Page 3 of 3

Re: Partner approval?

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:17 pm
by Dougan
How many of you actually read the whole article carefully, without just 'scanning' and reading into it what you want?

If you read this paragraph:

"She told the committee: "Although each case is considered on its merits, we will discuss with ACPO [the Association of Chief Police Officers] amendment of the guidance to make it clear that it is not appropriate to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate where there is a history or successive reports of domestic abuse."

So they are not talking about ALL and EVERY partner being contacted, but just if EXISTING reports of domestic violence are discovered in the usual checks.

And if you read the following paragraph:

"The proposal that the Canadian practice of consulting the partners of firearms applicants should be introduced here needs greater scrutiny and analysis of the evidence base, to establish whether such a measure would reduce the risk to domestic violence victims as intended."

Well that sounds to me like May isn't that keen at all - she, just like any other person in her position, would have to consider most proposals.....and I don't think she is exactly championing the proposal...note the use of the word 'scrutiny'......

....don't forget that politicians talk in wishy-washy non-committal riddles .....and I think that if you read the second paragraph carefully, then it is actually negative to the idea.

Re: Partner approval?

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:02 am
by dromia
What really galls me is the role that ACPO is given in all of this, as far as I can see they are a glorified trade union who seem to be given a powerful say on advising and shaping policy. Obviously the police should be consulted but the role of ACPO seems totally disproportionate to what they are, a small vested interest group of successful career coppers.

Re: Partner approval?

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:21 pm
by Chuck
ACPO should have NO input, they are NOT the police.

The home secretary said it was "not appropriate" for people with a history of domestic violence to own guns
.

If they had a history of violence would they even get that far???? Would that not come up when they applied to join a club and so be refused membership??