Looks like Lincolnshire have kicked off compulsory doctors reports

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, bostonmick said:

You can go around in circles all you like on this one. Plain truth is the general public largely do not like or understand guns. I believe that it was government that brought in driving licence for safety reasons along with vehicles requiring a mot certificate going some way to ensuring public safety. So maybe the public purse should cover the costs of obtaining these also. 

It's a free country so you can continue supporting the government introducing ever more and increasing taxes on ordinary people (because this is what these new GP's assessments are, a tax!) in the knowledge that the government will fritter away those taxes on self interest projects, foreign aid, when we have record numbers of homeless people sleeping on our streets, subsidised meals in the houses of Commons and Lords, whilst ordinary people que up at charity food banks, spending £ billions on HS2 whilst people are dying waiting for medical treatment......and I will support ordinary people, some of whom are unaware and some who make themselves aware, of how our taxes are misdirected, misspent and wasted, and because of this, are opposed to paying more! Every taxpayer already pays taxes to the government, for amongst other things, to keep us safe..........why should we be forced to pay again? To fund the forgoing?.....they're takin the **** and ur havin a laf!

[bostonmick]

5 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

It's a free country so you can continue supporting the government introducing ever more and increasing taxes on ordinary people (because this is what these new GP's assessments are, a tax!) in the knowledge that the government will fritter away those taxes on self interest projects, foreign aid, when we have record numbers of homeless people sleeping on our streets, subsidised meals in the houses of Commons and Lords, whilst ordinary people que up at charity food banks, spending £ billions on HS2 whilst people are dying waiting for medical treatment......and I will support ordinary people, some of whom are unaware and some who make themselves aware, of how our taxes are misdirected, misspent and wasted, and because of this, are opposed to paying more! Every taxpayer already pays taxes to the government, for amongst other things, to keep us safe..........why should we be forced to pay again? To fund the forgoing?.....they're takin the **** and ur havin a laf!

So our gp's are employed by hmrc. 

[panoma1]

20 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

So our gp's are employed by hmrc. 

HMRC collect taxes for the government, the government fund the NHS, who fund GP's.....the taxpayer funds it all!

[Dave-G]

I have to question the knowledge my doctor would have about me.

The world of GP's has itself changed somewhat. My 'Doctor' is now a medical practice that seems to have a different doctor seeing me almost every time I visit. They simply would not get a 'feeling' (not the right word I'm sure) about me for instance.

[CharlieT]

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

As I see it the government are responsible for the safety of the public, this responsibility is devolved to the police, the police seemingly have arbitrarily decided that in the interests of public safety, gun owners must be assessed by their GP for suitability, GP's are demanding a fee for this assessment, so there is a monetary cost to it! whilst anything that enhances public safety is to be welcomed, gun owners didn't ask or require this GP's assessment, the police did! 

So it is fair that government, via the police should pay for it!

It should be remembered that it came about because of the report following an inspection into firearms licensing by HMICFRS, an independent body appointed by the crown. 

The current failures of its  implementation, charges and lack of policy lays squarely at the feet of the Home Office and GP's for reneging on their initial agreement. 

HMICFRS conclusion following this inspection states

HMI Stephen Otter who led the inspection said:

“Firearms licensing is not an area which police forces can afford to get wrong: public safety relies on it. Examples of good practice exist but these are the exception.

“We found that, too often, forces are not following the Home Office guidance that is in place, sometimes inexcusably compromising public safety.

“Lessons from past tragedies have not always been learnt and this fails the victims of those events, including their families, unacceptably. Unless things change, we run the risk of further tragedies occurring.

“Central to the improvement of the licensing process is the establishment of a set of clear rules, carrying the weight of the law, that chief constables should be obliged to follow. This must include applicants providing a report from their GP of their medical suitability – including their mental health – to hold a firearms licence.”

[panoma1]

4 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

It should be remembered that it came about because of the report following an inspection into firearms licensing by HMICFRS, an independent body appointed by the crown. 

The current failures of its  implementation, charges and lack of policy lays squarely at the feet of the Home Office and GP's for reneging on their initial agreement. 

HMICFRS conclusion following this inspection states

HMI Stephen Otter who led the inspection said:

“Firearms licensing is not an area which police forces can afford to get wrong: public safety relies on it. Examples of good practice exist but these are the exception.

“We found that, too often, forces are not following the Home Office guidance that is in place, sometimes inexcusably compromising public safety.

“Lessons from past tragedies have not always been learnt and this fails the victims of those events, including their families, unacceptably. Unless things change, we run the risk of further tragedies occurring.

“Central to the improvement of the licensing process is the establishment of a set of clear rules, carrying the weight of the law, that chief constables should be obliged to follow. This must include applicants providing a report from their GP of their medical suitability – including their mental health – to hold a firearms licence.”

As you say, but in the case of Lincolnshire......and apparently Scotland? Where the police have arbitrarily decided "no GP assessment no certificate" the police chose to implement this! Contrary to agreement and home office guidence, which resulted in supporting GP's who were now demanding payment for the new police "requirement" for them to provide a report Whereas the agreement, as I understand it, was that the initial marker on medical records was to incur no charge to the applicant, and if no negative report was forthcoming from the GP within 21 days, it was to be accepted by the police that all was ok, and the certificate would be granted.

Contrary to the agreement and home office guidence, It was the GP's that demanded payment, but it was the Lincolnshire and Scottish police who have arbitrarily changed the rules to facilitate this!...at the applicants cost!.... how can that be right?

[Scully]

Is the criteria that applicants must supply a GP’s report as to their suitability -including their mental health- to possess firearms, now actually part of firearms licensing legislation? 

[panoma1]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Is the criteria that applicants must supply a GP’s report as to their suitability -including their mental health- to possess firearms, now actually part of firearms licensing legislation? 

My understanding is not! That is the problem, the police can't operate outwith legislation, but it seems they can make up their own rules and ignore HO guidance........apparantly with impunity? If they so wish.

I understand the only way shooting can be protected from not getting screwed over in the future, is if specific legislation (or a statutory instrument) covering all aspects of firearms law is put in place, rather than what we have now.......piecemeal 'guidance'.

[Graham M]

Medical Information

Consent to information sharing between the GP and police

10.22 The application form for firearm certificates requires the applicant to give consent to the sharing of factual medical information between their General Practitioner (GP) and the police, both during the application process and following grant of the certificate while it remains valid.

10.23 If an applicant does not have a GP in the UK they do not fulfil the criteria to be issued with a firearm certificate as they cannot complete the application form. Military personnel who are posted abroad and have a MOD GP may still be regarded as resident in the UK for the purposes of the Firearms Act.

10.24 If the applicant has declared a relevant medical condition (see list of relevant medical conditions in chapter 12) the police may ask the applicant to obtain and pay for a medical report to assist with their consideration of medical suitability. The medical report should normally be provided to police within one month of the request. If a further medical report is required the police will pay for this.

Police decision on application

10.25 Chief officers of police may reach their own conclusions as to the significance of the medical information supplied based on their own knowledge and experience. Alternatively, they may wish to seek advice from the force medical officer or an independent approved medical practitioner in cases where the medical information supplied is difficult to understand, or where its significance in terms of the possession of firearms is unclear. Police should not consult specialists or consultants unnecessarily. Any final decision as to the applicant’s fitness, whether on medical or other grounds, should be taken by the properly authorised officer in the usual way.

Letter from police to GP

10.26 Following grant of the certificate the police will contact each certificate holder’s GP to ask them to place an encoded reminder on the patient record so that the GP is aware the person is a firearm certificate holder. The code indicates that the person concerned ‘has a shotgun certificate’ and/or ‘has a firearm certificate.’ This enables the GP to discuss the issue with the patient and if necessary inform police if they have concerns about the person’s medical fitness which arise during the validity of the certificate. The letter also explains that the police will inform the GP if the certificate subsequently lapses or is revoked or cancelled, whereupon the GP can inactivate the firearm code.

10.27 In most cases the GP will not have been contacted by police during the application process (as this will usually only happen if the applicant has declared a medical condition), and the letter will normally ask if the GP has concerns about the person’s possession of a firearm certificate or if they have suffered from a relevant medical condition (over the previous five years) which could affect their suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun certificate. There is no expectation of a fee being charged for this check.

Information provided by GP to police

10.28 If the certificate holder does in fact suffer from a relevant medical condition or the GP has concerns about their access to firearms, the GP should contact the police by letter or email within 21 days of receiving the letter from the police. If the GP indicates that they have concerns or there are relevant issues but does not provide further details, then the police may request and pay for a medical report.

Encoded reminder on patient record

10.29 The encoded reminder enables the GP to consider notifying the police if a person’s medical condition gives rise to concern during the validity of the certificate. The GP should place the encoded reminder on the patient’s record when they receive the letter from the police following grant of the certificate.

10.30 There is no requirement for a GP to monitor or assess a patient who currently holds a firearm certificate, but there is a duty for a doctor to disclose information where they believe the patient may present a risk of death or serious harm to themselves or others.

10.31 It is open to a GP to approach the police at any time in order to pass on information of possible concern about an individual, whether a patient or not, who possesses firearms or is applying to do so. The GP would have to be satisfied that their public duty to express their concerns outweighed the normal requirements of patient confidentiality. It may be necessary in some cases where the police need guidance on the significance of the medical issues raised for advice to be sought from another GP or specialist.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Graham M

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

My understanding is not! That is the problem, the police can't operate outwith legislation, but it seems they can make up their own rules and ignore HO guidance........apparantly with impunity? If they so wish.

I understand the only way shooting can be protected from not getting screwed over in the future, is if specific legislation (or a statutory instrument) covering all aspects of firearms law is put in place, rather than what we have now.......piecemeal 'guidance'.

I would agree. 

To me the problem seems to be that the HO, FLEWG and therefore Chief Constables are driving the initiative forward without legislative backing from the HO, who are on record as saying they are reluctant to make a statutory instrument. It seems to me they hope, if they bide their time, it will sort itself out in the wash.

Although in the pipeline, I do not believe the "Guidance", as yet,carries the weight of law. 

[Salopian]

If an applicant for a SGC wrote to the Lincolnshire Chief Constable saying that they refused to obtain a letter from their GP as it was not required by Law for the granting or renewal of a certificate , would BASC be prepared to support its members legal fees to take this matter to Court? 

[quentyn]

46 minutes ago, Salopian said:

If an applicant for a SGC wrote to the Lincolnshire Chief Constable saying that they refused to obtain a letter from their GP as it was not required by Law for the granting or renewal of a certificate , would BASC be prepared to support its members legal fees to take this matter to Court? 

i think thats what its going to take a test case where BASC fights on someones behalf and gets a court ruling 

[bostonmick]

12 minutes ago, quentyn said:

i think thats what its going to take a test case where BASC fights on someones behalf and gets a court ruling 

So do we have any volunteers to go without their guns for anything up to say a year. Pw all the answers but none of the solutions. 

[Seadog1408]

1 minute ago, bostonmick said:

So do we have any volunteers to go without their guns for anything up to say a year. Pw all the answers but none of the solutions. 

So what is your solution, please do share it with us.

[quentyn]

the solution is for a high court judge to rule one way or the other - its that simple 

[bostonmick]

9 minutes ago, Seadog1408 said:

So what is your solution, please do share it with us.

Not me mate I will just pay the fee and carry on shooting. Simple

[panoma1]

39 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

Not me mate I will just pay the fee and carry on shooting. Simple

No surprise there then! 

[old man]

10 hours ago, bostonmick said:

Yes and here is another one. Why can't all shooters enemass join the organisation we have had all these years. You know the 65%. Who can't be ar##d now. Except to pop up and complain about nobody doing anything to help shooters. What makes you think they would pay to join a foreign organisation when they are baulking at a few quid for doctor. 

FWIW, I was thinking about the thought of thinking outside of the box not the NRA.

Various thoughts, starting with shooters not being in any organisation?

Moving on to the insular attitude of the said organisations?

Then the scenario of Doctors, Policeman and Politicos somehow being insulated and immune from the thoughts and afflictions that affect the actions of the rest of the population? These pillars of society seem to back slide when it suits their objectives?

Then the scenario of Lincolnshire going off piste away from the Home Office Guidance and no action by the Home Office to rectify?

Then the thought that people who should seek help from a GP might not be doing so?

On it goes, endless thoughts of an old man thinking maybe that yet once more society will end up worse off as a result of questionable actions from on high.

 

[bostonmick]

Maybe someone on here who has a wife or other close relative who has no interest in shooting and join them to basc. Then after a few months they apply to lincs for a sgc along with the letter mentioned in a previous post regarding no GP letter. Then when no cert arrives get onto basc. I am sure they would send out a stern letter on their behalf. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by bostonmick

[Newbie to this]

So under the current way it works one person may pay £240 for an initial grant and someone else may pay £140, while others pay £90 and so on depending on what a GP charges and if they pay.

So one person is paying a completely different price for the same thing. Surely everyone should pay the same?

If these charges become mandatory (which it looks like they are) then the price should be fixed for everyone and it should be paid to the issuing police force as part of the grant/renewal not the GP, the GP should get their fee from the police.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Newbie to this

[Salopian]

Could anyone ( BASC?) say if anything is going to be done to challenge the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire?

He is imposing conditions that are not a requirement under the firearms act , it is his personal opinion being enforced .

Surely BASC or other organisations such as the British Shooting Sports Council should be sweeping this mess from underneath the carpet .

[zipdog]

21 minutes ago, Salopian said:

Could anyone ( BASC?) say if anything is going to be done to challenge the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire?

He is imposing conditions that are not a requirement under the firearms act , it is his personal opinion being enforced .

Surely BASC or other organisations such as the British Shooting Sports Council should be sweeping this mess from underneath the carpet .

 

Nope they are just hoping everyone forgets and eventually complies, then they can carry on taking subscriptions under the pretence they are representing the best interests of the sport. Heck, if they really duck out of fighting this one they will be able to push the boat out even further at some of their fancy social occasions.   

[wymberley]

Anyone or any organisation is always responsible to another higher up the chain of command. Lincolnshire Constabulary is no different. Why has no one considered the possibility that Lincs has not simply gone 'off piste' but is actually the chosen county to try it and see what reaction is generated?

[Scully]

2 hours ago, wymberley said:

Anyone or any organisation is always responsible to another higher up the chain of command. Lincolnshire Constabulary is no different. Why has no one considered the possibility that Lincs has not simply gone 'off piste' but is actually the chosen county to try it and see what reaction is generated?

Apparently South Yorkshire are heading down a similar path also. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

BASC where are you?

What are you doing about this?