GP's letter to licensing

[bostonmick]

there just driving another nail in our coffin.and we will let them get away with it,

 

have you wrote to basc as a member and asked what they propose to do other than just say don't do it?

[phaedra1106]

David (BASC) posted this on the other thread,

 

 

"This extra letter and process 'required' by Durham is not covered under the Act or the latest HO guidance. It is our understanding that this is a voluntary scheme, but this is blatantly missed off the letter that's being sent out.

 

Its our understanding that the constabulary could delay / resist an application if the form is not filled out , this is obviously wrong if its a voluntary system but as I said, if any member has experienced this problem let us know and we will do all we can to help.

 

Similarly if any member checks with their FEO about filling in the form and is told that by failing to do so will delay or stop their application, again let us know and we will do all we can to help.

 

If any member has filled in the form and thus incurred a cost, let us know.

 

We continue to take this mater up with the constabulary and as soon as we have more news we will, of course, let you know.

 

David"

 

 

BASC have not said anything definitive on whether to fill it in or not at the time of application, the only thing they have said is ""we're not saying not to fill it in" which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

The other thread is here, http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/262618-attn-david-basc-durham-medical-info-proceedure/

Edited November 23, 2013 by phaedra1106

[bostonmick]

David (BASC) posted this on the other thread,

 

 

"This extra letter and process 'required' by Durham is not covered under the Act or the latest HO guidance. It is our understanding that this is a voluntary scheme, but this is blatantly missed off the letter that's being sent out.

 

Its our understanding that the constabulary could delay / resist an application if the form is not filled out , this is obviously wrong if its a voluntary system but as I said, if any member has experienced this problem let us know and we will do all we can to help.

 

Similarly if any member checks with their FEO about filling in the form and is told that by failing to do so will delay or stop their application, again let us know and we will do all we can to help.

 

If any member has filled in the form and thus incurred a cost, let us know.

 

We continue to take this mater up with the constabulary and as soon as we have more news we will, of course, let you know.

 

David"

 

 

BASC have not said anything definitive on whether to fill it in or not at the time of application, the only thing they have said is ""we're not saying not to fill it in" which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

The other thread is here, http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/262618-attn-david-basc-durham-medical-info-proceedure/

 

That's what you pays your money for.however if you discontinue the membership it will more than pay for the doctors letter

[Scully]

E-mailed BASC earlier today and was phoned back within an hour.

Nothing definitive to report I'm afraid, which is more than a little disappointing, but work is ongoing to combat this requirement which is not a legal requirement and therefore we should not comply as there is a risk if applicants comply that this requirement could be rolled out on a national level. This again is something we need to be told of on a national level, rather than as individuals,as there will be some worried about the implications of non compliance, especially first time applicants. Those under Durhams authority( which started this) should ring BASCs 'firearms' number which is available on the BASC website.

While it is good to know that 'something' is ongoing I mentioned that there is a distinct lack of information forthcoming which is rather unsettling.

Personally, unless its a legal requirement then I fail to see why this is causing so much reluctance to open up regarding this matter.

On the whole I'm a bit disappointed to be honest, but haven't heard a peep from any of the other orgs, except one person who said their CPSA rep' had advised them to comply lest it hold up their application.

[Luckyshot]

E-mailed BASC earlier today and was phoned back within an hour.

Nothing definitive to report I'm afraid, which is more than a little disappointing, but work is ongoing to combat this requirement which is not a legal requirement and therefore we should not comply as there is a risk if applicants comply that this requirement could be rolled out on a national level. This again is something we need to be told of on a national level, rather than as individuals,as there will be some worried about the implications of non compliance, especially first time applicants. Those under Durhams authority( which started this) should ring BASCs 'firearms' number which is available on the BASC website.

While it is good to know that 'something' is ongoing I mentioned that there is a distinct lack of information forthcoming which is rather unsettling.

Personally, unless its a legal requirement then I fail to see why this is causing so much reluctance to open up regarding this matter.

On the whole I'm a bit disappointed to be honest, but haven't heard a peep from any of the other orgs, except one person who said their CPSA rep' had advised them to comply lest it hold up their application.

 

I wouldn't bother wasting your time as they are obviously not bothered in doing anything about this. I'm not a basc member (anymore) so I couldn't phone anyway but I have refused to fill my form in, what difference would basc make ? **** all.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Luckyshot

[JonathanL]

After all the huffing and puffing on here it would seem to me that all they are asking you to do is get your doctor to confirm that what you have put on the form is correct and true.on the subject of whether you are fit to hold a firearm well people anyone can object to that if they think they have reason perhaps a vengeful ex or a neighbour you had a argument with the only difference is a small charge to the go.i am a member of cpsa and have written to ask not what I should do but what they are doing as yet no reply.and also to all those complaining about our organisations and are they doing anything they are only yours if you actually pay into them.forum ranting will do nothing to protect our sport.

 

 

Money talks bull---t walks.

 

No, what they are trying to do is to get you to hand over more money than the lawfully mandated grant/renewal fee. They are trying to get you to pay for something which Parliament says you do not have to. The fee is £50. The fee is not £50 plus whatever your doctor charges. If the police want to check something with your doctor then they have all the authority they need via the bit you haver signed on the official application form. That is ample and lasts the term of the certificate.

 

The police can say to your doctor "does this person have epilepsy or has he ever had problems with alcohol or drugs" which is what you have to declare on the form. They do not need another piece of paper and a report paid for by you to find this out.

 

If we accpet this then what are the police going to want to do next? Will they want a report from your employer - that you have to pay for? Will they decide that they want to personally interview your referees which you will have to pay for?

 

As I have said may times. The forms have only just changed - the new ones haven't even come in yet. If the home office wanted to include this additional doctors report form then they would have. They didn't - has it never occured to you why, given that this is the current 'hot topic' in firearms licening matters? It is most probably because it is an unwarranted breach of your Article 8 rights. Also - it won't address any current problems!

 

J.

[CharlieT]

 

 

As I have said may times. The forms have only just changed - the new ones haven't even come in yet. If the home office wanted to include this additional doctors report form then they would have. They didn't - has it never occured to you why, given that this is the current 'hot topic' in firearms licening matters? It is most probably because it is an unwarranted breach of your Article 8 rights. Also - it won't address any current problems!

 

J.

 

I have a horrid feeling that increasing fees via the back door will become the norm unless the situation is addressed now.

 

With the likes of G4S now running firearms licensing in Lincolnshire and the prospect that other counties will follow, there will be even more pressure on budgets resulting in both the police and G4S looking for ways to increase income.

 

Just wait till G4S have some input into policy, then you really will see fees for interviewing referees and the like !

 

Hardly instills confidence when G4S were advertising for part time FEO's at around the minimum wage.

[Scully]

 

I wouldn't bother wasting your time as they are obviously not bothered in doing anything about this. I'm not a basc member (anymore) so I couldn't phone anyway but I have refused to fill my form in, what difference would basc make ? **** all.

I know exactly how you feel, and as frustrated and angry as I get about the ineptitiude of some of our organisations at times, I still think that if we all did as you have done (although I applaud you for making a stand on your own) then we would have no representative voice in Westminster, which would be disastrous for shooters on the whole. We are a fractured and bickering lot and wouldn't last five minutes as an unrepresented group of individuals faced with a determined government or media led lobby. We have lost many aspects of countrysports even WITH representation, and although I cannot express politely on this forum my exact feelings towards those responsible, I think a disjointed representation is better than none at all.

Bostonmick is scathing in some of his posts regarding the small numbers of shooters being members but then states that the cost of a GP's medical report would leave change from the cost of representative membership! We're ****** basically, unless we make a stand, and we need the support of our organisations. It is more than annoying that the VOICE of shooting appears to have again come down with laryngitis.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Scully

[bostonmick]

I do not believe I am scathing in anything I have said I believe that if for nothing other than the insurance anybody who uses a firearm of any kind should be enrolled and being in an organisation is one of the most cost effective.it would also have a spin off that if or org's were larger in numbers we would have a voice.government departments ie police.home office.do not listen to lone voices..

[Scully]

I do not believe I am scathing in anything I have said I believe that if for nothing other than the insurance anybody who uses a firearm of any kind should be enrolled and being in an organisation is one of the most cost effective.it would also have a spin off that if or org's were larger in numbers we would have a voice.government departments ie police.home office.do not listen to lone voices..

You have claimed that most shooters are not members of shooting organisations and that the CPSA are too busy ensuring jobs for life rather than advising its members...hardly compliments.

 

That's what you pays your money for.however if you discontinue the membership it will more than pay for the doctors letter

Is this not implying that it would be cheaper to cancel representation (and thereby your insurance) and pay for a GP's written medical report? Is this merely a statement or are you giving advice? As you have made clear you are in favour of paying for a GP's report on your medical record, I can only think it must be the latter, which in turn would appear to contradict much of what you have said in previous posts, including the top one above.

You go ahead and pay for your report. I wont be until if or when it becomes compulsory.

[Luckyshot]

I know exactly how you feel, and as frustrated and angry as I get about the ineptitiude of some of our organisations at times, I still think that if we all did as you have done (although I applaud you for making a stand on your own) then we would have no representative voice in Westminster, which would be disastrous for shooters on the whole. We are a fractured and bickering lot and wouldn't last five minutes as an unrepresented group of individuals faced with a determined government or media led lobby. We have lost many aspects of countrysports even WITH representation, and although I cannot express politely on this forum my exact feelings towards those responsible, I think a disjointed representation is better than none at all.

Bostonmick is scathing in some of his posts regarding the small numbers of shooters being members but then states that the cost of a GP's medical report would leave change from the cost of representative membership! We're ****** basically, unless we make a stand, and we need the support of our organisations. It is more than annoying that the VOICE of shooting appears to have again come down with laryngitis.

 

I personally think basc do a good job representing shooting but if they dont help out the tom **** and harrys of the world they aint going to be any shooters left. They need to get back to basics and start helping out those that are in need of there help not just lobbying all the time wasting time/money on such thing as changing the application forms etc.

[bostonmick]

just to make it clearer (hopefully) I would pay for the doctors fee IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL,i would pay £200.00 each renewal IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL..i pay my cpsa money each year IN THE HOPE THEY WILL REPRESENT MY INTERESTS IN SHOOTING.i used my vote a little while back to object to the articles only a few hundred bothered.i dare say if you checked back at the basc issues that have been voted you would find a similar story.the police are a public service and like all others have been told to cut costs so I guess this is one angle they are looking at or do we have the right to be excluded from public cuts.whatever the rights and wrongs of this subject I doubt a resolution is to be found among the lines of pigeon watch.i respect your right to deal with your renewals in whichever way you see fit so please extend me the same.

[Dekers]

just to make it clearer (hopefully) I would pay for the doctors fee IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL,i would pay £200.00 each renewal IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL..i pay my cpsa money each year IN THE HOPE THEY WILL REPRESENT MY INTERESTS IN SHOOTING.i used my vote a little while back to object to the articles only a few hundred bothered.i dare say if you checked back at the basc issues that have been voted you would find a similar story.the police are a public service and like all others have been told to cut costs so I guess this is one angle they are looking at or do we have the right to be excluded from public cuts.whatever the rights and wrongs of this subject I doubt a resolution is to be found among the lines of pigeon watch.i respect your right to deal with your renewals in whichever way you see fit so please extend me the same.

 

What on earth are you talking about, what is the problem with your renewal time and what grief does that cause you?

 

My region strongly suggest 60 days in advance of expiry, so I apply in a timely manner, and at my last renewal my new FAC/SGC Coterminus actually turned up just over a month early (yeah, I was surprised).

 

Why on earth do I/should I want to pay extra for a speedier renewal?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Dekers

[CharlieT]

just to make it clearer (hopefully) I would pay for the doctors fee IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL,i would pay £200.00 each renewal IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL..i pay my cpsa money each year IN THE HOPE THEY WILL REPRESENT MY INTERESTS IN SHOOTING.i used my vote a little while back to object to the articles only a few hundred bothered.i dare say if you checked back at the basc issues that have been voted you would find a similar story.the police are a public service and like all others have been told to cut costs so I guess this is one angle they are looking at or do we have the right to be excluded from public cuts.whatever the rights and wrongs of this subject I doubt a resolution is to be found among the lines of pigeon watch.i respect your right to deal with your renewals in whichever way you see fit so please extend me the same.

 

Yes, brilliant idea. Lets have a two tier system, one for the plebes and a deluxe service for those of us fortunate enough to afford it.

 

A truly altruistic idea.

[bostonmick]

are you truly saying that the fee for sgc is on the limit that you can afford for five years,your gas and electricity bills are going up by around 100 per year.petrol/diesel cost goes up on a monthly basis.food costs going through the roof.vat went up by 2.5% on everything you buy £2.50 extra for every £100 you spend throughout the year.so the cost of a five year renewal is to much at £8 per year.also when you book a plane ticket or holiday hire a car set up your sky tv account are you not offered a upgrade on all of these yet do you reel back in horror.there are no plebs as you call it there is personal choice however i do not have sky do not smoke do not drink ride a push bike most of the time burn logs on an open fire instead of use gas you see i choose what i spend my limited funds on as do you. my priority's are just different to yours that's all.the cost of a portion of chips went up by 30 pence in my village now if i have a bag once a week this is a rise of £15 per year.so now does that mean only the rich will eat chips.we can all i am sure look at our neighbours and say look at what they have wasted their money on but as i say personal choice nothing else.do you not have friends that maybe drive a bigger car than you live in a bigger house.use a more expensive gun or cartridge than you,

Edited November 24, 2013 by bostonmick

[Scully]

just to make it clearer (hopefully) I would pay for the doctors fee IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL,i would pay £200.00 each renewal IF IT MEANT A SPEEDIER RENEWAL..i pay my cpsa money each year IN THE HOPE THEY WILL REPRESENT MY INTERESTS IN SHOOTING.i used my vote a little while back to object to the articles only a few hundred bothered.i dare say if you checked back at the basc issues that have been voted you would find a similar story.the police are a public service and like all others have been told to cut costs so I guess this is one angle they are looking at or do we have the right to be excluded from public cuts.whatever the rights and wrongs of this subject I doubt a resolution is to be found among the lines of pigeon watch.i respect your right to deal with your renewals in whichever way you see fit so please extend me the same.

Your points are perfectly clear, but you appear to be obsessed with money, which isn't the issue here; it is the principle of the matter. The authorties (in this instance the Police) are acting above and beyond what is legally required. You don't seem to be able to understand so I'll try to make it clearer for you.....there is NO requirement in the firearms act NOR from the Home Office for this additional information. All the information the HO deems necessary for an application to be processed is already in the hands of the Police. Durham licensing claim it is a trial on a voluntary basis but the wording on the additional form as printed is worded to give the impression it is a legal requirement. It isn't.

You obviously have no objection to this underhanded and misleading practice, but as you say, it is your choice to deal with it as you see fit. Meanwhile, others will fight for what is right.

[bostonmick]

if you knew me you would know obsessed with money i would not be shooting if that was the case people who are obsessed with anything usually have loads of that item and i can assure you i don't.if durham police are doing this then do not believe it is not with the full knowledge and agreement of the home office with the press the police get these days they would not chance their arm alone.as some have said it is a right of people in this country to have a sgc subject to certain conditions how is it that doctors are not compelled to answer police requests for information.i am at my doctors soon for a blood test routine thing and while i am there i will ask if i am allowed access to my medical records and if i could get a copy if i wanted in which case if it were free would you object to getting this and sending it in with your renewal,this would give the police all the knowledge they could ever want.be sure that if a couple of forces are trialling this for six months within a year it will be the norm.apart from i am going to refuse i have heard nothing constructive on this or any forum and nothing from our organisations.

[_martin_]

Started reading the thread but found it dragging on.

 

As bostonmick rightly stated he had to have a medical to drive HGV OR LGV what ever you want to call it.

Cant see what the hell that has to do with gun ownership and any additional cost the police are attempting to put in place.

 

I had my 1st medical when I was 21, cost me less that a SG certificate. Now that medical covered me for the next 24 years. By then I could be total wreak

After 45 you need a medical every 5 years. That medical is based mainly on your physical well being. Yes you have to pay for your medical but your actual occupation relies on driving which in turn earns you a decent wage and permits you to drive on the public highways. If again you work for a company then its normally the company that covers medicals.

 

 

As a heating engineer I have to pay to work on gas, lpg, and oil. ( Every ****** want his cut) Although I don't agree with the cost of these certificates, it makes me a wage.

 

 

To me and 1000's of others shooting is a pastime and cant see why we have to pay any more than need be to participate in a pastime. Most of us don't make a living out of it.

Understandably there are the fortunate ones that make a living out of shooting, but nowhere near what earnings that some trades can make.

 

If the Home Office does not require a doctor to produce a note then so be it. But if the police decide to ignore the guidelines let them pay for it.

Even if the cost of running a fire arms department is more than their income they all ways find ways of making up for the shortfall else where. HGV drivers a good example

[bostonmick]

I am sure your customers pay for your trade fee in the charges you make to them however those who do not use your services do not pay for it.and why should those who enjoy a pastime pay for it when there are plenty of others who I am sure would have no objection to doing so.if yours or any other business needs a certain amount of income to function then that would be funded from the people who use it directly (customers) otherwise it would cease to exist.my medical is done in the name of public safety and I pay for it. the firearms departments are run for public safety reasons do I see a pattern.

Edited November 25, 2013 by bostonmick

[Kes]

Obviously not, as most people have a view diametrically opposed to yours but you carry on.

There are plenty of people, as we pass through the baby boomers who will find it hard to pay for medicals on fixed incomes and make the obvious choice of body and soul.

People who share your views should pay for medical assistance, etc etc - since you COULD afford it, if YOU THINK its more important. I dare say your costs would rise quite alarmingly if there wasnt a quiet majority arguing in you interests.

[_martin_]

bostonmick

 

For your information my registration fees are ALSO done in the name of public safety and I pay for it. But just like your costs. IT MAKES US A WAGE.

 

Being stuck in your cab all day seems to let your thoughts work overtime. Look at the bigger picture because your irrational suggestions can effect some less fortunate than yourself. There are many gun owners shooting on a very tight budget and at the moment enjoying it. We cant all justify spending £800 a month on shooting.

 

If you think your receiving an excellent service off your FA dept, that's good to hear. The bigger picture tends to show things in a different prospective.

 

What you don't seem to be able to absorb is the majority of gun owners are not happy with the service they receive.

 

Have a nice day and drive safely, and watch out for cash making speed cameras.

[bostonmick]

sorry I forgot to mention I no longer drive my truck for a living you see I am semi retired I spent years living in my cab washing in any service station I could eating rubbish food to make a living I went without a lot of the things others take for granted my choice and now I reap the benefits,however I also reaped the benefits of no settled home life for many years and almost bankrupt a couple of times.also I have been abroad working and fell ill and in those days you could not call on Europe to pay the doctors and hospitals so please do not tell me about expenses.i spend what I earned and saved over many years on shooting without taking anything away from others.i have also never heard the quiet majority say anything.

[JonathanL]

I am sure your customers pay for your trade fee in the charges you make to them however those who do not use your services do not pay for it.and why should those who enjoy a pastime pay for it when there are plenty of others who I am sure would have no objection to doing so.if yours or any other business needs a certain amount of income to function then that would be funded from the people who use it directly (customers) otherwise it would cease to exist.my medical is done in the name of public safety and I pay for it. the firearms departments are run for public safety reasons do I see a pattern.

 

You aren't comparing the same things though. If you want to compare an HGV driver and an RFD I would tend to agree with you more.

 

Besides, you are really missing the main point here; the law requires a medical to drive an HGV - DVLA or VOSA can't simply decide that they are going to invent various different new forms of checks and require that you pay for them. This is precisely what the police are doing. If the police want this then they should lobby the governement to make it law. Oh.....wait a minute - they just have recently done that and the resposnse from the governmenent ended in "off"!

 

J.

[bostonmick]

I do not understand what you mean what has a rfd (firearms dealer) got to do with this.all this started with regard to the gp information and the cost of getting it.in the spirit of freedom of choice I said I would supply this if it meant faster turnaround.and pay for it.we are supposed to live in a free society but it seems not on pw.i will throw another thing in the mix as this payment thing has been done to death and back when I had my inspection for the house I am in the fao asked that I fitted an alarm to the house not because of the area anyway this I did and today a couple of years later I have had the system upgraded as with all technology it is obsolete before its fitted,anyway how would you all go on if asked to do the same as the alarm has cost me just over 1k and no its not an all singing system and another thing is for insurance purposes is that it is a yearly serviced unit and done by a registered security company.this is a cost to you and they are entitled to request this.

Edited November 25, 2013 by bostonmick

[JonathanL]

I do not understand what you mean what has a rfd (firearms dealer) got to do with this.

 

 

The point being that both are carried out for trade purposes. It is a different argument if you want to engage in something for business purposes. You are doing it with a view to profit so there may be different justifications as to why you should be charged a fee to do it.

 

The other point was that none of the organisations which license or control professional activites via licensing get to make up their own rules and enforce them as though they had the force of law. Why should the police?

 

 

 

all this started with regard to the gp information and the cost of getting it.in the spirit of freedom of choice I said I would supply this if it meant faster turnaround.and pay for it.we are supposed to live in a free society but it seems not on pw.

 

 

No one is sugesting that you cannot hold whatever views you like nor that you should be prevented from airing them. What people are saying is that they find your views rather objectionable and that perhaps you would like to re-think them. People do not agree that there should be a two tier system as you suggest.

 

 

i will throw another thing in the mix as this payment thing has been done to death and back when I had my inspection for the house I am in the fao asked that I fitted an alarm to the house not because of the area anyway this I did and today a couple of years later I have had the system upgraded as with all technology it is obsolete before its fitted,anyway how would you all go on if asked to do the same as the alarm has cost me just over 1k and no its not an all singing system and another thing is for insurance purposes is that it is a yearly serviced unit and done by a registered security company.this is a cost to you and they are entitled to request this.

 

 

 

 

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the system works. The police are not simply 'entitled' to ask you to do or install anything. They have a duty to make decisions based upon the facts of the individual case. If there is no real need to install an alarm then they are not entitled to require one.

 

J.

Edited November 25, 2013 by JonathanL