Jump to content

Looks like Lincolnshire have kicked off compulsory doctors reports


Zetter
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think I may save the membership money from now on. I'm not going to buy a new 4x4 nor do I want the magazine.  The insurance can be had elsewhere cheaper and I don' see what else they provide, they certainly don't seem to advance any shooters rights, just roll over each and every time and tell us to comply before it comes in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So, blame BASC for the BMA's duplicity and take your little subscription away from a not-for-profit fieldsports org and instead put it into a commercial profit-making company for the enrichment of its (probably anti-shooting) shareholders? Nice one. 

 

Edited by stagboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stagboy said:

So, blame BASC for the BMA's duplicity and take your little subscription away from a not-for-profit fieldsports org and instead put it into a commercial profit-making company for the enrichment of its (probably anti-shooting) shareholders? Nice one. 

 

You might want to go over and read again the subject of this thread. It is about one forces insistence on a doctors report before grant or renew. This is contrary to home office guide. Also as basc have around 2.million in reserves would you not class that as profit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonmick said:

would you not class that as profit

No - not in the sense of a commercial company. As I understand it, BASC is a registered (ie mutual) society so the "profit" (technically, a "surplus") cannot be exported outside the organisation to external shareholders, but must only be used for the agreed, registered purposes of BASC as set out in the governing articles etc. It is similar to a company limited by guarantee, and much like a charity. Big difference to a commercial company.

Lincs Police are, unfortunately, adopting (despite Home Office guidelines) the "no initial GP scan, no certificate processing" system that has been used in Scotland for 18 months. In Scotland, SACS discovered that a lot of members were actually OK with paying their GPs, as long as the fee was moderate and the service timely (which is not always the case). This might also be true in England, judging by the large number of shooters who currently just quietly pay up, despite BASC advice not to do so. This undermines BASC's negotiating position, of course, but it is an observable fact. Just ask around.

South of the border, the BMA reneged on the 2016 "no GP fee" agreement, after pressure from GPs. So BASC got official guidance issued to the effect that if your GP refuses to do the initial scan without payment, but you refuse to pay, then after 21 days the police will process your certificate anyway on the assumption there is no health issue.

Now that Lincs Police have "gone Scottish", it seems that BASC is paying for some sort of legal opinion (and anybody who has ever taken legal advice on a complex matter knows that could take some time).  

Personally, I have to wonder what the lawyers will make of the "the public should fund public safety" line. The counter is "the polluter pays." I can see politicians of all stripes saying: "If you are seriously suggesting that unless the taxpayer funds mental health checks on recreational shooters, then you will be an unacceptable danger to the public, then the answer is very, very simple - let's just ban guns held for recreational purposes." They mighty also ask whether applicants in other European countries have their medicals funded by the  taxpayer... (In France, you have to pay for a medical every single year, I am told)

 

Edited by stagboy
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, stagboy said:

No - not in the sense of a commercial company. As I understand it, BASC is a registered (ie mutual) society so the "profit" (technically, a "surplus") cannot be exported outside the organisation to external shareholders, but must only be used for the agreed, registered purposes of BASC as set out in the governing articles etc. It is similar to a company limited by guarantee, and much like a charity. Big difference to a commercial company.

Lincs Police are, unfortunately, adopting (despite Home Office guidelines) the "no initial GP scan, no certificate processing" system that has been used in Scotland for 18 months. In Scotland, SACS discovered that a lot of members were actually OK with paying their GPs, as long as the fee was moderate and the service timely 9which is not always the case). This might also be true in England, judging by the large number of shooters who currently just quietly pay up, despite BASC advice not to do so. This undermines BASC's negotiating position, of course, but it is an observable fact. Just ask around.

South of the border, the BMA reneged on the 2016 "no GP fee" agreement, after pressure from GPs. So BASC got official guidance issued to the effect that if your GP refuses to do the initial scan without payment, but you refuse to pay, then after 21 days the police will process your certificate anyway on the assumption there is no health issue.

Now that Lincs Police have "gone Scottish", it seems that BASC is paying for some sort of legal opinion (and anybody who has ever taken legal advice on a complex matter knows that could take some time).  

Personally, I have to wonder what the lawyers will make of the "the public should fund public safety" line. The counter is "the polluter pays." I can see politicians of all stripes saying: "If you are seriously suggesting that unless the taxpayer funds mental health checks on recreational shooters, then you will be an unacceptable danger to the public, then the answer is very, very simple - let's just ban guns held for recreational purposes." They mighty also ask whether applicants in other European countries have their medicals funded by the  taxpayer... (In France, you have to pay for a medical every single year, I am told)

 

One of the best reasoned posts I have seen with regard to what can be done about police or government policies or intentions - and what BASC has a chance of winning for its members.

Lets not overlook the fact that some forces don't much like ceding to shooters or our organisations and will exploit any loophole they can to obstruct civilian shooting. If I remember correctly it only recently became a privilege to possess a firearm?  When I read about that statement from someone to with ACPO I think, I thought there would be more of that attitude to come - seems it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stagboy said:

No - not in the sense of a commercial company. As I understand it, BASC is a registered (ie mutual) society so the "profit" (technically, a "surplus") cannot be exported outside the organisation to external shareholders, but must only be used for the agreed, registered purposes of BASC as set out in the governing articles etc. It is similar to a company limited by guarantee, and much like a charity. Big difference to a commercial company.

Lincs Police are, unfortunately, adopting (despite Home Office guidelines) the "no initial GP scan, no certificate processing" system that has been used in Scotland for 18 months. In Scotland, SACS discovered that a lot of members were actually OK with paying their GPs, as long as the fee was moderate and the service timely (which is not always the case). This might also be true in England, judging by the large number of shooters who currently just quietly pay up, despite BASC advice not to do so. This undermines BASC's negotiating position, of course, but it is an observable fact. Just ask around.

South of the border, the BMA reneged on the 2016 "no GP fee" agreement, after pressure from GPs. So BASC got official guidance issued to the effect that if your GP refuses to do the initial scan without payment, but you refuse to pay, then after 21 days the police will process your certificate anyway on the assumption there is no health issue.

Now that Lincs Police have "gone Scottish", it seems that BASC is paying for some sort of legal opinion (and anybody who has ever taken legal advice on a complex matter knows that could take some time).  

Personally, I have to wonder what the lawyers will make of the "the public should fund public safety" line. The counter is "the polluter pays." I can see politicians of all stripes saying: "If you are seriously suggesting that unless the taxpayer funds mental health checks on recreational shooters, then you will be an unacceptable danger to the public, then the answer is very, very simple - let's just ban guns held for recreational purposes." They mighty also ask whether applicants in other European countries have their medicals funded by the  taxpayer... (In France, you have to pay for a medical every single year, I am told)

 

It would seem that any agreement over firearms licensing can be discarded at will by any of the governing  bodies and the medical professionals. What will be next. A force not happy with the fee set by h.o.or the length of time your license runs so will set their own charge and make it a yearly cert. I have said on many occasions I am happy to pay a fee to my doctor for him to return information to the police. However I am not happy with doctors setting themselves as judge jury and executioner because of personal bias. Your post goes to great length to explain that basc or any other will never have any real influence over shooting laws so what is the point of keeping them In existence. I can only take your word on the French having a medical each year but would suggest this is law and fees will be set... Not a free for all as we have. And the citizens of France are still allowed handguns I am led to believe. Its not that long ago that large parts of our population were fed largely on what father or grandfather brought to the table via the shotgun yet now it is being demonised. And from what I read in your post you seem to largely agree with this attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stagboy said:

No. I am afraid you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what the legal advice our organisations legal experts can come up with as to whether shooting has a future in this country or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, McSpredder said:

Since the end of WW2, two notorious GPs may have murdered almost 400 of their own patients (215 deaths attributed to Harold Shipman, and 163 to John Bodkin Adams).   How does that compare with the total killed by licenced gun owners over that period?

 

UK certificate holders currently outnumber GPs by about fifteen to one (approx 750,000 SGC/FAC holders, just over 51,000 registered GPs).   Do these statistics suggest that a citizen is far more likely to be killed by a GP than by a licensed gun owner?  

 

I like this; can I use it when I write to those concerned? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stevo

Don’t forget the doctor or what ever he was. That had those re activated machine pistols that he intended to use to take out his ex work colleagues  ? think it was last week

Edited by stevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stagboy said:

So, blame BASC for the BMA's duplicity and take your little subscription away from a not-for-profit fieldsports org and instead put it into a commercial profit-making company for the enrichment of its (probably anti-shooting) shareholders? Nice one. 

 

No. I'm just not funding the "voice of shooting" as it is has been a very very quiet voice for a long time with no say at all on anything except for it instructing its members  that each and every piece of proposed legislation or rule change is for the best.  £2m is a lot of money to mount a legal challenge on such a simple matter. 

As others have said what next, perhaps thet will shorten the cert length, maybe want reasons for each and every sect 2 you own. After all if we can make it up and impose it with the "voice of shooting" sitting in the corner nodding it's head there' little to worry about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the press release the CA issued today................

 

Countryside Alliance > Latest News > Campaigns > Shooting > Firearms legislation: The good, the bad and the ugly

Countryside Alliance Head of Shooting Liam Stokes writes:

The Government is making changes to our firearms legislation. Some are good, some are bad, but none address the key problem at the heart of the system: the failing medical procedures. In fact, that situation is threatening to get worse.

The good comes in the form of implementation of the eight-week extension to the validity of firearms and shotgun certificates in certain circumstances. As of the 17th April, if you submit your renewal form at least eight weeks before your certificate expires but the police are unable to process the renewal by the expiry date, it will remain valid for a further eight weeks.

This change is the result of campaigning that dates back to the Countryside Alliance first raising this issue, along with a suite of other proposed changes, back in April 2016. It will ease the burden on our struggling licensing system, and it is to be welcomed.

The bad are the reforms hinted at in the recent Home Office announcement of the Offensive Weapons Bill. The Alliance is fully behind proportionate measures that can have a genuine impact on violent crime, but we are opposed to restrictions that disadvantage law-abiding shooters without improving pubic safety. We have yet to be shown evidence of a public-safety benefit to the new firearm restrictions the Home Office intends to bring forward, and we have serious concerns that poorly worded legislation will have ramifications for the legal shooting community.

We have held meetings with the relevant Home Office minister to express our concerns, and received assurances that clear definitions and careful wording would prevent any new legislation producing unintended consequences for our members. We await the detail of this new Bill, which will allow us to judge whether these assurances have been fulfilled.

None of these changes however address the fatal flaw in our licensing system. The medical procedures continue to flounder, delivering none of the benefits envisioned when they were introduced two years ago. The whole system hinges on the application of a marker to a certificate-holder’s medical records, yet despite GPs levying unregulated charges to participate in the process there is no evidence that these markers are being applied even when these fees are paid. Indeed, the British Medical Association that agreed this procedure now advises its members not to apply the marker even if a fee is procured.

Despite this chaotic situation, the Government seems to have prioritised pacifying the GP’s demands for payment over securing the improvements to public safety. The Government is proposing to enforce a fee for the initial check and the application of the marker, without any mechanism to ensure that actually happens.

The Countryside Alliance will not stand for this. We will need the proactive support of all our members to tell the Government that firearms licensing needs to be fair and consistent, and these new proposals are nothing of the sort.

Liam Stokes
Head of Shooting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect any of the shooting organisations to be able to do anything. They were involved with the police and BMA when the original agreement was formed. Lincs Police disregarded that and went their own way, others will follow suit.

The shooter, who does not have a 'right' to hold a firearms licence, is merely caught in the middle. When I had a nightmare last summer with my renewal, all BASC said, via email, was 'we're aware of it....' and offered me no help at all. I just had to pay the GP's fee and received my certificate on the day the old one expired (despite sending in the renewal four months previously).

Those in other areas who think they can ignore the GP fee letters are likely to find themselves facing a similar situation - and may just have to swallow their pride and pay the fee. I am not sure what BASC or any other organisation can do, and whether they should use their funds to fight it, as the police and BMA can clearly make their own rules up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said previously I am quite happy to pay for a doctor to respond to the firearms dept. The big concern is that if the doctor refuses because of personal bias then this as the government and others say is infringing our human rights. I changed my surgery as my previous was one that had a policy of non cooperation with firearms requests of any kind. So there needs to be as a minimum a system in place to protect innocent certificate holders from being dissadvantaged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My doctor received an enquiry from West Mid's/Staff's but because he had no worries about me didn't need to respond and as such my FAC came through without a problem..........which is what was supposed to happen. Now, even if he has no worries about me, he is now expected to write a letter to say that is so............and to charge me for something that isn't needed.

Is it any wonder the NHS is falling apart when trained doctors and government ministers don't appear to know the difference between the joint between their radius and ulna and their Gluteus Maximus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am so glad I dont fund BASC now. I just wish I had left them far sooner. And while they rake in all this cash they don`t seem to support their volunteer staff to well from what I have herd.

I wonder what happens when I put on my renewal that I dont have a doctor / GP. My older surgery closed down two years ago and I haven't visited it in 10-15 years, am young and healthy with no complaints so have had no need to re-register with a surgery. I wouldn't even have a clue what happened to my medical records from the old place ! 

If for some reason I had to join a GP surgery locally just for my renewal then its a bit of a joke as I would be paying for a report from a Dr who`s never met me and has no records of me, a waste of time and money on everyone's behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, salop sniper said:

Am so glad I dont fund BASC now. I just wish I had left them far sooner. And while they rake in all this cash they don`t seem to support their volunteer staff to well from what I have herd.

I wonder what happens when I put on my renewal that I dont have a doctor / GP. My older surgery closed down two years ago and I haven't visited it in 10-15 years, am young and healthy with no complaints so have had no need to re-register with a surgery. I wouldn't even have a clue what happened to my medical records from the old place ! 

If for some reason I had to join a GP surgery locally just for my renewal then its a bit of a joke as I would be paying for a report from a Dr who`s never met me and has no records of me, a waste of time and money on everyone's behalf.

I would suggest that without registering with a doctor your renewal would become extremely fraught or worse would not be processed. The renewal form clearly asks for your GP's name and address and states in bold type.......

PART B: Personal health & medical declaration If necessary, continue on page 6 Important: Read notes 4-12 before completion

These notes state I understand that if I do not provide the required information my application cannot be processed and will be refused

It further asks  Are there any periods in the past 10 years when you have not been registered with a UK GP or have consulted medical practitioners other than at your GP practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to think outside the box. Is there actually a reason why we can't ALL en mass affiliate to the NRA of America and get their support? Their legal dept would terrify Putin let alone some  FEO making up rules as he goes along.

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/04/2018 at 23:43, stagboy said:

 

Personally, I have to wonder what the lawyers will make of the "the public should fund public safety" line. The counter is "the polluter pays." 

 

The obvious defence to that is the polluter pays..........only if there is a cost to clean up any pollution the polluter causes! What pollution requiring clearing up does the applicant for a FAC/SGC create?

Edited by panoma1
Spelling!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be with the  legal doctrine of benefit and burden;  ie he who reaps the benefit of owning a gun should bear the cost of medical checks in aid of public safety, just as happens elsewhere in Europe. I am not saying I agree - just that this is what politicians, most of whom think private gun ownership is an unnecessary  risk to public safety  - will say. Any by raising the spectre of public safety in direct connection with mental health and gun ownership, we might be falling into a trap.

The problem with the requirement  for GPs (many of whom say they are badly overworked) to conduct the initial screening free pf charge (as the BMA originally  said) is that the task does not lie within GPs' contractual duties.  So, demanding that GPs provide this additional service free of charge is akin to tapping a bricklayer on the shoulder when he is already busy on a paying job, and saying "leave that for a moment, and just do a little wall around my fishpond, for free, please - and hurry up".

It is a pity there isn't a single, centralised national medical screening service for applicants, with a consistent fee of, say £40 and a contractual turnaround time of, say, 10 days. I haven't a clue who "my " GP is anyway. They might even be an anti, for all I know. I was reading that there are online GP services popping up, which can give you skype appointments within three hours. Food for thought?

Edited by stagboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Seadog1408 said:

I think if BASC don't challenge this, they should at least have the decency to reimburse members the doctors fee out of their not unsubstantial coffers.

But BASC has challenged it and is now paying for a legal opinion. No other org is doing that . The CA has issued a jolly fierce press release (oo-er!) You might be better asking SACS, The pay-your-GP-or-else system has been operating in Scotland for 18 months. The unfortunate  fact is that, many applicants in England and Wales  are currently paying their GPs anyway. Why should they pay for you, as well? If everybody had followed BASC's advice not to pay in the first place, there is a chance that we might not have got into this situation. But GPs know damn well that many will pay up when asked, for a quiet life.

But while we are indulging in flights of fantasy, I wonder if there is any technical legal reason why the shooting orgs could not set up and jointly own a centralised agency for initial checks?  Existing GP practices are private commercial enterprises, after all. And a doctor is bound by professional standards monitored by the GMC, or whatever. Aren't medical records computerised?  The idea would be to have have a low, consistent charge and fast turnaround, with any profits flowing back into shooting sports,.(I know, I know,,,)

Edited by stagboy
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...