GHE Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 why do I get the feeling that I have read the same thing over and over again the only thing that I can see regards this thread is that a few people certainly don't like BASC, in my eyes David answered the questions clearly 17 pages ago , I,ve never read a more clear answer from him, but still the same questions are being fired at him,,, I wonder how many who have asked the questions are actually BASC members or as it has been said "have an axe to grind" certainly not stopped me from being a member , very strange how certain people are hell bent on having a go at BASC , sorry if I have offended anyone as that is not my intention , it just seems I have read the same page 18 times, welsh1 NO SUGAR on its way atb Evo A member of my family was very badly let down by BASC so yes, I do have an axe to grind. To be fair, David has acknowledged this, but another very senior member of BASC, the person actually responsible for the non performance, has not. As a result, we have both voted with our feet. My personal view is that I would rather be a member because I feel that we all need to support our shooting organisations fully, but that cuts both ways and when they fail dramatically, it's difficult to carry on paying them money and to carry on having confidence in them. As for BASC answering the question clearly, we will have to agree to disagree. I suppose that many years of legal training and experience have resulted in me reading what is actually written, rather than what I would like to see written, and so I can see the difference between a statement of agreement and a clear undertaking - but if you can't, so be it. Of course, BASC can end this simply by giving the clear undertaking that they have been asked to give, instead of behaving like a bunch of politicians who are trying to keep everyone happy by making half promises, but for some reason it has taken them more than 350 posts to not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 why do I get the feeling that I have read the same thing over and over again the only thing that I can see regards this thread is that a few people certainly don't like BASC, in my eyes David answered the questions clearly 17 pages ago , I,ve never read a more clear answer from him, but still the same questions are being fired at him,,, I wonder how many who have asked the questions are actually BASC members or as it has been said "have an axe to grind" certainly not stopped me from being a member , very strange how certain people are hell bent on having a go at BASC , sorry if I have offended anyone as that is not my intention , it just seems I have read the same page 18 times, welsh1 NO SUGAR on its way atb Evo I agree. Davd has been very open and clear. Unfortunately some people don't want to read that, so they ignore it, pretend it wasn't really the answer to the question they asked, or rephrase the question slightly and pretend it hasn't been answered. I'm a member of BASC, I intend continuing being a member. Nothing I have read in these pages makes me feel any differently at all. The feeling to me about ...certain people ... on this thread is that they are small children, sticking their fingers in their ears, and shouting "LALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU', to David's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Yeah really - you should have seen the old forms - I will get you the date of the meeting if you want? Betwards - Durham initiated their first pilot last year...again if you want I will see if I can find out when they started their first pilot. I will look at that link in a mo 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? Personally I would be more impressed with BASC if just once in this whole thread they could be bothered to use bedwards1966 actual username, not betawards or betwards! Makes you wonder what sort of level of detail they get to with all matters brought before them. Glad I am with SACS and they get my name right! Edited May 30, 2014 by secretagentmole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p@cman Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 secretarymole, I guess sometimes you look at a word and think you've got it right, but your brain just adds random letters etc. Maybe it was just a typo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Ok let me ask the chap above from Durham - can you get a copy of the blank forms - never mind I'll try from the website - we shall see. Edited May 30, 2014 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Kes, you totally misunderstand what's been happening, I did not say that Durham have been sending out these forms for the last 5 years, they have not. They started running their fist pilot when the new HO guidance came out. The latest letters do state that this is a pilot and at the bottom carry a clear statement that the additional form is voluntary as I have said before. David, not wishing to be silly about name calling, I dont think you made it clear above when you said you had been involved for 5 years with Durham specifically. However, I readily accept I can be wrong just rarely stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Form is here and is still marked as "GP Scheme for ALL applicants" note their capitalised use of the word "ALL" https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licensing/Documents/CURRENT%20GP%20Scheme%20-%20Letter%20to%20Applicant%20%28V4%20Mar%202014%29.pdf They do say it's voluntary at the bottom of the first page but also add the following, "Whilst it is not a legal requirement to complete this form or the Medical Questions Trial form and the process is voluntary, completion may expedite the application." Which to me clearly implies that not filling it in may result in a slower service. Edited May 30, 2014 by phaedra1106 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 May,, possibly, but if any member thinks their application is delayed let us know and we will call the senior officer in charge of licencing and he promises to look into it and get it sorted. Sorry about the misspelling of posters names Best wishes Divod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic1281 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well done Divod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Form is here and is still marked as "GP Scheme for ALL applicants" note their capitalised use of the word "ALL" https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licensing/Documents/CURRENT%20GP%20Scheme%20-%20Letter%20to%20Applicant%20%28V4%20Mar%202014%29.pdf They do say it's voluntary at the bottom of the first page but also add the following, "Whilst it is not a legal requirement to complete this form or the Medical Questions Trial form and the process is voluntary, completion may expedite the application." Which to me clearly implies that not filling it in may result in a slower service. 'Completion may expedite the application' is very clear. It does not say 'non-completion may delay the process'. Reading anything else into it is pure speculation. For example : assuming you are one of the people for who a medical / GPs report would be requested (for past issues). Pre-doing the report will speed up the process. That is logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Best wishes Divod At least you have a sense of humour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Tha application process to Durham Constabulary carries a letter basically saying that they are undertaking a trial developed by ; themselves, others and "Representatives of shooting organisations". The letter does say you dont have to complete it but it also says that the application may be delayed as a result if there are issues. I'm sorry I cant paste this all here but its a PDF file and wont copy to here with my limiteeed tech skills. In the concluding page it says what you have to do and include with the full submission etc and states that the completed forms should also include the new medical. What is perhaps concerning is that it says that representatives of shooting organisations have clearly discussed and participated in developing the additional medical forms and questions. Can I ask if one of those " shooting organisations" involved in developing this trial was BASC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Tha application process to Durham Constabulary carries a letter basically saying that they are undertaking a trial developed by ; themselves, others and "Representatives of shooting organisations". The letter does say you dont have to complete it but it also says that the application may be delayed as a result if there are issues. I'm sorry I cant paste this all here but its a PDF file and wont copy to here with my limiteeed tech skills. In the concluding page it says what you have to do and include with the full submission etc and states that the completed forms should also include the new medical. What is perhaps concerning is that it says that representatives of shooting organisations have clearly discussed and participated in developing the additional medical forms and questions. Can I ask if one of those " shooting organisations" involved in developing this trial was BASC? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. May I suggest you go (back one page) and READ what someone has put - it is the actual text of the letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) While it doesn't say it not including the report means the application will be delayed it does say that including it may "expidite" an application. Maybe it's just me being cynical but I read that as "applications without a report may have to wait while the expidited applications take precedence", that by it's very nature means that applications without a report will take longer than they would if applications were processed in chronological order (as they sould be). Edited May 30, 2014 by phaedra1106 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 While it doesn't say it not including the report means the application will be delayed it does say that including it may "expidite" an application. Maybe it's just me being cynical but I read that as "applications without a report may have to wait while the expidited applications take precedence", that by it's very nature means that applications without a report will take longer than they would if applications were processed in chronological order (as they sould be). Well, of course you can read it that way if you want to. However, it is worded very clearly. It clearly says that IF you CHOOSE to enclose the additional form, your application MIGHT be speeded up. It says absolutely nothing else at all. That couldn't really be any more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinF Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Personally I would be more impressed with BASC if just once in this whole thread they could be bothered to use bedwards1966 actual username, not betawards or betwards! Makes you wonder what sort of level of detail they get to with all matters brought before them. Glad I am with SACS and they get my name right! But what are SACS doing regarding this particular issue? There is nothing on their website about it at all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well, of course you can read it that way if you want to. However, it is worded very clearly. It clearly says that IF you CHOOSE to enclose the additional form, your application MIGHT be speeded up. It says absolutely nothing else at all. That couldn't really be any more clear. With respect - my wording may well have been imprecise as I could not copy and paste the document, as I said above, but I read the same meaning into it as Phaedra1106. I am not trying to create a problem here just get at the truth. Also with respect Robbiep we ALL need to be objective here and another's interpretation isn't wrong just because anyone has another interpretation - the question still stands, did BASC, as a shooting organisation participate in setting the questions, or the 'trial' as a whole, as stated precisely in the letter, or does anyone know any shooting organisations that did ? That has nothing to do with my interpretation, possibly incorrectly of the precise wording on the form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 No. The precise wording is the precise wording. As in legal documents drawn up for contract law, the EXACT words used have EXACT meaning. No other. Kes, you stated that : The letter does say you dont have to complete it but it also says that the application may be delayed as a result if there are issues. It does NOT say that at all. Once again, as with things that David BASC has said, you have twisted the words that have actually been used to make them fit in with whatever conspiracy theory you've got going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well, of course you can read it that way if you want to. However, it is worded very clearly. It clearly says that IF you CHOOSE to enclose the additional form, your application MIGHT be speeded up. It says absolutely nothing else at all. That couldn't really be any more clear. If you travel down the M6 you will see signs near the toll road saying "Toll Road clear". That is all it says, but there is an implication that the M6 is not clear. You never see a sign saying "M6 clear, so don't bother using the toll road". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 What it should say is something along the following lines, "Applicants with declared medical conditions which may require a report from their GP may wish to include an up to date medical report along with their application. You may use the attached additional form to do this. This will help reduce any delays which may result if we apply and have to then wait for a report from the GP to be sent to us." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 No. The precise wording is the precise wording. As in legal documents drawn up for contract law, the EXACT words used have EXACT meaning. No other. Kes, you stated that : It does NOT say that at all. Once again, as with things that David BASC has said, you have twisted the words that have actually been used to make them fit in with whatever conspiracy theory you've got going on. Did you also read this above "my wording may well have been imprecise" robbie you are getting OTT calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Did you also read this above "my wording may well have been imprecise" robbie you are getting OTT calm down. Also why does everyone have to have a conspiracy theory for trying to get to the facts of this issue - when I get an answer to whether BASC were involved ineither the questions or the trial, I will be satisfied. Its actually on the letter in the application that 'shooting organisations have been involved - that is the issue I have - my apologies for the otherwise IMPRECISE terminology. The precise wording for the record "In addition, Durham Constabulary and the LMC have agreed to trial new medical questions developed nationally by the Home Office, police, British Medical Association and representatives of shooting organisations. To participate in this trial, please complete the enclosed form headed ‘Medical Questions Trial’. " OK Robbie ? Do you know who the shooting organisations were? Edited May 30, 2014 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Correcting you is not 'Getting OTT'. What you're attempting to do is to shoot down anyone that picks up on the assumptions that you've made, and corrects you on them. Hate to inform you, but you could hold a consultation, get responses from organisations, and totally ignore what has been said and carry on regardless. Prime examples would be the pistol ban and the Scottish airgun fiasco. Technically, the Scottish Govt. could say 'shooting organisations have been involved in the consultation prior to the introduction of this bill'. Sounds like they agreed to it, or at least had meaningful input, doesn't it ? As we all know, the reality is rather different. Or do you believe that BASC are saying one thing to members, and then something else entirely to the police / Gov't ? If so, then just put it out in black and white, and be done with it, instead of this incessant sniping from the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Correcting you is not 'Getting OTT'. What you're attempting to do is to shoot down anyone that picks up on the assumptions that you've made, and corrects you on them. Hate to inform you, but you could hold a consultation, get responses from organisations, and totally ignore what has been said and carry on regardless. Prime examples would be the pistol ban and the Scottish airgun fiasco. Technically, the Scottish Govt. could say 'shooting organisations have been involved in the consultation prior to the introduction of this bill'. Sounds like they agreed to it, or at least had meaningful input, doesn't it ? As we all know, the reality is rather different. Or do you believe that BASC are saying one thing to members, and then something else entirely to the police / Gov't ? If so, then just put it out in black and white, and be done with it, instead of this incessant sniping from the sidelines. I just want to know if BASC were involved in Setting the questions or the (this) trial. Being insulting doesnt help anyone and make you look a bit hyper to be honest. Edited May 30, 2014 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 No BASC were not involved in setting the questions for this trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts