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

I started reading this "thread" ready to be outraged at the Police's actions - ready, as requested to send an e-mail to my MP outlining why he should raise a question in the House. However, on reading the Home Office letter and the clubs reply, I find myself totally agreeing with the actions that the Police have taken. Shooting is my only hobby and I want to continue enjoying the sport for many years to come. Given the publics views on gun ownership, and the potential risk if unsuitable people gain access to firearms, there is no place for individuals or clubs who cannot follow the law; for they jeopardise gun ownership for everyone. While not being able to read members signatures is not a major issue, gun/ammo security is. Yes, the members of the club have been let down, but not by the Police.

MistAgain wrote:

Chapuis wrote:

Gazza wrote:
Who has a legible signature? [/quote


I find it interesting that this was a joint agency inspection and strongly suspect that Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service will be in contact with the responsible person in due course. Rifle ranges by their very design can present a unique challenge regarding fire safety arrangements.

As I understand it , the Fire Service has requested that a fire alarm button be installed in the upper range .

I would be very surprised if the installation of a single additional fire alarm call point is all that was required. The lack of that call point strongly indicates that at the very least either the fire risk assessment carried out has been deemed to be not suitable and sufficient, or that a fire risk assessment has not been carried out. In any event the very least would be the issuing of a IN01 letter (informal notification of deficiencies) which despite the name is anything but informal. If the fire safety arrangements or the management of the fire safety arrangements are considered to be seriousiously defficient then either an enforcement notice or a prohibition of use notice would be issued.

Sim G wrote:Reading the Home Office letter it is clear why the revocation of approval and no doubt club FAC. It also appears from the letter that advice had been offered in the past and evidently, not heeded.

Seems Mr Taylor chose to run things as he saw fit. At best lackadaisical, at worst criminally culpable. The whole scenario for the 280 other members could actually be saved with the present club and premises, but Mr Taylor certainly wouldn't like how....

In the past I have I have had a great deal of respect for you as your posts have been clear , show a high level of understanding and generally have been impartial but with an understanding of the law that many others dont have .

I think this time however you have slipped up .

This bit from the Home Office letter should be ringing bloddy great alarm bells , “The police checked the list of members which you provided and noted over 100 members who do not appear on the police's records.”

Merseyside Police do not do tick box while drinking coffee visits. If anything they are probably on par with a GCHQ security screening .

So how is it that between the January inspection and the raid in June over 100 members would appear to have joined APC but the police claim no knowledge of them .

Could it be that that Police records have not been kept in a proper manner ?

Could it be that the January inspection was not done properly ?

Could it be that the inspection prior to January was not done properly ?

Was Mr Taylor given the opportunity to show that he had informed police of new members ?

I have no doubt that there are members/officials of APC who could rip to shreds the Home Office
allegations, sadly as there is no appeal against the removal of Home Office approval they will never get the chance .

MistAgain wrote:

Sim G wrote:Reading the Home Office letter it is clear why the revocation of approval and no doubt club FAC. It also appears from the letter that advice had been offered in the past and evidently, not heeded.

Seems Mr Taylor chose to run things as he saw fit. At best lackadaisical, at worst criminally culpable. The whole scenario for the 280 other members could actually be saved with the present club and premises, but Mr Taylor certainly wouldn't like how....

In the past I have I have had a great deal of respect for you as your posts have been clear , show a high level of understanding and generally have been impartial but with an understanding of the law that many others dont have .

I think this time however you have slipped up .

This bit from the Home Office letter should be ringing bloddy great alarm bells , “The police checked the list of members which you provided and noted over 100 members who do not appear on the police's records.”

Merseyside Police do not do tick box while drinking coffee visits. If anything they are probably on par with a GCHQ security screening .

So how is it that between the January inspection and the raid in June over 100 members would appear to have joined APC but the police claim no knowledge of them .

Could it be that that Police records have not been kept in a proper manner ?

Could it be that the January inspection was not done properly ?

Could it be that the inspection prior to January was not done properly ?

Was Mr Taylor given the opportunity to show that he had informed police of new members ?

I have no doubt that there are members/officials of APC who could rip to shreds the Home Office
allegations, sadly as there is no appeal against the removal of Home Office approval they will never get the chance .

I would read the situation as being more like words of advice were given in January (Gypsies warning) and that when a follow up inspection was carried out in June it was found that Mr Taylor had failed to heed the warning or had failed to imprement the recommended measures.

Yes there is a possibility the records have not been properly reconciled but I'm sure that most club membership secretarys would immediately be able to evidence that the proper notifications had been made and the dates that those notifications were sent. So I'm very much with Sim G on this one.

Chapuis wrote:

MistAgain wrote:

Sim G wrote:Reading the Home Office letter it is clear why the revocation of approval and no doubt club FAC. It also appears from the letter that advice had been offered in the past and evidently, not heeded.

Seems Mr Taylor chose to run things as he saw fit. At best lackadaisical, at worst criminally culpable. The whole scenario for the 280 other members could actually be saved with the present club and premises, but Mr Taylor certainly wouldn't like how....

In the past I have I have had a great deal of respect for you as your posts have been clear , show a high level of understanding and generally have been impartial but with an understanding of the law that many others dont have .

I think this time however you have slipped up .

This bit from the Home Office letter should be ringing bloddy great alarm bells , “The police checked the list of members which you provided and noted over 100 members who do not appear on the police's records.”

Merseyside Police do not do tick box while drinking coffee visits. If anything they are probably on par with a GCHQ security screening .

So how is it that between the January inspection and the raid in June over 100 members would appear to have joined APC but the police claim no knowledge of them .

Could it be that that Police records have not been kept in a proper manner ?

Could it be that the January inspection was not done properly ?

Could it be that the inspection prior to January was not done properly ?

Was Mr Taylor given the opportunity to show that he had informed police of new members ?

I have no doubt that there are members/officials of APC who could rip to shreds the Home Office
allegations, sadly as there is no appeal against the removal of Home Office approval they will never get the chance .

I would read the situation as being more like words of advice were given in January (Gypsies warning) and that when a follow up inspection was carried out in June it was found that Mr Taylor had failed to heed the warning or had failed to imprement the recommended measures.

Yes there is a possibility the records have not been properly reconciled but I'm sure that most club membership secretarys would immediately be able to evidence that the proper notifications had been made and the dates that those notifications were sent. So I'm very much with Sim G on this one.

Playing devils advocate... the letter he sent in reply seems to suggest he could present this evidence had he been given the chance. Of course we are all speculating as we don't know what was said or not said at the previous inspections....

I have no dog in this fight and do not know the facts.

What I can say is there are two sides to every story.

When I was revoved 12 years ago - the licensing manager very carefully worded his report to the Ch Supt who made the decision to revoke. He put a VERY NEGATIVE spin on it. Careful use of words and phrases which made the reader assume the worst but at the same time could not be proven to be a deliberate malicious act.

In court, when I went through the report line by line and revealed the facts, I asked the Ch Supt if he felt he had been misled by the manager - he paused for quite a few seconds and replied "Well, he did put a spin on it" - I pushed him and said asked whether, knowing what he had heard in the court, would he have still revoked, he got very flustered and said he was not going to answer a hypotethical question.

The Judge simply said to me with a smile, "Its ok - you have stated your case very clearly" . He immediately reinstated my FAC on the spot.

Now, the Police also had sent me a letter outlining the reasons for my revocation. Had any of you read it, most of you would have said the Police did the right thing. But you would have been reading a letter VERY CAREFULLY worded to convince the Ch Supt to revoke. And it would have probably convinced you too.

But had you sat in the court you would have been amazed at how a few carefully chosen words and ommissions totally give the wrong impression.

I guess what I am saying, from bitter experience is, dont find a man guilty based on the prosecutions "opening statement" only - wait and listen to the other side of the story first.

Oh and guess what - despite an interview with no coffee with the Ch Supt after the court case, the Licensing Manager stayed in post. Stayed making decisions and submitting reports requesting revocations. Stayed making decisions on granting FACs and variations etc

I can't see the APC ever opening again, and the reason can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the secretary, not the police.

280 members are currently desperately trying to sign with other clubs, and I wish them well, but there will be a lot of folks who will lose out, and it all seems to be because the secretary knows better than the HO or the police.

This should be a wake-up call to any clubs that take short cuts, or don't clearly follow well defined guidlines. There will only ever be one winner .............. and it won't be the club.

Les wrote:I can't see the APC ever opening again, and the reason can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the secretary, not the police.

280 members are currently desperately trying to sign with other clubs, and I wish them well, but there will be a lot of folks who will lose out, and it all seems to be because the secretary knows better than the HO or the police.

This should be a wake-up call to any clubs that take short cuts, or don't clearly follow well defined guidlines. There will only ever be one winner .............. and it won't be the club.

I think you have "hit the nail on the head" - there is no place for clubs/individuals who can't/won't follow the rules.

Les wrote:I can't see the APC ever opening again, and the reason can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the secretary, not the police.

How do you explain the 100+ members that the police claim they have no knowledge of ?

To reach a figure like that would mean that the police had not been informed of new members for several years .

Last year Merseyside Police requested some RFD's to supply details of transactions going back at least 10 years
as they had no trace of them . And several were claimed not to be on the Police NFLMS . Now where have I seen that mentioned ?

IMO there is more 'evidence' of fact in the police letter than in the response which, to my reading doesn't cut to the chase of bluntly and directly disputing the statements being made by the police. But, having had dealings with, and being part of 'officialdom' in a way, I know very well how things can be tainted one way or another. I guess the thing that undermines the club secretary for me is allowing a prohibited person use any gun at the club, let alone his 'own' club gun. If that really has been happening it just shows a complete lack of judgement.

I have a friend who is a prohibited person and he has asked me directly if I would take him shooting , and i'd love to, I owe him more than one substantial favours, but i'd never risk my FAC just for him to get to go shooting, let alone near 300 peoples tickets.

For the sake of everyone involved I really hope that a solution can be found to keep the club going one way or another.