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

Indeed, the Chief Inspector who was brought in to "sort things out" actually made it worse and has been moved "sideways" to another position. The replacement has stated he wants Durham to be the strictest licensing department in the country. I really don't have a problem with that if only they'd adhere to H.O. guidance and firearms law instead of making things up as they go and insisting on things like additional medical forms etc. in an effort to try and show how good they are at their jobs (which they aren't) and protecting the public from us nasty shooters.

Also, from what I've been told, none of the additional staff recently brought in have any experience of firearms licensing either.

Sim G wrote:Point taken, Mark. But, what's more preferable, drag someone over the coals, kick their arse and then move on with a line drawn under it and lessons learned, or, sack them then have to bring someone new in who doesn't have the experience or know the history, only that their predesessor what binned for allowing them something they shouldn't really have....?

Considering what was said by at the inquiry the whole department should've been cleared out as far as i'm concerned. Even if the new staff didn't have any previous firearms experience anyone with a modicum of knowledge could bring the new staff up to the same speed as their predocessors after a weeks training.

As Jeff said, i'm not bothered about them making Durham "the strictest in the country" as long as that means they strictly go by the book (guidance and legislation), unfortunately thats not what i think is being implied at all, more Durham would be the most restrictive FLD in the country and they'll make things up to meet that agenda

Blackstuff wrote: Even if the new staff didn't have any previous firearms experience anyone with a modicum of knowledge could bring the new staff up to the same speed as their predocessors after a weeks training.

No, I don't think you could. Our sport has a phenominal technical and legal aspect to it, look at some of the questions that are asked on here from some that have a vast experience of the sport. Imagine that being compounded by staff with no experience.

Unless someone is dishonest or corrupt, I generally have issue with the "heads should roll" ethos so often touted. So much more can be lost than gained....

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... ing-party/

The composition of the working party is now online. It was mostly police constables, with a handful of Home Office bods.

What really worries me is that the McKay Review was carried out by HM Inspector of Constabulary (John McKay being the top dog there). Guess what organisation is currently reviewing the firearms licensing system behind closed doors?!?

Well, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is now Sir Tom Windsor. A man who was described by Keith Vaz at the Home Select Committee as "Wholly unconvincing". Likewise, the Police Federation found a number of examples in Windsors review of policing as being, well, lies.

Should he apply these same standards to firearms law, prepare for something more damaging than the McKay report....

For anyone in any doubt of the level of Durhams incompetence or who would like a DIY guide on how not to run a firearms department I've put a copy of the report here,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103 ... report.PDF

phaedra1106 wrote:For anyone in any doubt of the level of Durhams incompetence or who would like a DIY guide on how not to run a firearms department I've put a copy of the report here,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103 ... report.PDF

Checks carried out by PC Cobain confirmed that Mr Atherton was a member of a clay pigeon shooting club, therefore satisfying Mr Atherton’s ‘good reason’ for acquiring a shotgun.