David BASC Posted November 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Firstly, lets put this into perspective. The police et al were asking for increased to over £200, this BASC fought on the basis there was no evidence for this cost. This was reduced to a little over £100, this again was challenged for the same reasons. It is also well documented that BASC have been consistently stating that there are inefficiencies in the licensing system in some cases which add to the costs, hence efficiencies must be made, the shooter must not pay for inefficient practice. It is also well documented that BASC have indeed stated that a 10 year licence is a good way forward, over and above other improvements in efficiency. So I would urge you to take part in this consultation and make your points in the consultation as well as on here. Thanks David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 i think a cert should be for life, Nothing else is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Of course if one were a cynic one would say the police's only aim is to squeeze more money out of certificate holders, offering them a 50% saving by increasing the certificate term to ten years doesn't satisfy their real agenda! That is why the suggestion is falling on deaf ears! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 So if we don't want to give more money for a certificate, then please have your say on the consultation. Regardless of certificate length, we still need to see efficiency improvements, inefficient practice will simply cost more. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 10 year certification has inbuilt inefficiency improvements the police only have to renew certificates once every ten years rather than the current twice! So 50% savings on costs, police time, efficiency, staffing levels, paperwork, etc, etc, etc...... If this was adopted then the police rather than screwing us for more money could give us a reduction on the current cost of a certificate? And still make savings across the board! I think David BASC and other shooting organisations have been suckered into fighting the wrong battle! Dressing any price increase up as some sort of victory is at best dishonest! Go back to plod (home office, whoever?) and recommend they increase the term of a certificate.....if they accept job done, everyone wins........if they don't you have a fair indication It ain't about budgets it's about another agenda! , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) I agree with what panoma said. We don't need to roll over just because they say so, this time we are sticking to our guns (pun intended) and want a real roll back of gun laws not this: http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ As the cartoon character says: I WANT MY GOD DAMN CAKE BACK! Edited November 30, 2014 by Steppenwolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 David are the results of the costing analysis available in the public domain? I coundn't find them but needle in a haystack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZ550Kevlar Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 I would have liked to have seen a fast track fee a la passports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 I would have liked to have seen a fast track fee a la passports. For renewal or grant? if there is an agreed SLA and the time scales are reasonable whats the need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 No one is rolling over, BASC still think there is merit in a 10 year licence The option for a 10 year licence is not on the table at this point in time, only the proposed minimal increase in fees, lets get that secured and then move on - as I say we have this one opportunity so use it and have your say on the consultation please. As for the police fugues to calculate the +£200 fee, I will see what I can find out David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) No one is rolling over, BASC still think there is merit in a 10 year licenceThe option for a 10 year licence is not on the table at this point in time, only the proposed minimal increase in fees, lets get that secured and then move on - as I say we have this one opportunity so use it and have your say on the consultation please.As for the police fugues to calculate the +£200 fee, I will see what I can find outDavid When is the 10 year licence gonna be on the table? Who can put it there? As some other member wrote it already it would HALVE the paperwork for the police, less trouble for us. Everyone is a winner! So? Edited November 30, 2014 by londonercsecse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 That I do not know, it would be a decision by the Home Office Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 When is the 10 year licence gonna be on the table? Who can put it there? As some other member wrote it already it would HALVE the paperwork for the police, less trouble for us. Everyone is a winner! So? That I do not know, it would be a decision by the Home Office The 10 year licence would be a great idea as long as they did not inherit a block that would fall in one year and cause all of the problems to be exacerbated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 HDAV, I have checked and there seems to be no published figures on how the +£200 was calculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 HDAV, I have checked and there seems to be no published figures on how the +£200 was calculated. Thanks that does IMO say a lot.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Indeed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Thanks that does IMO say a lot.......... I refer you to post #78 let's beat around the bush no longer the police are trying to financially milk certificate holders to bolster their shrinking budgets.....nothing more! If the shooting organisations do not support certificate holders in this blatant attempt to screw us.....well we will have been sold down the river yet again! BASC give the home office the facts regarding the savings to be made by the introduction of a ten year certificate, if they genuinely want to address a real problem they will accept it....if not it will strongly indicate (if not prove?) another agenda is at work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 When is the 10 year licence gonna be on the table? Who can put it there? As some other member wrote it already it would HALVE the paperwork for the police, less trouble for us. Everyone is a winner! So? This was discussed some while ago by ACPO FELWG who were not in favour, they were of the oppinion that it would be a relaxation of the law and would not benefit public safety. As David says, any change would need to be implemented by the Home Office and as the HO sit on the ACPO FELWG and take their advice, any change would require ACPO to be onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 This was discussed some while ago by ACPO FELWG who were not in favour, they were of the oppinion that it would be a relaxation of the law and would not benefit public safety. As David says, any change would need to be implemented by the Home Office and as the HO sit on the ACPO FELWG and take their advice, any change would require ACPO to be onside. To "not be in favour" or just to utter the words " would not benefit public safety" is not evidence! And BASC have said elseware "no evidence no change" let ACPO provide evidence to back up their claim! If they can? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 To "not be in favour" or just to utter the words " would not benefit public safety" is not evidence! And BASC have said elseware "no evidence no change" let ACPO provide evidence to back up their claim! If they can? Playing Devils advocate, why should they provide evidence. Their view was that doing so would double the time scale between licensing checks and FEO visits and thus not benefit public safety. It is upto us to demonstrate that such a change would not compromise public safety. Bearing in mind the recent debate about un-anounced visits and so on, I think it may be somewhat hard to convince ACPO that doubleing the time between renewal visits and enquiries is beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 This was discussed some while ago by ACPO FELWG who were not in favour, they were of the oppinion that it would be a relaxation of the law and would not benefit public safety. As David says, any change would need to be implemented by the Home Office and as the HO sit on the ACPO FELWG and take their advice, any change would require ACPO to be onside. To "not be in favour" or just to utter the words " would not benefit public safety" is not evidence! And BASC have said elseware "no evidence no change" let ACPO provide evidence to back up their claim! If they can? Playing Devils advocate, why should they provide evidence. Their view was that doing so would double the time scale between licensing checks and FEO visits and thus not benefit public safety. It is upto us to demonstrate that such a change would not compromise public safety. Bearing in mind the recent debate about un-anounced visits and so on, I think it may be somewhat hard to convince ACPO that doubleing the time between renewal visits and enquiries is beneficial. And this takes us straight back to my conversation with Mike Eveleigh, that the issue of a 10 year certificate lifespan could become a reality as a compromise to ACPO ( and shooters....hopefully ) regarding they (ACPO) being in favour of a GP's report becoming mandatory regardless of an applicants history. He told me ACPO were pushing for the compulsory GP's report and that 'there is nothing we can do about it', but a 10 year certificate may suit all involved as a 'compromise'. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Playing Devils advocate, why should they provide evidence. Their view was that doing so would double the time scale between licensing checks and FEO visits and thus not benefit public safety. It is upto us to demonstrate that such a change would not compromise public safety. Bearing in mind the recent debate about un-anounced visits and so on, I think it may be somewhat hard to convince ACPO that doubleing the time between renewal visits and enquiries is beneficial. What difference does the 10yr licencing make in public safety? Will any of us obeying the law/rules up to year 5 and changing this from year 6? Is this realistic? Don't think so...They want less work, we want less obstacles. Why can't we do this on a trial period just in 1 police force? (Or something like that) It seems to me, that they DON'T want this. Ok, fine, but PLEASE be a man and tell us.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Sorry to labour it here but we all seem to be missing the point? Or over complicating a simple funding gap issue! (if you accept what plod say at face value?) Plod wants an increase in fees from shooters as they claim it costs them more money than they take in to issue 5 year duration certificates........simples increase the duration from 5 to 10 years.........savings made, funding gap closed....job done! All the other stuff is smoke and mirrors! Edited December 1, 2014 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Is that the point you made when you replied to the consultation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett1985 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Sorry to labour it here but we all seem to be missing the point? Or over complicating a simple funding gap issue! (if you accept what plod say at face value?) Plod wants an increase in fees from shooters as they claim it costs them more money than they take in to issue 5 year duration certificates........simples increase the duration from 5 to 10 years.........savings made, funding gap closed....job done! All the other stuff is smoke and mirrors! or.... it genuinely costs them over £100 for each application at the time of process, so even stretching it out over 10 years wont make a blind bit of difference. its still costing them more than they charge in the first instance. essentially, spanning it out over 10 years just means that they will lose money every 10 years instead of every 5. great for us, still no better for our police force. this in turn can only lead to more resentment towards shooters in the long run. dont get me wrong, i'm in favour of 10 year certificates, but the cost was still well overdue for an increase and whats on the table is actually better than most expected it to be. 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.