2 foxes with 22 lr

[jimmydean]

 

Like you, I too find this thread interesting.

 

Especially those posters who chose to ignore the fact the ACPO FLEWG is made up of representatives not only from the police, but the Home Office, Scottish Government Justice Department, NAIBS, PSNI, and other relevant stakeholders.

Considering that as it is the Police whom the Government have charged with the administration and implementation of firearms licensing, it is not surprising that the police, via the FELWG, implement the this task.

 

For posters to dismiss ACPO as having no legitimacy is just naive.

 

 

In the past the Conservative Party has taken a more robust line with the police. They have liked to keep them in their place. That is as it should be. The government is elected. ACPO is not.

 

The question now is; will Theresa May stand up to the woodentops, or is she going to become their bitch. I see they are trying her out already with requests for a replacement for Section 44 powers.. If she shows any signs of resistance to their demands the full scaremongering tactics will be employed. Terrorists will be everywhere. If they actually do anything it will be Therasa's fault for not giving the police the power to shoot suspects on sight.

 

If she wants to show that she is not going to be kneeling before ACPO she might start by cutting them back a bit. A review of Home Office grants is long overdue.

 

Curiously enough, ACPO is a private limited company. It is funded by Home Office grants, profits from commercial activities and contributions from the 44 UK police authorities.

 

Some of its ways in which it spends government money seem rather questionable. In 2010 it emerged that ACPO was spending £1.6M per year from government anti-terrorist funding grants on renting up to 80 apartments in the centre of London. These were reported as being empty most of the time.

 

 

Not interested in FELWG but the view senior police have of themselves and whether anyone should worry about that - Please re-read posts you are not sure of.

[CharlieT]

 

 

Not interested in FELWG but the view senior police have of themselves and whether anyone should worry about that - Please re-read posts you are not sure of.

 

Well, you should be, after all it's their input that sets the scene for the nitty gritty of firearms licensing and they're the ones our shooting organisations lobby.

 

And there's me thinking you were interested in ACPO as you seem to question their legitimacy.

[Scully]

It isnt the content or its intent which concern me its 'the ACPO lead on firearms personalising instructions as 'his' - ACPO is a chief officers 'club'. As for any senior police officer dabbling in politics - to say I am surprised would be an understatement.

I can see your point admittedly, and while I suppose it could have been phrased better, I saw it as merely passing on instructions as specified in HO guidance. I read it as he was stressing he wanted HO guidance as specified to be observed and was instructing forces to do so; thereby he expected 'his' instructions to be followed.