Doctors Letters - Rip Off Charge

[wymberley]

David BASC,

 

I've posted this here as no doubt you'll see it and have added the link below in case you're not aware of this topic:

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/333168-lambs-shot-by-thugs

 

No doubt you'll be as sickened as I was - not to mention every other PW member - that this has happened again. It is just possible that once the antis run with it, we're not going to come out of it smelling of roses and if it happens once again, we'll be smelling of something else entirely.

 

If and when BASC comes in for criticism, the same two words often appear - reactive and pro-active. With regard to the latter, in view of the potential damage our sport could possibly suffer, is there any merit in BASC as 'the voice of shooting', possibly together with CA and NGO, making a press release expressing its (their) disgust at the activities of these cruel and mindless perpetrators and additionally explaining that local members have been asked to be aware of what's been going on and to report any suspicious occurrences noted while they themselves are going about their own legal activities? This might just prevent damage to our reputation instead of yet again us having to react to unjustified media comments.

[Scully]

I was asked about the time limit on medial issues. In the past the form asked is you suffer from (i.e. currently) any medical condition , it then continued to ask if you had ever suffered form depression etc.

 

On the new forms, from April 1st, this second question has been removed, and it only asks if you are 'suffering from'

 

 

 

Scully, I think you are exaggerating the issue - only those who declare a medical issue will incur a cost, the cost will depend on how much investigation is required. The pilot study shows less than 2% needed further investigation, so the cost on the vast majority will be nil - had we failed in this regard then the cost could have been significant to ALL regardless of any current medical condition. Do you understand that?

 

I do not know of any intention by the police or HO to push towards compulsory medical checks for all, remember your discussion with Mike was some time ago, and many months before the changes were announced. Things change, - its called effective ;lobbying The truth of the matter is where we are now

 

As I correctly predicted you will chose to ignore everything BASC delivers and try to exaggerate everything you believe BASC has failed on to support you own point of view - further debate on that point is useless as come what may I am confident you will never admit that BASC is delivering more than anyone else and that without BASC shooting would be in a far worse position.

 

Why not concentrate your efforts and criticisms of the organisation you now choose to support?

 

I understand perfectly David, and despite what you claim, I don't need to exaggerate anything, and it isn't merely my point of view; the victories and failings of all our shooting organisations, including BASC, are there for all to see. Just let me know if you want a list. We could do a legislation 'for' and a legislation 'against' regards shooting. I'm sure it would be interesting reading.

You refuted all accusations of betrayal regarding BASC pushing for a lead shot ban, but correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your main man push for it? Exaggeration? I was sat in a BASC meeting chaired by the man himself as BASC head honcho, when he stated his position regarding lead.

Time will tell if Mr Eveleigh is right or not. If he's wrong, great, but if he's not.....Given what he told me I find it hard to believe police, having gone this far, will simply leave the declaration aspect of an application down to the honesty of the applicant. In essence all they have achieved with this is a free GP's report for those it applies to and no one else. We'll see.

I have congratulated BASC, the CA and the NGO on this very forum in the past, ( have a look, its all there ) so your predictions are incorrect I'm afraid; hardly Derren Brown, and I have criticised all, including my own ( including BASC when I was a member, and quite recently my current one ) when it has been justified.

Stop bigging up BASC as the cure all for shootings ills and I'll stop criticising them. I'm far too old in the tooth to believe the spin.

[Scully]

It would be very interesting to know what that organisation is? I'm a member of the NGO and the CA. The NGO are the organisation which formed after an altercation with BASC, and about which Swift said, 'you wont last six months'. Not bad for a part-time organisation, and at half the cost. The CA is the organisation which organised the Countryside March, the bandwagon on which BASC were only too happy to jump. Remember Swift ( him again ) marching at the head of the crowd?

 

Just so that, in the interest of fairness, we can compare their effectiveness with that of BASC. Be my guest.

 

But wait, the subject of this entire debate is about to become law, despite the aparrent efforts of BASC AND THE OTHER COUNTRYSIDE GROUP. Exactly! And the cost of the GP's report is capped at ......?

 

And yet the critics only harangue BASC and not the other group(s) who also apparently failed. ​I have criticised both the NGO and the CA, but have to do it by phone or email as they don't appear on here. You could ask the why.

 

I think it says a tremendous amount about the mind set of the complainers. Care to elaborate?

 

Words like biased,lop sided, skewed, unfair and partisan come to my mind. You could elaborate on those too if you like.

[Scully]

I think some on here consider BASC bashing a sport in its own right I bashed BASC even as a member; it's not that long ago I left.

It's become so predictable it verging on boring. Then press ignore.

 

Where is the face of the CA or NGO on here ? Have you tried asking them?

 

I think David must dread logging onto PW . He doesn't have to. I admire him for doing so, but resent the spin. Doing all they can to keep shooting safe applies to most of our organisations ( with obvious exceptions ) but doing all they can wont keep shooting safe I'm afraid. Having experienced disappointment after disappointment I know exactly what we can achieve, and resent the hype, and that doesn't just apply to BASC.

Each individual shooter who can't be bothered to fight is equally, if not more, to blame for the state we find ourselves in. There is a perfect example of apathy on this very forum ( not the only one ) regarding bass fishing. How many anglers are there in the UK? 4 Million? 6 Million?

[David BASC]

Scully you are so wrong on so many points, especially lead shot , but if you want to spend your time compiling such a list please carry on, I will not get involved in such a pointless debate

 

True to form you start dragging us off topic to have your pop at BASC, your same old same old brings absolutely nothing constructive to the issues under discussion

 

For those that have genuine interest in the changes to the forms. medical tagging and much more please see the BASC web site - here you will see the facts of the matter.

[Scully]

Scully you are so wrong on so many points, especially lead shot , but if you want to spend your time compiling such a list please carry on, I will not get involved in such a pointless debate

 

True to form you start dragging us off topic to have your pop at BASC, your same old same old brings absolutely nothing constructive to the issues under discussion

 

For those that have genuine interest in the changes to the forms. medical tagging and much more please see the BASC web site - here you will see the facts of the matter.

 

If you say so David. It's not my intention to bring anything constructive to the issues under discussion; it has always been my intention to tell it like it is.

[David BASC]

And mine too

[fenboy]

 

I think some on here consider BASC bashing a sport in its own right I bashed BASC even as a member; it's not that long ago I left.

It's become so predictable it verging on boring. Then press ignore.

 

Where is the face of the CA or NGO on here ? Have you tried asking them?

 

I think David must dread logging onto PW . He doesn't have to. I admire him for doing so, but resent the spin. Doing all they can to keep shooting safe applies to most of our organisations ( with obvious exceptions ) but doing all they can wont keep shooting safe I'm afraid. Having experienced disappointment after disappointment I know exactly what we can achieve, and resent the hype, and that doesn't just apply to BASC.

Each individual shooter who can't be bothered to fight is equally, if not more, to blame for the state we find ourselves in. There is a perfect example of apathy on this very forum ( not the only one ) regarding bass fishing. How many anglers are there in the UK? 4 Million? 6 Million?

 

No but I would if they were on here

You claim to know an awful lot Scully , you know what BASC is doing and you know what they should be doing and you know what can be achieved.

As its a democratic organization then why not stand for council ? you sound like an ideal candidate , no doubt then all our woes as shooters will be over .

[mudpatten]

Sometimes it is easier to rage against the darkness than it is to light a candle.

 

I think I now know what the term "keyboard warrior" really means.

[Scully]

Stand for council on BASC? Have you not been following this ( and other ) threads?

I can't stand the organisation and wouldn't get through the door!

I thoroughly enjoy pricking bubbles and pointing out the shortcomings of those who claim to be something they're not. School governors wouldn't entertain me. 😀

Sometimes it is easier to rage against the darkness than it is to light a candle.

 

I think I now know what the term "keyboard warrior" really means.

I doubt it.

[fenboy]

Stand for council on BASC? Have you not been following this ( and other ) threads?

I can't stand the organisation and wouldn't get through the door!

I thoroughly enjoy pricking bubbles and pointing out the shortcomings of those who claim to be something they're not. School governors wouldn't entertain me.

 

I doubt it.

 

Well I never , who would have guessed

[LeadWasp]

I think the fundamental frustration we suffer from comes from the imposition of an increasing number of things we must do or comply with that DON'T seem to have come about from a change in the law. As far as I am aware there have been no amendments to any of the governing Acts. Yet those parties involved in the new requirements seem to be able to create them and impose them and it seems quite undemocratic. How can they do this? What allows them to do this? - is it purely down to the privilege of the Chief Constable to interpret and apply legislation?

[CharlieT]

I think the fundamental frustration we suffer from comes from the imposition of an increasing number of things we must do or comply with that DON'T seem to have come about from a change in the law. As far as I am aware there have been no amendments to any of the governing Acts. Yet those parties involved in the new requirements seem to be able to create them and impose them and it seems quite undemocratic. How can they do this? What allows them to do this? - is it purely down to the privilege of the Chief Constable to interpret and apply legislation?

Remembering that in this instance, no change in law is required as its just a procedural matter.

I believe that, as far as GP "flagging" of medical records is concerned, the procedure has been authorised at ministerial level. I'm sure David will confirm this.

[Graham M]

I see you are all worrying about having to pay for a letter from your Doctor................but in reality if the doctor doesn't see any need to reply to the police then you won't be charged anything.

Which applies to most of us............so we can just throw the unlucky ones under a bus eh! David.

 

Sorry; didn't mean that but if I didn't give you some stick you may think I'm getting old.

 

Anyhow I have just obtained a condensed copy of my medical records for the last 50 years, and last October, before my ticket was sent out, Staff's/West Mid's had indeed contacted my GP to see if I was a potential risk even though I had declared I wasn't on any medication for depression etc.

 

My GP wasn't worried so didn't reply.

 

And no, I'm not going to drag up the lead ban issue that John Swift wanted to bring in whilst head of BASC.................................

G

Edited March 30, 2016 by Graham M

[David BASC]

_Charlie

_{You are spot on it comes into effect tomorrow}

 

_{And for the record, regardless of what any of you think, no one at BASC has ever pushed for a ban on lead, indeed much to the contrary, but if some of you feel the need to start yet another thread peddling conspiracy theories feel free}

[andrewluke]

if these new rules come into effect from tomorrow(april 1st) then why was i told by BASC to pay for a doctors report 3 weeks ago???

Edited March 31, 2016 by andrewluke

[David BASC]

You have answered your own question...the new rules come into effect tomorrow.

 

From tomorrow the forms have changed and only current medical conditions are declared, not historical episodes

 

If you have declared a medical condition on your application than the police may ask for a letter from your doctor, you will have to pay for this

 

If the police ask for a report between renewals then they pay

[wymberley]

_{no one at BASC has ever pushed for a ban on lead,}

David,

As you've mentioned it, would it not be fairer to add, "currently" between, "one" and "at"?

[andrewluke]

You have answered your own question...the new rules come into effect tomorrow.

 

From tomorrow the forms have changed and only current medical conditions are declared, not historical episodes

 

If you have declared a medical condition on your application than the police may ask for a letter from your doctor, you will have to pay for this

 

If the police ask for a report between renewals then they pay

my renewal date was 14/3/16 so this was before april 1st and my medical condition was in 2007 and had treatment for six months?

[robbiep]

my renewal date was 14/3/16 so this was before april 1st and my medical condition was in 2007 and had treatment for six months?

David has already answered this. The new rules come in TOMORROW.

 

So what happened BEFORE then is under the 'old' system, where different police forces made their own policies, and there was no official policy on "Who pays" from HO, ACPO, etc.

[LeadWasp]

Remembering that in this instance, no change in law is required as its just a procedural matter.

I believe that, as far as GP "flagging" of medical records is concerned, the procedure has been authorised at ministerial level. I'm sure David will confirm this.

 

 

_Charlie

_{You are spot on it comes into effect tomorrow}

 

_{And for the record, regardless of what any of you think, no one at BASC has ever pushed for a ban on lead, indeed much to the contrary, but if some of you feel the need to start yet another thread peddling conspiracy theories feel free}

 

I do understand that it is procedural but I was trying to frame the problem earlier to get away from all the negativity. What I don't understand is where the authority comes from to impose a potential high cost fee on an individual where previously this matter was dealt with at no cost to that individual. What are the checks and balances on this and the other procedural changes, and what sort of consultation process was involved. If as a 'community' we could properly understand this then we might find the change easier to absorb?

 

In saying this I understand that we are talking about reports affecting a relative minority of cases but it could still be a significant number. I am literally trying to understand where the powers come from. I'm sure I can't be alone here in thinking that at least if I understand WHAT enables this change to be put in place, what authority, then it might salve the frustration.

 

Given the argument is always made that policing is by consent - the very argument used (by the Police) to explain why our constabularies don't routinely carry firearms - there surely must be some mechanism to say 'well actually no, this has gone too far'. However it seems that rather like a python the coils are tightened with every passing year. We are already one of the most vetted and law abiding sectors of the population, why do we specifically need further scrutiny? Please note that I have absolutely no problem with a licensing system, it is a fair price to pay for a civilised society. In order for that society to entrust us, we have to demonstrate that we are trustworthy, but hasn't it reached the limits of the reasonable and is now bordering on the phobic?

 

In a way, by changeing procedure, one could argue a tacit admission that the vetting was not being done properly in the first case. Interesting questions about public safety might follow........yet no one is likely to admit to that which automatically blows away their argument for tightening the screw.

 

I know I'm being a bit highly principled about this but an article in the BASC magazine giving the background, authority and wrangling would be informative.

Edited March 31, 2016 by LeadWasp

[andrewluke]

David has already answered this. The new rules come in TOMORROW.

 

So what happened BEFORE then is under the 'old' system, where different police forces made their own policies, and there was no official policy on "Who pays" from HO, ACPO, etc.

can YOU tell me why we were told by BASC on this forum not to pay for these reports but when i rang BASC i was told that i had to pay!

[robbiep]

can YOU tell me why we were told by BASC on this forum not to pay for these reports but when i rang BASC i was told that i had to pay!

 

Where is the direct quote from BASC regarding that, and telling you not to pay ?

 

As far as I'm aware, BASCs viewpoint was always that certificate holders SHOULD not have to pay, and that any medical checks required should be proportionate.

This new guidance codifies the procedure, including as and when certificate holders or the police should be expected to foot the bill, depending on when the medical issue comes to light (application, renewal, in-life, etc)

[David BASC]

We were telling members not to pay who were caught up in the Durham pilot

 

The HO guidance was amended and that's where the grey area over who pays came in

 

The new rules clarify this to a large extent , as has been stated

 

Wymberley - et al - for the record, It has never been BASC's policy to ban lead shot nor has BASC ever pushed for a ban on lead shot

[andrewluke]

We were telling members not to pay who were caught up in the Durham pilot

 

The HO guidance was amended and that's where the grey area over who pays came in

 

The new rules clarify this to a large extent , as has been stated

 

Wymberley - et al - for the record, It has never been BASC's policy to ban lead shot nor has BASC ever pushed for a ban on lead shot

 

are these the new rules which start on the 1st april??