Chrissaddler Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I have never being asked anything about friends or family in an interview with a FEO. The police seem to be making it up as they go along in England. I was asked who else lived in the house, and how long we'd been married. That was it, no names even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 What is needed is a large, powerful shooting organisation, regardless of what some may say or think, the real fact is that shooting would be in a far less favorable position now if it had not been for what BASC has delivered over the past 30 years or more.. and that's with an average membership level of around 90,000..we can only deliver based on the resources we have, obviously...imagine what could have been delivered with a membership and consequential resource of 300,000... The larger and more powerful BASC becomes the more we can deliver for shooting and shooters, that's a simple fact. Remember that the fact is that the majority of shooters have not bothered to join a shooting organisation... pitiful. If some choose to leave BASC and take away resources and put their money into organisations that, with all due respect, have far fewer resources and political impact then have the good grace to voice your concerns about what they re failing to deliver. If you really want to make a difference to the future of shooting then put you resources behind the organisation that is most likely to deliver, that already has the best contacts to support shooting in Parliament and with ACPO, the Home Office and police licensing authorities. Its your choice. BASC will never be able to satisfy all the people all the time, but we will always do our best to satisfy most of the people most of the time and do all we can. Ex members attacking BASC will deliver absolutely nothing for shooting, current members getting more involved with BASC and encouraging others to join and get involved will deliver a very powerful organisation indeed. David I think everyone wants a large and powerful shooting organisation, one that can be trusted with shootings best interests, one which is uncompromising, driven and known for its focus on facts and members interests. I'm not saying any more after what has happened recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Indeed Kes, to a very large extent we are singing off the same hymn sheet. Of course BASC has shooting best interests at its heart, that's why BASC exists, uncompromising...well not always the best tactic, but certainly applicable sometimes, focused, yes we certainly are, facts / evidence driven - absolutely! And now to trust... I go back to my point above, re members getting more involved with the management of their association by electing from their number those to represent them, after all its the elected members of Council that have the power to hold the Chief Executives feet to the fire! The more we work as 'One Team' the better we will be - do you agree? In answer to the other two posts (above yours) if there is someone in your household, or someone you closely associate with, or someone in you household who is closely associated with people who have come to the attention of the police, or someone in your household who suffers from serious mental illness the police will ask questions and investigate. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the vast majority of us never have to face any additional questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 David - yes I agree 'one team' is the best solution, provided all the players are going for the same goal. That hasnt been the case now has it ? I fully accept you are 'on message' and have to be, but if you performance managed BASC as a whole, its not currently the organisation to lead the 'fightback', or even hold the line, in my opinion. Genuinely I would like to change that and to start from the strength that BASC has in numbers and loyalty but I am no longer a member and doubt my involvement would be appreciated, no, actually, I am sure it wouldn't be. We both know why. I commend your attitude and sincerely hope its yours alone. I am however more concerned about your management - where is the lead and direction and more importantly response to the current situation ? I am perhaps an exception in my view, I hope so, for BASC's sake. With regard to the difficulties you mention, no-one escapes such things but I am confident in what I can expect, having read-up and listened for quite a while. So, when having my problems whilst a BASC member, I managed them by myself and, fortunately, succeeded, never needing to call on BASC. I, like you, am passionate about shooting but have to satisfy no-one but myself and that is a great strength and a freedom, even a luxury you may not have. I just hope your management see the writing on the wall and respond, for all our sakes. End of truce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 My posts and opinions still stand David. I have much respect for you, and can understand and admire your loyalty, a loyalty I once shared, but my experiences with BASC have soured that loyalty, and although you claim BASC may be uncompromising, at least one in a senior position at BASC, has assured me that all BASC can do is lobby and negotiate for compromise. I'm not claiming any of the other organisations are any more effective, but I'm happy in the knowledge that no one at BASC benefits from my revenue any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 My posts and opinions still stand David. I have much respect for you, and can understand and admire your loyalty, a loyalty I once shared, but my experiences with BASC have soured that loyalty, and although you claim BASC may be uncompromising, at least one in a senior position at BASC, has assured me that all BASC can do is lobby and negotiate for compromise. I'm not claiming any of the other organisations are any more effective, but I'm happy in the knowledge that no one at BASC benefits from my revenue any more. I have to say I agree fully with this and until all orgs focus on delivering members expectations, instead of compromise, it will continue to be a downward spiral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I have to say I agree fully with this and until all orgs focus on delivering members expectations, instead of compromise, it will continue to be a downward spiral. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but in the real world all you can do is compromise, there is not a person or organisation that has the power to say "we're not doing that" the whole world of democracy is based on compromise, indeed the area this happens in the commons has given its name to the term "lobby" The miners thoughts they had all the power and no one would mess with them in the 80's and look how well that panned out. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we're all doomed but we do have to be realistic about what a lobbying group can actually achieve and sadly most of the time it's just damage limitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I have never being asked anything about friends or family in an interview with a FEO. The police seem to be making it up as they go along in England. I was asked who else lived in the house, and how long we'd been married. That was it, no names even. You may well find that has changed, in future. And reasonably so, in my opinion. There have been a number of tragic domestic violence killings with firearms in the past few years, and as such the FEOs are now far more likely to speak to spouses and partners, and it may well be without the applicant being present. That was certainly the case for myself for my last FAC interview, even though my wife has her own SGC. Once the FEO had finished talking to me, I was invited to make myself scarce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayano3 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 When I recently renewed my sgc I was asked who else lived in the house, names and date of birth of these too. I was asked about if I was on medications or if I had diabetes etc. I was more than willing to provide the answers as I feel it's a privilege to own guns and store them in my home. I've known of two tragedies in the last few years involving close friends and guns so if by answering some questions that they feel may be relevant in the hope of possibly preventing this sort of thing happening in the future I don't object at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but in the real world all you can do is compromise, there is not a person or organisation that has the power to say "we're not doing that" the whole world of democracy is based on compromise, indeed the area this happens in the commons has given its name to the term "lobby" The miners thoughts they had all the power and no one would mess with them in the 80's and look how well that panned out. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we're all doomed but we do have to be realistic about what a lobbying group can actually achieve and sadly most of the time it's just damage limitation I normally like your posts. Thank you for your view from your real world. If you live in a world where compromise is necessary and the starting point, then you will always lose what you have, since shooting will always be under attack. Do anti's compromise ? No? Should anyone begin by accepting they will achieve less than what is fair and reasonable? Do you pay membership fees for someone to compromise on your behalf ? Do you give anyone less than they expect because you have to be realistic about compromise ? It is the manner and issues on which you choose to be uncompromising that give you credibility and respect. Like lead. You are sadly saying we are all doomed eventually by a compromise which delivers small wounds. I have and will never subscribe to that approach. I'd rather go down fighting an unwinnable situation but true to my principles. I think we should both do and believe what we both choose to - I dont do appeasement and have no time for those that do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 What is needed is a large, powerful shooting organisation, regardless of what some may say or think, the real fact is that shooting would be in a far less favorable position now if it had not been for what BASC has delivered over the past 30 years or more.. and that's with an average membership level of around 90,000..we can only deliver based on the resources we have, obviously...imagine what could have been delivered with a membership and consequential resource of 300,000... The larger and more powerful BASC becomes the more we can deliver for shooting and shooters, that's a simple fact. Remember that the fact is that the majority of shooters have not bothered to join a shooting organisation... pitiful. If some choose to leave BASC and take away resources and put their money into organisations that, with all due respect, have far fewer resources and political impact then have the good grace to voice your concerns about what they re failing to deliver. If you really want to make a difference to the future of shooting then put you resources behind the organisation that is most likely to deliver, that already has the best contacts to support shooting in Parliament and with ACPO, the Home Office and police licensing authorities. Its your choice. BASC will never be able to satisfy all the people all the time, but we will always do our best to satisfy most of the people most of the time and do all we can. Ex members attacking BASC will deliver absolutely nothing for shooting, current members getting more involved with BASC and encouraging others to join and get involved will deliver a very powerful organisation indeed. David Excluded from the following is the remark about shooters not 'joining up'. That would have been a good post except for the fact that it's flawed. Make no mistake, BASC is run on a business footing and as such is subject to market forces. Anyone considering a potential purchase looks for value for money and needs to be able to identify that that is what any product supplies. It is no good simply preaching to the converted because once they recognise that that value isn't there and to use an in vogue phrase, they'll 'switch suppliers'. Not all shooters are association (small 'a') members and similarly, don't read magazines or are active on internet forums. Instead of waiting for a request for a statement when something that has hit the fan is published by any media source - reactive - which might not happen anyway, whenever, where ever such occurs, the very expensive media centre should be immediately sending out press releases to all and sundry - proactive. Now, I know that any recipient of such is not obliged to use it so that is the stumbling block. In our favour though, is the fact that like the armed forces and the clergy shooting has always attracted media interest. However, releases to those sources that will make use of them provide free advertising that any association is active and earning its crust. Furthermore, in the case of something blatently inaccurate being reported then instead of meekly offering the party line, it should be vociferously demanding an immediate withdrawal (or even the removal of an individual from a post if the subject is applicable) of the article in no uncertain terms - no compromise. Similarly, when something noteworthy is achieved it's not much good sticking a few lines in the Shooting Times or the Sporting Gun. It's not simply good enough to rely on the Western Morning News! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I normally like your posts. Thank you for your view from your real world. If you live in a world where compromise is necessary and the starting point, then you will always lose what you have, since shooting will always be under attack. Do anti's compromise ? No? Should anyone begin by accepting they will achieve less than what is fair and reasonable? Do you pay membership fees for someone to compromise on your behalf ? Do you give anyone less than they expect because you have to be realistic about compromise ? It is the manner and issues on which you choose to be uncompromising that give you credibility and respect. Like lead. You are sadly saying we are all doomed eventually by a compromise which delivers small wounds. I have and will never subscribe to that approach. I'd rather go down fighting an unwinnable situation but true to my principles. I think we should both do and believe what we both choose to - I dont do appeasement and have no time for those that do. I admire your conviction and the sentiment but I genuinely believe it is not possible to hold your ground on everything, the very nature of a progressing world means things will change. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a scrap but I do enjoy an exchange of ideas. Regarding the antis not compromising, I would say they absolutely do have to accept compromise, look at the hunting ban - they wanted all hunting with dogs banned but the law was less restrictive than that. The shooting orgs are also in a tricky position, take the NRA from US and their conviction to stick firm to their guns (pun intended) which has made them appear outdated and out of touch. Sadly politics touches all people and we must 'play the game' a little and whilst we should definitely fight our corner we are just a small cog in a big machine and as the world changes so must we - all we can do is keep that change to a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but in the real world all you can do is compromise, there is not a person or organisation that has the power to say "we're not doing that" the whole world of democracy is based on compromise, indeed the area this happens in the commons has given its name to the term "lobby" The miners thoughts they had all the power and no one would mess with them in the 80's and look how well that panned out. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we're all doomed but we do have to be realistic about what a lobbying group can actually achieve and sadly most of the time it's just damage limitation Saying that, in a recent case near me, 4 people, using social media and few poor attended public meetings, forced a local council to vote to allow shooting rights on Ilkley Moor. They voted to keep the shoot but i was amazed how much publicity one little group drummed up locally just by lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Saying that, in a recent case near me, 4 people, using social media and few poor attended public meetings, forced a local council to vote to allow shooting rights on Ilkley Moor. They voted to keep the shoot but i was amazed how much publicity one little group drummed up locally just by lobbying. Exactly, sometimes all you can do is try and shout the loudest, you have no guarantee of success and will win some lose some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Exactly, sometimes all you can do is try and shout the loudest, you have no guarantee of success and will win some lose some My submission to you is that Keg's case should be where any advocacy case begins, its not shouting the loudest, its changing minds, its sticking to principles, basically doing all you can and a bit more. I take Wimberleys point - look at the P Osborne resignation statement, thats compromising the Telegraphs principles, some may regard it as realism that the Telegraph did what he says. Compromise is the death of principle - PO thought so - thats why he resigned. Thats why I did from BASC. When there is too much at stake to stick to your principles you have something wrong - JS is the compromise, still nothing other than a denial of his current association with BASC. Yes, of course, that really is all that is necessary. Too many hostages to fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I do not think sticking to principles will achieve what the applicant wants in this case, he has to compromise, just a little, to get his certificate. I don't think anyone here would honestly say that he should stick to his guns,(no pun intended) not compromise at all land get refused...would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I do not think sticking to principles will achieve what the applicant wants in this case, he has to compromise, just a little, to get his certificate. I don't think anyone here would honestly say that he should stick to his guns,(no pun intended) not compromise at all land get refused...would you? I fell in the trap and started reading at Page 11 of the OP's reference. I've now just started at Page 1. Let us assume that the Applicant was a member of BASC from the word go and approached the Firearms Dep't for help at the first sign of a problem. Bear in mind at that time he simply wanted a SGC and not a FAC. What would the BASC have done and as a result would he have then had to compromise with that initial application? Hopefully not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I am afraid you do not know, nor can I post on here the full facts and details of the case. Suffice to say if he had not been willing to compromise he would have been refused and there would have been zero prospect of appeal So it goes back to the point Small compromise = certificate No compromise but sticking to your principles = no ticket OK this is a very unique case, but in the circumstances...which would one would you choose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I am afraid you do not know, nor can I post on here the full facts and details of the case. Suffice to say if he had not been willing to compromise he would have been refused and there would have been zero prospect of appeal So it goes back to the point Small compromise = certificate No compromise but sticking to your principles = no ticket OK this is a very unique case, but in the circumstances...which would one would you choose.... I don't know, David, as I don't know what the compromise is - perhaps I've missed it. I can only assume that this applies to his current application for the FAC. As you also point out I do not know the facts and appreciate fully that even if you do, you cannot reveal them. But my point is, would this compromise have existed with regard to fully secured guns as applicable to his initial application for a SGC. Under the current legislation with regard to an application for a SGC I fail to see why he would have had to accept any compromise. Edit: However, it now seems totally academic. Edited February 18, 2015 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yes it would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yes it would Feel sorry for the guy. I would hope that someone local can take him along to an approved clay range where he can at least get some enjoyment from a sport that he wishes to take up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Indeed, that's part of the plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Indeed, that's part of the plan Oh! Well done BASC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 David, I was going to reply to an earlier post but it is obviously pointless, since I do not know the circumstances you cannot reveal. However, I have read the full post on Shooting UK and it does seem that the applicant was never told the real reason for the possible refusal. The reasons given have been debated and a large number of other people agree he should not have compromised on the reasons he was given at the start i.e. lack of experience etc. If there is reason to compromise then I dont see it, because, perhaps, its confidential. On the facts presented he should NOT have to compromise. For me therefore the answer to your question is no and he would have been grated an SGC. If something else forms a legitimate reason for refusal then the law should be upheld. I would not trust the police in this case to make a valid judgement - I apparently do not know all the facts. I also suspect BASC would not have become involved if he didnt have a strong case - the question is perhaps best directed to BASC - why now do you believe compromise is in your members best interests ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 He was told Lack of experience was not an issue Yes its confidential If he had not been willing to compromise then as I said above he would have been refused with no prospect of a successful appeal Small compromise, which was easily achieved without any real impact whatsoever was pretty much all that was needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts