FAO BASC - Medical reports

[bedwards1966]

yes we will always do our best to support to a good conclusion.

 

Of course there is a case by case basis, you may not realise that there are at least three pilots going on around the country ,so depending on which constabulary the member is from will mean there may be a different approach needed

 

So are BASC prepared to stand by any member all the way (i.e to the conclusion of a Court case) when they are following the advice given by BASC not to co-operate with an unlawful demand?

It does not matter which constabulary a member is in or the exact pilot scheme, an unlawful demand is an unlawful demand. The level of support offered by BASC cannot change on this matter, so what is the answer?

 

 

if this **** is not law,how do the police get away with it,when guide lines say its not needed,

 

By what appears to be a lack of opposition. If Britain's largest country shooting organisation is prepared to support members the full way to the conclusion of any legal challenge then shooters will have the confidence to refuse to comply leaving the police unable to get away with it. Judging by the response from BASC so far there doesn't appear to be any reliable support available, so few will dare take the police on.

 

 

Guidelines are just that a guide on what to do they are not legally binding it's a suggestion of in this case what the government thinks is the correct way to do it. So if a force want to do it differently they can.

 

Not suggesting we do nothing and don't agree with it. But think it will be a difficult argument as the public safety card will be played and as the vast majority of the public don't shoot they will take some convincing. But it's a discussion we have to have using proven evidence to win and not emotion.

 

The law does not permit them to require the applicant to supply and pay for medical reports. Their demands for this are unlawful and have to be struck out if the case comes to Court. But who is going to take this to Court without any support?

 

 

BASC in my opinion do a good job and are probably sorting out all the problems highlighted above but are not showing their hand until needed i had a very awkward experience with West.Mids.police being accused of threats to shoot someone while carrying out vermin control on my own ground..BASC were on the ball and helped resolve the situation.my point is let BASC sort out the problems members have with individual forces it is a power game to police forces to covertly put a spoke into shooting and medicals can be the way.

 

Whether or not BASC do a good job overall is not the question. The question is what are they doing to support members who follow their advice on this particular matter. I've not asked them to show their hand, simply to let us know what support they are offering to members who potentially could be facing Court in order to appeal after following their advice.

If BASC are actually prepared to give full support to all members who find themselves in this position then making this public would be the very best way of tackling the issue as it would tell the police that they will not be able to continue.

[Beretta06]

I'm not sure why this is viewed as 'unlawful'. I thought the Chief of Police for each force needs to be satisfied that each cert holder is fit to do so and, if they wish, can put in any checks and balances he/she feels helps him/her determine suitability. The Act does not specifically state every step that should be taken - as mentioned, guidance is exactly that - guidance!

 

I guess it is interpreted differently between forces, hence the confusion.

 

My experience of BASC has been that you call, tell them your problem and they advise as required. Behind the scenes they seem busy negotiating for sensible standards across the board etc. However, if the Police decide each force can interpret however they wish, the only way such interpretation can be deemed as fair or not, would be in front of a judge. And with BASC, I am sure they will support your case through the courts if necessary.

 

Just my opinion.

[r1steele]

I'm not sure why this is viewed as 'unlawful'. I thought the Chief of Police for each force needs to be satisfied that each cert holder is fit to do so and, if they wish, can put in any checks and balances he/she feels helps him/her determine suitability. The Act does not specifically state every step that should be taken - as mentioned, guidance is exactly that - guidance!

 

I guess it is interpreted differently between forces, hence the confusion.

 

My experience of BASC has been that you call, tell them your problem and they advise as required. Behind the scenes they seem busy negotiating for sensible standards across the board etc. However, if the Police decide each force can interpret however they wish, the only way such interpretation can be deemed as fair or not, would be in front of a judge. And with BASC, I am sure they will support your case through the courts if necessary.

 

Just my opinion.

This is because the only legal documents you are required to fill in are the actual SGC/FAC forms and anything else is not a legal part of the application/renewal process. Something that is not legal is usually deemed illegal.

[Beretta06]

So, we are saying the form is illegal, but not the request? The forms have always had permission to contact our doctors.

[mossy835]

yes but they are saying now that we have to pay, befor we did not,

[bedwards1966]

So, we are saying the form is illegal, but not the request? The forms have always had permission to contact our doctors.

 

The forms are perfectly legal, including the part about giving permission to contact GP's. The recent demands for the applicant to supply a report themselves and/or additional questions coupled with a threat to cancel or refuse an application if it is not provided is unlawful.

[r1steele]

So, we are saying the form is illegal, but not the request? The forms have always had permission to contact our doctors.

Yes the actual application/renewal forms do but some people are getting additional forms which aren't part of the SGC/FAC forms.

[Beretta06]

Yes the actual application/renewal forms do but some people are getting additional forms which aren't part of the SGC/FAC forms.

The forms may be unlawful, but that is not the same as illegal http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14436/what-is-the-difference-between-illegal-and-unlawful

 

 

The biggest gripe appears the fact of being charged, not the actual request. Is that correct? Sorry for the inane questions, I'm just trying to see why people feel so affronted by this.

[grrclark]

The issuing of additional forms does not mean the police forces are operating illegally. It might be that they are requesting information that is beyond the prescribed standard issued by the home office, but that does not mean it is proscribed to ask for that information. It could be argued that the home office guidance is the minimum acceptable standard to be followed by the respective police forces.

 

The law in this country is partially established through precedent (case law), if some police forces are asking for additional information to satisfy their own standards it may need to be challenged through the courts in order to determine the lawfulness of this approach, it may fall for or against them and that will influence the future. BASC cannot make a blanket statement advising everyone to do a certain thing, as there may be extenuating circumstances that make the request for additional information from the police force entirely appropriate. They only valid advice they can offer is to advise their members to contact them for individual advice to consider the specific circumstances related to them.

 

If the BASC are confident that the approach from the police force is unlawful then they may advise taking a harder line, providing the member wishes to do that.

 

In this case the BASC have advised their members that if they receive any forms outside those prescribed by the Home Office to contact them for individual advice. That seems eminently sensible to me as opposed to making a sweeping recommendation that may actually be unfavourable to some people.

Edited May 11, 2014 by grrclark

[Kes]

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.

[r1steele]

The forms may be unlawful, but that is not the same as illegal http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14436/what-is-the-difference-between-illegal-and-unlawful

 

 

The biggest gripe appears the fact of being charged, not the actual request. Is that correct? Sorry for the inane questions, I'm just trying to see why people feel so affronted by this.

I think people are affronted by this is the fact that it is not an actual part of the licencing process. We are asked to provide information on the forms which are a legal form and from these forms the FEO's then do all there enquiries etc. We have met our legal obligations so no further forms or requests are required. We have the licencing system for the convenience of the public, not ourselves, and when paying for this licence we have given consent for the police to contact our GP's. Nowhere does it ask to provide extra payments for additional things such as GP reports.

[grrclark]

I think people are affronted by this is the fact that it is not an actual part of the licencing process. We are asked to provide information on the forms which are a legal form and from these forms the FEO's then do all there enquiries etc. We have met our legal obligations so no further forms or requests are required. We have the licencing system for the convenience of the public, not ourselves, and when paying for this licence we have given consent for the police to contact our GP's. Nowhere does it ask to provide extra payments for additional things such as GP reports.

 

Unfortunately that is not really accurate, the licencing system is for the consideration of all of us, not just the non shooting community as you imply. Whether you agree with the terms of the licence or not.

 

Equally there may well be specific circumstances where people applying for the grant of a firearm licence may require much more work to be done, including far more in depth medical reports - it is not unreasonable to suggest that the applicant may have to meet some additional costs or go through additional process.

 

I agree that it becomes alarming when the police are seeking to use a one size fits all approach that assumes the most beneficial approach for their selves, however that is not unique to shooting, all authorities in any specific matter will adopt that approach.

 

The home office guidance cannot allow for every eventuality, that is why a certain amount of discretion and control is afforded to the police forces as ultimately it is the chief constable who approves or refuses the licence. Of course that decision is open to appeal via the higher authority of the court.

 

In the background the BASC can petition the home office and push for a defined approach, but ultimately it will come down to the individual applicant to decide on whether to push back and challenge the authority of the local police force. The applicant should of course consult with bodies such as BASC to help them reach an informed decision and that can only be on a case by case basis.

Edited May 11, 2014 by grrclark

[Luckyshot]

 

The forms are perfectly legal, including the part about giving permission to contact GP's. The recent demands for the applicant to supply a report themselves and/or additional questions coupled with a threat to cancel or refuse an application if it is not provided is unlawful.

 

As has already been stated in numerous threads, police forces are NOT demanding you fill in these forms they are ASKING you to fill them in BIG difference.

[GHE]

 

As has already been stated in numerous threads, police forces are NOT demanding you fill in these forms they are ASKING you to fill them in BIG difference.

Are you sure that you actually understand the issue here?

The police are ASKING people to provide additional information that they are not required to supply, i.e. a medical report.

BASC are advising people not to comply with this request.

When people follow BASC's advice and refuse to supply this additional information (which incidentally takes time and costs money) the police are threatening them, stating that their application will be cancelled unless they comply within a certain date. This threat is unlawful.

 

Back to the question. If the police 'cancel' the application (which they cannot legally do, they can only grant or refuse to grant a certificate) what will BASC actually do?

Will they fund an appeal to the Crown Court or not?

 

It's a very simple question, but for some reason BASC are just coming out with their standard response, which is meaningless politician-style rhetoric. It may be that they do fully intend to provide full support, in which case they should say so.

Or it may be that they have no intention of doing anything of any practical use, in which case they should say so. (And providing a list of solicitors who may be able to help doesn't, in my opinion, amount to anything of practical use).

 

Negotiating ACPO and the Home Office about something that is in itself unlawful is pointless and unecessary. What is actually needed is action.

[bedwards1966]

The police are exceeding their legal authority. The HO guidance to firearms law is just that - a guide on the law. The police are not able to require applicants to supply additional information, if they want this to be the case they must get the law changed.

 

'that is why a certain amount of discretion and control is afforded to the police forces as ultimately it is the chief constable who approves or refuses the licence.'

Laws can be interpreted in different ways, but that is not the same as making a demand that has no support in law.

 

 

 

 

As has already been stated in numerous threads, police forces are NOT demanding you fill in these forms they are ASKING you to fill them in BIG difference.

 

I'll point you in the direction of a thread on another forum:

http://forums.shootinguk.co.uk/showthread.php?8638-Advice-on-Application

 

Or, to save the trouble of reading it, the relevant part is:

'they did threaten me if i didnt make a reply by 15/05 my application would be cancel'

 

Aside from this particular case, there appear to be other cases where they appear to have 'forgotten' to tell the applicant that they don't have to provide it, even if they don't always demand it.

 

 

'

In the background the BASC can petition the home office and push for a defined approach, but ultimately it will come down to the individual applicant to decide on whether to push back and challenge the authority of the local police force. The applicant should of course consult with bodies such as BASC to help them reach an informed decision and that can only be on a case by case basis.

 

This is on the BASC website:

BASC is advising members not to co-operate with a move by Durham Constabulary demanding that shooters provide and pay for a medical report from their GP when applying for shotgun or firearm certificates.

 

They are not applying any case by case basis here (there are no differences between cases on this matter) so they must be offering support to members who follow their advice, and this level of support cannot be varied. I'm still awaiting a reply that actually says what this support will be.

Edited May 11, 2014 by bedwards1966

[David BASC]

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?

[grrclark]

 

The police are exceeding their legal authority. The HO guidance to firearms law is just that - a guide on the law. The police are not able to require applicants to supply additional information, if they want this to be the case they must get the law changed.

 

'that is why a certain amount of discretion and control is afforded to the police forces as ultimately it is the chief constable who approves or refuses the licence.'

Laws can be interpreted in different ways, but that is not the same as making a demand that has no support in law.

 

They are not applying any case by case basis here (there are no differences between cases on this matter) so they must be offering support to members who follow their advice, and this level of support cannot be varied. I'm still awaiting a reply that actually says what this support will be.

 

 

I agree that the police are exceeding the guide issued by the home office, but I don't know if there is any statute that precludes them from doing that. It is very probably that they are acting within the law in that regard, in terms of making the request, but I suspect that they would be operating outside of the law if they issued a refusal on that basis.

 

Are they demanding or just implying, even if that is done in a intimidatory manner? I genuinely don't know

 

As for the BASC advice, they are just saying don't submit the additional medical report, if there is subsequent feedback from not submitting the additional information that suggests there may be a challenge to the licence being granted that is where the case by case approach would come in.

 

I guess it should be better worded to say something like 'BASC is advising members not to co-operate with a move by Durham Constabulary demanding that shooters provide and pay for a medical report from their GP when applying for shotgun or firearm certificates. Should this result in any difficulties during the application process please contact BASC directly for individual advice'

[GHE]

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?

Parliament.

HC447-1(The Third Report [into Firearms Control] of Session 1010-2011),House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) made a number of recommendations, nearlhy all of which were rejected by Parliament.The one substantive one that survived was that, in future, GPs would be informed of the issue of shotgun and/or firearms certificates, so that they can make their views known on individuals.

 

This has been implemented.The problem seems to be that this is seen as insufficient by some police forces, who have now decided to impose additional requirements, which they describe as requests, but they are doing so without the authority of parliament, which is where the problem lies.

 

Any 1st year law student can answer your question for you David. There is no purpose in lobbying a government department on this, or negotiating with them, because they do not have the authority to change the law to suit police forces or themselves.

 

This doesn't mean that lobbying in itself is pointless, but there will only be a point to it if and when a Green Paper has been published.

 

So, right now you seem to be sitting down with your friends at the Home Office, asking them to be reasonable about something that (thankfully) isn't within their control anyway.

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?

 

Simple.Just answer the question, which is

does this mean that BASC are prepared to fully support any member faced with a problem following your advice, and will be stood alongside them fighting to win their appeal every step of the way, all the way to the end of a Court case?

 

Edited May 11, 2014 by GHE

[Luckyshot]

Are you sure that you actually understand the issue here? Yes are you

The police are ASKING people to provide additional information that they are not required to supply, i.e. a medical report.

BASC are advising people not to comply with this request.

When people follow BASC's advice and refuse to supply this additional information (which incidentally takes time and costs money) the police are threatening them, stating that their application will be cancelled unless they comply within a certain date. This threat is unlawful.

 

Back to the question. If the police 'cancel' the application (which they cannot legally do, they can only grant or refuse to grant a certificate) what will BASC actually do?

Will they fund an appeal to the Crown Court or not?

 

It's a very simple question, but for some reason BASC are just coming out with their standard response, which is meaningless politician-style rhetoric. It may be that they do fully intend to provide full support, in which case they should say so.

Or it may be that they have no intention of doing anything of any practical use, in which case they should say so. (And providing a list of solicitors who may be able to help doesn't, in my opinion, amount to anything of practical use).

 

Negotiating ACPO and the Home Office about something that is in itself unlawful is pointless and unecessary. What is actually needed is action.

 

What a load of carp, If you have read this topic from the beginning you will have seen that I renewed my fac again with Durham and I didn't fill in the medical report and the police certainly didn't threaten me infact its laughable to even suggest it can you personally name 1 person that has been threatened by the police for not filling out this form ? bet you cant. Why just slate BASC all the time (even though I have done my fair share of it) can people not speak for them selves these days and just say NO I will not fill it in renew or refuse worked for me and many others.

[David BASC]

We are talking here about the application of law, parliament make the laws through process, the application, in this case licencing, is delivered - partly by the HO hence their production of HO Guidance, and is then administered and delivered via ACPO down to the constabulary level.

 

Hence the problems we are seeing need not to be debated in parliament nor are they a fault of what was decided in parliament but need to be sorted out with the HO and ACPO

 

I have already clearly stated that we have the opportunity and indeed resources to take matters to court if they cannot be resolved by discussion and negotiation a case by case basis.

[GHE]

 

What a load of carp, If you have read this topic from the beginning you will have seen that I renewed my fac again with Durham and I didn't fill in the medical report and the police certainly didn't threaten me infact its laughable to even suggest it can you personally name 1 person that has been threatened by the police for not filling out this form ? bet you cant. Why just slate BASC all the time (even though I have done my fair share of it) can people not speak for them selves these days and just say NO I will not fill it in renew or refuse worked for me and many others.

Just read this thread, the shooter makes it very clear that the police threatened him.

[GHE]

We are talking here about the application of law, parliament make the laws through process, the application, in this case licencing, is delivered - partly by the HO hence their production of HO Guidance, and is then administered and delivered via ACPO down to the constabulary level.

 

Hence the problems we are seeing need not to be debated in parliament nor are they a fault of what was decided in parliament but need to be sorted out with the HO and ACPO

 

I have already clearly stated that we have the opportunity and indeed resources to take matters to court if they cannot be resolved by discussion and negotiation a case by case basis.

No, we are talking about the difference between real law and imaginary law.

 

The police and possible the Home Office may like to enforce imaginary law, but in reality the only laws that they can enforce is real law - and there is no real law because parliament hasn't made it.

 

So, until such time as parliament consider the passing of new, more restrictive laws on shooters, the HO can't enforce anything other than existing law, therefore you have nothing to discuss with them on this point. If they, or their various police forces, try to use laws that don't exist to serve their own needs and cut down the number of legitimate shooters, then surely it is your role to stand right next to any shooter who ends up with problems as a result.

So, the same question, the one that has been asked so many times but with no real answer from you -

If the police 'cancel' the application (which they cannot legally do, they can only grant or refuse to grant a certificate) what will BASC actually do?

Will they fund an appeal to the Crown Court or not?

Do we have to assume that your refusal to answer means that you will just offer bland advice but do nothing to actually help, as per usual?

[drut]

"Do we have to assume that your refusal to answer means that you will just offer bland advice but do nothing to actually help, as per usual?

 

David is normally helpful in my experience.Do you have have a grievance or an axe to grind?

[GHE]

"Do we have to assume that your refusal to answer means that you will just offer bland advice but do nothing to actually help, as per usual?

 

David is normally helpful in my experience.Do you have have a grievance or an axe to grind?

I don't have any kind of issue with David, I agree that he tries to help.

Unfortunately though, he has to support the organisation he works for, which must sometimes place him in a difficult position.

 

Perhaps having to beat the corporate drum is the reason why he won't answer the question. I sympathise with his position.

[drut]

"Perhaps having to beat the corporate drum is the reason why he won't answer the question. I sympathise with his position."

 

Having read the thread he has answered the question to my satisfaction,although obviously not to yours!