Chris Bubb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 106
I would rather pay a lot more, and get a decent service. Which I think is what Matt is saying.
SGC Fees
- Thread starter tiptop
- Start date
Help Support :
It is good value... I cannot think of any top professional service you can get for 50 quid an hour. How much is a plumber for an hour?
So to grant people a license for a gun... My estimate is this:
Check for a record.... 30 mins work
Home visit 30 mins + travel time and expense
GP Check 30 mins + GP expense
Plus the salary of the police and civilian staff (yes, we already pay for that in our council taxes.... But we should chip in for the extra work)
And the we expect good service as well.
I am not being ridiculous, I am thinking economics.
So to grant people a license for a gun... My estimate is this:
Check for a record.... 30 mins work
Home visit 30 mins + travel time and expense
GP Check 30 mins + GP expense
Plus the salary of the police and civilian staff (yes, we already pay for that in our council taxes.... But we should chip in for the extra work)
And the we expect good service as well.
I am not being ridiculous, I am thinking economics.
There you have it....better service, better service levels.higher cost, higher expectation.
I'd think it would take in the region of 4/5 hours in total in my world that equates to well over £100 so I agree its great value!!
Chris Bubb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 106
Chris Bubb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 106
Matt, have you got time to be debating this, shouldn't you be pulling my name out of a hat :sarcastic:
GrrClark
Well-known member
Hmmm, not sure that I entirely agree Matt.
I recognise that the actual activity should be costed and we should pay for that at cost, so not disagreeing with you there, however the system is plagued with what is quite simply poor management and administrative processes and systems.
It is easy to suggest that running the activity below cost leads to the poor service, but I don't believe that to be the case. My force area are extremely effective and seem to cope very well. My grant was 14 days end to end and the grant for my wife took 8 days end to end.
There are many other forces throughout the country that have an extremely effective process yet they are operating within the same cost constraints.
Looking at every case as a single exercise would also result in more time being spent, however forces can make benefit of economies of scale. A multiple request on the PNC or other records system is largely automated, they are only looking for exceptions, so as a result will only need to look at a subset of results.
When the FEO carries out the home visit, again they are only looking for exceptions, so again only a limited subset will require a further look and more time.
No process will ever guarantee 100% results, so the police have to adopt a risk weighting. Even although we have had a regrettably memorable series of high profile incidents with legally held firearms, as a percentage they are tiny relative to the number of holders. I would imagine well within the risk criteria that could be applied to any human based process.
Unfortunately we will always have cases where people use their own firearms to despatch themselves, but unless symptoms have been flagged to the medical community or are significant enough to cause concern by observation of others we will never be able to eliminate that.
I agree that we very likely benefit from paying less than the process costs and I would ultimately support that the cost should be recovered by the police, in my area I would have no argument at all now. For those people in other regions where the service is poorer then I think they have a legitimate complaint.
If there is a contract of service in the diligence of properly assessing potential firearms holders and in the quality and consistency of completing that process in a fair and reasonable timeframe then I shall support that with gusto.
Until that contract is agreed I think we collectively have a duty to push back.
I recognise that the actual activity should be costed and we should pay for that at cost, so not disagreeing with you there, however the system is plagued with what is quite simply poor management and administrative processes and systems.
It is easy to suggest that running the activity below cost leads to the poor service, but I don't believe that to be the case. My force area are extremely effective and seem to cope very well. My grant was 14 days end to end and the grant for my wife took 8 days end to end.
There are many other forces throughout the country that have an extremely effective process yet they are operating within the same cost constraints.
Looking at every case as a single exercise would also result in more time being spent, however forces can make benefit of economies of scale. A multiple request on the PNC or other records system is largely automated, they are only looking for exceptions, so as a result will only need to look at a subset of results.
When the FEO carries out the home visit, again they are only looking for exceptions, so again only a limited subset will require a further look and more time.
No process will ever guarantee 100% results, so the police have to adopt a risk weighting. Even although we have had a regrettably memorable series of high profile incidents with legally held firearms, as a percentage they are tiny relative to the number of holders. I would imagine well within the risk criteria that could be applied to any human based process.
Unfortunately we will always have cases where people use their own firearms to despatch themselves, but unless symptoms have been flagged to the medical community or are significant enough to cause concern by observation of others we will never be able to eliminate that.
I agree that we very likely benefit from paying less than the process costs and I would ultimately support that the cost should be recovered by the police, in my area I would have no argument at all now. For those people in other regions where the service is poorer then I think they have a legitimate complaint.
If there is a contract of service in the diligence of properly assessing potential firearms holders and in the quality and consistency of completing that process in a fair and reasonable timeframe then I shall support that with gusto.
Until that contract is agreed I think we collectively have a duty to push back.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rosso
Well-known member
You tight wad. Buy cheaper shells with smaller metal heads.
Why don't you get out more and shoot these premier club shoots.
Shaun Hopkins
Well-known member
Matt is spot on with this one. very good value for five years my firearms officer visited recently for an address change great guy too and very busy indeed would be happy to pay once a year especially when you compare it to the likes of lets say your TV license fee now that is a rip off!!
Dskize
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Messages
- 142
Matt is spot on....
We have an average of a 4-6 mnth turn around time for a SGC and everyone I've spoken to has had the same conversation with the visiting officer ,staff levels have been reduced by 2/3rds so you'll just have to wait.
I can easily spend £80 on one days shooting and people spend that on titanium chokes and are still crap ..it's a pittance for what it is.
We have an average of a 4-6 mnth turn around time for a SGC and everyone I've spoken to has had the same conversation with the visiting officer ,staff levels have been reduced by 2/3rds so you'll just have to wait.
I can easily spend £80 on one days shooting and people spend that on titanium chokes and are still crap ..it's a pittance for what it is.
Finners
Well-known member
I don't agree that simply by paying more you get a better service, but I do agree that £50 is love all, it's actually less than £10 a year.
Edit: Don't know how we got Love from f e c k
Edit: Don't know how we got Love from f e c k
Last edited by a moderator:
SGC's are very good value to police forces too...every one they issue, gives that person who is granted a certificate an even stronger reason to stay on the straight and narrow!!! I know lots of certificate holders who have been in situations where they have walked away or backed down from a fight/incident/trouble because they don't want to loose their SGC
Rosso
Well-known member
So bearing this quote in mind and the one above. If farmers don't need a cert. they can go out fighting, cause incidents / trouble.I want it to go back to the old system where farmers were exempt from needing a SGC...
Mmmmm I would make them pay double as they get their pigeon shooting for free.
The "farmer exemption" quip was toung in cheek, as it will never and should never be reinstated. Rosso, you too can have "free pigeon shooting"...£1,000,000 for a nice small arable farm, 2 second hand tractors and forklift at £50,000 ea, second hand combine £70,000, second hand baler £10,000, 1st year seed, fertiliser and fuel £150,000+... = free pigeon shooting!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
shootinguru
Well-known member
:crazy: Ay Jimmy lad, ye forgot the fox shooting in the cost? :crazy:
