Weihrauch17 Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/30/plymouth-shooting-firearms-inquiry-officer-had-no-formal-training-jury-told Quite unbelievable and Patel punished the Shooting Community, a disgrace from her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 🤷♂️ What can you say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 It’s unbelievable isn’t it ? all the signs we’re there all the evidence the violence the unpredictability everything you needed to know using common sense nothing else just common sense ,locally the public have struggled to understand how he ever got a license , The officer who processed the application now hiding behind the excuse that he didn’t have any formal training ,all he needed was to flag him up as unsuitable full stop he didn’t do his job properly he had all of the information he needed . I wonder if he is still processing applications you wouldn’t be surprised would you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymondley Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 24 minutes ago, holloway said: It’s unbelievable isn’t it ? all the signs we’re there all the evidence the violence the unpredictability everything you needed to know using common sense nothing else just common sense ,locally the public have struggled to understand how he ever got a license , The officer who processed the application now hiding behind the excuse that he didn’t have any formal training ,all he needed was to flag him up as unsuitable full stop he didn’t do his job properly he had all of the information he needed . I wonder if he is still processing applications you wouldn’t be surprised would you . Exactly, formal training or not, he was apparently a former armed police officer and Royal Marine! You'd think that would give him some idea of someone's suitability to own a gun, obviously not. The man is guilty of gross negligence. I've come across a few totally unqualified people within the DVSA, only in the position because they're ex Plod, jobs for the boys. Makes me wonder how prevalent it is in firearms Licensing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchers Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 This is happening in lots of situations and professions........lack of common sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted January 30, 2023 Report Share Posted January 30, 2023 The lack of training will be his defence lawyer's trump card, reading the previous history only 5 years before application surely this should have prevented him from owning any more than a cap gun. Another failing of the issuing force yet as expected blame everyone but those blatantly responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rim Fire Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 And now we are all paying for his lack of common sense mine is now being processed and have to declare offences ranging back to the 70s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 Every person who is expected to inspect/handle firearms (including the 'basic PC' (i.e. non firearms dept. man) who is sent to check cabinet) needs to have some basic knowledge of firearms. This should include being able to; Handle the item safely Check the item is unloaded Check the item is to description (i.e. bore, type etc.) to a level to check item against certificate list It isn't a hard or advanced level of knowledge required - but some knowledge is needed to be able to do the job safely and correctly. Similarly, people who are 'vetting' applicants (and renewals) for suitability need to have a clear understanding of "red flags". These (if found when vetting) need to be followed up. It may be that they are in fact not relevant, or considered unimportant or not relevant, but that needs to be established and the reasons recorded in the applicant's file. This is part of what the fuss about medical reports is about; IF a medical report raises a red flag, I would expect the applicants file to have an audit trail of a qualified medical opinion as to the relevance of the red flag and the action taken - whether that is either to grant or refuse the applicant his certificate/license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 Sadly it's no good looking for common sense or fair play in these situations as the official response will always be to attack the known responsible licence holders? It will never be a level playing field? Officialdom simply wants rid of all guns because they can? It seemingly always ignores police licensing failures because it can? Would be interesting to know what lobbying for removal of guns takes place behind closed doors? Enjoy what you have while you can? In this particular instance if the information is true it maybe begs the question of the enquiry officers suitability to have been a Firearms officer if the applicants known history didn't ring the alarms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 1 minute ago, old man said: the enquiry officers suitability to have been a Firearms officer And that is a requirement for anyone in a job/profession. Some (like Doctors, Lawyers, etc) need a proper qualification - which may involve years of dedicated training Others (like builders, factory staff, mechanics etc.) probably receive 'on the job training' and maybe evening/day training in particular aspects/techniques. In order to be a Firearms officer, I would expect some formal training and probably some 'mentoring' from other more experienced staff. I would also expect them to have access (maybe by paying a fee, or by a retainer) to suitably qualified professionals who they could consult where there may be matters beyond their skill levels that need resolving. Some years ago I gave permission for a friend to use his rifle on my property (which was approved for rifle use) and he gave that with his application to his FEO. The FEO rang me to check up (👍) and queried the calibre requested (it had been the applicant's father's rifle) as it was not one with which he (or I) was familiar. I was able to put him in touch with the gunsmith who supplied the ammunition - and the issue was quickly resolved and the license granted. That was an FEO who had good common sense to ask where he didn't know the answer himself and I suspect he also gained a contact he was able to use later. There are lots of very knowledgeable people out there who would always be happy to help, but sometimes it is knowing who to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 "I don't understand why such accreditation action is now suddenly deemed necessary anyway. However, surely, first things first. Where you have any "largely unprofessional, overburdened and poorly resourced" organisation the primary aim must be to correct those deficiencies prior to anything else. Then and only then can you ensure that the staff where appropriate have the wherewithal to successfully withstand the trauma of any annual accreditation review." Above is copied from Conor O'Gorman's post on Gen' Shoot' Mat's. I don't know too much about the police as I try to avoid them, but am familiar with HM'sFs. I'm not too keen on relying on someone's apparent common sense as it may well turn out to be flawed and when any action or decision is going to affect me would prefer to rely upon someone's sound and comprehensive training. "Now, the CC cannot be individually responsible for each and every certificate issued - he'd never get anything else done - but he is signing to accept that he is satisfied that all the Force procedures have been properly carried out and have revealed no impediment to the granting of any certificate" Above also copied. Someone - and not the erk - is obliged to accept responsibility when procedures which naturally include adequate training are not in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 It isn't new. I had one turn up on our shoot to give a judgement on land suitability. It was 600 acres and had high seats in all the right places. He just looked at the Ordnance map and said oh there is a rail line there they make good back stops and cleared the ground. The old railway line was no longer there sonce early 60s and was on the same level as all the remainder. I got the impression he didn't have clue. It is seriously scary and as said that officer should be shown the door. Every clue was there for him to see. Mind, I understand the over educated senior staff of even the Met are now willing to employ officers who have difficulty in speaking the English language just to satisfy their wierd idea of diversity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 When my 5 yearly inspection was due, at first (because of Covid restrictions) I was told that I would not be visited by the FEO. Then I was informed that I wold, and a few days later, a uniformed police officer turned up. By his own admittance, he didn't know much about firearms. Checking the serial numbers on my rifles/shotguns, he suggested that I read the numbers out to him. I informed him that in the past, the serial numbers were checked by the officer, to which he replied, 'okay'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 20 minutes ago, steve_b_wales said: a uniformed police officer turned up. By his own admittance, he didn't know much about firearms. Checking the serial numbers on my rifles/shotguns, he suggested that I read the numbers out to him. Yes similar happened to me (pre covid times) and I showed him each gun was empty followed by the serial number as I picked up each one. He was happy and I got an 'OK' for the inspection, but I agree it isn't a good performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 Under other circumstances, I would laugh at the assertion that he had no formal training. Commonsense was all he needed, but apparently hadn't received formal "commonsense" training either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 3 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Under other circumstances, I would laugh at the assertion that he had no formal training. Commonsense was all he needed, but apparently hadn't received formal "commonsense" training either. That was my point. Surely to be able to carry in the first instance it could maybe assumed he had showed a bit of common? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 What bothered me was that he had made enquiries and established facts, but decided to ignore them. Truly dreadful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 Just now, Gordon R said: What bothered me was that he had made enquiries and established facts, but decided to ignore them. Truly dreadful. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charliedog Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 Would imagine in court, common sense is difficult to quantify, lack of training will hold up as a failing on the employer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 31, 2023 Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 18 minutes ago, Charliedog said: Would imagine in court, common sense is difficult to quantify, lack of training will hold up as a failing on the employer In the world of private industry, lack of training (and a full audit trail of a training needs analysis and consequent defined training programme and record with refreshers etc.) would be taken as a failing. However - the public sector and the police may not be so accountable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouser Posted February 1, 2023 Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 Bring back memories of Dunblame, only the paperwork was locked up for a hundred years, doesn’t really make you think of a cover up does it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted February 1, 2023 Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 30 years ago I did 90% of the divisional Firearms/Shotgun grants, renewals and enquiries. Why............ because I was a 'shooter' and knew about these things ? The only training I had in handguns was my training as a Firearms Officer and that only involved revolvers. IF I was unsure on the 'making safe' of any weapons I was inspecting at times of renewals, I simply asked the guns owner to show me. A current example would be locking the bolt back on a Beretta semi auto shotgun. How many FEO's would know where to find the button on the loading port under the gun ? My current FEO does ! 😉 I would add that I was responsible for revoking a lot of Certificates during my years as Wildlife Liaison Officer. Anyone convicted of any Wildlife crime, automatically lost their Certificate. Edited February 1, 2023 by Westley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 1, 2023 Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 1 minute ago, Westley said: 30 years ago I did 90% of the divisional Firearms/Shotgun grants, renewals and enquiries. Why............ because I was a 'shooter' and knew about these things ? The only training I had in handguns was my training as a Firearms Officer and that only involved revolvers. IF I was unsure on the 'making safe' of any weapons I was inspecting at times of renewals, I simply asked the guns owner to show me. A current example would be locking the bolt back on a Beretta semi auto shotgun. How many FEO's would know where to find the button on the loading port under the gun ? My current FEO does ! 😉 One of my previous FEOs was the similar - in that he used to attend local shooting events etc. He came to check my cabinet and was unsure how to operate my Darne - and asked me to show him. He will be retired now I expect (the event was maybe 30 years ago), but I doubt he came across another Darne! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted February 1, 2023 Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) Ah yes, the Darne. To me it became more of a Darn gun ! Had a few problems with it and struggled to find a gunsmith to even look at it, when one did, I faced a bill of over £300 ? I saw my previous FEO shooting locally, just after his retirement. He was using a Darne ! Edited February 1, 2023 by Westley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 1, 2023 Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 Just now, Westley said: Ah yes, the Darne. To me it became more of a Darn gun ! Had a few problems with it and struggled to find a gunsmith to even look at it, when one did I faced a bill of over £300 ? Yes, no one wants to touch them. Not common in the UK, but there are more in France and the US. I'm not surprised the FEO hadn't seen one before. 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.