Jump to content

country file / medical reports and linconshire


quentyn
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can I just add that I have first hand experience of medical fitness to possess firearms .

Many years ago my Uncle , Aunty and cousin were shot dead by their neighbour who then went on the run until running out of petrol where upon he called into a filling station filled up with fuel and shot the petrol station owner and his wife dead . Caught , due process , went to prison , came out early , certified safe , put in a bail hostel 1/2 mile from my home , I complained , they changed his identity and he moved to North Wales , came back to Birmingham and was then caught and convicted of making bombs . Died in Prison.

Medical reports did him and us no good at all .

This whole licencing fiasco is a ploy to take firearms off law abiding citizens whilst allowing criminals to rampage scot free . 

Come on Mr . Plod get YOUR house in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 12:46, harkom said:

This is, IMO, an erudite statement which highlights the necessity for  periodic renewal of a SGC/FAC - e.g along the lines of 3-5 year period. However the idiots at BASC have been canvassing and promulgating a much, much longer certificate longevity. huh...??

Another point which I have not seen mentioned on the "requirement" for GP endorsement of a certificate renewal/application - ( and the demand for payment in lieu ) - It is only a couple of years ago that medical practices were requesting patients approval to release the individuals medical files, en masse I presume, to third parties - on the premise that this would optimise patient health care (and no doubt there would have been cash incentives involved !!??  and no mention  of this information being gathered and used by Insurance companies etc)......so the question remains - "If the NHS medical practices can do this, why cannot the individual applicants file/records be made available for access by qualified FEO scrutineers - at little/no cost ??

yours, etc

Disgruntled 

Why periodic review for this licence and not others (driving for example). We need to keep these things in perspective, many things might happen but they are not probable. Reviewing licence holders will have such minor impact on the probability of rogue actions taking place that they would not justify the impact making them unreasonable and disproportionate.  A ten year ticket on the other hand would free up resources to do more robust checking in the first place, surely a more productive focus of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Why periodic review for this licence and not others (driving for example). We need to keep these things in perspective, many things might happen but they are not probable. Reviewing licence holders will have such minor impact on the probability of rogue actions taking place that they would not justify the impact making them unreasonable and disproportionate.  A ten year ticket on the other hand would free up resources to do more robust checking in the first place, surely a more productive focus of attention.

I tend to disagree with your view. It is simplistic,perhaps, to assume that " freed up resources " would result in " more robust" checking. My guess is that it would only allow the authority to cut expenditure on FEO numbers and that there would be no actual improvement in service to the customer.

Ultimately, the entire licensing procedure should surely be focussed primarily  on reducing the future potential risk of another mad dog scenario. It is wishful thinking that by  lengthening renewal times would automatically result in a better and "more efficient" turnaround time on issue of certificate issue/renewal. Comparison with the issue of a driving licence does not really bear scrutiny.....hypothetical perhaps, realistic?--NO. Your observation on risk and probability would bear this out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, harkom said:

I tend to disagree with your view. It is simplistic,perhaps, to assume that " freed up resources " would result in " more robust" checking. My guess is that it would only allow the authority to cut expenditure on FEO numbers and that there would be no actual improvement in service to the customer.

Ultimately, the entire licensing procedure should surely be focussed primarily  on reducing the future potential risk of another mad dog scenario. It is wishful thinking that by  lengthening renewal times would automatically result in a better and "more efficient" turnaround time on issue of certificate issue/renewal. Comparison with the issue of a driving licence does not really bear scrutiny.....hypothetical perhaps, realistic?--NO. Your observation on risk and probability would bear this out?

A ten year ticket would free up resources. What you choose to do with those is a matter for debate, i simply made the point that they could be used for additional scrutiny, and that this would be a way of enhancing safety without requiring additional resource or burden to the user. True cuts are as likely as using the resource to improve the system. 

I asked the question as to why you singled out gun licences for scrutiny to enhance safety rather than a more popular licence such as driving, which could have far greater benefit if the assertion was true.  

Edited by oowee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is it seems the police are a law unto themselves! And apparantly, answerable to no one? There is no will/determination by senior officers to make their individual constabularies account for (or improve) the poor standard of service they provide to the shooting community in relation to gun licensing!.....they appear to be totally unaccountable?

There is no point trying to negotiate with them, look what happened in the last 'consultation'.........they got more money from certificate holders, they imposed new conditions relating to ongoing medical monitoring of certificate holders via GP's, they (and some GP's) reneged on the agreement before the ink was wet!........in return the shooting community got to pay more for a certificate, more scrutiny via ongoing medical monitoring, no service level agreement, poorer service, longer waiting for grant/renewal, no ten year certificate duration, total chaos with different constabularies ignoring or/and interpreting the guidance to suit themselves, some Gp's demanding money they are not entitled to, with menaces.....

Who considers the above, a triumph for our negotiators? Negotiation is not about giving the other side everything they want on just a promise of getting something in return, because if you do.......don't be surprised when their promises turn into.........nothing!

Once their side had got what they wanted and an agreement was made, even if we didn't get what we were promised.........we can't not comply!........the only side who have to comply with this one sided 'agreement'.........is us! Because we are the only side that gave anything away!

 

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10 January 2018 at 21:57, panoma1 said:

The problem is it seems the police are a law unto themselves! And apparantly, answerable to no one? There is no will/determination by senior officers to make their individual constabularies account for (or improve) the poor standard of service they provide to the shooting community in relation to gun licensing!.....they appear to be totally unaccountable?

There is no point trying to negotiate with them, look what happened in the last 'consultation'.........they got more money from certificate holders, they imposed new conditions relating to ongoing medical monitoring of certificate holders via GP's, they (and some GP's) reneged on the agreement before the ink was wet!........in return the shooting community got to pay more for a certificate, more scrutiny via ongoing medical monitoring, no service level agreement, poorer service, longer waiting for grant/renewal, no ten year certificate duration, total chaos with different constabularies ignoring or/and interpreting the guidance to suit themselves, some Gp's demanding money they are not entitled to, with menaces.....

Who considers the above, a triumph for our negotiators? Negotiation is not about giving the other side everything they want on just a promise of getting something in return, because if you do.......don't be surprised when their promises turn into.........nothing!

Once their side had got what they wanted and an agreement was made, even if we didn't get what we were promised.........we can't not comply!........the only side who have to comply with this one sided 'agreement'.........is us! Because we are the only side that gave anything away!

 

Could part of the problem be firearms licensing neither being profitable to the local constabulary nor important to the majority of the local population? Higher fees could at least solve one aspect but as more and more local services become steered by the interests of local people (ie elected police and crime commissioners) loitering hoodies and vagrants may be deemed more important than our renewals unless the profit on renewals could fund more vagrant removal... If we could make easy firearms licencing important to 20% of the population we could have much more clout, otherwise it has to be in the interests of constabularies for other reasons. Until then firearms licencing is likely to be a service they do not want to provide and if the caseload can be reduced by making the process more difficult it is in their interests to make it more difficult.

The BMA panel involved are essentially a body like basc. They represent (sometimes poorly) the interests of their subscribers but have no functional power over their members, or non members. If basc negotiated with the salvation army that you would clean their local hall windows free of charge once every three years would you do it? I dont think the current system is fit for purpose, inclusion in the nhs contract or removal of gp involvement seem the only robust solutions, there will be no funding for the former (and it cannot as i understand it be obligatory), and the latter will be very difficult to achieve. I looked into setting up a private service for people stuck with fees or no licence and could not make the numbers stack up for a competitive price (it was looking likely to come to to around £100 a time, mostly on access to notes and indemnity). If basc wanted to take such a system in house it may well be managable at a lower rate (if a large volume of applications had to be dealt with) but they are angling at avoiding fees alltogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firearms licensing is a public safety issue, the police are responsible for public safety! It's their job, the shooting community didn't ask for, nor request the firearms licensing process we have, It was Imposed, by the government "in the interests of public safety"

Public safety issues are paid for out of public funds? Why should certificate holders be expected to pay anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall I be the one to suggest that Lincolnshire is just throwing another spanner in the works to delay things to try and blame someone else for their delays?

6 months to renew a SGC and grant a FAC. Bearing in mind it took them 6 weeks after my visit to contact a neighbouring force to ask for a land check. All I got when phoning up was, " It's being done today ". Personally I have every intention of moving out of Lincolnshire before I need to renew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Firearms licensing is a public safety issue, the police are responsible for public safety! It's their job, the shooting community didn't ask for, nor request the firearms licensing process we have, It was Imposed, by the government "in the interests of public safety"

Public safety issues are paid for out of public funds? Why should certificate holders be expected to pay anything?

The individual pays for the safety issues for hgv driving, pilots, divers, offshore workers, skydivers, any kind of certificated dangerous equipment or working environment certification, background checks for working with vulnerable people, professional licencing... Why are firearms worthy of an exception?

Whilst personally I agree with you (though were it not for my vested interest in shooting Im not sure i would), these are the questions we need to be able to offer a response to in order to fight our corner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wb123 said:

The individual pays for the safety issues for hgv driving, pilots, divers, offshore workers, skydivers, any kind of certificated dangerous equipment or working environment certification, background checks for working with vulnerable people, professional licencing... Why are firearms worthy of an exception?

Whilst personally I agree with you (though were it not for my vested interest in shooting Im not sure i would), these are the questions we need to be able to offer a response to in order to fight our corner. 

Are the examples quoted not required "in the course of employment" and a requirement of the job? If a firearm is a reqirement of the job, as opposed to a leisure activity........there may be some justification for the post holder to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Are the examples quoted not required "in the course of employment" and a requirement of the job? If a firearm is a reqirement of the job, as opposed to a leisure activity........there may be some justification for the post holder to pay?

Not entirely but good point, hgv, diving, background checks, and flying related costs are often borne in recreational pursuits but are a minority of the cases i have ever encountered. I assume in the uk only a small minority of firearms users are in the system purely for work purposes.

Why should leisure use shift the burden of responsibility to the public purse? If anything costs that get people working and paying tax seem more logical to subsidise. 

 

I would happily pay more for a functional system, over here there is no GP involvement unless health problems are declared and an FAC application is near bang on £100, variations £30. The system is computerised and worked well after the change from paper forms but now there is a growing backlog of files to process. I put in an online variation six weeks ago and have not yet heard anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wb123 said:

Not entirely but good point, hgv, diving, background checks, and flying related costs are often borne in recreational pursuits but are a minority of the cases i have ever encountered. I assume in the uk only a small minority of firearms users are in the system purely for work purposes.

Why should leisure use shift the burden of responsibility to the public purse? 

Because as I said a few postings ago, gun licensing is a public safety issue, it is of no benefit to gun owners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Because as I said a few postings ago, gun licensing is a public safety issue, it is of no benefit to gun owners!

Exactly, which is why, from the very outset, the government chose the word certificate. 

Since the requirement for certificates was introduced, it has been the government who has slowly amended and tweaked the rules for the sole purpose of public safety. 

As you rightly say, it is of no additional benefit to gun owners beyond that of a non gun owning member of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...