Westward Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Licensing cannot 'instantly' know if an otherwise mentally stable patient becomes unstable, I'm afraid. A chain of events is necessary before licensing even becomes aware; which comprises of the patient actually informing their GP that they are unwell ; the GP then informing licensing ( if the patient is indeed flagged as owning firearms ) and then licensing acting upon the said information. Exactly! And that's why the whole licensing BS, especially all the extra layers of bureaucracy invented by the police, is nothing but a pantomime designed to make sure the police can't be accused of negligence should another Dunblane occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Scotland Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Hi you lads crack me up you are never happy you make a fuss when they come and check and even more fuss when they don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 I've bought, sold, fitted and removed my gun cabinets to various parts on my house, and never once did I inform my FEO. On renewal of my FAC, when he came to check out my firearms, he said nothing when I told him that I had bought a few more, nor did he want to inspect them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Licensing cannot 'instantly' know if an otherwise mentally stable patient becomes unstable, I'm afraid.A chain of events is necessary before licensing even becomes aware; which comprises of the patient actually informing their GP that they are unwell ; the GP then informing licensing ( if the patient is indeed flagged as owning firearms ) and then licensing acting upon the said information. [/quote Knowing "Instantly" can only be from the time they access the info or are otherwise made aware! So perhaps I should have used the words 'could know instantly' rather than 'will know instantly'? Providing the relevant info has been loaded onto the computer!............at the press of a button the police should then be able to access that info instantly! ............The time they take to act upon that info is another matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 How can the police tell instantly whether your car is taxed, insured, Mot'd?..........by computer! ..........you will be on the police computer as a SGC/FAC holder, you will be registered on the police computer if you are reported for anything or charged or found guilty of anything, you are (or soon will be) on your GP's computer as the holder of guns and they are required to flag up to the police if you become medically unfit to hold guns........computers work 24/7.....it is naive to think that such information/cross reference checks are not available at the touch of a button! Why do the police require Certificate holders to make declaration on renewal...they already know! Or can easily check the information you provide....That is why we must declare past convictions including motoring offences....they already know! but if we don't declare them they can use that as a reason for refusal. It would have been easier to save the rant and concentrate on the highlighted issue…... In short, they could in most instances 'never' know instantly a SGC/FAC holders medical condition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 It would have been easier to save the rant and concentrate on the highlighted issue…... In short, they could in most instances 'never' know instantly a SGC/FAC holders medical condition! Firstly The original posting was about a process? My comment is about the process...it was not a rant it is an opinion! Don't you think your statement they could "in most instances 'never' know" are somewhat contradictory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) I've bought, sold, fitted and removed my gun cabinets to various parts on my house, and never once did I inform my FEO. On renewal of my FAC, when he came to check out my firearms, he said nothing when I told him that I had bought a few more, nor did he want to inspect them. Exactly!. Where do we draw the line with wanting plod to micro-manage every aspect of our gun ownership? Perhaps we should get the FEO to come round every night to check we have locked our cabinets properly. Edited August 17, 2017 by walshie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Licensing cannot 'instantly' know if an otherwise mentally stable patient becomes unstable, I'm afraid.A chain of events is necessary before licensing even becomes aware; which comprises of the patient actually informing their GP that they are unwell ; the GP then informing licensing ( if the patient is indeed flagged as owning firearms ) and then licensing acting upon the said information. [/quote Knowing "Instantly" can only be from the time they access the info or are otherwise made aware! So perhaps I should have used the words 'could know instantly' rather than 'will know instantly'? Providing the relevant info has been loaded onto the computer!............at the press of a button the police should then be able to access that info instantly! ............The time they take to act upon that info is another matter! Fair enough. I wasn't picking fault; merely pointing out that there is a process which needs to be adhered to for everything to work as it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Just count yourself lucky.. He will check next time though,bet yer boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Firstly The original posting was about a process? My comment is about the process...it was not a rant it is an opinion! Don't you think your statement they could "in most instances 'never' know" are somewhat contradictory? The rant I refer to, is where you felt the need to explain that Police keep data on computers And as for your "Somewhat contradictory" remark; its not if you apply the correct reading of the grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 The rant I refer to, is where you felt the need to explain that Police keep data on computers And as for your "Somewhat contradictory" remark; its not if you apply the correct reading of the grammar Re: my opinion and your accusation of it being a rant....have it your own way..........life's too short! So you don't find "never" and "in most instances" contradictory? Come on!.....It's one or the other, not both! Lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Grammar 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Re: my opinion and your accusation of it being a rant....have it your own way..........life's too short! So you don't find "never" and "in most instances" contradictory? Come on!.....It's one or the other, not both! Lol! Ok, throw the syntax around a bit….. 'In most instances, they could never know instantly (or, instantly know) a SGC/FAC holders medical condition' Rather than trying to be grammatically smart, why don't you just see the point being made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 17, 2017 Report Share Posted August 17, 2017 Ok, throw the syntax around a bit….. 'In most instances, they could never know instantly (or, instantly know) a SGC/FAC holders medical condition' Try the sentence 'in most instances they wouldn't know instantly' Rather than trying to be grammatically smart, why don't you just see the point being made It is not a case of my trying to be grammatically smart, your sentence is either grammatically right or grammatically wrong? I think it's the latter! When you write a question it is usual to punctuate it with a question mark! But despite this if you care to read posting #54 you will read that I have already "seen" and addressed "the point being made" I've had my say so if you want to come back 'fill yer boots' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jbob Posted August 18, 2017 Report Share Posted August 18, 2017 Had the same thing with Dev and Cornwall when I moved house last year. I installed the safe and sent my licence back for update of address expecting a visit. All i got was a phone call asking where I fitted the safe and was it bolted to the wall. Answered yes and yes and two days later my updated licence came through the post. As was said when I asked the question last year your FEO has approved you to have a SGC so they deem you fit enough to ensure security is maintained in the correct manner. Jbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted August 19, 2017 Report Share Posted August 19, 2017 It is not a case of my trying to be grammatically smart, your sentence is either grammatically right or grammatically wrong? I think it's the latter! When you write a question it is usual to punctuate it with a question mark! But despite this if you care to read posting #54 you will read that I have already "seen" and addressed "the point being made" I've had my say so if you want to come back 'fill yer boots' “Fill yer boots” you sound a tad aggressive in response to someone having a different opinion to you……. You think that the £50 spent on renewal of a license is to line the pockets of the police’s empire……. I don’t! The topic was about gun cabinets, and in my opinion you went off topic with a needless rant….. just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted August 19, 2017 Report Share Posted August 19, 2017 When I moved house I sent my FAC in for a change of address. It came back no bother so I called them and asked when they would be coming out. All I got from them was that I'd secured it well the last time with no need for advice to move/change anything so they were sure I was capable of doing the same again. It's common sense I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted August 19, 2017 Report Share Posted August 19, 2017 When I put on for a variation my visit was quite normal, I mentioned that I had bought a bigger cabinet and asked if she needed to be informed. She said "yes we do like to know really" I then told her, "I've bought a new cabinet do you want to see it ?" "Yes please" she replied. I showed her into my little room, her eyes kind of lit up and a little smile started to grow, until her professional head quickly kicked back in, wiping the smile off her face. "That's a big" one she said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 19, 2017 Report Share Posted August 19, 2017 “Fill yer boots” you sound a tad aggressive in response to someone having a different opinion to you……. You think that the £50 spent on renewal of a license is to line the pockets of the police’s empire……. I don’t! The topic was about gun cabinets, and in my opinion you went off topic with a needless rant….. just saying Let's review the facts..... 1) You first picked me up on my use the word "instantly, I clarified that in posting #54 2) You incorrectly accused me of having a "rant" 3) You contradicted me on my commenting on your incorrect use of grammar. 4) You accuse me of incorrectly reading of your bad grammar. 5) You accuse me of trying to be smart. 6) You accuse me of failing to see the point.....again I had already answered this "point" in posting #54 7) You wrongly accuse me of sounding aggressive....How can the written word "sound" aggressive? 8) You falsely attribute critism of the £50 cost of renewal to me. 9) You falsely attribute to me the accusation that the renewal cost is to line the pockets of the police. 10) The original post was questioning the necessity or otherwise of the process of the police reinspecting security arrangements......the posting I made was comment on the necessity or otherwise of the police repeating the process appertaining to the reapplication/reinspection on renewal....how is that off topic? Have you got any other personal critism to direct at me, either factual or imagined, to get out of your system? Or are you done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted August 19, 2017 Report Share Posted August 19, 2017 Blimey boys, calm down its only a forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted August 20, 2017 Report Share Posted August 20, 2017 I know, this got a tad out of hand didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted August 20, 2017 Report Share Posted August 20, 2017 What was the original topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted August 20, 2017 Report Share Posted August 20, 2017 What was the original topic? A level English I think. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted August 20, 2017 Report Share Posted August 20, 2017 Definitely not. It was in fact "Starting fights in an empty room (containing a gun cabinet)". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted August 20, 2017 Report Share Posted August 20, 2017 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.