BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees

[David BASC]

BASC opposes new Home Office proposals to make every gun owner pay a fee to their GP when applying for a shotgun or firearm certificate.

 

Following a meeting on Tuesday with Nick Hurd, the minister responsible for firearm licensing, BASC understands the Home Office plans to abandon the current system agreed in 2016.

 

This decision follows a campaign of non-cooperation by the British Medical Association (BMA) to the agreement on improving medical involvement in the licensing system reached following extensive negotiations by the Medical Evidence Working Group, which included representatives of the Home Office, police, the shooting community and doctors.

 

Christopher Graffius, BASC’s director of communications, said: “This will be regarded by the shooting community as a betrayal by government.

 

“It will discriminate against those who require a firearm as a tool of their job, damage participation in shooting sports and its benefits to the country and alienate a community which is a natural supporter of the government a month before the local elections.”

 

The proposals will see the Home Office renege on the agreement reached in 2016 which stated that applicants were not required to pay a fee to GPs for their response to an initial police medical letter sent on application. It ensured that applicants would not be disadvantaged by a GP’s refusal to provide medical information.

 

It was also agreed that GPs would implement a system that saw them add an encoded ‘marker’ to the medical records of those who own guns. The shooting community considered this a sensible step towards ensuring public safety.

 

While the Home Office does not keep records, BASC believes less than one per cent of initial firearms licensing applicants are rejected on medical grounds.

 

Mr Graffius added: “BASC has been told by the Home Office that it is planning to insist every firearms certificate holder consults their GP and pays a fee on application and renewal of their certificate.

 

“The figures are not yet clear, but this will be in addition to the fee already payable to the police and could increase the total cost of an application by more than 50 per cent.

 

“This is an abandonment of risk management in the licensing system, may contravene Treasury rules and is completely disproportionate because we believe that less than one per cent of certificates are rejected on medical grounds.

 

“These proposals will damage the relationship between the shooting community and the government.

“Agreement was reached by all parties, including the doctors, who sat around the table for many, many hours before approving the licensing scheme in 2016.

 

“If these proposals are introduced without consultation, it will reflect badly on both the government and the medical profession and, in the eyes of the shooting community, erode confidence in both.”

 

BASC had previously asked the Home Office to reconvene the Medical Evidence Working Group in an attempt to strike an agreement with the medical profession that would satisfy all stakeholders.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Here comes another fudge.

The sport as a whole accepted the changes in 2016, now another change, let's have another vote on Brexit while we are at it!

Edited March 29, 2018 by TIGHTCHOKE

[Penelope]

43 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Here comes another fudge.

 

Very polite of you. I would use another word beginning with 'F'!

[matone]

No doubt driven by the GP`s who seem far more interested in acquiring funds than anything else nowadays .

[Tollerman]

I do hope that "strike an agreement " doesn't mean that there will be a charge but BASC will do a deal about how much!  

[TIGHTCHOKE]

27 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Very polite of you. I would use another word beginning with 'F'!

Yes, it was a moment of weakness, I wont let it happen again!

[Pushandpull]

Most shooters, like farmers and fishermen, do not see either of the opposition parties as any sort of a choice. Therefore this government can treat them as it pleases in an attempt to capture votes in the middle ground.  Furthermore, in this case, the doctors have a very strong union

[Uilleachan]

Blaming the messenger rather than the BMA.  

 

[panoma1]

The police wanted an increase in certificate fees, so our negotiators gave them an increase in fees, more onerous certificate grant and renewal conditions and unwanted/unrequested involvement of the medical profession in the certificate process!

What did the gun owner/shooter get in return? A ten year certificate term? 

Now they want gun owners/shooters to pay for the medical involvement, which is neither wanted by gun owner/shooters or needed! (less than 1% of certificate refusals are on medical grounds!)

Why do we need a certificate? What does a certificate do for the gun owner/shooter?....nothing! Certification of shooters is a wholly public safety issue, therefore should be paid for wholly out of the public purse.....

Edited March 29, 2018 by panoma1

[Scully]

Despite protestations by shooting org's, us shooters will end up forking out as a result of this, consultation or no.

The BMA are a more powerful and influential body than any shooting organisation, and past history between government and BMA dictates that the latter will dig in their heels regarding this ( just to prove a point if nothing else ) which leaves HO ministers and civil servants targeting the soft option once again...namely us shooters. Let's face it; what are we going to do about it? We have no bargaining tools nor political clout so as usual we will be bending over backwards.....again. 

I will be extremely surprised if the matter is resolved in favour of, and without further financial burden to, shooters. Let's see if our sub's are worth it. 

 

[David BASC]

Why not get involved and lobby your MP's on this issue: https://basc.org.uk/political-affairs/lobby-your-mp/

[CharlieT]

9 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Why not get involved and lobby your MP's on this issue: https://basc.org.uk/political-affairs/lobby-your-mp/

Regrettably doing so on such an issue has little effect.

Whilst mine was most supportive and requested a written reply from the HO minister on the subject, the minister's reply wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

[panoma1]

23 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Why not get involved and lobby your MP's on this issue: https://basc.org.uk/political-affairs/lobby-your-mp/

What good will that do? He's a dyed in the Wool socialist anti......he'd probably support any anti shooting proposal!

If the Government impose this, without consultation, can we look forward to BASC seeking a judicial review?

 

 

[Guest stevo]

25 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Why not get involved and lobby your MP's on this issue: https://basc.org.uk/political-affairs/lobby-your-mp/

Thought you lot was the voice of shooting ? 

[mudpatten]

I think they still are but any politician will look to the quanitiy of his mail as an indication of how  strong the feeling is from the general voters about an issue.

BASC can and does stand up for our rights but, increasingly we all need to get involved with the defence of shooting. Some, it seems are reluctant to help themrselves.

I spoke the other day to someone who was a keen foxhunter who fought hard to defend it. They commented that they are increasingly seeing shooters take the same downward spiral as foxhunters did. Shying away from personal involvement when the hand to hand fighting started and blaming someone else for the loss of their sport.

Conscientous Objectors I call `em. If half the bile that`s directed towards our shooting organisations was aimed at influencing political opinion we`d be in a much stronger place.

The really disappointing thing is that this post, instead of starting a flood of involvement and a concerted fight back, will only generate another round of BASC bashing. The final irony of course, is that if we all got involved in the fight, we wouldn`t actually need BASC.

Edited March 29, 2018 by mudpatten

[matone]

4 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

I think they still are but any politician will look to the quanitiy of his mail as an indication of how  strong the feeling is from the general voters about an issue.

BASC can and does stand up for our rights but, increasingly we all need to get involved with the defence of shooting. It seems you`re reluctant to help yourself.

I spoke the other day to someone who was a keen foxhunter who fought hard to defend it. They commented that they are increasingly seeing shooters take the same downward spiral as foxhunters did. Shying away from personal involvement when the hand to hand fighting started and blaming someone else for the loss of their sport.

Conscientous Objectors I call `em. If half the bile that`s directed towards our shooting organisations was aimed at influencing political opinion we`d be in a much stronger place.

The really disappointing thing is that this post, instead of starting a flood of involvement and a concerted fight back, will only generate another round of BASC bashing. The final irony of course, is that if we all got involved in the fight, we wouldn`t actually need BASC.

Agree with all of that but our downfall is the large number of shooting people who are missing from the membership of BASC !

More members would give the org more clout and in politics the bully wins.

[Scully]

39 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

I think they still are but any politician will look to the quanitiy of his mail as an indication of how  strong the feeling is from the general voters about an issue.

BASC can and does stand up for our rights but, increasingly we all need to get involved with the defence of shooting. Some, it seems are reluctant to help themrselves.

I spoke the other day to someone who was a keen foxhunter who fought hard to defend it. They commented that they are increasingly seeing shooters take the same downward spiral as foxhunters did. Shying away from personal involvement when the hand to hand fighting started and blaming someone else for the loss of their sport.

Conscientous Objectors I call `em. If half the bile that`s directed towards our shooting organisations was aimed at influencing political opinion we`d be in a much stronger place.

The really disappointing thing is that this post, instead of starting a flood of involvement and a concerted fight back, will only generate another round of BASC bashing. The final irony of course, is that if we all got involved in the fight, we wouldn`t actually need BASC.

Fox hunters failed to clarify what they actually did, as in they couldn't actually decide whether it was 'sport' or 'pest control'. As a 'sport' it was indefensible, much like hare coursing, fishing and in fact driven shooting. Their argument as it being 'pest control' didn't stand up to scrutiny either. 

Unfortunately, we do need our shooting organisations as shooters cannot meet ministers on a face to face basis. We couldn't have fought off the potential lead shot ban with an email campaign; we needed personal representation at top level, and we got it. This doesn't mean however, that individual shooters shouldn't get involved. 

[panoma1]

I thought the hunting act was forced through by the government invoking the parliament act, in order to negate opposition from the Lords? Therefore I don't believe hunting lost the fight, I think the fight was fixed! The government were determined to ban fox hunting at any cost and were prepared to use all/every power, including a reported 700 hours of parliamentary time! (Compared with 7 hours to decide to go to war in Iraq!) available to them to achieve it!

Oh ! For those that think it's sour grapes, I didn't/don't hunt......I think the ban was an affront to democracy!

Seems like they are going down a similar road in regard to gun licensing? Using Imposition to achieve a desired position..... not democracy?

[mossy835]

8 hours ago, matone said:

No doubt driven by the GP`s who seem far more interested in acquiring funds than anything else nowadays .

that is about it, they want more momey, and should not be allowed to get away with it.where is it going to stop.

BASC, is there to help us lets see what they can do on this.

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

Whilst mine was most supportive and requested a written reply from the HO minister on the subject, the minister's reply wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Even worse, my MP cannot even answer a simple email, total waste of space.

[Walker570]

In some ways I can see the point of Doctors, they are already pushed in my surgery to allowing you only about 10 minutes consultation, having to tick so many boxes unrelated to your problem. My Dr says he would just love to be able to get back to the old days and treat people. You cannot really argue that they should get reimbursed for their time but if that is set in stone then there should be a maximum or set figure nationally.    The whole thing, as said above, is to screw the gun owner.  They made all the laws about having a knife in your possession but it has done absolutely no good at all, just caused law abiding people hardship and reports of people getting stabbed every day.  I have no exception to my guns be registered but that FAC should be for life, OK with a five year upgrade where you simply filled in a form to say nothing had changed etc etc. no home visits etc etc.  Step out of line and bye bye guns for ever, self policing.  That's a pipe dream though.

[inthedark]

6 hours ago, matone said:

Agree with all of that but our downfall is the large number of shooting people who are missing from the membership of BASC !

 

That'll be purely down to cost, £78 is too high

[39TDS]

My GP wanted £85 for a letter when I renewed, he has never met me and it is 15 years since any of his predecessors have seen me. What info was his letter going to be based on?

I do object to the cost because it is profiteering but my main objection is that it is completely meaningless anyway. 

 

The nonsense that goes on in this country is depressing (maybe I need to see a doctor about it)

[matone]

8 hours ago, Walker570 said:

In some ways I can see the point of Doctors, they are already pushed in my surgery to allowing you only about 10 minutes consultation, having to tick so many boxes unrelated to your problem. My Dr says he would just love to be able to get back to the old days and treat people. You cannot really argue that they should get reimbursed for their time but if that is set in stone then there should be a maximum or set figure nationally.    The whole thing, as said above, is to screw the gun owner.  They made all the laws about having a knife in your possession but it has done absolutely no good at all, just caused law abiding people hardship and reports of people getting stabbed every day.  I have no exception to my guns be registered but that FAC should be for life, OK with a five year upgrade where you simply filled in a form to say nothing had changed etc etc. no home visits etc etc.  Step out of line and bye bye guns for ever, self policing.  That's a pipe dream though.

Our family surgery is the same ,you struggle to get an appointment and can`t book in advance.However, miraculously, a DOUBLE appointment WAS available when they were able to charge £132 for a signature on a Power of Attorny form !!!!!!!!!

Edited March 30, 2018 by matone
punctuation

[toontastic]

8 hours ago, inthedark said:

That'll be purely down to cost, £78 is too high

What would you suggest as a suitable cost.