The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

dromia wrote: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.

Precisely!

We are the only sport where we have to pay the police to allow us to participate!

The richest sport in the UK - Football gets millions of pounds worth of policing at no cost.

The latest figures for the London Marathon that I can find, give the 2013 figure for policing as £511.7k - yes over half a million. Allow for inflation and the statement that there would be extra police following the Westminster incident and for 2017 it could be moving towards £800k and that is every year.

The Notting Hill Carnival - policing costs in 2010 were £6.5M !


Putting these figures into context: 30,000 FAC/SGC in London use a round figure of say £80 (to allow for some new grants and a majority renewals) and it comes to £2.4m - over 5 year, or £480k per year.

Anyone know the actual details of this case, ?? I've read there was one incident of a domestic ,
However the person dropped the allegations ? If that is true and there was no further intel or any other evidence that he might be a danger then what could they have done ? Unless of course you want to go down the road of Revoking any fac holder on any aligiations made (or had a shouting match with the wife )
Without any resonable Suspicion or evidence that he is danger to the public or to the peace

joe wrote:Anyone know the actual details of this case, ?? I've read there was one incident of a domestic ,
However the person dropped the allegations ? If that is true and there was no further intel or any other evidence that he might be a danger then what could they have done ? Unless of course you want to go down the road of Revoking any fac holder on any aligiations made or had a shouting match with the wife
Without any resonable Suspicion or evidence

Yesterday I was listening to Jeremy Vine about this and there were a lot of not followed up situations.

He was 82 at the time, his doctor was asked about his mental state and did not give a conclusive answer. The staff at the farm all confirmed that he was threatening people, not just the other daughter. Now, I was not there however based on the info let out to the public, had I been an FEO I would not have given him his shotgun back. I know he wanted them back to control vermin, however in this situation I would have asked him to get someone else to control the vermin.

Was that our favourite shooting journalist commenting on the program? I missed the start however it did rather sound like him.

Ovenpaa wrote:favourite shooting journalist.

How on earth can their be such a thing as a "favourite" journalist, they are all in the same profession that is as tainted and corrupt as politicians and lawyers.

Integrity and principles have to be proven to be surgically removed before you can practice.

For me it's quite simple. People will always murder others. The "weapon" is generally immaterial. The police cannot and should not be expected to "second guess" what someone is going to do and nor should they be railroaded because they didn't. However, the police have to work within the guidelines given and judge specific cases on its own merit.

Shortages of appropriately trained staff sit at the heart of this. Will the numbers available improve? Unlikely. Would you fancy doing a job where if a judgement you made in good faith was revisited years after the event was minutely examined, which then resulted it that being a declared a bad judgement and you face calls for your sacking, sueing or be cminally charged? Nah, this is why the police can't fill roles and not just in administration.

Ovenpaa wrote:Was that our favourite shooting journalist commenting on the program? I missed the start however it did rather sound like him.

yes it was, and I thought he did well putting across a balanced point of view against Vines obvious bias against firearms.

Sim G wrote:For me it's quite simple. People will always murder others. The "weapon" is generally immaterial. The police cannot and should not be expected to "second guess" what someone is going to do and nor should they be railroaded because they didn't. However, the police have to work within the guidelines given and judge specific cases on its own merit.

Shortages of appropriately trained staff sit at the heart of this. Will the numbers available improve? Unlikely. Would you fancy doing a job where if a judgement you made in good faith was revisited years after the event was minutely examined, which then resulted it that being a declared a bad judgement and you face calls for your sacking, sueing or be cminally charged? Nah, this is why the police can't fill roles and not just in administration.

Well said !

SimG

When the other daughter mentioned that she is suing the police for giving the chap his gun back I thought if he was intent on killing them he would/could have used anything...spade/kitchen knives, yes even at 82 years old.
Rat poison...

Anyway, from what I have heard/read mistakes were made and I stand by if I was an FEO I would not have handed the gun back.