrow promises to be even better .

 

[David BASC]

HDAV, yes the dedicated CS line has been dropped, as soon as we hear from the HO I will be very happy to update you all

 

David

[Rim Fire]

 

Thank you.

 

So, after the reply comments from the Government listed earlier in this thread (like you David I have concerns about their apparent untruths) it would appear this whole new initiative has been little more than a publicity stunt and a damp squid from day one.

 

I have not seen any comments on any threads here, or any other shooting forums, from those who have had a home visit since it was announced!....but then again, perhaps they are all banged up now and not willing to share their experiences!

Yes I know of someone who has had a surprise visit in the last 3 weeks all was ok but none the less he was visited

[Kes]

Some shooting organisations were obviously concerned about the linking of legally held guns to terrorism - CA, NGO etc, a lot of shooters obviously got excited and 'hormonal' about this. Some organisations were concerned about the flawed statistics used to justify the spurious link made by ACPO to terrorism risk and legally held guns. Even the BBC and the Telegraph reported this, CA were well aware.

Some orgs decided this was a step too far and organised an online petition to ensure the legal gun owners could contact their MP's about it. In excess of 400 MP's were contacted by 'excited and hormonal' shooters. Equally obviousy, some shooters have obviously run out of hormones.

 

Here we are now discussing details of wording and positions of BASC at various points. BASC and BSSC said nothing about false stats or linking to terrorism being wrong. Nothing was exposed about ACPO's cynical use of flawed statistics (and still hasnt), except by CA,the BBC and the telegraph. People are saying what CA did was wrong and a subtle wording difference (which I have yet to see or have explained) made the previously mentioned gaffes by other organisations acceptable and to their credit ??

We still get idiots saying 'whats the problem' after 400+ MP's have been contacted by shooters complaining.

The mistakes are obvious, the good for shooting is all down to the CA.

Maybe a close trusting relationship is what BASC/BSSC relied on, maybe a few eyes have been opened and things may change. We can all live in hope and for some, nothing was ever a problem.

Dream on.

[HDAV]

Sorry but this is hilarious:

http://normanbaker.org.uk/

 

You will recognise that it has been particularly challenging being the only Lib Dem in the Home Office, which I see a newspaper the other day likened to being the only hippy at an Iron Maiden concert. Despite these challenges, I am pleased with what I have been able to achieve, not least to have been the first minister with responsibility for drugs to have put prejudice aside and published an evidence-based approach to this important issue, despite repeated Conservative efforts to block release.

I am also pleased, amongst other things, to have been able to create a cross-departmental commitment to tackling FGM, to have nursed into law a new more effective approach to anti-social behaviour, and to have launched a ground-breaking government document that promotes alternatives to animal experiments.

However, in stark contrast to the Department for Transport, I regret that in the Home Office, the goodwill to work collegiately to take forward rational evidence-based policy has been in somewhat short supply.

[Scully]

Ha! Encouraging to know that even in what is supposed to be a totally impartial civil service dept' there are still agendas to protect.

[HDAV]

Fact that home office ignores evidence based policy should come as no surprise...........

 

Just look at firearms legislation and the evidence!

[welshwizard]

I sometimes wonder if its worth paying our cash to any of the shooting organisations !

[Steppenwolf]

I think what kes said is pretty much correct. BASC and BSSC didn't communicate properly and let the perception out there that we as shooters had lax security and were linked to terrorism. I know that now we know they were workiong behind the scenes but we didn't know that.

[David BASC]

I will try to explain the importance of the subtle but important word change in the ACPO letter.

 

It had been agreed at BSSC that random visits by the police to check on firearms security was totally unnecessary and a waste of time and resources and would do nothing but alienate some of the most law abiding members of society.

 

So when the initial guidance on this issue came out BASC/ BSSC ensured that the wording was very clear, unannounced visits could only be conducted based on based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm.

 

Unfortunately the first letter that went out from ACPO read that unannounced visits would be conducted largely based on intelligence.

 

BASC were concerned that this clearly implied that visits could be random, something we had vehemently opposed all along.

 

So we worked with ACPO and sought clarification and a new and clearer letter has been published earlier this week that removes the word ‘largely’ thus going back to what was originally agreed ie unannounced visits could only be conducted based on specific intelligence.

 

Further, we ensured with ACPO that

· That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

· That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry.

 

David

[Kes]

David,

 

The police must have been very 'insistent' about this helpful 'initiative' since no new powers were needed and all the powers needed for 'public protection' were there anyway.

Did BASC and BSSC complain about the worded links to 'terrorism' or did you ignore that? Did anyone look at the veracity of the stats beforehand?

Why did BASC/BSSC even engage with this proposal, better to have said you can do all this at present and all you will do is alienate shooters - why not send shooters a joint personal letter and ASK them to be vigilant. ?

It suggests to me the link to ACPO is too important to BASC to notice the obvious and you have been suckered into supporting (the shooting community) a random and offensive police 'Initiative' sponsored by an unelected, limited company - ACPO, which even the Home Secretary has criticised.

 

A sizeable and unnecessary 'own goal' - BASC/BSSC need to up their game and stop admiring the shiny buttons on police uniforms at both ACPO and Durham.

[panoma1]

So David it is your (BASC's) position that it was ACPO who tried to pull a fast one, by ignoring the negotiated and agreed position?

 

There is a massive difference between protecting the public from nutters and terrorists and micro regulating the law abiding shooting community, so this (deliberate?) inaccuracy by ACPO in providing information/guidence (and premature release to the press) is an attempt to "railroad" shooters and their representative bodies and should warn us and BASC that the authorities want to regulate private gun ownership out of existence using the death by a thousand cuts principle!

I predict the next attack on shooting by the UK authorities will be a step towards a complete ban on the use of lead shot! Immediately after the LAG group (which BASC do not have a seat!) report

[David BASC]

I agree, the police have always had the authority to act if there is specific intelligence of threat, risk or harm.

 

We opposed random visits and still do.

 

The police do not conduct random visits on non-certificate holders. They visit if there is specific intelligence of threat, risk, harm or criminal activity, so why should some of the most law abiding citizens in the UK be treated differently?

 

BASC object to any inference to a link between heavily vetted certificate holders and terrorism. We have also constantly stressed to ACPO et al that the number of licenced firearms lost or stolen is falling. Never the less, the fact remains that some still are. We must all play our part in complying with the conditions on our licence to prevent this. I am sure we all agree on that.

 

ACPO have publicly stated that there is little evidence of legal firearms being used in terrorist or criminal activity, but also remember that the UK is on the highest security alert for a very long time.

 

The objective of the ACPO exercise was to remind certificate holders to be extra careful about firearms security.

 

It was the agreed position that random visits would not take place when this initiative was launched in mid-October, unfortunately this position was potentially undermined by the first letter ACPO sent out, hence BASC discussing this with ACPO and the new letter reverting to the original agreed position being published earlier this week.

 

David

 

[wymberley]

Now that David BASC has dropped the political speak gobbledegook and reverted to plain English, and from everything else that I've read, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that the associations did wrong here was to trust the police (ACPO) and the government. Following the Dunblane fiasco where we acted like gentlemen and were assaulted by political thugs as a result, one could argue that it should not have been allowed to happen again. There is good reason for the expression, 'familiarity breeds contempt'. Although not appropriate for discussion on this thread, I would hope that we've finally learned our lesson and are not shown to be so gullible in the not too distant future regarding the sting in the tail at Post #45.

[Kes]

My involvement in this discussion is with a heavy heart as its apparent that the biggest shooting organisation which represents the Shooting Community'The Voice of Shooting', does not have enough 'savvy' to appreciate the true implications of many of the issues we face. Durham, Greylags, Terrorism to name a few familiar ones which have gone awry. Paloma has mentioned death by a thousand cuts - I would suggest that he should have added 'of undressed wounds'. When will a fight back begin ? We then have the CA who at least gauged the temperature of the last debacle correctly and responded. I'm afraid the word 'largely' doesnt excite me, whether its there or not. BASC should have asked for the shooting community to respond to fears of security not shared in an intiative which put up the backs of a lot of people who are not dead from the neck up.

Well done CA. Fourth time lucky BASC, maybe ?

[David BASC]

Durham - BASC took the front foot on this and will continue to do so with them or any other constabulary that puts daft barriers in the way of licencing

 

Greylags - nothing to do with licencing or the current issue under discussion - so lets keep this thread on track, if you wish to resurrect the greylags issue then please start another thread

 

Terrorism - in what way have BASC been implicated in this?

 

The word largely may not excite you, but our removal of it from the ACPO letter prevents random visits, I am sure Kes you welcome this

 

ACPO have reminded certificate holders of the need to keep firearms securely and in their letter explained the context of their firearms security initiative.

 

As far as I can see all the organisations support this reminder to certificate holders of their responsibility and have taken their own initiatives to alert their members.

 

BASC agrees that its important that certificate holders take the security of their firearms seriously, and we have reminded the shooting community of that, on our web site, in the shooting press and our latest magazine

 

David

[ordnance]

ACPO have publicly stated that there is little evidence of legal firearms being used in terrorist or criminal activity, but also remember that the UK is on the highest security alert for a very long time.

 

So basically nothing has changed, the police were always able to check firearms owners if there was an issue with their security etc. So I ask myself what was it all about were they just trying to look like they were doing something, even though they admitted themselves that there is no evidence of legally owned firearms being used by terrorists. As for the security the alert its being at the highest level here for 40 years or more, I never heard of the police having a similar policy, and firearms have being stolen here and used in terrorist incidents. Maybe the police here know that terrorists will obtain firearms one way or another.