mick miller Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) And from the GP's perspective: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms I can't say I blame them, being asked to sign off on someone's fitness to possess firearms is just one step away from being made responsible should anything untoward, however statistically unlikely, happen. Edited May 20, 2018 by mick miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, mick miller said: And from the GP's perspective: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms I can't say I blame them, being asked to sign off on someone's fitness to possess firearms is just one step away from being made responsible should anything untoward, however statistically unlikely, happen. Doctors are not being asked to supply a psychiatric report just if they know of any reason a applicant should not be fit to be in possession of a firearm. If any patient of theirs was undergoing any treatment other than being prescribed anti depressant by a GP which in most cases would stop the applicant being approved if they were undergoing psychiatric treatment t the GP would have been informed of this and all they would need do is pass the firearms dept onto the relevant doctor. So really I can't see that GPS are being asked to sanction anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 Well, they think they are. There are plenty of comments from disgruntled GP's to this effect on medical forums and online magazines (such as Pulse). Previously GPs were only contacted if the applicant noted a previous or present condition, now every applicant has to have sign off from a GP. If you were doing that job, already overworked, would you be willing to take on more work which falls outside of your contractual obligations without recompense? I wouldn't. This isn't the fault of either GPs or BASC. The issue lies at the feet of the Constabularies and the Home Office who need to be seen to be 'tackling gun crime' and 'the risk of terrorism', this despite the fact that, statistically speaking, the incidence of legally owned firearms being involved in crime is 0%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 Nobody as far as I know is blaming doctors for this situation. And neither are basc bei g blamed. However as they claim to be there to protect the rights of the members they should do a little more than just wait and see. After all they advise not to pay for these reports so if they advise this they should be seen to be active on our behalf. I have no problem paying my Doctor to reply to police which in real terms would take probably no more than three or four minutes on the computer. And how many would they have to do on a daily basis. If they charge 50.00 I do t think they are being hard done by. We all know what government should be doing and not just in firearms licensing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) As I’ve said before; it’s simply one big **** covering exercise by the police. If they can effectively pass the buck and reduce the numbers of tickets out there at the same time by one means or another....meaning it is one less issue for them to be concerned about......then all well and good from their point of view. It would make more sense if the vetting of applicants and issuing of tickets was removed from their remit entirely, but ironically they resist this suggestion yet are reluctant to take responsibility for it. Despite what any of them claim, this has absolutely nothing to do with protection of the general public, but everything to do with protection of their careers. I’m of the opinion that If they were honest they would admit to a sense of great relief if civilian ownership of firearms was banned totally. Edited May 20, 2018 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Scully said: I’m of the opinion that If they were honest they would admit to a sense of great relief if civilian ownership of firearms was banned totally. It might make their job easier not having to deal with the paperwork and admin, but it would not make them any safer as the vast majority of crimes - and especially those where firearms are used against the police have nothing to do with LEGAL civilian ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 Quote As I’ve said before; it’s simply one big **** covering exercise by the police. Sure that was the reason Durham started this off 5yr ago after the almighty **** up they made of the Atherton saga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 20, 2018 Report Share Posted May 20, 2018 46 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said: Sure that was the reason Durham started this off 5yr ago after the almighty **** up they made of the Atherton saga. Couldn’t agree more. If I recall Durham licensing totally ignored information supplied by Athertons GP. Also, again if I recall, a male relative (?) went on local BBC news ( with police encouragement ) to state that he didn’t think people should own firearms despite having owned one himself? The overwhelming impression given was that Durham were trying anything and everything to divert attention from their monumental rooster up. But I digress... all this started five years ago eh? Seems about right; i know it was shortly after that that I decided to leave BASC. Anyhow, whichever way this is resolved, the only thing that will be ensured is that we’ll end up paying for it. Another nail in the coffin of British shooting for no gain for anyone whatsoever. It makes one wonder just what or who will be blamed next time the poop hits the fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 23, 2018 Report Share Posted May 23, 2018 On 20/05/2018 at 20:34, Scully said: As I’ve said before; it’s simply one big **** covering exercise by the police. If they can effectively pass the buck and reduce the numbers of tickets out there at the same time by one means or another.... It would make more sense if the vetting of applicants and issuing of tickets was removed from their remit entirely, but ironically they resist this suggestion yet are reluctant to take responsibility for it. Despite what any of them claim, this has absolutely nothing to do with protection of the general public, but everything to do with protection of their careers. More like the police don't want the work, or the responsibility.........but they want to hold on to the income stream!... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 23, 2018 Report Share Posted May 23, 2018 panoma 1 - a cynical comment, but probably accurate. If you ask for a GP's letter - cost £50? Ask for a Subject Access Request - and supply to the Police - cost £10. The Police say they retain the decision as to fitness, so why is a letter better than a SAR - which should have everything on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.