BrowningB525 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 I disagree, dr's don't want the onus of deciding if someone is suitable to possess firearms with someone they've met in a handful of times for ten minutes at a time. Would you? My wife, although not a GP but a doctor, is totally against this. This is for the police to do, with credible referrers. The gp os more likely to know if someone had mental health issues than an unqualified person. It's about money nothing more. The BMA are scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 That's it, most Doctors spend their time concocting ways of raping money out of non medical issues rather than treating patients....... They certainly aren't shy about it. I thought my doctors explanation to me was perfectly reasonable but it was about money and that was all. Even the FEO's around here are advising not to pay it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Taken from the bma website We are now advising GPs to return the letter to the police without delay explaining they are unable to undertake the work due to a lack of funding or for a conscientious objection to gun ownership So it's just the cash then. Can't be clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 The gp os more likely to know if someone had mental health issues than an unqualified person. It's about money nothing more. The BMA are scum. Evidence? I reckon a close friend is more likely to know Doctors want paying, that is the only issue. Everything else is about making their excuses to not comply without sounding greedy. Want paying for doing work?? What an odd concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parapilot Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 So if someone does have a mental health issue, the doctor sends them a letter saying it's unable to comment, the police don't hear anything for 21 days so assume all is ok and issue a license to a raving loony. Seams like a stupid system to me? Like when you sell / buy a gun. No confirmation here they have received the letter / email. You just have to hope they got it. Silly system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Evidence? I reckon a close friend is more likely to know Want paying for doing work?? What an odd concept. As I said, I don't have a problem with my doctors explanation. It's just a case that we shouldn't have to pay it and the police certainly wont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningB525 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Evidence? I reckon a close friend is more likely to know What evidence is needed? These people are so called "experts". Would a friend raise a concern to the police? They would probably no longer be a close friend. Want paying for doing work?? What an odd concept. GPs are paid regardless. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/pay/average-gp-practice-receives-136-per-patient-annually-less-than-a-sky-tv-subscription/20009191.fullarticle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 As I said, I don't have a problem with my doctors explanation. It's just a case that we shouldn't have to pay it and the police certainly wont. That's the police stance, why people are attacking doctors I don't know. The word Scum was used, really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningB525 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) That's the police stance, why people are attacking doctors I don't know. The word Scum was used, really? Given the behaviour of the BMA, I stand by calling them scum. "We are now advising GPs to return the letter to the police without delay explaining they are unable to undertake the work due to a lack of funding or for a conscientious objection to gun ownership" GPs have always played a part of the licensing process. The BMA are stirring. The placing a marker on the file of a gun owner is a small piece of work. GPs already know that gun owners are gun owners as in the past they have notified the police if someone's mental state changes. The new system is just a more formal way. Edited October 3, 2016 by BrowningB525 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 That's the police stance, why people are attacking doctors I don't know. The word Scum was used, really? Not me, I was happy with my GP's explanation. Why should they perform extra non NHS work for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Not me, I was happy with my GP's explanation. Why should they perform extra non NHS work for free? Because when this was originally discussed between the BMA and the HO, the BMA said the work did not warrant a charge, adding that they thought it a good proposal that would address some of the concerns they had with the administration of firearms licensing. They had every opportunity to say no, set a charge or say get lost, but they chose to proceed on the basis of no fee only to change their minds when it became operational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 It's just another make it up as you go along thing made up by the firearms departments. Another hoop to jump through which many on here seem to want to encourage. No one wants to pay for this. if the police want to have the doctors report they should pay for it. But here in Kent the last crime commisioner said that the police budget was subsidising shooters hobbies out of the police budget and seeing as they only have one push bike and sidecar between them they cant afford it. Doctors and the BMA aren't scum. they just dont like being used to do someone elses dirty work for nothing. Anyone can go luny at any time so there is no point doing it. most of the gun insidents could have been prevented if the police had done their job properly in the first place. Club members and shooters had been onto the plod about most of the shooters that went off the rails but they choose not to do anything about them. That thomas Hamilton had been warned about and he was supposed to have been a right weirdo. Dont get on the doctors backs, it aint anything to do with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 The danger here is that if someone is being treated for, say, clinical depression and fails to notify the police firearms licencing team, then their GP will no longer forward that information, and there is a very real, albeit small, risk of someone with a possible mental issue (and here, I'm not trying to paint a negative picture of those unfortunate enough to suffer with depression...it's just an example) has their licence renewed. It's a step backwards in public safety, not progress. The licensing teams are under-funded, generally speaking, and were never in a position to be qualified to comment on or decide a person's mental health, hence it's perfectly understandable that GPs were being asked for a report. The BMA, as CharlieT says, were given every opportunity to set a charge and chose not to. Don't blame your licencing team as it has nothing to do with them. They can only do as legislation asks for and what they are told to do. The hypocrisy is that the BMA even admitted that it was a good idea that addressed their own concerns with the licencing system. It is not the fault of the police, nor even of your local GP. Look to the shambles that is the BMA as it is them to thank for this mess, although I suspect that they may have been canvassed by their members once the reality set in of what this meant. The interesting point here also is that the 21 day response time obviously depends upon when in the renewal process that a licencing team member issues the letter to your GP so it could well add further delay to the process if you're one of the lucky ones in an area with currently a quick turn around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 As said if your doctor doesn't respond then the police will send out your ticket, But i would look at changing doctors if the don't think the are not qualified to respond on a medical matter If you can change doctors, where I live you can't choose or change.. Doctors have catchment areas like schools in this Health Authority and where you live decides which surgery you are assigned to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 You can see how this will all end, the HO will come down on the side of the BMA and in time the medical report will be a mandatory part of the process which the certificate holder will have to pay the doctor for and then include it as part of the application process, be that grant, renewal or variation. All part of driving down the number of firearms in private ownership. The world has changed but just how much safer are we from the days of buying your shotgun certificate from the post office. How much safer do you feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Fair enough. It was just a thought. Given the most recent response from your licensing authority I'd simply forget about your GP's response, as, as others have said, after 21 days licensing will just assume there are no issues and issue your tickets. It would increasingly appear that GP's have been advised by the BMA not to co-operate with the procedure as agreed regarding their role in the licensing of firearms. Back to square one it would seem! I await my GP's letter with interest as I am currently awaiting a coterminous renewal. I would normally have declared an issue but as the new forms state 'Do you suffer from such and such' instead of 'Do you currently, or have you ever suffered......' or something along those lines, I didn't. You and I will have the same problems to a varying degree... we both suffer Dissociative identity disorder... I think I'm Adge Cutler and you Nigel Farage ! Edited October 4, 2016 by Adge Cutler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 You and I will have the same problems to a varying degree... we both suffer Dissociative identity disorder... I think I'm Adge Cutler and you Nigel Farage !Eh? Why do you think I'm Nigel Farage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenlivet Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Eh? Why do you think I'm Nigel Farage?Same reason I did I would guess - your avatar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Same reason I did I would guess - your avatar!Really? Are you a bottle of whisky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenlivet Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Really? Are you a bottle of whisky?Depends what night it is and whether I'm shooting next day..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Because when this was originally discussed between the BMA and the HO, the BMA said the work did not warrant a charge, adding that they thought it a good proposal that would address some of the concerns they had with the administration of firearms licensing. They had every opportunity to say no, set a charge or say get lost, but they chose to proceed on the basis of no fee only to change their minds when it became operational. this post is spot on the bma moved the goalposts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted October 5, 2016 Report Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) The danger here is that if someone is being treated for, say, clinical depression and fails to notify the police firearms licencing team, then their GP will no longer forward that information, and there is a very real, albeit small, risk of someone with a possible mental issue (and here, I'm not trying to paint a negative picture of those unfortunate enough to suffer with depression...it's just an example) has their licence renewed. It's a step backwards in public safety, not progress. I see where you are coming from with a step backwards, but the process also has to be proportionate to the risk which as you say is small. I don't see any evidence that the risk is sufficient to justify the process, its simply an extra layer, a knee jerk political reaction. Rather than a step backwards its the reality of absurdity coming back to bite. Edited October 5, 2016 by oowee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagantino Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 It sounds as if your system is working very well. No response from doctor then application is processed. As an early post said, sit back and await the postman. No sane doctor is going to tick a box saying your fine. I live in N. Ireland. On your application it has a box asking, Have you any objection to Firearms Licensing contacting your doctor? A completely different thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBob Posted October 9, 2016 Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 Come on folks, don't just go for the GP. There have been several high-profile cases where a patient has been judged to be sufficiently mentally stable for local care, who has then harmed themselves or others. In today's world, blame falls squarely on the person who took that decision, resulting in name in papers, legal action and a summons to appear in front of the GMC, the regulatory body. ( the BMA is just a trade union) If an applicant has, say, been through a bad patch, depression, and subsequently commits suicide with a legally held firearm, there is the potential for a whole world of litigation, adverse publicity and potential career ending for the GP. Therefore, they argue that, if you want a full, legally binding, psychiatric assessment, see a Consultant psychiatrist, registered under the appropriate section of the Mental Health Act. It's affected us. A few years ago, the law allowed GP's to deal with dental emergencies. Someone noted that GP's were therefore carrying out dental procedures, unfortunately the Dentist's Act strictly defines who can carry out dentistry- basically, registered dentists! The medics were advised that if they sorted out an emergency, some ambulance chaser could argue that they have acted beyond their capabilities-and are liable for zillion pound lawsuits. So, if you have a facial swelling, caused by a wisdom tooth, which would respond to antibiotics, don't be surprised if the GP refuses to do anything. It ain't the medics, it's the ambulance chasers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagantino Posted October 9, 2016 Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.