Surrey Police

[Christel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-39707475

I am thinking this will mean more checks being carried out.

[David Nimrod]

Certainly looks like they took their eye off the ball...

Nobody can predict the future, but he did have form!

[TattooedGun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-39707475

I am thinking this will mean more checks being carried out.

As it says in the article. If they did the checks they were supposed to do then there wouldhave been a much mitigated chance of this happening.

Yet again though, the police force suffers. More interest in stripping to a skeleton staff of police officers who are not specifically trained to deal with firearms who they can employ in that role for the lowest possible price.

Apparently even though we pay for the service, they can take that money and use it elsewhere whilst giving the lowest level of service by the least trained monkeys. But it's okay, because if there's a problem, they'll just suggest that they need more controls and more legislation to make it more difficult to get firearms, since, hey if less people are eligible to get firearms they'll have less work to do...

/Cynic

[Kungfugerbil]

/Cynic

Spot on though... if the recent fee hike proposal had been accompanied by a commitment to a high-quality service then perhaps it would have been less offensive. If they provided a service that was accurate, consistent across forces, proactive in engaging with the community and listened, then I wouldnt mind paying a little more for it.

The cynic would suggest that it's not in their interests to provide a decent service; the worse they make it, the more likely borderline shooters are to say 'sod it, I can't be bothered with wading through treacle any more'. Less shooters = job done. Do away with firearms teams altogether :)

[Dark Skies]

They did the same with Michael Ryan. He'd had his shotgun returned after being confiscated. Thomas Hamilton had red flags all over his character long before he lost it in Dunblane.

"More laws! More checks!" they cry - studiously ignoring the fact the police have already ignored the adequate provisions in place.
Nothing changes. "Lessons have been learned" they chant.
Have they bo...cks.

[Christel]

The checks/regulations/rules are not there for us but for the public. Why should we then pay the fees?

I am ok with the current level of fees, it shows willing that we pay the fee, I just do not want to pay the "full cost" whatever that is because it is not for my benefit.

It is in everybody's interest that this country has fully functioning police licensing departments.

[Dellboy]

I wouldn't mind a small increase in fees if we got a service

[TattooedGun]

I wouldn't mind a small increase in fees if we got a service

I would, because we wont.

It'll become just another tax.

[Christel]

I wouldn't mind a small increase in fees if we got a service

I would, because we wont.

It'll become just another tax.

More importantly there is a fine line between paying a higher fee to get a better service and to appease the public.

[dromia]

We already pay for firearms certification through our taxes.

Firearms certification is not a service to shooters it is legislative requirement in order to help public safety therefore it isn't for the shooters benefit alone but for the whole of society so it is society that should pay for it.

As soon as gun owners see it as a service them then we are done for, as we truly are.