Jump to content

Looks like Lincolnshire have kicked off compulsory doctors reports


Zetter
 Share

Recommended Posts

mudpatten - I don't think shooters will necessarily go to another shooting organisation - none seem to come out of this well - they will just opt for insurance, which can be had at a far better price than BASC membership.

I genuinely believe it is a very serious issue for BASC, which could have massive financial implications for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I don't think shooters will necessarily go to another shooting organisation - none seem to come out of this well - they will just opt for insurance

Has this happened in Scotland, where the system is already in place?

Edited by stagboy
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mudpatten said:

There`s a huge amount of criticism being directed against BASC from the usual BASC bashers, but it has to be said that none of the other shooting organisations have done any better. If you leave BASC, where will you go?  

I`ve just read up on what I can find online about doctor/patient confidentiality. Granted it may not be the most accurate information but it begs a number of questions. What if I do not wish my doctor to communicate with the police? I understand that there is a "greater good" over ride available to doctors but, lets assume my GP doesn`t believe I`m a dangerous nutter, what grounds at law are there for the GP to then communicate my personal information to the police?

Where will this principle end? Imagine a GP has a patient who has a mental health problem such as gambling addiction and the GP knows he is in serious debt. Should he be informing the patients wife? Should he be informing the patients bank manager?

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, mudpatten said:

It has just been explained to me that one signs away ones rights to medical confidentiality when one applies for firearms certification.

I`ve got a bad feeling about this because of some of the complex underlying facts.

Meanwhile, to those of you who`ve been slagging off BASC, please tell me what the other associations have done about this.

The fact is that they`ve all kept their heads well below the parapet whilst BASC has at least done something. When this whole thing goes pear shaped the other associations will jump up and say, "We`d have done it different", blaming BASC by proxy for their own inaction. So why aren`t those other associations doing anything now?

To those BASC slaggers amongst you, sure, we all know BASC has had some serious problems, but before you jump ship, make sure that you`re not jumping out of the BASC frying pan and into the inert other associations fire. And start saving for your GP fees.

Oh Mudpatten, none of the organisations that take our hard earned are doing enough to represent shooters, but only one is sitting their claiming to fight our corner and taking the money without improving anything.

As Gordon points out, unhappy members may well not move to another shooting organisation, they will more likely not renew and seek a good deal on insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mudpatten said:

There`s a huge amount of criticism being directed against BASC from the usual BASC bashers, but it has to be said that none of the other shooting organisations have done any better. If you leave BASC, where will you go?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was a BASC member for many years; I left because I realised I can get just as much ineffectiveness ( and insurance and a better magazine  ) from another organisation for half the price. It's time to see if BASC's advertising blurbs live up to their claims. 

I wouldn't want to see any fold, as I believe they all have an important role to play, but we'll leave it there before I go all rant mode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I was a BASC member for many years; I left because I realised I can get just as much ineffectiveness ( and insurance and a better magazine  ) from another organisation for half the price. It's time to see if BASC's advertising blurbs live up to their claims. 

I wouldn't want to see any fold, as I believe they all have an important role to play, but we'll leave it there before I go all rant mode. 

Well said Scully,........ "the voice of shooting" has now got to speak up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt any legal challenge would be successful especially with the current wave of killings in the city. Yes I know most are with knives but that makes no difference to Jo public. All gun owners are madmen in their eyes. Doctors reports are going to become the normal and the applicant paying will also. The so called organisations may be better  concentrating their efforts to getting a standard fee across the country rather than the lottery we are going to have depending on the doctors whim. I am in Lincolnshire and would pay the fee as I wish to have continuous shooting. Anyone else believing that basc or any other can influence this is deluded. This type of condition has been effected by several forces over the last few years and not one of them has faced a legal challenge successful or otherwise. Just get ready for the gp's invoices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scully said:

I was a BASC member for many years; I left because I realised I can get just as much ineffectiveness ( and insurance and a better magazine  ) from another organisation for half the price. It's time to see if BASC's advertising blurbs live up to their claims. 

I wouldn't want to see any fold, as I believe they all have an important role to play, but we'll leave it there before I go all rant mode. 

Exactly. I am a big supporter of BASC and got my club of 35+members to swap over to it. When things like this come along I expect them to take action where when and if they can. They have circa £2m in reserves after advice, this is the time to use it. I for one would be happy to put £100 extra in the kitty if BASC feel they can mount a legal challenge. 

Edited by oowee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bostonmick said:

I doubt any legal challenge would be successful especially with the current wave of killings in the city. Yes I know most are with knives but that makes no difference to Jo public. All gun owners are madmen in their eyes. Doctors reports are going to become the normal and the applicant paying will also. The so called organisations may be better  concentrating their efforts to getting a standard fee across the country rather than the lottery we are going to have depending on the doctors whim. I am in Lincolnshire and would pay the fee as I wish to have continuous shooting. Anyone else believing that basc or any other can influence this is deluded. This type of condition has been effected by several forces over the last few years and not one of them has faced a legal challenge successful or otherwise. Just get ready for the gp's invoices. 

Bostonmick, yielding without seeing if a legal challenge is possible is dangerous the police do not make the law they enforce it if you give them that freedom what next, a force that does not like semi autos or pump action or large capacity .22lr magazines etc etc they then at will they ban what they like when they like. The killings in the city whilst sad should not influence the situation.

over the years we have yielded (rolled over) and lost so much and gained nothing, the carrot with this medical MOT rubbish was we would get a ten year certificate , but that did not happen. It was stupid of the shooting representatives not to nail down the doctors cost and who paid for what when this was original agreed. 

The flag in the records is all that is needed then just like your driving licence the doctor or options could if the need occurred  inform the police about such and such medical condition. 

If they want access to medical records for free because in their view this makes us and society so very much safer then prove it and gives us back our pistols and a ten year licence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Bostonmick, yielding without seeing if a legal challenge is possible is dangerous the police do not make the law they enforce it if you give them that freedom what next, a force that does not like semi autos or pump action or large capacity .22lr magazines etc etc they then at will they ban what they like when they like. The killings in the city whilst sad should not influence the situation.

over the years we have yielded (rolled over) and lost so much and gained nothing, the carrot with this medical MOT rubbish was we would get a ten year certificate , but that did not happen. It was stupid of the shooting representatives not to nail down the doctors cost and who paid for what when this was original agreed. 

The flag in the records is all that is needed then just like your driving licence the doctor or options could if the need occurred  inform the police about such and such medical condition. 

If they want access to medical records for free because in their view this makes us and society so very much safer then prove it and gives us back our pistols and a ten year licence.

 

 

Do you seriously believe that any of the organisations are going to court with this. Do you believe that basc is going to empty their reserves in the bank going up against the police and home office who have unlimited funds. To fight this would mean an end to the company cars. The pat ourselves on the back dinners and other functions that the directors enjoy. Its a gravy train. Also as has been said they have had over five years to take this to task but all they do is advise do not pay. So what do you propose to do when certificate expires. Its not rolling over its facing up to reality. There are around 500 thousand certificates on issue in the UK yet membership of organisations is around half that and that includes those like myself who are members of multiple. So if the shooting public cannot be bothered to support the sport why would you expect others to do it. I shoot three to four days a week if I don't pay and my certificate is not renewed who is going to look after my guns and take them all over the country so I can use them. Nobody that's who. Not basc. Not cpsa. Not nra. And not you. Still as long as we do the as you say and not roll over our certs will be removed Ed by stelph. 

Edited by bostonmick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it comes down to the question surely can they, by law, refuse a certificate on medical grounds based on suspicion alone?

Now for a shotgun certificate, Section 1 of the Firearms Act states that the onus is on the police, not the applicant, to prove reasonable suspicion that you are prohibited from possessing a shotgun, or don’t have good reason for having one. I believe that the police would be in extremely dangerous territory to refuse a grant, and especially a renewal, based on suspicion alone with regards your medical history. The Act clearly states it is entirely on the onus of the police to provide evidence, and English common law has made it clear that lack of information alone is not a good reason to assume guilt - the same way if the police pulled me over for to search my car, I would want clear reasoning as to the suspicion they have I am about to, or in the middle of, committing a crime, and not just that I might in some remote sense be committing a crime and it’s just a gut feeling.

Police must operate within the law of their powers, and for shotgun certificates I truly believe to refuse on a medical report not being paid for would be classed as acting Ultra Vires with regards the Firearms Act. And potentially slanderous, or resulting in a defamation suit.

A Firearms certificate however puts the onus on the applicant. Here the situation becomes sticky, and I would think any court would most likely rule that whilst the provisions of the Act do not put an onus on the applicant to specifically provide a report on their medical history (only their own account), the court would rule it is in the public interest to do so, and thus reasonable by the police to demand and refuse an application if not provided.

I personally would not object to a system where a reasonable fee dictated by statute is paid to the police on top your standard application cost (say £50), and then the police write to the GP to obtain the report. That way the fee is standard across the country, rather than applicants having to deal with individual practices demanding different fees. The grant is then made, and after 5 years if you have held the certificate/licence with no issue or concerns raised the police automatically assume there should be no reason for a refusal. 

If i were BASC, I would pose this question - how does obtaining a medical report prevent people with true mental issues from getting a shotgun or firearm if they have never visited the GP in the first place? It’s a complex issue this, balancing reasonableness with the public concern - but at all times feel free to remind the police that they act within a set of laws, and it is not for them to add hurdles or additional conditions in, only Parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ADT06 said:

So it comes down to the question surely can they, by law, refuse a certificate on medical grounds based on suspicion alone?

Now for a shotgun certificate, Section 1 of the Firearms Act states that the onus is on the police, not the applicant, to prove reasonable suspicion that you are prohibited from possessing a shotgun, or don’t have good reason for having one. I believe that the police would be in extremely dangerous territory to refuse a grant, and especially a renewal, based on suspicion alone with regards your medical history. The Act clearly states it is entirely on the onus of the police to provide evidence, and English common law has made it clear that lack of information alone is not a good reason to assume guilt - the same way if the police pulled me over for to search my car, I would want clear reasoning as to the suspicion they have I am about to, or in the middle of, committing a crime, and not just that I might in some remote sense be committing a crime and it’s just a gut feeling.

Police must operate within the law of their powers, and for shotgun certificates I truly believe to refuse on a medical report not being paid for would be classed as acting Ultra Vires with regards the Firearms Act. And potentially slanderous, or resulting in a defamation suit.

A Firearms certificate however puts the onus on the applicant. Here the situation becomes sticky, and I would think any court would most likely rule that whilst the provisions of the Act do not put an onus on the applicant to specifically provide a report on their medical history (only their own account), the court would rule it is in the public interest to do so, and thus reasonable by the police to demand and refuse an application if not provided.

I personally would not object to a system where a reasonable fee dictated by statute is paid to the police on top your standard application cost (say £50), and then the police write to the GP to obtain the report. That way the fee is standard across the country, rather than applicants having to deal with individual practices demanding different fees. The grant is then made, and after 5 years if you have held the certificate/licence with no issue or concerns raised the police automatically assume there should be no reason for a refusal. 

If i were BASC, I would pose this question - how does obtaining a medical report prevent people with true mental issues from getting a shotgun or firearm if they have never visited the GP in the first place? It’s a complex issue this, balancing reasonableness with the public concern - but at all times feel free to remind the police that they act within a set of laws, and it is not for them to add hurdles or additional conditions in, only Parliament. 

it all falls apart because the home office issues guidance not hard and fast rules.so forces interpret how they so wish.as long as this prevails the licensing system will be a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all very easy to blame our shooting organisations for being ineffectual, but all they can do is lobby to try and make sure that this new system is fair and equal across the country. 

We must remember that these new procedures came about as a result of the HMIC report back in  September 2015.The Home Office, FELWG, Chief Constables, the BMA and the Government itself took this report on board and all wish to see it implemented. We can argue all we like, but with government backing it's going to happen.

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/news/news-feed/firearms-licensing-missing-the-mark/

The only stumbling block is the matter of GP engagement and the fee GP's charge, who pays the fee and the fiasco the BMA has caused.

It seems to me the fault lies with the government. It is the HO minister who should be grasping the nettle, speaking to interested parties, making a decision regarding a fee for this simple process, if indeed a fee is necessary and then introducing legislation to implement it, the initial screening letter, and compel GP's to act reasonably and responsibly. Regrettably, however, the HO seems unwilling to legislate on the matter, further fueling the fiasco, see below.

FELWG minutes:

DO (Chair FELWG) gave update to HO position – Nick Hunt is policy lead – HO position is that there is unlikely to be any change in primary legislation or statutory instruments, however, they wish to continue to work with policing, and require an updated regional picture – HO have given a list of requirements.

GW (HO representative) emphasised that the prospect of legislative change was very unlikely, and highlighted that the HO were to begin further negotiations with the BMA / GMC and shooting organisations.

RK (Suffolk firearms licensing representative) made the point that the onus should lie with the applicant to provide a screening letter, however, GW advises this may require legislative change.

WE should ALL be writing to Amber Rudd and Nick Hurd at the HO venting our frustration on the matter......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can expect basc to perform miracles, but as said they need to cut us the best deal possible and make it fair for everyone. They've had at least two years to achieve this but instead took the stance of ' don't pay and it will go away',  which was never going to be a long term solution. For me the 'voice of shooting' needs to start being heard or I'll be off elsewhere. 

Edited by reidler
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2018 at 22:42, Wymondley said:

They wouldn't get their licence's and couldn't legally hold firearms. I'm sure the force in question aren't bothered about the former and would be more than happy to investigate the latter.

Face it, there really isn't anything we can do.

We are a minority and we have little support from the non shooting voting public who along with most of the police would rather we didn't have guns.

We would not be so much of a minority if all of our beloved shooting organisations would come together at some level to provide a unified front to represent us.

I know it will never happen so have given up trying, which is exactly the scenario that the Police hope for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, old man said:

We would not be so much of a minority if all of our beloved shooting organisations would come together at some level to provide a unified front to represent us.

I know it will never happen so have given up trying, which is exactly the scenario that the Police hope for?

Divide and rule, tried and tested many times and proven to work. Not rocket science is it. 

The rodents are nibbling away at the biscuit crumbs and soon there will be no biscuit left. The Shooting Associations need to get their acts together fast, as unless they do they will have signed their own redundancy notices with nothing/nobody left to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oowee said:

Exactly. I am a big supporter of BASC and got my club of 35+members to swap over to it. When things like this come along I expect them to take action where when and if they can. They have circa £2m in reserves after advice, this is the time to use it. I for one would be happy to put £100 extra in the kitty if BASC feel they can mount a legal challenge. 

i cant see any benefits i've had by being a basc member,they were useless when i needed help with certificates and they tried to shaft my wildfowling club when sorting out consents, :hmm:

the £5 rise in this years membership fees should cover a legal challenge:hmm:

Edited by andrewluke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2018 at 13:31, sportsbob said:

So Lincs Police estimate the cost of the medical report to be £65, perhaps a compromise would be the cost for the report should be a set figure and the licence be 10 years.

If BASC do not achieve both objectives before my next subscription is due I will be cancelling the subscription.

Mine will be following from SACS in June.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2018 at 12:26, zipdog said:

BASC is seeking legal advice on the matter........ surely they should already know the requirements of the Firearms act 1968 and if such a policy can be enforced by the police. 

I was a member of BASC but didn't renew my membership a few years ago because I struggled to see any examples of successful lobbying by them which had protected the rights of gun owners or repealed unjustified laws relating to firearms ownership and use.

I feel their feeble response to this matter further justifies my decision.

If you want to support a good organisation which undertakes and publishes research into the positives shooting brings to conservation efforts then join the GWCT.

Sadly though this country lacks a decent lobbying group.

 

  

Sadly you are so wrong, it's only sporting shooters that lack a lobbying group, I would bet my winter Woolies  that the Gun Control Network never stop bending ears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2018 at 16:53, oowee said:

My Daughter tells me it's at least an hours work.  £65 would be a bargain.

Don't take this the wrong way but that is not a fair assessment IMHO. Being under constant monitoring anyway how does it cost £65 to make one phone call and send an email? 

No more to say here, just a magic roundabout.

Edited by old man
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reidler said:

They Obviously don't have the 'real impact in politics' they claim then. 

And others have more? If BASC had all our voices they might possibly have a little more sway.

Problem is that shooting organisations can demand as much ice cream as they like but since when does the government need to oblige them? Particularly when shooters themselves split their voice so easily because government always gets their say.

I don't think shaming BASC is going to work, they nor other organisations cannot compel government to sway against the more populist idea of doing something/anything to restrict access to guns and make life difficult for (sic) nasty men who use guns. :sad1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kenholland said:

10 year certificate would be nice , than all this cr#p then it would not feel so bad, even if we have to accept every thing that they throw at us , N R A in America could be our brokers.

It would indeed and is something BASC have argued for as part of the last fee increase and the new "initial medical checks" initiative. However, if you read the FELWG minutes you will see that until GP's engage correctly, this is not going to happen and I quote from those minutes..........

There was a further acceptance that the question of 10 year licenses were out of the question whilst there was no agreement on enduring markers.

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...