bedwards1966

Yes the police can get a medial report by contacting the applicants GP - the applicant gives them permission to do this. But no, they cannot require the applicant pays, regardless of whether there is anything relevant in that persons history. Correct, there is nothing in the legislation to say who is responsible for supplying a GP's report, which means that a demand by the police for the applicant to pay is unlawful. Do you actually fully understand the term unlawful? Which is? Your posts have actually given the impression that you have stopped trying to change anything with Durham as they're not now acting unlawfully, so what are you doing to try to resolve it? And my other question again? If BASC has been fighting these demands for 5 years, but Durham didn't start this until last year, what was BASC fighting before that?

So, if Durham didn't begin until last year what was BASC fighting for the years before that? My question still remains - what are you doing to stop this? Many people will feel they should include them, even if they notice that they aren't legally required to, as I've said to you before. A great example of how people misunderstand these things has just been demonstrated in the very thread - people reading it that their application could be delayed if they don't send it in, when that isn't the wording used. There will be a lot of people who won't dare to not complete it just in case not doing so does cause a delay or outright refusal, mainly because these people have little understanding of what the law says, and in any event they just want a quiet life even if it costs money. So, what are you doing to stop this? The only thing I keep reading again and again are posts saying just this - why do you bother with them? I've asked BASC straight questions, just because David quotes my post in a reply and mentions something that is vaguely related to the same topic does not mean the question has actually been answered. I've asked the exact same question more than once, yet every response has skirted round it.

That has answered one of the questions, thank you. But what about the question I asked in the post before that, post 366 - http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/283136-fao-basc-medical-reports/page-17?do=findComment&comment=2544137 ? Also, you've 'been fighting compulsory medical tests for over 5 years' - but as it was Durham who initiated all this why did it take until only a few months ago (clearly over 4 years, according to your posts) before BASC actually stopped them from making unlawful demands?

Another question if I may - when did the efforts of BASC stop Durham from making an actual demand for medical reports, altering it to a mere 'request'?

David, I have no difficulty in reading/listening to what little you actually say among the lengthy replies, nor do I have any difficulty in understanding any of it. One force at a time. Durham are sending out a form for applicants to fill out regarding their medical conditions. You are aware of this, what are you doing about it?

Well David, as far as I'm concerned you should be winning a prize for not answering questions. Is BASC doing anything to stop the police from asking for medical reports and/or additional forms where the police have not made any actual demands for them (i.e they are only 'requesting' them)?

This thread is getting silly and veering away from the intended topic. Licencing fees are an issue, but if that is to be discussed please start another thread, and allow this one to concentrate on this particular issue. No, you're still ignoring what I say, and therefor my questions. If the police request anything then many people will comply, out of fear that not doing so may stop them getting granted a certificate. Noticing that it isn't a legal requirement isn't enough to make them not comply - so we're still left with the situation of people paying for reports they shouldn't be paying for. Technically it isn't an actual demand, but it amounts to the same thing for many people. What is BASC doing to stop this? Can I ask two questions at once without you trying to wriggle away? The police cannot demand an applicant to supply a report even if the police are reasonable in wanting to investigate the medical history of that person further - so my question is what is being done to stop that?

Right here, in the very post you have just provided a response to: David BASC, on 20 May 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

No, you ignore things that I post which are inconvenient for you, as is normal for a politician. Is BASC actually interested in doing all it can to help its members, or does it have the same objectives and morals of most politicians? Answer the questions that help them, ignore the rest, and campaign hard to get support without then actually doing what they promise and allegedly stand for? Such as where you ask for information on constabularies who are asking people send in additional medical forms, with the clear implication that you (BASC) will sort it out. Yet you yourself have said that Durham are doing this earlier on in the thread, attempting to show the achievements of BASC. It really does appear that you've stopped fighting them where it isn't clearly unlawful and therefor easy. And despite your constant suggestions to the contrary, it is not lawful for the police to demand a medical report even when there is something declared in the applicants history. Would you like to explain what BASC is doing about that, as all your posts so far seem to be saying that you aren't doing anything about it because they can demand it. They can't, so what are you doing? This is what you said:

I was proud to be a member of BASC, until I discovered what help was actually given to members who have a problem. I then began to look closer at what they are doing to protect shooting overall. The police cannot demand anybody pays. If they want more information it is up to them to get it, not the applicant. The applicant consents to the police doing this, it is not lawful for the police to demand that people supply anything other than the completed application form, regardless of what suspicions the police have, so of course there could be a legal challenge. Then this whole thing would stop dead. So, if you apply for an application/renewal and declare that you have/had a medical condition (it may be from 40 years ago and could be utterly irrelevant to your application) and the police come back and tell you to supply a medical report which you will have to pay for then you don't care that this is unlawful, and nor do you want BASC to stop the police from demanding this? I'm not asking, or even suggesting, that BASC should automatically stand behind any member who applies who has/is suffering from say depression with a blanket policy to support that member to the full, even if it means funding a Court case that can't be won. What I'm trying to find out is what BASC is doing (and will do) to stop members from being given unlawful demands, unreasonable demands, or who run into trouble after following BASC advice. The police cannot make demands for extra information from the applicant, the fact that this will cost the applicant money provides quite a sting and the whole thing is yet another barrier for shooters. This is why I'm trying to find out what is being done to actually stop this before it becomes the norm for every application nationwide. Ah, here's one - you're already aware of it, it's Durham:

Yes, they aren't all demanding you provide additional medical information with every application yet - that would be pushing things a little fast. However, they're starting slowly and it is inevitable that it will become the norm unless challenged. From the posts by Scully it appears that BASC themselves have said this. Scully, spending money fighting this isn't wasting money fighting something that is inevitably going to happen. There isn't anything whatsoever in law that requires the applicant to provide this information so they only way this could become impossible to realistically fight would be if the law changed. HO guidelines and the policy of the police are both trumped by law, which is what a Court would look at if BASC would take a case there. I don't know (well, I could take a guess) why BASC are saying, or at least strongly suggesting, that they won't fight this when there is something in a persons history. Just because the police want medical information on an applicant (which may in itself be perfectly reasonable) they still cannot get that person to provide it at their own expense. Would BASC like to answer why they won't challenge that? And what is BASC doing to stop all forces asking for additional medical information? It may not be unlawful for them to only ask, but it is still not acceptable as it isn't part of the correct application process, it does no good and people still feel that they should complete it, in case it causes them problems if they don't.

Well it seems that nobody has mentioned that this also appears to be taking place in Staffordshire, Surry, Sussex and unsurprisingly, North Yorkshire. Thames Valley, Lancashire, West Mercia and Durham have already been mentioned, though I am doubtful that this is a complete list. If BASC is fighting hard to resolve this issue then I find it hard to believe that they aren't aware of all the forces which are doing this, but in any case, they do know of the ones I've just mentioned as I told them in an e-mail - the one which they didn't want to reply to, causing me to start this thread. Less room to wriggle. With a lack of opposition it is pretty much inevitable that this will become the norm, not just 'voluntary' or a 'pilot' scheme. In any event, as I've already said, few shooters understand the law and frequently believe the police are doing them a favor by granting them a certificate. If they see that they can provide a medical report in support of their application then many will do so, just in case it helps them get a certificate. This is one reason why the whole thing is not appropriate or acceptable.

I think that the people at BASC are either simply unable to see that a legal challenge would stop this dead, and help prevent other issues, or that they may have seen this but BASC is not prepared to actually do it for some other reason. Perhaps BASC is too keen to avoid spending. Perhaps BASC has an agenda that would not tie in well with upsetting some people by making huge waves in the form of legal action. I don't know why BASC is inactive. What I do know though is that a legal challenge would make it rather tricky for the police to continue doing this. Why does BASC say it wouldn't work? To say the police are making money out of this may not be a great way to put it. They are saving money from all this by avoiding paying for medical reports, so it does help them financially. They aren't going to want to drop that as it is helpful to them. It could also be that they are happy to provide extra barriers for shooters, as has been mentioned. Either way, they're doing this because it suits them, not us, and a Judicial review would deal with it. Of course it would work on a national level - the law does not differ depending on which force you are dealing with. Prove that they're not lawful to make these demands in one area and the others would be know that they could be next to face a legal challenge if they continue. YOU (BASC) have allowed this to go unchecked and to spread. It seems that it began with Durham, and the others are following. Stopping it would work in the exact same way. So why won't you?

Perhaps the others are doing nothing, I can think of one organisation who does appear to have a very different attitude to BASC, but I have not asked them what they are doing on this particular issue - I'm not trying to compare the different organisations here. I'm asking 'Britain's largest country shooting organisation' what they are doing about it for the simple reason that they should be in a position to deliver the biggest clout, and they seem to be saying that they're the voice of shooting. What national strategy - asking nicely in the hope they'll stop doing something that is making them a lot of money? As Scully says, you (they) don't have a clue how to solve it. A Judicial review would demonstrate two things to the police - that it is not lawful to make any demands, and more importantly, that they will be opposed if they ever try to do something that is not within the rules. That would not only stop this entire thing dead, it would also be a brilliant approach to keeping them in check overall. They will continue to push until they meet actual resistance, ignoring those stood at the side making polite noises hoping they'll stop and listen. Scully's post gives a great way of viewing these 'experts'. I don't think they know what to do, or if they do it appears that BASC don't have the backbone and commitment to actually do it. Is there no interest in protecting your members, or is there too much fear of making waves? So this means that one of two things will happen: People see the letter and ignore it - so why is our money wasted printing them off at all? People see the letter and, even if they notice that they aren't legally required to supply everything (not all shooters are the most observant of folk when it comes to paperwork), they probably still won't be happy not to send it in the fear that it'll delay their application or result in a no. Many people are of the view that they're almost lucky if the police grant an application, not understanding that the police must grant if certain conditions are met. Are these people really going to refuse to complete it, just in case it does cause difficulties? I'll agree that BASC may have achieved something - stopping Durham from making an actual demand - but the gains from this are limited and, more importantly, this is not the point at which you can sit back and tell the world you've solved it. So why aren't you challenging this type of action in such a way that would leave the police knowing that they cannot push the boundaries? This could be a great opportunity to show that shooters will stand their ground.

BASC, I asked you what you are doing to sort this problem out (beyond lobbying and holding meetings which, on this particular issue, can do very little to help). Your reply asked what more could be done, with an implication that there is nothing else available. I answered, pointing out that a legal challenge would stop this. You've gone very quiet, so I'll ask again - what are you doing to tackle this issue in order to prevent the police from continuing with these unlawful demands?