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

Why does having money problems (CCJs etc) make you unfit to have a FAC? Pray tell!

Good question . The person that I posted about had received 7 CCJ's in an 18 month period . This would suggest that he was incapable of keeping his financial affairs in order .

That sort of person is not the sort of person who would worry about following any conditions that his FAC might require .

There are more than enough studies out there that say financial problems are a cause for crime .

Two examples .............At Cardiff Crown Court yesterday, prosecutor Cameron Brown said Litt, 57, of Claremont, Newport, was “robbing Peter to pay Paul” as he brokered 2,000 deals with 50 investors worth £57.5 million and sold 320 guns he looked after for clients, worth around £1.5 million.

Rumours of financial pressures had surfaced, and last night Cooper told the BBC's Newsnight that Bird frequently expressed fears over going to jail for tax evasion. "He had financial problems, for some reason he had it in his head that he was going to prison, he thought the taxman was on to him

It is the CIRCUMSTANCES that matter, NOT the CCJ's!

People can have money issues for any number of reasons that do NOT make them unfit to hold an FAC. There's no relation between bad budgeting,m being screwed by a bank or three or havoing an FAC.

Some people will project that money worries = suicidal, which is again nonsense. Plenty of help out there fo0r BOTH issues.

Criminality is another matter and there are adequate laws in place to deal with that.

BTW: Someone who is bankrupt has NO money worries (contrary to popular belief) because they don't owe a penny to anyone!

MistAgain wrote:the Chief Constable determines that the person would be a threat to society if allowed firearms.

I always thought an FAC would be granted if you met the requirements and were considered a "fit person" to hold the FAC .

Who do you think it falls upon to consider you a "fit person"?

It may not be the CC going through the paperwork, but it's them who ultimately the power falls upon. It used to be that the CC would sign each FAC, but a lot of the time, even that role has been passed on. But should anything go wrong and a bad choice of letting someone have an FAC, it's them the buck stops with.

Being in debt and havving ccjs are not the same.

Many of us are i debt - mortgage or credit card or whatever.

CCJ is refusing to repay that debt. Ie - not playing by the rules.

Police see ANY rule breaking or contempt for rules as an indication the individual will break the rules imposed re FAC.

Not enough on its own but can be viewed as part of a bigger picture.

Also - what are the ccjs for ? I believe that unpaid parking fines and unpaid court fines can end up as ccjs ?

TattooedGun wrote:

MistAgain wrote:the Chief Constable determines that the person would be a threat to society if allowed firearms.

I always thought an FAC would be granted if you met the requirements and were considered a "fit person" to hold the FAC .

Who do you think it falls upon to consider you a "fit person"?

It may not be the CC going through the paperwork, but it's them who ultimately the power falls upon. It used to be that the CC would sign each FAC, but a lot of the time, even that role has been passed on. But should anything go wrong and a bad choice of letting someone have an FAC, it's them the buck stops with.

The Firearms dept manager decides. If he finds a fac application he wants to refuse or a fac he wants to revoke, he submits a report via Chief Superintendant to Chief Constable.

If appealed, Ch Con does not attend court but delegates to Ch Supt.

At court, Judge decides.

Purely on a technicality, couldn't one demand that the Chief Constabubble appear in court personally ? We thought Henry Rex (primus) ruled that a subject had the right to meet an accuser or plaintiff face to face in court...

breacher wrote:

TattooedGun wrote:

MistAgain wrote:the Chief Constable determines that the person would be a threat to society if allowed firearms.

I always thought an FAC would be granted if you met the requirements and were considered a "fit person" to hold the FAC .

Who do you think it falls upon to consider you a "fit person"?

It may not be the CC going through the paperwork, but it's them who ultimately the power falls upon. It used to be that the CC would sign each FAC, but a lot of the time, even that role has been passed on. But should anything go wrong and a bad choice of letting someone have an FAC, it's them the buck stops with.

The Firearms dept manager decides. If he finds a fac application he wants to refuse or a fac he wants to revoke, he submits a report via Chief Superintendant to Chief Constable.

If appealed, Ch Con does not attend court but delegates to Ch Supt.

At court, Judge decides.

I don't doubt that's the way it works, but the person held accountable would be the Chief Constable, even if he is delegating the duty to civil servants, evidently by the reason the firearms dept manager has to send a report to those higher up should they wish to refuse or revoke, or any other difficult cases, I should imagine.

Some levels of military security clearance are dependant on the applicants financial history. The thinking is if you have financial issues, you're more able to be manipulated/blackmailed.

DL. wrote:Some levels of military security clearance are dependant on the applicants financial history. The thinking is if you have financial issues, you're more able to be manipulated/blackmailed.

Yeahhhhh....if we are not careful we will fall into the trap that police and politicians have fallen into, thinking that FAC/SGC are some fantastical thing that should be out of the reach of mere humings.......its just having a couple of guns. Remember a few years ago we Brits could have shotguns without bits of paper to show we were decent and dependable .
Happily, I got out of being a Forensic practitioner by refusing to allow a financial check (which everyone had to go through every couple of years) , I had been wanting out because I couldnt stomache working day in and day out with scum bag , junky , lying sh#te.
But, the Trust I worked for said it had become part of my job , unlike new joiners who when asked to go to police cells, refused and got away with it.
Anyway, this financial thing came up and I said , I was not happy with that and that they could shove it, to which the police replied, "we can't make you do it but if you don't then you can't have clearance anymore".......well I thought about it for a millisecond and said no. Long story short, back working with normal sick people and NO LOSS OF PAY COS WE DIDNT GET ANY MORE FOR WORKING WITH THOSE SCUMBAGS ANYWAY.
The funny (and I think typical police/government) thing is....the questions I refused to answer were, do you have any CCJs, does your wife have any CCJs, how much do you owe on credit cards, how much does your wife owe on credit cards, what loans do you have...........all of which any shop keeper can find out through a credit reference agency
On another note, my friend and colleague who actually wanted to do this type of work, was the only one of 6 of us that the police refused clearance to, to some (perceived) stigma on her part. The police refused to tell her why, she went to the CC, her MP, wrote the Home office and the PM but never got more than , can't tell you for operational reasons. This colleague was a registered paramedic like myself and had worked for many years in the NHS and obviously had no criminal record, she was divorced and had grown up kids long gone from the nest. All she could think of was one of her brothers might have been in bother with the police but none had been to jail .
She continued working in an NHS hospital until retired several years later. Never found out.

During the law comission paper didn't one force / cop / civil servant wanted to abolish the appeal to crown court ! Truly shocking and police state if it was true

There is a well established link between money troubles, depression and suicide, there wouldn't be so many charities and support groups set up offering help if it wasn't the case. Two out of the three mass shooters the UK has had were experiencing financial problems at the time of there murder sprees and hindsight suggests it was at least a contributing factor into their actions, and the 'millionaire' guy that shot his whole family, dogs and horses before torching his house is thought to have done so because of impending financial ruin.

That's not to say someone getting a CCJ should automatically have their certificate revoked, but within the framework of the current licensing regime it should be looked into, particularly if their are multiple occurrences. Some people can shoulder massive financial problems and come out unscathed and some people do themselves in over a couple of hundred quid council tax debt, the trick is working out what sort of person the man/woman holding the certificate is.