Keyham Plymouth - something afoot?

My Girlfriend is looking at getting into shooting having been to my target club. This is what she sees when she looked at her GP.
IMG-20210823-WA0001.jpg
 
Well chaps what we thought would happen is happening.
So this local consultation at Police authority level was it appears a wee bit of a smokescreen and done deal!
Under a raft of new requirements, police will also be told to carry out checks of applicants’ social media accounts.
The Home Secretary’s crackdown comes in the wake of the Plymouth shootings in August that left five dead, including a three-year-old, prompting questions over the killer’s legitimately held gun licence.
 
Well chaps what we thought would happen is happening.
So this local consultation at Police authority level was it appears a wee bit of a smokescreen and done deal!
Under a raft of new requirements, police will also be told to carry out checks of applicants’ social media accounts.
The Home Secretary’s crackdown comes in the wake of the Plymouth shootings in August that left five dead, including a three-year-old, prompting questions over the killer’s legitimately held gun licence.

I'm sure this will work perfectly. It's not like the police are busy doing other things.:rolleyes:
 
Well chaps what we thought would happen is happening.
So this local consultation at Police authority level was it appears a wee bit of a smokescreen and done deal!
Under a raft of new requirements, police will also be told to carry out checks of applicants’ social media accounts.
The Home Secretary’s crackdown comes in the wake of the Plymouth shootings in August that left five dead, including a three-year-old, prompting questions over the killer’s legitimately held gun licence.

Medical checks, and slapping the BMA into line good!

However, there's also some bad there.

Financial checks: What why?
Incel is now rated as equivalent to being a terrorist sympathiser? Surely this plays into the mindset these types already have?

And the big one, social media checks. Do tell? How will we be doing this? And why do I think she's going to link it to the mandatory identification on social media she's been wittering about?
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
Under a raft of new requirements, police will also be told to carry out checks of applicants’ social media accounts.
And just, I have to ask, is this going to work?

My social media includes closed groups... unless plod is going to find and join all of them, they'll only get to see the mundane crap in my public feed.

And contrary to what some might think, Cyberhacker is not my real name, either ;-)

Meanwhile, the authorities are still unable to keep tabs on people that have been flagged as potential terrorists, nor carry out the existing checks they are supposed to do... there are many more shootings involving illegally held guns (including hand guns) and illegal knives than crimes by legally held weapons. But investigating those is clearly Too Hard.
 
Medical checks, and slapping the BMA into line good!

However, there's also some bad there.

Financial checks: What why?

Presumably for the same reason they're done for certain other checks - is the individual potentially susceptible to outside financial pressures.

Incel is now rated as equivalent to being a terrorist sympathiser? Surely this plays into the mindset these types already have?

Probably because those who (noisily and publicly) support the "Incel movement", and therefore are raging at how unfairly society etc. treats them, might warrant a bit more examination of their suitability.

And the big one, social media checks. Do tell? How will we be doing this? And why do I think she's going to link it to the mandatory identification on social media she's been wittering about?
Now that is the big question. Hand over your social media IDs so they can be checked? Doesn't protect against having alternative IDs, or privacy settings etc.

I suspect it's a bit more security theatre - the rulebooks says the license can be refused if you've got stuff splashed all over your public facebook, but anything private then the authorities can say they looked but it was hidden.
 
Medical checks, and slapping the BMA into line good!

However, there's also some bad there.

Financial checks: What why?
Incel is now rated as equivalent to being a terrorist sympathiser? Surely this plays into the mindset these types already have?

And the big one, social media checks. Do tell? How will we be doing this? And why do I think she's going to link it to the mandatory identification on social media she's been wittering about?

Given that most GP's are refusing to come out of their bunkers and see patients with actual medical problems, good luck with that.

Or are they going to conduct medical checks on applicants by Zoom?
 
Presumably for the same reason they're done for certain other checks - is the individual potentially susceptible to outside financial pressures.
What: 'I'll pay you £1,000 if you go on a gun wielding rampage!'?

Now that is the big question. Hand over your social media IDs so they can be checked? Doesn't protect against having alternative IDs, or privacy settings etc.

I suspect it's a bit more security theatre - the rulebooks says the license can be refused if you've got stuff splashed all over your public facebook, but anything private then the authorities can say they looked but it was hidden.
Aye. But it'll also mean a large increase in staffing required. And whose paying for the extra admins?

Given that most GP's are refusing to come out of their bunkers and see patients with actual medical problems, good luck with that.

Or are they going to conduct medical checks on applicants by Zoom?

Same way it's always been done. Only this time they don't have a long list of cheats, sometimes supplied by the BMA, on how to get out of it.
What'll be interesting is the KPI's, and how many certs get delayed because the GP's letter isn't in. My local force said 'No applications will be accepted without a letter' to prevent that.
 
What: 'I'll pay you £1,000 if you go on a gun wielding rampage!'?


Aye. But it'll also mean a large increase in staffing required. And whose paying for the extra admins?



Same way it's always been done. Only this time they don't have a long list of cheats, sometimes supplied by the BMA, on how to get out of it.
What'll be interesting is the KPI's, and how many certs get delayed because the GP's letter isn't in. My local force said 'No applications will be accepted without a letter' to prevent that.

Was it always done face to face? Because if so, I think I spot a flaw in the Cunning Plan...
 
Was it always done face to face? Because if so, I think I spot a flaw in the Cunning Plan...

Usually upon receipt of an application (literally day 1 because GP's are really slow to respond), the FLU would send out a letter to the GP asking them to check the applicants records for any signs of mentalism, substance abuse or a number of disqualifying illnesses. Equally the letter would include the request to place a marker on their file that they are Firearms holders, so if any symptoms do subsequently appear it can be flagged. The letter even included the text codes to add the marker for the three most common GP's systems in the country.

Responses were usually thus:
Most common: We've received your request, we're going to charge £XX until this is supplied we're not playing ball. Sometimes they'd ask the FLU to pay/organise with the applicant, most of the time they'd send it direct to the applicant. The applicant wouldn't then pay, and so nothing was done. About 1/3 would note they've added the marker to his records.

Second most common response 'We at this practice are contentious objectors and don't believe that fire arms should be in civilian hands, so we refuse to comply.' Well **** you too!

Very very rarely we'd get a response of 'Are you mad! This guy has X, Y,and Z!' Usually this would arrive about a week after his licence had been granted, so the ARV would need to be tasked to visit his address and recover the cert and any guns.

Even rarer we'd get a 'Yup, we've checked his details and all's good'. This last one is so rare I never saw one in a year.
 

Fedaykin

War Hero
Well so much for the consultation that ended today, so much for the views of the Shooting community having any weight upon such decisions especially when you have a Home Secretary that wants to be seen to be doing something regardless of the consequences or practicalities.

I have been pondering this since I last pontificated on the matter and in reality it is going to boil down to 'how much time does licensing have to perform a social media check vs the Google search test'. Put simply your average pressurised FLU worker is going to stick your name into Google and look at what comes up. They are not going to hunt for forums that you are anonymous member of but rather focus on the big three "Facebook, Twitter & Youtube". Now considering that there are many people who have been members of those sites for 15 years all they are going to do is make a quick scan of what they can find. The interesting thing in a legal sense is if they find profiles to be locked down. What scope do they have within the law to ask for access, as the law stands now that would be breaking privacy rules. Now they could change the law but then we get into interesting data protection issues....I think there could be some interesting legal challenges down the line if the Shooting organisations are up to speed. Facebook as a particularly interesting case, the recommendation these days is to have it locked down to family and friends with very restrictive rules and actively delisted from search engines. If you Google search my name my Facebook profile just does not appear...now that leads to an interesting legal issue. The FLU could assume you just don't have one or ask if you do and is it locked down, the law as it currently stands does allow them to demand it be made public...they could change it to force your hand but what is stopping you setting up a second sanitised profile and unlocking that for them.
 
Last edited:
Put simply your average pressurised FLU worker is going to stick your name into Google and look at what comes up.

That won't work. PNC checks use NASCH criteria. Getting some common names means that PNC checks on applicants can take a long time to discount people. So doing that with 1 of 5 criteria is no chance in hell.
 

Fedaykin

War Hero
Of course it won't work but that is the reality of this nonsense! I am actually half expecting them to put a section into the application form next asking you to list what social media accounts you have. Any applicant if they have even half a brain cell will have them well locked down, sanitised or give the details of a clean shell account. It is an absurd exercise. Even if they are given details of live accounts that are not locked down they might have to trawl through thousands of posts or videos. If you are lets for example "Incel inclined" you would purge your accounts of anything noteworthy prior to submitting.
 
Medical checks, and slapping the BMA into line good!

However, there's also some bad there.

Financial checks: What why?

I think the Dunblane killer had serious debts.

It's the kind of stress factor that can push people over the edge, particularly if they feel they have been treated unjustly or are being hounded.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
I think the Dunblane killer had serious debts.

It's the kind of stress factor that can push people over the edge, particularly if they feel they have been treated unjustly or are being hounded.
Oh do fuck off.
Hamilton had far more lunacy in his head than being a few quid short.

The person responsible for the deaths of the children was the Chief Constable who refused to withdraw his boet's FACs.
 
Oh do **** off.
Hamilton had far more lunacy in his head than being a few quid short.

The person responsible for the deaths of the children was the Chief Constable who refused to withdraw his boet's FACs.

I didn't say that Hamilton went on the rampage because he was in debt. Merely that he had debts. Calm yourself...

I did say:

"It's the kind of stress factor that can push people over the edge, particularly if they feel they have been treated unjustly or are being hounded."

That is absolutely true and might explain why Priti Patel is considering financial checks.
 
What: 'I'll pay you £1,000 if you go on a gun wielding rampage!'?

No, I'll pay you £1,000 for / to borrow your legally owned weapon.

Aye. But it'll also mean a large increase in staffing required. And whose paying for the extra admins?

Depends what they do. It probably means: application comes in (with social media names? god knows), reviewer checks facetwat etc. for anything "of interest". Ticks relevant box.
 

Latest Threads

Top