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

All this kefuffle could be avoided if we just didn't need all these FAC's etc in the first place...Criminals do OK without them

Sixshot6 wrote:

breacher wrote:I am guessing the "decisions" relate to FAC holders with "domestic" allegations.

The key word is allegations, we have allegations until investigations, etc bring up the truth of the matter showing said allegations are substantiated.

Actually, allegations and hearsay are allowed to be used against the FAC holder in the revocation process. If the FAC holder appeals revocation ( as I did hence my knowledge on the subject ) everything is fair game in court. A judge in Crown Court decides how much weight to give the allegations and ultimately decides whether to allow the appeal or dismiss it.

Even unsubstantiated allegations can be used as a reason to revoke / dismiss appeal. Common sense dictates that some allegations are stronger than others, even if not substantiated. Or if there is a pattern of the same unsubstantiated allegation being made by different unconnected individuals.

Blackstuff wrote:Maybe this will mean Durham will be the 2nd slowest in the country to process variations, renewals and grants Moving on up!

I've just had a variation from Durham turned round in 46 hours.

Redcat

redcat wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:Maybe this will mean Durham will be the 2nd slowest in the country to process variations, renewals and grants Moving on up!

I've just had a variation from Durham turned round in 46 hours.

Redcat

Paging Phaedra....

B@st@rd

phaedra1106 wrote:B@st@rd

Told ya not to give them back the negatives....

saddler wrote:

phaedra1106 wrote:B@st@rd

Told ya not to give them back the negatives....

Problem was they had the Full photos to being with. Didn't need the negatives.