GP's letter to licensing

[Luckyshot]

I take it luckyshot that you have not bothered to look on the BASC firearms page or the BASC northern regional page where there is more up to date information as I advised earlier - you seem determined to ignore my help, well that's your prerogative.

 

Honestly, your continued little pops at BASC is getting a bit tiresome, perhaps your time and energy would be better spent getting the association who you pay a subscription to, to get their web site more up to date about what the are doing about this issue...

 

Yes I have looked at the firearms page and yes your information has been updated what I was getting at is that when you search for information on this only the old information comes up in the search not the updated version. I take your point on the association Im a member of they have done nothing about it as far as I can see but lucky I don't mind putting my **** on the line to get what I and others deserve. Im with my association for the insurance and that's it, I understand you cant rely on shooting organisations to do everything for you but when it comes to a legal matter I would expect all the organisations to do something about it.

[Luckyshot]

can you tell me exactly what information they asked for from the doctor on the form

 

From my firearms team they want my doctor to cover there **** if I suddenly do something like Atherton, Bird etc. You cannot put a doctor on the spot like that especially when you haven't even visited him in the last 10+ years.

[bostonmick]

From my firearms team they want my doctor to cover there **** if I suddenly do something like Atherton, Bird etc. You cannot put a doctor on the spot like that especially when you haven't even visited him in the last 10+ years.

do you mean they asked if in his opinion there were any medical reasons that he thought could prejudice your fitness to possess a firearm.if that is all i can see nothing wrong in that its no more than asking your mate down the road to sign as ref for you and say they consider you a fit and proper person.i wonder how far away from the day we are when if someone did get injured in a crime involving a legally held firearm and that person or their family sued the police for granting that cert.we live in a massive blame and compo culture the police may just want to cover themselves as far as possible in anticipation of this ever happening.

[pat g]

Many doctors surgery's have a constant trail of Locum doctors that seem to cover for the resident doctors whose practice it is. In situations like this how can they pass judgement on someone applying for a SGC or FAC. The days of actually seeing what was once "the family doctor" are vanishing.

And as Luckyshot quite rightly points out what about someone who has'nt even had the need to visit the doctors in 10+ years.

Another absolute farce

[bull dog]

Many doctors surgery's have a constant trail of Locum doctors that seem to cover for the resident doctors whose practice it is. In situations like this how can they pass judgement on someone applying for a SGC or FAC. The days of actually seeing what was once "the family doctor" are vanishing.

And as Luckyshot quite rightly points out what about someone who has'nt even had the need to visit the doctors in 10+ years.

Another absolute farce

[THE MEK]

I cant really remember as it was september when i handed in the forms but i think its along the lines of my doctors opinion of the suitability of me to hold a firearms/SGC

In my eyes its just another way of Durham passing on the cost of obtaining information from GPs

Cant do much about it now as im away back offshore tonight,complete shambles!!

[bull dog]

I'm in that very same position right now all because I was set up to fail by the police it's an absolute farce and laughable . How can you prove you r not going to turn into bird or moat or any of the others past is past you can't change it

[bull dog]

I cant really remember as it was september when i handed in the forms but i think its along the lines of my doctors opinion of the suitability of me to hold a firearms/SGC

In my eyes its just another way of Durham passing on the cost of obtaining information from GPs

Cant do much about it now as im away back offshore tonight,complete shambles!!

your doctors opinion can not influence the end result that is H M O guide to the GMC the final decision lies with the chief constable

[bostonmick]

Many doctors surgery's have a constant trail of Locum doctors that seem to cover for the resident doctors whose practice it is. In situations like this how can they pass judgement on someone applying for a SGC or FAC. The days of actually seeing what was once "the family doctor" are vanishing.

And as Luckyshot quite rightly points out what about someone who has'nt even had the need to visit the doctors in 10+ years.

Another absolute farce

then in that case i would say all the doctor could honestly say is as far as he is aware there is no medical reason for you not to hold a firearm.jobs a good un

Edited December 9, 2013 by bostonmick

[bull dog]

then in that case i would say all the doctor could honestly say is as far as he is aware there is no medical reason for you not to hold a firearm.jobs a good un

that is all you need to do mate and I'm doing just that because that it is that is required in law and that is what my legal team have told me to do

[bostonmick]

your doctors opinion can not influence the end result that is H M O guide to the GMC the final decision lies with the chief constable

i think if the doctor said you were being treated for severe depression or other mentally related illness like self harm it may have a little influence.but they have always had the right to check with your gp this is just a cheaper way for them to do it.it will in time sort itself out.

[bull dog]

i think if the doctor said you were being treated for severe depression or other mentally related illness like self harm it may have a little influence.but they have always had the right to check with your gp this is just a cheaper way for them to do it.it will in time sort itself out.

i correct my last statement I'm talking past Aaa in 25yrs ago and no longer receiving treatment and you r correct if you r in treatment currently then you will b revoked but past is past and should b left there but I do agree if your GP is treating you for mental health he should inform the correct authority of this and if you drive DLVA should also b told surely a car or even worse a artic lorry is as leathal as any gun

[phaedra1106]

your doctors opinion can not influence the end result that is H M O guide to the GMC the final decision lies with the chief constable

Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

My 23yr old son has Aspergers Syndrome, a mild form of Autism. Three years ago we went to see our GP (head of practice) he agreed there was no reason he could see why my son shouldn't apply for an SGC (he had been shooting for almost 4 years at the time). Eventually after chasing the firearms department to find out what was happening they suggested I get a copy of the GPs letter. It was complete and utter ***** . Another GP at the surgery wrote the letter, he didn't know my son at all (only ever saw him for an ingrowing toenail when he was about 9 or 10), didn't know anything about Aspergers Syndrome, mis-quoted NHS reports and said that in his opinion my son shouldn't be granted a license. Durham were very good about it and said they could see the letter was **** but with it on file there was no way he'd be granted anything.

 

Three years of trying to sort this out he's finally re-applied for both his SGC and FAC, we now have a report from a consultant psychiatrist which presents an accurate picture of him, FEO's visit went perfectly (as did the previous one) and we're now waiting for the result. In those three years we couldn't get anyone to do anything about the GP responsible for the letter, PALS, the GMC and the NHS Trust all said it was a personal matter between my son and the GP and couldn't get involved, even the head of the practice lied and said we'd never had a meeting about the application!.

Edited December 9, 2013 by phaedra1106

[JonathanL]

do you mean they asked if in his opinion there were any medical reasons that he thought could prejudice your fitness to possess a firearm.if that is all i can see nothing wrong in that its no more than asking your mate down the road to sign as ref for you and say they consider you a fit and proper person.

You're having a laugh here. Seriously, you are, aren't you?

 

The police should NOT be asking your GP to offer an opinion on such things and, from a professional standpoint, your GP should not be giving it as he is almost certainly not in a position to do so. Moreover, the authority you sign on the application form neither gives them persmission to ask that of your GP nor of him to express such an opinion.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

In my eyes its just another way of Durham passing on the cost of obtaining information from GPs

And that is precisely the point! Durham want to obtain information from GP's as a matter of course (where they didn't previously) but don't want to have to pay for it.

 

They need to be told where to go with that idea.

 

I have said on many previous occasions; if additional doctors forms are to be made a requirement then they should be specified in the firearms rules in the same way in which the official application forms are. There has literally only just been an opportunity for the home office to do that as they have only just just issued new rules (in effect 9 days ago) to impliment the new forms. If they felt that an additional doctor's form was justified then they were perfectly entitled to add one to the official set of forms. They did not which tells you everything you need to know!

 

Given that doctors reports are current hot topic as far as firearms goes it seems pretty unlikely that they simply didn't consider an additional form. From that it is reasonable to conclude that the home office had very good reasons for not including such forms. Probably because they are overly intrusive and won't serve any useful purpose.

 

J.

[pat g]

Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

My 23yr old son has Aspergers Syndrome, a mild form of Autism. Three years ago we went to see our GP (head of practice) he agreed there was no reason he could see why my son shouldn't apply for an SGC (he had been shooting for almost 4 years at the time). Eventually after chasing the firearms department to find out what was happening they suggested I get a copy of the GPs letter. It was complete and utter ***** . Another GP at the surgery wrote the letter, he didn't know my son at all (only ever saw him for an ingrowing toenail when he was about 9 or 10), didn't know anything about Aspergers Syndrome, mis-quoted NHS reports and said that in his opinion my son shouldn't be granted a license. Durham were very good about it and said they could see the letter was **** but with it on file there was no way he'd be granted anything.

 

Three years of trying to sort this out he's finally re-applied for both his SGC and FAC, we now have a report from a consultant psychiatrist which presents an accurate picture of him, FEO's visit went perfectly (as did the previous one) and we're now waiting for the result. In those three years we couldn't get anyone to do anything about the GP responsible for the letter, PALS, the GMC and the NHS Trust all said it was a personal matter between my son and the GP and couldn't get involved, even the head of the practice lied and said we'd never had a meeting about the application!.

And here are examples of the points i was trying to make in my earlier post. A case of where a doctor does'nt know a patient or who hasn'nt seen a patient in years or a Locum doctor that does'nt know the individual and will quite probably never get the opportunity to know him. A GP (general practioner ) is just that. He is not an expert in every field,

ATB,

Pat

[bull dog]

And here are examples of the points i was trying to make in my earlier post. A case of where a doctor does'nt know a patient or who hasn'nt seen a patient in years or a Locum doctor that does'nt know the individual and will quite probably never get the opportunity to know him. A GP (general practioner ) is just that. He is not an expert in every field,

ATB, that is exactly the point I have had this discussion with the police and the GP I'm sure all of us have ticked the boxes on the applications and signed to give permission for a enquiry to b taken up but it seems now it is our responsibility to do the job for them but as said many times before on this post it all comes down to budgets and will be mandertry wether we like it or not and if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to worry about

ATVB

Pat

[bull dog]

 

And here are examples of the points i was trying to make in my earlier post. A case of where a doctor does'nt know a patient or who hasn'nt seen a patient in years or a Locum doctor that does'nt know the individual and will quite probably never get the opportunity to know him. A GP (general practioner ) is just that. He is not an expert in every field,

ATB, that is exactly the point I have had this discussion with the police and the GP I'm sure all of us have ticked the boxes on the applications and signed to give permission for a enquiry to b taken up but it seems now it is our responsibility to do the job for them but as said many times before on this post it all comes down to budgets and will be mandertry wether we like it or not and if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to worry about

ATVB

Pat

sorry pat I seem to have raged onto the last post you made

[bostonmick]

You're having a laugh here. Seriously, you are, aren't you?

 

The police should NOT be asking your GP to offer an opinion on such things and, from a professional standpoint, your GP should not be giving it as he is almost certainly not in a position to do so. Moreover, the authority you sign on the application form neither gives them persmission to ask that of your GP nor of him to express such an opinion.

 

J.

Well once again allow me to say you are correct in everything you say.perhaps you would be so kind as to educate us lesser mortals where are the police to gain information on which to base their decision or perhaps in your opinion the general public have no rights to expect any level of protection.maybe they should only take the word of the applicant after all its bound to be absolute truth.or maybe the controls of firearms should be abolished and guns be freely availabe to all from say the supermarket shelfs.as is the case that around 75% of medical treatment given in this country is done by your gp and without being referred to any other hospital or specialist where would you suggest medical opinions are obtained.it is not a perfect system nobody is claiming that.someone has to sign off your cert to say they are satisfied that you are a fit and proper person so are they not to be allowed to cover themselves by seeking advice.in answer to your first line YES I am serious.

[bull dog]

Well once again allow me to say you are correct in everything you say.perhaps you would be so kind as to educate us lesser mortals where are the police to gain information on which to base their decision or perhaps in your opinion the general public have no rights to expect any level of protection.maybe they should only take the word of the applicant after all its bound to be absolute truth.or maybe the controls of firearms should be abolished and guns be freely availabe to all from say the supermarket shelfs.as is the case that around 75% of medical treatment given in this country is done by your gp and without being referred to any other hospital or specialist where would you suggest medical opinions are obtained.it is not a perfect system nobody is claiming that.someone has to sign off your cert to say they are satisfied that you are a fit and proper person so are they not to be allowed to cover themselves by seeking advice.in answer to your first line YES I am serious.

When I first made my application I was told there r stringent checks made of our back grounds and we should fill out the application open and honestly I've already gone through this some time back and the whole matter was resolved and my tickets returned.Now I find myself facing the same thing all over again because a FEO didn't do his job and either deliberately or made a genuin mistake I am now facing this all over again the police have assured me this will b the end of this for once and for all and it will be a quick enquiry so here is hoping and at the end of the day they have got a duty of care to the public it is just a minor i glitch to myself and I have no problem with cooperating with them while they carry out their enquiry ATVB

[CharlieT]

Well once again allow me to say you are correct in everything you say.perhaps you would be so kind as to educate us lesser mortals where are the police to gain information on which to base their decision or perhaps in your opinion the general public have no rights to expect any level of protection.maybe they should only take the word of the applicant after all its bound to be absolute truth.or maybe the controls of firearms should be abolished and guns be freely availabe to all from say the supermarket shelfs.as is the case that around 75% of medical treatment given in this country is done by your gp and without being referred to any other hospital or specialist where would you suggest medical opinions are obtained.it is not a perfect system nobody is claiming that.someone has to sign off your cert to say they are satisfied that you are a fit and proper person so are they not to be allowed to cover themselves by seeking advice.in answer to your first line YES I am serious.

 

Mick

 

All of that of which you wish is already part of the licensing process.

 

Just remember that following several years of deliberation and consultation between ACPO and the BMA they have recently agreed to and implemented a procedure where licensing managers write to and advise GP's of every application/renewal. This information is flagged up on patient records and GP's are requested to advise licensing of any medical issue giving rise for concern.

 

This together with the applicant's medical declaration on form 101 together with him authorising the police to approach his GP covers all bases.

Had ACPO and the HO, bearing in mind the past two or three years they have just spent discussing the issue, thought that the Durham way was the way forward I am sure they would have implemented it. However, it adds nothing to that which is already in place, in fact the current regime is far more robust. There really is no benefit to be gained from the Durham initiative.

[Scully]

Well once again allow me to say you are correct in everything you say.perhaps you would be so kind as to educate us lesser mortals where are the police to gain information on which to base their decision or perhaps in your opinion the general public have no rights to expect any level of protection.maybe they should only take the word of the applicant after all its bound to be absolute truth.or maybe the controls of firearms should be abolished and guns be freely availabe to all from say the supermarket shelfs.as is the case that around 75% of medical treatment given in this country is done by your gp and without being referred to any other hospital or specialist where would you suggest medical opinions are obtained.it is not a perfect system nobody is claiming that.someone has to sign off your cert to say they are satisfied that you are a fit and proper person so are they not to be allowed to cover themselves by seeking advice.in answer to your first line YES I am serious.

Yet again you're missing the point entirely. This really is hard work! The authorities ALREADY have the applicants consent to contact their GP . ALL OF US ARE ALREADY GIVING THIS CONSENT EACH AND EVERY TIME WE SIGN A VARIATION APPLICATION, A RENEWAL AND A FIRST TIME APPLICATION!!!! Do you not understand this? I can't make it any clearer! As a general rule an applicants GP is not contacted unless the Police feel there is a need, but what Durham and other forces are now trying to instigate as a matter of routine is contact resulting in a report from a GP each and every time, which costs money. This is why the Police are now trying to put the onus and the cost on the applicant. It isn't even done for the good of the safety of the general public; it is done under the guise of public safety but in reality is purely a cynical cost saving exercise and will benefit neither you, me nor the general public. For it to work, an otherwise ordinary applicant or existing firearms owner has not only to visit their GP on a regular basis, but also make their GP aware of any issues they may have relevant to their suitability as a firearms owner. For example, I haven't seen my GP for well over a year, and since my last visit two out of the five GP's in my practise have left and been replaced by others I've never met. Even if the Police contacted them, all they can give an opinion on regarding my fitness to hold firearms is my existing medical records in which there have been no entries for over 12 months.

Can you give me one example of how this 'extra' will prevent anyone going off on one in the future or any instances of how it would have prevented any of those in the past? Just one?

Perhaps you think firearms owners should have a full medical and a psychological examination on a regular basis? Not only huge costs entailed which would doubtlessly be detrimental to the future of shooting, but also very iffy on the grounds of personal freedoms, but also just as ineffectual as your heavy goods medical, which only ensures you are fit and able AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

[bull dog]

Yet again you're missing the point entirely. This really is hard work! The authorities ALREADY have the applicants consent to contact their GP . ALL OF US ARE ALREADY GIVING THIS CONSENT EACH AND EVERY TIME WE SIGN A VARIATION APPLICATION, A RENEWAL AND A FIRST TIME APPLICATION!!!! Do you not understand this? I can't make it any clearer! As a general rule an applicants GP is not contacted unless the Police feel there is a need, but what Durham and other forces are now trying to instigate as a matter of routine is contact resulting in a report from a GP each and every time, which costs money. This is why the Police are now trying to put the onus and the cost on the applicant. It isn't even done for the good of the safety of the general public; it is done under the guise of public safety but in reality is purely a cynical cost saving exercise and will benefit neither you, me nor the general public. For it to work, an otherwise ordinary applicant or existing firearms owner has not only to visit their GP on a regular basis, but also make their GP aware of any issues they may have relevant to their suitability as a firearms owner. For example, I haven't seen my GP for well over a year, and since my last visit two out of the five GP's in my practise have left and been replaced by others I've never met. Even if the Police contacted them, all they can give an opinion on regarding my fitness to hold firearms is my existing medical records in which there have been no entries for over 12 months.

Can you give me one example of how this 'extra' will prevent anyone going off on one in the future or any instances of how it would have prevented any of those in the past? Just one?

Perhaps you think firearms owners should have a full medical and a psychological examination on a regular basis? Not only huge costs entailed which would doubtlessly be detrimental to the future of shooting, but also very iffy on the grounds of personal freedoms, but also just as ineffectual as your heavy goods medical, which only ensures you are fit and able AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

the point you have made is correct how can someone who don't no you but has read a very derogatory report on you make a unbiased opinion that as you point out has flaws but we r stuck with this at the moment so we have to put up or shut up and all hand in our tickets I for one will not lay down without a fair fight AVB

[bostonmick]

not one of you have come up with any suggestion of who is suitable to pass opinion on your fitness to hold firearms.also I think you may find that the doctor is not being asked for a personal opinion but a professional one.what is your problem if there is nothing for the doctor to report then as I said before jobs a good un.if there is something then just maybe a life is saved.i will say that if I am asked to supply doctors letter at my cost I will do so happily.for those who object to this I suggest you attatch a letter to your app/renew that you have given the permission to contact your doctor about factual information and in your opinion they need nothing more.then sit and wait.i do not look at any of these things from a legal view but from a safety aspect.i do believe that public safety is paramount and far more important than your few quid every five years or so.perhaps if you want things to change you should all join one of the country's organisations and give them by numbers a voice to be heard by the governing forces.so to all you non member whingers out there put up or shut up.

[bull dog]

not one of you have come up with any suggestion of who is suitable to pass opinion on your fitness to hold firearms.also I think you may find that the doctor is not being asked for a personal opinion but a professional one.what is your problem if there is nothing for the doctor to report then as I said before jobs a good un.if there is something then just maybe a life is saved.i will say that if I am asked to supply doctors letter at my cost I will do so happily.for those who object to this I suggest you attatch a letter to your app/renew that you have given the permission to contact your doctor about factual information and in your opinion they need nothing more.then sit and wait.i do not look at any of these things from a legal view but from a safety aspect.i do believe that public safety is paramount and far more important than your few quid every five years or so.perhaps if you want things to change you should all join one of the country's organisations and give them by numbers a voice to be heard by the governing forces.so to all you non member whingers out there put up or shut up.

Armen to the above statement