BASC statement on Home Office proposals

[TIGHTCHOKE]

43 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Very happy to take feedback, that's part of the reason why I post on here.

Situation in Durham was different, and BASC got this stopped if you recall, and on the back almost 3 years of work by BASC  the new guidance was issued 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.

Sadly the Home Office look to have moved away form this agreed position.  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.

This is a new situation in different circumstances, and I promise to keep you updated as often as I can. Lets stick together, regardless of which organisation we choose to support, we are all shooters and must stand together.

.

Nicely put David and thank you for your updates.

Unfortunately the area I have highlighted above should surely have seen BASC banging on the door of the Home Office and asking what was the point of all the discussion and work involved if it is not adhered to? It does not bode well for any future discussions, if once it is all agreed, one of the parties reneges upon the agreement.

Your last paragraph is hopefully what will happen.

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by TIGHTCHOKE

[Bazooka Joe]

Thanks for the response David 

The point I was making was that the writing was on the wall with this one then.

Durham's FEO's commented that it would so become compulsory,  even more so from Basc's own mouth, read Scully's post.

[David BASC]

Yes it's a tough situation, especially with the BMA changing their minds and the HO too, tough when you spend so much time getting everyone to agree and then they do this without further consultation, never the less BASC will keep fighting, we will not simply keep quiet or walk away. What ever happens we will do our best to get the best outcome possible for all shooters

David

[harkom]

On 4/25/2018 at 20:12, stevo said:

I can’t believe no one twigged as soon as queens council was mentioned ..

The members should not have to "twig" the identity of the expert QC. The name of the appointee should have been declared for all to see. 

In view of Basc's recent history of "closed shop" management of policy in dealing with big issues, I would  -at the very least - expect more clarity, rather than continuing to treat the members as mushrooms......(kept in the dark and fed bs).

[harkom]

On 4/25/2018 at 20:18, Seadog1408 said:

Would it be Peter glenser or would it be seen as a conflict of interests and farmed out to another QC?

Exactly another point regarding clarity - 1. independent expert should be acting as lead consultant.

                                                                     - 2.  is P Glenser QC providing his services as P Glenser Basc or P Glenser QC Inc. ?

[Guest stevo]

48 minutes ago, harkom said:

The members should not have to "twig" the identity of the expert QC. The name of the appointee should have been declared for all to see. 

In view of Basc's recent history of "closed shop" management of policy in dealing with big issues, I would  -at the very least - expect more clarity, rather than continuing to treat the members as mushrooms......(kept in the dark and fed bs).

Agreed.

44 minutes ago, harkom said:

Exactly another point regarding clarity - 1. independent expert should be acting as lead consultant.

                                                                     - 2.  is P Glenser QC providing his services as P Glenser Basc or P Glenser QC Inc. ?

Agreed . 

[David BASC]

The QC  consulted by BASC was Alan MacLean QC

David

[CharlieT]

9 minutes ago, David BASC said:

The QC  consulted by BASC was Alan MacLean QC

David

So much for the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists!

[panoma1]

On 25/04/2018 at 19:27, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Peter Glenser QC

It seems TIGHTCHOKE's posting was missing a question mark!

[oowee]

1 hour ago, David BASC said:

The QC  consulted by BASC was Alan MacLean QC

David

 shrewd move BASC 

[Konnie]

Interesting piece in the sporting gun this month,

It mentions that any person can ask for a printout of their medical records from the doctor and they are only allowed to charge £10 for this, the person should then just send a copy to the issuing force and it should be enough, as the GP is not tasked with the job of passing judgement of the persons suitability, that is the issuing forces responsibility.

Very interesting point.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Konnie said:

Interesting piece in the sporting gun this month,

It mentions that any person can ask for a printout of their medical records from the doctor and they are only allowed to charge £10 for this, the person should then just send a copy to the issuing force and it should be enough, as the GP is not tasked with the job of passing judgement of the persons suitability, that is the issuing forces responsibility.

Very interesting point.

Yes indeed, very interesting. And unless I'm mistaken that medical history need only comprise of the last five years of an applicants medical history? 

[Gordon R]

The printout mentioned would be a Subject Access Request (SAR), under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

[panoma1]

3 hours ago, Konnie said:

Interesting piece in the sporting gun this month,

It mentions that any person can ask for a printout of their medical records from the doctor and they are only allowed to charge £10 for this, the person should then just send a copy to the issuing force and it should be enough, as the GP is not tasked with the job of passing judgement of the persons suitability, that is the issuing forces responsibility.

Very interesting point.

Yes very interesting point! That would leave the GP with just putting a 'marker' on someone's medical records, but whether this happens or not, is between them and the police, as to which of them foots any bill for this! Assuming the GP's wanted to charge for what is a minor administrative procedure which it is claimed was introduced as a public safety precaution?...not a good PR move!

All Lincolnshire are insisting on is an initial medical report, they may request further information, only if there is a reportable issue shown on the medical record or revealed on an individuals application form!

An applicant should not be required to send in their medical records to the police, just provide them for the FEO to inspect, and assuming nothing amiss, confirm compliance when they made their normal enquiry visit!

Lets hope the police facilitated GP's money grab turns out to be a costly administrative nightmare for which the quacks can claim just £10.00.

Edited April 28, 2018 by panoma1

[ShootingEgg]

David, 

Correct me if im wrong, but if the guidance has not been changed since 2016 then we are within our right to refuse to pay stating that the agreed guidance from 2016 still stands? 

[bostonmick]

I think the original point to this was not the doctors requesting payment from the applicant but the fact that a force has decided that every application /renewal must have a doctors report and any cost to be met by applicant or no certificate would be issued. This being outside of the remit. Also correct me if I am wrong but does political route mean sending emails to all the departments that are instigating these new conditions. Something that has had no effect for the past five years or so. 

[sportsbob]

16 hours ago, Konnie said:

Interesting piece in the sporting gun this month,

It mentions that any person can ask for a printout of their medical records from the doctor and they are only allowed to charge £10 for this, the person should then just send a copy to the issuing force and it should be enough, as the GP is not tasked with the job of passing judgement of the persons suitability, that is the issuing forces responsibility.

A few months ago I paid £10 for them to access my records I now have to pay another £40 for the copies. If you check on the NHS website they can charge up to £50 for this service.

 This however is only a copy of your records with an explanation of some of the more technical terms and not a report on your suitability for anything.

Edited April 29, 2018 by sportsbob

[phaedra1106]

Currently going through this with Durham. My son is Autistic (Aspergers) and despite having shot safely for almost 12 years they are yet again (for the third time) dragging their feet about his SGC/FAC application.

He has three very supportive letters from his clubs which is more than most people applying have but they've cherry picked one line out of his psychiatrists report (which we had done due to his previous GP incorrectly stating he had violence and aggression issues when he doesn't)  about not possibly recognising a dangerous situation that is identical to one they previously identified if the situation is slightly different. This isn't referred to as a problem with him, just a general aspect of some of the more pronounced types of Autistic spectrum disorders, Aspergers is a very mild form.

First they asked for a doctors letter, this we paid for and submitted. Next they wanted his full medical history, again they insisted we pay for this despite that clearly being against H.O. guidance,

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.

After yet another phone call to them they insisted on a further letter from his doctor saying he doesn't have any other medical conditions, I said they should actually read the original letter as it says that very clearly.

As it stands I've written to the firearms supervisor and asked her to put in writing exactly what it is they want to know or have clarified. Also why the one line in his report (which the vast majority of Autistic applicants don't even have) is being singularly applied to him?, they have several other Autistic FAC holders under them and none of them have had this applied to their risk assessment. The National Autistic Society and North East Autism both say it's a form of disability discrimination.

 

It's now been over 2 weeks since she was going to look into it and get back to me asap.

Edited April 29, 2018 by phaedra1106

[TIGHTCHOKE]

24 minutes ago, phaedra1106 said:

Currently going through this with Durham. My son is Autistic (Aspergers) and despite having shot safely for almost 12 years they are yet again (for the third time) dragging their feet about his SGC/FAC application.

He has three very supportive letters from his clubs which is more than most people applying have but they've cherry picked one line out of his psychiatrists report (which we had done due to his previous GP incorrectly stating he had violence and aggression issues when he doesn't)  about not possibly recognising a dangerous situation that is identical to one they previously identified if the situation is slightly different. This isn't referred to as a problem with him, just a general aspect of some of the more pronounced types of Autistic spectrum disorders, Aspergers is a very mild form.

First they asked for a doctors letter, this we paid for and submitted. Next they wanted his full medical history, again they insisted we pay for this despite that clearly being against H.O. guidance,

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.

After yet another phone call to them they insisted on a further letter from his doctor saying he doesn't have any other medical conditions, I said they should actually read the original letter as it says that very clearly.

As it stands I've written to the firearms supervisor and asked her to put in writing exactly what it is they want to know or have clarified. Also why the one line in his report (which the vast majority of Autistic applicants don't even have) is being singularly applied to him?, they have several other Autistic FAC holders under them and none of them have had this applied to their risk assessment. The National Autistic Society and North East Autism both say it's a form of disability discrimination.

 

It's now been over 2 weeks since she was going to look into it and get back to me asap.

It certainly appears that your son is being discriminated against by their slow approach and by them putting more and more barriers in your way.

Have you approached any of the shooting associations for help?

[phaedra1106]

Yes, BASC.

After his first application in 2006 was withdrawn (to avoid him getting a refusal) due to his GP's false statement we re-applied in 2012/13 armed with the psychiatrists report saying the GP was wrong.

When they started being awkward again we approached BASC for support, we were told they wouldn't help because the GP's letter was before he joined them, even though the letter wasn't the issue they raised (adaptive awareness) with this application.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Blimey, not very helpful then. Good luck I hope it works out, I will be interested in any answer you may get from the Firearms Supervisor.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, phaedra1106 said:

Yes, BASC.

After his first application in 2006 was withdrawn (to avoid him getting a refusal) due to his GP's false statement we re-applied in 2012/13 armed with the psychiatrists report saying the GP was wrong.

When they started being awkward again we approached BASC for support, we were told they wouldn't help because the GP's letter was before he joined them, even though the letter wasn't the issue they raised (adaptive awareness) with this application.

That's a cop out in my opinion. I hope you have taken your membership and money elsewhere. 

As I've said before, GP's are just that...general practitioners, and whilst I'm not belittling the intelligence and knowledge they have to undertake to qualify as such, they are not psychiatrists, and should refer a patient rather than make judgements they're ill equipped to. Can you not demand the GP issues a correction to his original statement? Whatever you do, don't give up. 

 

[phaedra1106]

The psychiatrists report was used to overturn the original GP's letter, we then moved home and changed practices. 

His current GP is as supportive as he can be but has no experience of Autism (we checked at several doctors practices and none had anyone with any) so apart from seeing my son once in 2013 when we moved here he's not had any interaction with him as he has no medical issues.

And no, we didn't renew with BASC, we spent the money on something that would actually be of use to him.

Edited April 29, 2018 by phaedra1106

[Scully]

35 minutes ago, phaedra1106 said:

The psychiatrists report was used to overturn the original GP's letter, we then moved home and changed practices. 

His current GP is as supportive as he can be but has no experience of Autism (we checked at several doctors practices and none had anyone with any) so apart from seeing my son once in 2013 when we moved here he's not had any interaction with him as he has no medical issues.

And no, we didn't renew with BASC, we spent the money on something that would actually be of use to him.

Good. I wish you and your son the best of luck. Keep at it. 

[Penelope]

On 4/29/2018 at 08:13, sportsbob said:

A few months ago I paid £10 for them to access my records I now have to pay another £40 for the copies. If you check on the NHS website they can charge up to £50 for this service.

 This however is only a copy of your records with an explanation of some of the more technical terms and not a report on your suitability for anything.

Exactly, my wife had the same with her application.