Gloucestershire suspending certificate applications

[Smudger687]

Womp womp. This is what happens when firearms ownership is a privilege. 

[HantsRob]

1 hour ago, bruno22rf said:

Bet there are plenty of "Road safety vans" about though??

That's a bit of a silly comment, as that's part of the safer roads partnership. Most of the funding comes from outside of the police and is funded by local councils, and whilst the vans and staff may be managed by Police estates, the main funding is NOT through the Police. All profits also do NOT go to the Police, they all go to central government.

An example and also evidence of this:

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/lincolnshire-road-safety-partnership/lincolnshire-road-safety-partnership-1

 

Finally, as someone who has attended far too many road deaths, I can say that if one "Road safety van" prevents 1 death, I welcome it. Funnily enough, they only catch people who exceed the speed limit. It is funded by the PCC, and not the Police. Whether you see them as the same or not, is up to you.

[bruno22rf]

3 hours ago, HantsRob said:

That's a bit of a silly comment, as that's part of the safer roads partnership. Most of the funding comes from outside of the police and is funded by local councils, and whilst the vans and staff may be managed by Police estates, the main funding is NOT through the Police. All profits also do NOT go to the Police, they all go to central government.

An example and also evidence of this:

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/lincolnshire-road-safety-partnership/lincolnshire-road-safety-partnership-1

 

Finally, as someone who has attended far too many road deaths, I can say that if one "Road safety van" prevents 1 death, I welcome it. Funnily enough, they only catch people who exceed the speed limit. It is funded by the PCC, and not the Police. Whether you see them as the same or not, is up to you.

And the money for firearms licences comes from the guys shooting? I honestly believe that road safety is not the priority of these vans/departments - when you consider that just being the width of your speedo's needle over the limit will get you a fine and points. I have always believed that a man doing 35 in a 30 and concentrating on the road is far safer than someone staring at their speedo to make sure they are doing 29-30mph.All down to opinion of course and I understand and respect yours 100%.

[armsid]

Connor, this is why licensing needs to be done away from the police pity BASC and other orgs. cannot do something themselves at least the guidance would be adhered to

[HantsRob]

15 hours ago, bruno22rf said:

And the money for firearms licences comes from the guys shooting? I honestly believe that road safety is not the priority of these vans/departments - when you consider that just being the width of your speedo's needle over the limit will get you a fine and points. I have always believed that a man doing 35 in a 30 and concentrating on the road is far safer than someone staring at their speedo to make sure they are doing 29-30mph.All down to opinion of course and I understand and respect yours 100%.

Absolutely not, I agree with you that the cost is not covered by the shooter in its entirety. 

I will PM you separately, however I think that road safety partnership vans can be an excellent way to highlight accident hotspots and to reduce road fatalities. I do however agree that they are too absolute, and do not factor in road conditions, volume of traffic, safe driving etc. I do think they are often deployed for revenue rather than road safety.

Final comment before moving back to the topic, is that 30 is not a target. So, I believe a man doing 25-30 in a 30 and not constantly looking at a speedo is preferable to both. That said I do respect your sentiment, and mostly agree that someone giving 100% road attention is better than speedo looking. My reservation to that is if your car shows 35mph, the camera van probably won't zap at 35. If you are caught doing 10%+2 in a 30, so truespeed by physics showing 35, I would suggest the car is showing 37/38.

 

11 hours ago, armsid said:

Connor, this is why licensing needs to be done away from the police pity BASC and other orgs. cannot do something themselves at least the guidance would be adhered to

I don't think that's necessarily the answer. Medcert was the golden ticket til it got busy! Police don't have to be held accountable for financial spend in that respect, but a for-profit company would soon give different issues. 

I think it needs regulation and SLAs, but that again comes with risk for the shooter.

 

Damned if you do.....

Edited Thursday at 09:48 by HantsRob

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 hours ago, armsid said:

Connor, this is why licensing needs to be done away from the police pity BASC and other orgs. cannot do something themselves at least the guidance would be adhered to

We await the outcome of last year's firearms licensing consultation and BASC's response is here:

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BASC-response-to-Home-Office-firearms-consultation-final.pdf

In addition to addressing the consultation proposals BASC made various additional points/recommendations, including the following:

BASC recommends that those Chief Officers who do not run efficient FELUs should be subject to financial penalties. This should be tied into mandatory service level agreements. BASC defines an efficient force as one that completes all renewal applications received eight weeks prior to expire before the certificate expires. Also, more than 95% of grant applications would be processed within sixteen weeks.

BASC endorses the remarks made by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Andy Cooke QPM DL, that the Chief Inspector should have the ability to give directions, rather than recommendations, to police forces where an inspection identifies a failing that poses a significant risk to public safety (Page 32 of “State of Policing in England and Wales 2022, published June 2023). This is particularly apposite where firearms licensing is concerned.

BASC believes that there should be a Firearms Licensing Regulator, akin to the Forensic Science Regulator, with statutory powers to compel Chief Officers to adopt best practice and correct any failings in their FELUs.