FAO BASC - Medical reports

[Scully]

 

 

What if a member of BASC has known medical / mental health issues, but refuses to comply with a medical request. Are you REALLY, seriously suggesting that BASC should support them in this ?

 

 

Some members of BASC do have known medical/mental health issues. Some BASC members have held FAC/SGC for many years with known medical/mental health issues, and offer no more of a threat to either themselves or other members of the general public than you or I.

The case, in circumstances such as these, leaves the police well within HO guidelines to enquire of the applicants GP for further details in the form of a factual medical history report, which includes treatment and medication where applicable. What HO guidance doesn't include, is that the police request the applicant provides this report and pays for it.

The applicant has given consent when signing the application for the police to contact their GP should they feel there is a need, and has therefore fulfilled their obligation entirely regarding this matter and is not obliged to obtain the report themselves nor pay for it. BASC has given advice to this effect, but appears reluctant to press matters further.

If an applicant refuses to give further details of their medical history on their application in the relevant section, then the police will investigate further, and make their decision based on this investigation. BASC will make a decision of whether to support the member or not on this investigation also, if the member in fact informs them.

Are you suggesting that all and any members with medical/mental health issues are left unsupported carte blanche?

I don't think bedwards is suggesting any member is supported regardless of the severity of any medical/mental health issues, but is arguing the judicial revue from the point of challenging the polices decision to request the applicant provides the GP's report and pays for it. What else is there to argue about? The police already have (and have had for years) the unquestionable authority to seek GP's report if there is a need.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Scully

[grrclark]

It strikes me that a few folk on this thread are behaving like barrack room lawyers, continuing to press a moot point as though it is some sort of unequivocal point. A smoking gun if you like. It's not, it is simply conjecture.

 

BASC have told their members not to comply with the request, so far as anybody knows there have been no refusals to grant or renew a license as a result of anybody doing that.

 

There is some suggestion that someone might have been told that the application process will be paused, but we only know that via another forum/3rd hand reports with absolutely no way of being able to validate that was solely a direct result of not paying for a GP report.

 

We do know from a members first hand report, on this thread, that they followed the BASC guidance and their cert' was successfully renewed.

 

So far as I can see there is no need for BASC to spend members monies to raise a private case against any of the police forces. BASC obviously consider their approach currently offers the best option.

 

The request from the police may have no legal standing based on the current firearms licensing guidelines/act, however that does not make it an illegal request.

 

Let's not hang, draw and quarter BASC on the basis of pure and utter speculation, as soon as a member is refused and approaches BASC for support then we can all judge based on a factual outcome and not on one or two people's interpretation of the law.

 

In the meantime BASC are lobbying at the highest level with the respective authorities to have the current practise followed by a minority of police forces stopped.

 

That seems eminently sensible to me.

[Scully]

 

as soon as a member is refused and approaches BASC for support then we can all judge based on a factual outcome and not on one or two people's interpretation of the law.

 

But a member won't be refused on the grounds of non compliance. It simply can't happen. The only circumstances under which a member can be refused is if there is something in their past history which the police consider makes them an undesirable applicant. If BASC arrive at the same conclusion then they do right to refuse to support, but as we've seen from the example I gave they are reluctant to support if there is even doubt the verdict will not go their way. Right or wrong? They are in the unenviable position (foolhardy perhaps?) of proclaiming themselves as 'the voice of shooting', but then having to decide whether to risk members money (and their own incomes let's not forget) on an 'iffy' case, and risk derisive criticism if failure ensues, and a monumental upsurge in PR if they succeed. Success will bring higher membership numbers but also higher expectations, and we aren't powerful, even if membership were double or treble, to be considered a threat to any Government. Failure could be the end. I have no sympathy for our organisations; they have set themselves up as the representatives of the UK shooter. This is what they wanted, and if they won't deliver then they deserve our criticism. None of our organisations will take that risk. So the status quo remains.

No one is expecting BASC to support someone of the likes of Atherton (not sure if the police knew his history, but his GP did apparently) but I seriously doubt they would take on a case which they had no chance of winning, and no one is asking that as far as I'm aware, but there seems a reluctance to even challenge this issue which by their own admission they deem unlawful.

Their advice is to not comply, which is fine for the likes of you or I, but for a first time applicant with little experience the advice is extremely daunting. So what do they do? They comply. There are applicants complying even after seeking the advice of BASC ! The police are getting away with this, and while ACPO may have said there is no blanket policy, they have NOT told their licensing authorities to stop this practise, which is apparently unlawful. What are we prepared to let them get away with, how far will it go, and when will we be prepared to say 'enough is enough' ? We truly deserve all that we get, and that includes organisations with little or no clout.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Scully

[bedwards1966]

Scully - very well put.

[grrclark]

Scully, I can understand the premise behind your argument, but the fact just now would appear to be that nobody has suffered any detriment through the behaviour of the Police. (excepting perhaps some financial detriment to pay for the report).

 

Without someone actually being refused through not complying with the Police request there is not a case to bring.

 

The Police are asking, not forcing applicants to pay. BASC have told people, don't acquiesce to the Police request they are lobbying at the highest level to have this practise stopped, they can't really do anymore than they are doing.

 

The Police might be acting in an unfair manner and being intimidating, but until they refuse someone there is no detriment suffered, so cannot be taken before a court. The Police are not breaking any laws, they are guilty of sharp practise perhaps, but that's all.

 

Regrettably it is down to the individuals to make their stand, BASC may represent us collectively, but the individual has to take ownership for their own actions. If guidance has been given by BASC and the individual chooses to do something different, that is their choice. Yes it might be intimidating and a bit scary, but that's life.

 

On a side note how can you say they do not deliver? What example do we have that BASC have refused to back any of their members in this respect?

[Kes]

I think a number of BASC members need to Google 'judicial review'.

It is still true however that 'united we stand, divided we fall', it would be a 'good thing' if we could accept that we need each other - differences in opinion are fine and healthy but fighting amongst ourselves is pointless and self defeating - we need to be winning, with BASC, if they know how to do that but without, if not.

[grrclark]

Yep a judicial review requires someone to have suffered detriment and be able to demonstrate that. It can then be taken as a case. If it is found that the public body acted unlawfully and as a result reached a decision that is unlawful the court can instruct that public body to revisit the decision. That's pretty much all.

 

Asking people to pay for a GP report could very easily be argued as not suffering any detriment if the purpose of their request to the police was to obtain/renew a certificate.

 

You cannot instigate a judicial review unless there are grounds to do so, patently in the example discussed there is no case as anybody not complying with the request has not been refused, in fact quite the opposite.

 

A gross simplification perhaps, but accurate enough.

Edited May 18, 2014 by grrclark

[drut]

I am not looking for an answer but it appears to me that some shooters have suffered a financial penalty in paying for a medical report following an unwarranted & unlawful request.Although I may have picked it up wrongly Durham Constabulary''s poor following of HO guidelines has not resulted in an apology but rather they are now saying HO guidelines are not strict enough & trying (unlawfully)to add to /change them with other forces jumping on the"bandwagon".Whatever the outcome of this it is pity that the poor decisions they made re:Atherton have been allowed to impinge on the majority of the shooting community & their "smokescreen"/blame shifting maneuvers allowed to gain momentum.

[grrclark]

Drut, I agree it is shameful, but not surprising. In a similar vein, the Police have long since pushed outside the guidance of the Home Office and ACPO for camera speed enforcement, same with stop and search powers and in some cases the anti terror legislation, no surprise at all that firearm licensing follows suit.

[Kes]

Yep a judicial review requires someone to have suffered detriment and be able to demonstrate that. It can then be taken as a case. If it is found that the public body acted unlawfully and as a result reached a decision that is unlawful the court can instruct that public body to revisit the decision. That's pretty much all.

 

Asking people to pay for a GP report could very easily be argued as not suffering any detriment if the purpose of their request to the police was to obtain/renew a certificate.

 

You cannot instigate a judicial review unless there are grounds to do so, patently in the example discussed there is no case as anybody not complying with the request has not been refused, in fact quite the opposite.

 

A gross simplification perhaps, but accurate enough.

With respect this is not exactly the truth - I dont know where you have been looking for judicial review but like the advice on Statins, you have this wrong.

Judicial review exists to do what it says to public bodies, their policy, procedures such as this, no-one has to have suffered detriment for the process to be reviewed. There has however to exist the likelihood for detriment to occur in the application of the policy under review. The Leave to apply for judicial review has to be obtained from the High Court but there are any number of reasons why a review of this policy or interpretation of advice, comprising local policy could be challenged. There is a time limit but anyone who has paid for a GP report could have the requirement for that report to be reviewed within the time period as that would have been a policy decision. even the policy, expressed in a written form from the police firearms unit, could form the basis of a case for judicial review, since it is Public Policy and is not specified in 'law', It would be within the timetable and other 'tests' for JR. Even those test guidelines are sympathetically applied in giving leave to judicially review. This local interpretation is not government policy, which cannot be judicially reviewed, unless it conflicts with over-riding EU legislation.

 

I also do not agree that the police have pushed beyond ACPO advice/guidelines for the enforcement of speed limits with cameras but then I only ran a speed camera partnership.

It might behove you to suggest this is your opinion occasionally, rather than implying all you say is fact.

 

I'm quite happy to say what I have written cannot be an exhaustive and therefore a 100% correct interpretation.

 

Opinion is opinion, fact is fact, we are both somewhere between the two - I think my assessment is closer to what we are trying to explain.

Nothing personal but please do look again.

[Scully]

Scully, I can understand the premise behind your argument, but the fact just now would appear to be that nobody has suffered any detriment through the behaviour of the Police. (excepting perhaps some financial detriment to pay for the report). Does financial detriment not count? Some surgeries are charging higher fees than the actual license fee.

 

Without someone actually being refused through not complying with the Police request there is not a case to bring. Yes,I know. I've already stated this, and how this situation can never arise

 

The Police are asking, not forcing applicants to pay. Correct. I've already stated this BASC have told people, don't acquiesce to the Police request Again, I've already stated this.they are lobbying at the highest level to have this practise stopped, they can't really do anymore than they are doing. I know they are lobbying, but not to have the practise stopped, but rather to seek clarification as to who pays. It remains to be seen whether this will be the shooter or the police.

 

The Police might be acting in an unfair manner and being intimidating, but until they refuse someone there is no detriment suffered, so cannot be taken before a court.Correct, but again, I've already stated this. The Police are not breaking any laws, they are guilty of sharp practise perhaps, but that's all. Do you consider 'sharp practise' acceptable?

 

Regrettably it is down to the individuals to make their stand, BASC may represent us collectively, but the individual has to take ownership for their own actions. Correct. As I've said before. If guidance has been given by BASC and the individual chooses to do something different, that is their choice. Correct, but as I've said, for a first time applicant dealing with the police, this can be daunting. Yes it might be intimidating and a bit scary, but that's life. It is apathy such as this and indifferent acceptance of the acts of those who oppose us which leads to the piece by piece deterioration of those shooting disciplines we have left.

 

On a side note how can you say they do not deliver? The facts speak for themselves. Tot up all we have lost against all we have gained and decide for yourself. What example do we have that BASC have refused to back any of their members in this respect? The example I gave in post 79? The person in question hadn't even been refused by licensing as far as I'm aware, he was only asking BASC for advice being unsure of his acceptance after detailing his medical/criminal history and his FEO informing him he would have to produce a GP's report and foot the bill . BASC told him to wait another 12 months. He didn't, and now has his SGC.

[Greymaster]

The gripe is because

1. There is no precedent, 2. it costs up to £100, 3. there is no broad brush reponse to the practice. 4 each person has to tell the police themselves that they will not comply 5. Whilst it is not in HO guidance, all firearms/shotgun owners are very cautious about the potential police reaction - they seem to make up the rules.

If your application is unsuccessful, then your application fee is returned. Do the forces acting beyond their powers propose to reimburse this medical fee?

[Greymaster]

To say that discussing this with ACPO and the HO is pointless and unnecessary shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of how things work, Who do you think make the decision on this if not the HO?

 

I have clearly stated the three step process of dealing with licencing authorities that refuse a grant or renewal - how can I make this any clearer?

 

I understand that ACPO is a private limited company with no statutory responsibilities which is funded by the tax payer but even so is beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. It is a closed shop for senior police officers to exert influence on the law makers and the populace. It is beyond the reach of HM Inspectorate of Constabularies. It is a mix of a closed shop senior officers trade union and a trade association.

 

It has no statutory regulatory role. It is not a democratic institution and not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is an association which fundamentally exists to dictate the attitude of chief police officers in how far they are prepared to enforce the law. Your local police and crime commissioner has no supervisory role over ACPO.

 

Being realistic however, BASC have to get ACPO on side if they want to chief constables to rein in their tendencies to exceed their lawful authority.

[Paul223]

The gripe is because

4 each person has to tell the police themselves that they will not comply

May be BASC (and the other associations) should inform each member with a flyer in their member magazines, and ask each member to include the flyer with their application/renewal, with the flyer giving the reasons for not providing with the request for the medical reports, then the onus will be with our shooting orgs and folk won't feel guilty about going "against the system" Edited May 19, 2014 by Paul223

[grrclark]

With respect this is not exactly the truth - I dont know where you have been looking for judicial review but like the advice on Statins, you have this wrong.

Judicial review exists to do what it says to public bodies, their policy, procedures such as this, no-one has to have suffered detriment for the process to be reviewed. There has however to exist the likelihood for detriment to occur in the application of the policy under review. The Leave to apply for judicial review has to be obtained from the High Court but there are any number of reasons why a review of this policy or interpretation of advice, comprising local policy could be challenged. There is a time limit but anyone who has paid for a GP report could have the requirement for that report to be reviewed within the time period as that would have been a policy decision. even the policy, expressed in a written form from the police firearms unit, could form the basis of a case for judicial review, since it is Public Policy and is not specified in 'law', It would be within the timetable and other 'tests' for JR. Even those test guidelines are sympathetically applied in giving leave to judicially review. This local interpretation is not government policy, which cannot be judicially reviewed, unless it conflicts with over-riding EU legislation.

 

I also do not agree that the police have pushed beyond ACPO advice/guidelines for the enforcement of speed limits with cameras but then I only ran a speed camera partnership.

It might behove you to suggest this is your opinion occasionally, rather than implying all you say is fact.

 

I'm quite happy to say what I have written cannot be an exhaustive and therefore a 100% correct interpretation.

 

Opinion is opinion, fact is fact, we are both somewhere between the two - I think my assessment is closer to what we are trying to explain.

Nothing personal but please do look again.

 

I'm sorry, i thought it was fairly clear that it was a reasoned opinion.

 

The issue of a judicial review is not black and white, like all things in law, and I won't profess to be any sort of expert on public law, but typically in order for anything to be brought before the court there has to be clear case of an injustice being served, or about to be served. From everything that has been discussed so far I cannot see what law has been breached or what injustice has occurred. I can absolutely see where some forces are trying to implement other measures that are not prescribed in the HO guidelines, but if those are not proscribed then that is not a breach of the law, in my opinion of course. If they refuse to issue a cert because of that then yes it is unlawful.

 

There is a simple way to look at it, the law exists to stop the wrong things happening, not to make the right things happen.

 

I suppose some may be prepared to argue that paying £50 or £100 for a GP report may constitute some form of detriment, but let's assume a JR may cost somewhere between £50k - £100k for starters, would you take on that sort of case based on such a flimsy construct? There is also the very real risk that the court may rule in favour of the Police and establish precedent. Different if someone is refused, they can demonstrate practice outside of the law and build a much stronger case, but just paying for a GP report because they were daft enough to do so? (controversial i appreciate, but ignorance is not a defence)

 

As for the speed camera partnerships, like anything else the approach of the police is not universally constant, but there are many instances where police forces have operated outside the guidance of ACPO. Your area maybe followed the guidelines to the letter, but that one example cannot be used as a universal constant and if i implied that all Police forces were guilty of not doing so I apologise. My point in referencing that was simply that the Police operating outside of HO/ACPO guidelines is not particularly uncommon.

 

It isn't surprising as it is down to interpretation of the guidelines with all sorts of other influences, such as local politics, previous experience, the demographics of a particular area, local public opinion, media pressure, a chief constables own particular agenda, etc.

 

I am not anti Police by any stretch, but like all organisations they will push the boundaries, if they break the law in so doing then we can challenge through higher authorities, but if they are not behaving illegally then there is very little we can do other than to lobby to have the boundaries better defined. It strikes me that is what BASC are attempting to do.

 

I wanted to contribute to this thread because I think that there are a lot of agendas at play, it strikes me that a few people have an axe to grind with BASC and this is another bandwagon to hop on and throw rocks from. I think in this particular issue that it is unfair and that benefits nobody.

[grrclark]

Scully it strikes me that we are broadly in agreement, excepting what we think BASC can actually do.

 

In your example in post 79 that is far too vague, how do we know that it was a simple as the unknown poster on another forum actually implied? I think it is unfair to level a criticism at BASC based on a 3rd party account of what might have happened. If you have 1st hand experience then you are perfectly entitled to have a go, but not based on hearsay.

 

The whole argument of this thread is based on what if's, not substance.

 

As for your point of what we have lost versus what we have gained, I assume you mean from the banning of handguns, tightening of licensing regulations, etc following Hungerford & Dunblane, etc. In that respect I don't know what other outcome could have been reasonably expected or anticipated. That is not to say that I agree with it, but given our social and political landscape was there really a potential of a successful alternative outcome?

 

Shooting is a hugely minority activity and at a time when public sympathy was vastly in support of restricting the use of firearms (and probably still is) what could any organisation have done?

 

For the record, I think that organisations such as BASC also have their own agendas driven by those at the top and that may well conflict with the agendas of their members, but all organisations like that are exactly the same, it is ultimately all about compromise and trying to reach an outcome, if possible, that pleases the most, whilst offending the least, but there will always be points of conflict.

 

In general I think there has been an erosion of our rights/freedoms in so many things over the last 20-30 years and that is not unique to shooting.

[robbiep]

+1 for grrclark,s post (not going to bother quoting it in full, no point).

[rogcal]

I have been reading and participating in this discussion since its conception and interesting as all the different arguments may be I am slowly loosing the will to live.

 

In an attempt to get a personal handle on the issue being debated can I make the following statement and either get a "yes that is the issue" or a "no it is not" response!

 

For a number of years I understood that when making an application for grant/renewal/variation of an FAC you disclosed medical facts on the form and if the licensing office believed that some or all of the medical facts required that a doctor's report was required they would write to the doctor, request a report and they would pay the cost of that report.

 

The issue appears to me to be that some force's licensing departments now wish to have the cost of the doctor's report paid for by the applicant and by doing so are moving away from the status quo where they previously bore the cost.

[grrclark]

May be BASC (and the other associations) should inform each member with a flyer in their member magazines, and ask each member to include the flyer with their application/renewal, with the flyer giving the reasons for not providing with the request for the medical reports, then the onus will be with our shooting orgs and folk won't feel guilty about going "against the system"

 

That is a fair shout i think Paul, or maybe a standard letter template so there is a consistent and coordinated message. I guess there is always the potential that some applicants may use such a thing wrongly, i.e. they have other factors unique to them that may invalidate the use of a flyer or template.

 

I am surmising, but I suspect that the organisations might be reluctant to issue a 'tool' for use as people will use it for what it was not intended for.

[grrclark]

I have been reading and participating in this discussion since its conception and interesting as all the different arguments may be I am slowly loosing the will to live.

 

In an attempt to get a personal handle on the issue being debated can I make the following statement and either get a "yes that is the issue" or a "no it is not" response!

 

For a number of years I understood that when making an application for grant/renewal/variation of an FAC you disclosed medical facts on the form and if the licensing office believed that some or all of the medical facts required that a doctor's report was required they would write to the doctor, request a report and they would pay the cost of that report.

 

The issue appears to me to be that some force's licensing departments now wish to have the cost of the doctor's report paid for by the applicant and by doing so are moving away from the status quo where they previously bore the cost.

 

Yes that is the issue as i read it, plus a little bit more. In some cases the Police are asking all applicants to get a GP report (potentially at a cost) whether it is required or not.

[wymberley]

 

Believing they won't be opposed is the entire reason the police are able to continue with these demands.

Out of 140 posts and thousands of words, this little titbit seems to have been missed so it's worthy of a repeat.

[Scully]

Scully it strikes me that we are broadly in agreement, excepting what we think BASC can actually do. True. I know exactly what our shooting organisations can actually do, it's not very much, and it's not just BASC

 

In your example in post 79 that is far too vague, how do we know that it was a simple as the unknown poster on another forum actually implied? If you think it is far too vague I'll see if I can persuade him personally to post his experience on here. I think it is unfair to level a criticism at BASC based on a 3rd party account of what might have happened. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't an account of 'what might have happened'. I have related the events as they actually did happen. If you have 1st hand experience then you are perfectly entitled to have a go, but not based on hearsay.

 

The whole argument of this thread is based on what if's, not substance. It is based on the unlawful demands of our police and the inability of our shooting organisations to combat those demands. As I've said; time will tell how effective they are. The compulsory GP's report regardless of medical history, AND at the applicants cost, on top of the license fee, is coming. Make no mistake, this was told to me by one of our senior shooting organisation rep's. There is nothing 'we' can do about it and that is why the 10 year license life was mooted as a compromise.

 

As for your point of what we have lost versus what we have gained, I assume you mean from the banning of handguns, tightening of licensing regulations, etc following Hungerford & Dunblane, etc. In that respect I don't know what other outcome could have been reasonably expected or anticipated. That is not to say that I agree with it, but given our social and political landscape was there really a potential of a successful alternative outcome?You criticised me for claiming BASC don't deliver. It's not just BASC. Again, tot up what we have lost against all thay we have gained, and make up your own mind.

 

Shooting is a hugely minority activity and at a time when public sympathy was vastly in support of restricting the use of firearms (and probably still is) what could any organisation have done? Quite a bit more than many of them did actually.

 

For the record, I think that organisations such as BASC also have their own agendas driven by those at the top and that may well conflict with the agendas of their members, Couldn't agree more, but they set themselves up as the shooters representatives with claims such as 'lead is safe with us' and 'ensure the future of shooting sports with us'.This is what they want. They make bold claims and want our money but ultimately turn out to be not as effective as they would have us believe. but all organisations like that are exactly the same, So that makes it ok? it is ultimately all about compromise and trying to reach an outcome, if possible, that pleases the most, whilst offending the least, but there will always be points of conflict.Yep, it's just a pity those points of conflict are with our organisations.

 

In general I think there has been an erosion of our rights/freedoms in so many things over the last 20-30 years and that is not unique to shooting.So do you just accept it or do you oppose it?

As an aside, I will 'bash' BASC, the NGO, the CA or any and all other shooting organisations if I feel they need it, and individual shooters also. I pay BASC good money to represent shootings interests. I don't have to, the same company that the CPSA and BASC use for their legal expenses cover, AIM Risk Services, also offer independant shooting insurance policies to people who don't belong to any shooting organisation, but I have always belonged to one organisation or another as I feel I'm not doing 'my bit' otherwise. That state of affairs is becoming more and more likely to change unfortunately.

[grrclark]

Scully, i don't necessarily agree with how things are developing, but I don't take an extremely pessimistic stance either. My approach is to contribute to an organisation, or several, as i feel that my interests are better served by being part of a collective voice.

 

If i have serious objection to the policies being pursued by those bodies then I will remove my support and seek to do something else, or challenge those policies through the mechanisms open to me through membership.

 

Being angry at the reality of the world, whether you agree with that reality or not, is just a waste of emotional energy. We need to pick the battles to fight that we can win and ultimately it will always be a compromise elsewhere. We are on the minority side and will always have to compromise more, it is maybe depressing and wrong, but in our society that is where we are.

 

Same as people who want drugs that the NHS won't supply, same with people who disagree with public policy around benefits or taxes, etc, etc.

[bedwards1966]

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?

Edited May 19, 2014 by bedwards1966

[Yellow Bear]

I would like to ask - since you seem to have it in for BASC, who are at least doing something - What are SACS, NGO, CA,& CPSA doing about this?

 

But the answer is simple ---sweet ** as usual!!!!

Edited May 19, 2014 by Yellow Bear