FAO BASC - Medical reports

[grrclark]

There is an ongoing case, and going into details whilst the case is still ongoing would be wrong. It might also be seen by the wrong people, so it isn't going to happen.

All that I can say at this stage is that another member (my son) asked them for help and was promised help, but they did absolutely nothing. This happened repeatedly. The only explanation (no apology) was that they were very busy with other matters.

 

FWIW, the help that they promised consisted of a phone call to a Firearms Licensing Manager, personally I doubt whether it would have achieved anything at all, but that isn't the point.

 

Fair enough if the case is still ongoing, you are right not to comment.

 

It is a little unfair make swingeing statements on a public forum on the basis of one experience that your son has had, albeit if you feel very aggrieved it is perhaps understandable.

 

Maybe when the case is concluded and you are in a position to provide details that would be more appropriate as it allows everyone to reach a more objective and considered opinion.

[GHE]

 

Fair enough if the case is still ongoing, you are right not to comment.

 

It is a little unfair make swingeing statements on a public forum on the basis of one experience that your son has had, albeit if you feel very aggrieved it is perhaps understandable.

 

Maybe when the case is concluded and you are in a position to provide details that would be more appropriate as it allows everyone to reach a more objective and considered opinion.

I'm trying to be fair here, I clearly stated that this is something that I didn't think I should talk about, and when pushed I gave just the barest outline of the (in)actions of BASC.

 

I'm perfectly happy to put the whole sorry mess into the public domain, if that would help, once the case is over. That will be a few months yet.

 

It's obvious from David (BASC) comments that he knows exactly what this is about. In fairness to him, I have to say that AFAIK he is in no way responsible for the actions or inactions of his colleagues.

 

And, whilst I'm being clear about who is NOT to blame, this does NOT involve West Yorkshire Police.

[grrclark]

I'm trying to be fair here, I clearly stated that this is something that I didn't think I should talk about, and when pushed I gave just the barest outline of the (in)actions of BASC.

 

I'm perfectly happy to put the whole sorry mess into the public domain, if that would help, once the case is over. That will be a few months yet.

 

It's obvious from David (BASC) comments that he knows exactly what this is about. In fairness to him, I have to say that AFAIK he is in no way responsible for the actions or inactions of his colleagues.

 

And, whilst I'm being clear about who is NOT to blame, this does NOT involve West Yorkshire Police.

 

I'm not having a go at you GHE and you have said that you need to keep cards close to your chest for the time being which is fair enough.

 

Your posts came across quite strongly at BASC and posting those on a forum like this is obviously trying to negatively influence peoples opinion of BASC. All I was suggesting is that seems to be a bit unfair when you are not in a position to be able to tell people why that is the case.

 

Not saying that you are wrong in your opinion and certainly not pressing you to say anymore just now.

 

If they have been genuinely unsupportive and poor then they deserve rocks thrown at them, but save that until you can tell us why you are throwing them. Hope that makes sense.

 

I hope that you get a good result for your son.

[Scully]

There is a case on another forum regarding someone who applied for his SGC (if I recall) and was told by his FEO that due to his past history of a conviction for a controlled substance and a suicide attempt he would need to submit a GP's report, for which he would have to pay. The past history had been ten years or so ago, and in the intervening years he had put himself through University and qualified as a psychiatric nurse, and was currently employed as such.

He joined BASC and sought their advice, which basically was either seek a second professional opinion (at cost) or reapply in another twelve months. As ten years had already passed he couldn't see what difference another year would make so pressed on regardless, and within a few weeks gained his SGC.

I can see the situation from both sides to be honest, but it is clear BASC weren't willing to take the chance even though this person had recently joined BASC for the sole purpose of seeking help and advice. I have no idea if BASC offered to reimburse his membership fee or not as a new recruit.

As for my own experiences with this matter, as I've already said, I spoke to a senior BASC rep' just recently who told me that although discussions with HO personnel was ongoing, there was nothing to prevent licensing authorities from requesting the GP's report, especially in cases where it was warranted, which is understandable; but the cost to the applicant has come about as the BMA wants paying for the service and licensing authorities are trying to recoup the cost. I was also told that the intention was eventually for this practice to become the norm, regardless of whether an applicants response gave cause for concern or not, and that the cost will again,be met by the applicant. There is nothing any of the shooting organisations can do to prevent it, which is why the ten year license life was mooted as a compromise. What the outcome will be is anyones guess, but I was assured that the compulsory GP's report at the applicants cost was in no doubt.

Personally, whatever the outcome, I fail to see what will be gained by this in respect of ensuring that the safety of the general public is best served. Obviously those who have something to hide may be prevented from applying, but adversely, those who experience problems between renewals which may effect their licenses will be very reluctant to seek help. I would have thought it would be more desirable for existing firearms owners to be the ones most encouraged to seek help, rather than made to feel they would be penalised for doing so. But there again, UK firearms legislation is anything but logical.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Scully

[Kes]

Scullys post draws out the logic of NOT implementing these additional medical reports. It also suggests a placidity on behalf of BASC which is worrying.

David says BASC is growing - it would grow more quickly and avoid cirticisms if this sort of unwelcome anomily was challenged in court, unless of course BASC has already been advised to play this down which it now appears from Scullys post they may well be doing. It would be nice to know the intent behind the BASC statements here.

[GHE]

Scullys post draws out the logic of NOT implementing these additional medical reports. It also suggests a placidity on behalf of BASC which is worrying.

David says BASC is growing - it would grow more quickly and avoid cirticisms if this sort of unwelcome anomily was challenged in court, unless of course BASC has already been advised to play this down which it now appears from Scullys post they may well be doing. It would be nice to know the intent behind the BASC statements here.

Agreed.

But it would also be nice to actually get a statement from BASC, i.e. a straight answer to the straight question asked in this thread - what level of support will they provide to the members who run into problems because they have followed the (good) advice not to cooperate when the police try to impose unlawful extra conditions.

 

So, straight question asked, straight answer needed...

 

I'm unhappy with the BASC approach for various reasons. We haven't been told what their policy is, but it seems to me that they view themselves as a pseudo official organisation that tries to influence both government and police on behalf of their members, rather than as a 'union' that represents the interests of its members.

 

That's a valid approach, and it's always essential to be civilised and diplomatic when dealing with "the other side" but jaw jaw is not ALWAYS better than war war and sometimes it's necessary to stand and fight for members, to be strong and robust and to point out, in plain English, that the organisation will use all legitimate means to represent the interests of its members.

 

And to actually do it too.

 

It seems to me (but of course I don't know what goes on behind closed doors and my own experiences of BASC aren't helping either) that BASC may have become too much of a political animal and maybe a bit too cosy with the people who are causing problems for shooters.

 

If BASC actually answer the original question then, assuming that the answer is satisfactory, members will have much more confidence in them, and threads like this one, which may embarras them and cause them problems, will go away.

 

So, how about a straight answer to this straight question?

Edited May 15, 2014 by GHE

[bedwards1966]

As for my own experiences with this matter, as I've already said, I spoke to a senior BASC rep' just recently who told me that although discussions with HO personnel was ongoing, there was nothing to prevent licensing authorities from requesting the GP's report, especially in cases where it was warranted, which is understandable; but the cost to the applicant has come about as the BMA wants paying for the service and licensing authorities are trying to recoup the cost. I was also told that the intention was eventually for this practice to become the norm, regardless of whether an applicants response gave cause for concern or not, and that the cost will again,be met by the applicant. There is nothing any of the shooting organisations can do to prevent it, which is why the ten year license life was mooted as a compromise. What the outcome will be is anyones guess, but I was assured that the compulsory GP's report at the applicants cost was in no doubt.

 

If this is what they told you then they're talking utter rubbish. The law does not allow the police to demand the applicant to supply a medical report, so to stop it all that needs to be done is to challenge this policy by way of a Judicial review or to refuse to comply leading to a refusal to grant a certificate, then appeal to the Crown Court. BASC would have no difficulty funding this (the cost of either action is not that great to an organisation of this size), though they appear to be lacking in effort and commitment to their members.

 

 

 

 

BASC:

 

As it appears that there is no promise of any real support from BASC for members who are faced with this issue I'll return to my original question on the issue of the demands made by the police: 'What are you doing about this?'

 

From your responses so far I do not get the impression that BASC is doing a great deal to stop the police from demanding these medical reports. Apart from attending meetings with the HO (who, as has already been pointed out, do not make the law) what are BASC doing to stop these unnecessary, unreasonable and unlawful demands?

 

 

But it would also be nice to actually get a statement from BASC, i.e. a straight answer to the straight question asked in this thread - what level of support will they provide to the members who run into problems because they have followed the (good) advice not to cooperate when the police try to impose unlawful extra conditions.

 

 

So, how about a straight answer to this straight question?

 

BASC, you appear to have gone very quiet.

[David BASC]

The exact level of support would depend on the needs of the member.

 

Some may be resolved by us giving the member more advice

Some may be resolved by our firearms team calling the licencing team

Some may be resolved by a member of BASC staff visiting the licencing team with the member

Some may be resolved by the threat of legal action

Some may be resolved by going to appeal in court

[Scully]

 

If this is what they told you then they're talking utter rubbish. The law does not allow the police to demand the applicant to supply a medical report, so to stop it all that needs to be done is to challenge this policy by way of a Judicial review or to refuse to comply leading to a refusal to grant a certificate, then appeal to the Crown Court. BASC would have no difficulty funding this (the cost of either action is not that great to an organisation of this size), though they appear to be lacking in effort and commitment to their members.

 

BASC, you appear to have gone very quiet.

They may well be talking rubbish; I'm only relating what I was told. Correct, the law does not allow the police to demand the applicant to supply a medical report, but it is not a 'demand', it is a request, and while there is nothing in law to stipulate the applicant complies, according to BASC there is also nothing in law to prevent the police from making the request.

Police forces as part of a licensing regime, make many requests which are not included in HO guidance, it is up to our organisations to counter these practices, but in this instance they seem powerless to do so.

[Kes]

The exact level of support would depend on the needs of the member.

 

Some may be resolved by us giving the member more advice

Some may be resolved by our firearms team calling the licencing team

Some may be resolved by a member of BASC staff visiting the licencing team with the member

Some may be resolved by the threat of legal action

Some may be resolved by going to appeal in court

Forgive me but all would be resolved by taking a test case to court and if its what members want why not?

[David BASC]

Because no cases have yet go to that stage

[robbiep]

Unfortunately, a 'test case' in a court would only be binding if the police force involved lost the case. I strongly suspect that if it came to a courtroom, then the police would simply cave in before the hearing started. Thus, no case law is established.

 

Much like the fiascos that have involved DVLA, TV licencing, etc, they simply admit defeat in that particular case, and go after the next easy mark. Their policy seems to be that they will make you jump through the hoops, unless you stand up to them. When that happens, like all bullies, they back down

[Kes]

Because no cases have yet go to that stage

David, there are avenues, judicial review of the documents and the process once anyone has received a request to provide a medical - your legal team will tell you that once apparently 'required' by a public body for a legal process, that can be challenged by various means.

This standing back is not, in my view, going to win friends and influence others quite as BASC should.

I am looking for rapid response here and an unequivocal demand that your members are not criminals and therefore not treated as such and importantly will always comply with the law.

Methods do exist for advising of medical conditions affecting grant - it is for the public good not ours, The police need to have their intent challenged so they will stick within the guidelines, not constantly think of new and interesting ways of curtailing gun ownership.

The public have a right to be protected but do our rights not matter at all?

If there is a hidden agenda linked to licence renewal costs/ forms, I think we could reasonable expect to be 'in the loop'.

[GHE]

Forgive me but all would be resolved by taking a test case to court and if its what members want why not?

Yes, that has to be the right approach

 

Because no cases have yet go to that stage

We understand that, you can't fight a case that doesn't actually exist. But, instead of negotiating with the Home Office and Acpo about their 'requests', which gives legitimacy to their reactions, why don't you simply make it very clear to them that if they try to impose unlawful conditios you will fight them in the Courts?

bedwards1966, on 14 May 2014 - 7:33 PM, said:

As it appears that there is no promise of any real support from BASC for members who are faced with this issue I'll return to my original question on the issue of the demands made by the police: 'What are you doing about this?'

 

Why won't you just provide a straight answer to a straight question?

If a certificate application is refused or 'cancelled' (in itself unlawful) will you stand behind the member all the way or not? Saying that your actions will depend on the individual case circumstances is just using weasel words.

 

My own experiences with BASC is that you are long on half promises and very short on actual action. OK, forget about me, I voted with my feet and you no longer represent me - what about your other 130,000 members?

 

Just give a straight, unequivocable answer to this question, so that your members know where they stand with you.

[Beretta06]

Unfortunately, a 'test case' in a court would only be binding if the police force involved lost the case. I strongly suspect that if it came to a courtroom, then the police would simply cave in before the hearing started. Thus, no case law is established.

 

Much like the fiascos that have involved DVLA, TV licencing, etc, they simply admit defeat in that particular case, and go after the next easy mark. Their policy seems to be that they will make you jump through the hoops, unless you stand up to them. When that happens, like all bullies, they back down

Don't put too much faith in case law. If another judge in another similar case choses to ignore it, his/her new ruling then becomes the presiding case law!!! It is not set forever. H&S case law changes almost weekly as different judges determine things different ways.

 

How about this:

 

10 year licences - cost of £500-00

 

To include:

• Unlimitied variations for FAC
• Defined KPIs for issuing documents etc. For example, 2 weeks for variation, 4 weeks for issue/renewal
• 2 weeks for replacement of lost/stolen etc. Any failures of the targets would mean reimbursement of some of the costs back tot he aggrieved licence applicant/holder.
• Costs of GP medical reports
• Anything else the Police have a mind to charge us

 

We all know the service is slow and mostly unacceptable. We also resist increases until a better service is provided. But, we also all know that without increased fees, they have no money to improve the services.

 

For the current costs, there is no way the service will ever improve - certainly not in our favour!!

[David BASC]

OK so lets make it as clear as I can, I am not using weasel words, I am simply making it clear how it works in the real, not hypothetical world.

 

If a member is refused or revoked because they refuse to get a medical , there could be several reasons why the police revoke / refuse, because there may be something else that has had an influence on their decision - that's why we have to check it out first!

[robbiep]

OK so lets make it as clear as I can, I am not using weasel words, I am simply making it clear how it works in the real, not hypothetical world.

 

If a member is refused or revoked because they refuse to get a medical , there could be several reasons why the police revoke / refuse, because there may be something else that has had an influence on their decision - that's why we have to check it out first!

 

And I think that is an entirely reasonable response, and an entirely reasonable attitude too.

Some here want BASC to stand up, draw a line in the sand, and fight, no matter what the circumstances. However, the circumstances obviously have to play a part.

 

Put it this way : I'm a BASC member. I don't want my membership money frittered away on speculative cases where the police have actually been reasonable in requesting a medical. In fact, BASC have got a responsibility to me (and all the other members) to do that in a responsible manner, and on a case-by-case basis.

 

BASC have my support in this, and the way they go about it.

I'm aware that that might be a minority opinion on this thread, but the silent majority often are just that.

[GHE]

Don't put too much faith in case law. If another judge in another similar case choses to ignore it, his/her new ruling then becomes the presiding case law!!! It is not set forever. H&S case law changes almost weekly as different judges determine things different ways.

 

How about this:

 

10 year licences - cost of £500-00

 

To include:

• Unlimitied variations for FAC
• Defined KPIs for issuing documents etc. For example, 2 weeks for variation, 4 weeks for issue/renewal
• 2 weeks for replacement of lost/stolen etc. Any failures of the targets would mean reimbursement of some of the costs back tot he aggrieved licence applicant/holder.
• Costs of GP medical reports
• Anything else the Police have a mind to charge us

 

We all know the service is slow and mostly unacceptable. We also resist increases until a better service is provided. But, we also all know that without increased fees, they have no money to improve the services.

 

For the current costs, there is no way the service will ever improve - certainly not in our favour!!

Yes, case law isn't necessarily binding, or to put it another way, it is only binding in courts lower than the one that defined the law. And as the appeal hearings can only be heard before a senior Crown Court Circuit Judge, all judges able to hear the case are equal - until of course, one of the parties goes for a Judicial Review, which will then make binding case law.

 

BUT if a Crown Court finds that a condition imposed by police such as providing medical reports is unlawful, it is highly unlikely that a different judge will reach a different conclusion - after all, there is nothing technical here, the imposition of that condition either is or is not unlawful.

 

The question that BASC won't answer is whether or not they will support their members by fighting any appeal that has become necessary because of the imposition of an unlawful requirement.

 

The subject of fees is something much more complicated. Licensing (of all types) evolves over time. I can remember when a gun licence cost 10 bob, just hand over the money at the post office and you're licenced - you didn't even have to fill in a form. And then when certificates were introduced, just go along to the police station, fill in a form and they hand over the certificate. Same for driving licences, before my time people didn't need them at all, then simple tests were introduced, and now there are separate licences for all sorts of similar vehicles...

 

Firearms licensing is about keeping the bad guys out, it's about public safety, it isn't about the needs or rights of the licence holders. There is an argument that as it's the government that wants the licensing system, it's the government that should pay for its cost. And there's also the argument that we shooters contribute a lot to the economy anyway, in terms of VAT paid on guns, ammo, clothing etc, fuel duty, the vehicles we buy to go shooting and so on. It isn't our fault if this money goes into a general fund and doesn't help with the cost of licensing.

 

The reality of the licensing system seems to be that more an more police forces are forcing us to jump through hoops to get and keep our certificates, and the reason for this has to be that the police would be much happier if we didn't have guns at all, many of them seem to believe that the only people who should have guns are the police

 

The only way to fight this losing battle is for shooters to stand their ground, and to refuse to be pushed around by the police. Individually, this is difficult, and this is why we need shooting organisations to fight for us - but if the largest organisation of all won't commit to safeguarding our legal rights, we have to ask whether they are actually fit for purpose. Are they part of the solution, or have they aligned themselves so much with the government and police that they have become part of the problem?

 

We need to know where we stand, and where BASC stands. But they won't say.

[robbiep]

 

We need to know where we stand, and where BASC stands. But they won't say.

?

 

 

OK so lets make it as clear as I can, I am not using weasel words, I am simply making it clear how it works in the real, not hypothetical world.

 

If a member is refused or revoked because they refuse to get a medical , there could be several reasons why the police revoke / refuse, because there may be something else that has had an influence on their decision - that's why we have to check it out first!

 

 

That looks pretty clear to me. That is BASC stating quite clearly where they stand.

[welsh1]

 

And I think that is an entirely reasonable response, and an entirely reasonable attitude too.

Some here want BASC to stand up, draw a line in the sand, and fight, no matter what the circumstances. However, the circumstances obviously have to play a part.

 

Put it this way : I'm a BASC member. I don't want my membership money frittered away on speculative cases where the police have actually been reasonable in requesting a medical. In fact, BASC have got a responsibility to me (and all the other members) to do that in a responsible manner, and on a case-by-case basis.

 

BASC have my support in this, and the way they go about it.

I'm aware that that might be a minority opinion on this thread, but the silent majority often are just that.

While i am in agreement that i do not want money frittered away,i cannot see how you can say it is reasonable for requesting you supply a medical,you already give consent for them to contact your gp should they want to,it is not your job to do it that is the police forces job,you have paid what is required and complied with the terms on your application/renewal,you need to do nothing more.

[GHE]

OK so lets make it as clear as I can, I am not using weasel words, I am simply making it clear how it works in the real, not hypothetical world.

 

If a member is refused or revoked because they refuse to get a medical , there could be several reasons why the police revoke / refuse, because there may be something else that has had an influence on their decision - that's why we have to check it out first!

There's nothing to check out.

When I complete my certificate application, I give my written authority to the police to contact my doctor if they want to. No problem. I remember a FEO telling me that on one home visit he saw a large quantity of spirit bottles lying around, he asked the applicant whether he was a drinker and was told no - so the doctor was contacted, to find out whether there was a known alcohol problem. Fair enough.

 

What is happening now is that some police forces are 'requesting' applicants to supply a medical report, at their own expense, whether or not they have good reason to suspect that it may be necessary. This is where the problem lies, and if it isn't stamped on then it will be rolled out nationwide and affect every legitimate shooter - and then some other 'request' will be introduced into the process, and so on.

 

My take on this is that if the police follow their existing and correct procedure, and then discover that there may be a medical problem, then they may be entitled to request (or insist upon) a medical report. But if they haven't followed that process, then there is nothing for BASC to check out, and they need to stand 4 square behind their member.

 

 

It's that simple.

[drut]

OK so lets make it as clear as I can, I am not using weasel words, I am simply making it clear how it works in the real, not hypothetical world.

 

If a member is refused or revoked because they refuse to get a medical , there could be several reasons why the police revoke / refuse, because there may be something else that has had an influence on their decision - that's why we have to check it out first!

Although that is clear the issue appears to be a "blanket" request from some forces for medical information paid for by the applicant.

[wymberley]

It's all a load of twaddle.

 

Re the 'C' in ACPO, I used to be one of those, but in my case it was a Chief Technician in the RAF and I had to do what I was told - in my case by the MoD. There is no difference what-so-ever between the ACPO (except, of course, they're also running a business) 'C' and me as they also have to do as they're told and in their case by the HO simply because just like me, they're nothing more than employees. If that is not the case and the alternative means that they're above the law, then heaven help us all.

[rogcal]

Regarding ACPO I have a prime example of how their guidelines became a piece of quasi-law back in the 90's.

 

I used to work closely with the police in the unenviable task of removing travellers who were illegally encamped using the legislation available to the police.

 

Then ACPO drew up some guidelines which required them (the police) to check if any of the travellers had any medical, housing, education, etc, etc issues before they moved them on.

 

You can imagine the amount of time that took given the various agencies involved and in most cases I would end up using the legislation available to me in Local Government to shift the encampment.

 

So in one fell swoop ACPO via their "guidelines" removed the cost in resources from the police forces in England and Wales and dumped them on the shoulders of the local Councils.

 

It didn't cross the minds of anyone in ACPO that the longer an encampment of travellers were allowed to remain in any location the crime rate would inexplicably rise and in doing so increase the resource burden on the local police.

 

So in a nutshell ACPO are doing what they do best, looking at where they can relieve police forces of burdensome resource costs!

Edited May 16, 2014 by rogcal

[Kes]

I am glad I live in my hypothetical world, described above.

I used to work with the police in a senior position, I am pretty well qualified and have had some rather humbling references.

I am also not so rude as to suggest anyone who doesn't hold my opinion doesn't live in the real world.

Someone above suggested BASC was arrogant - I didnt believe that was true before. A couple of threads have now convinced me I need to rethink that.