Jump to content

Medical records


Pistol p
 Share

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, JJsDad said:

Well, to the best of my recollection, the guys involved in the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents were both licenced. In one case the Chief Constable over-rode the advice of the FEO and renewed the guys ticket when the FEO expressed concerns . But as expected, that was kept very low key at the time.

I recall that the decision to renew against the advice of the FEO was thought to be easier/cheaper than refusing and being taken to court!

42 minutes ago, old'un said:

Well, taken from above, if that was the case then what is the point of a doctors letter if its going to-be ignored by the chief constable? If I remember I think there were also concerns at one of the clubs attended by one of them, some members even contacted the police about their concerns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I recall that the decision to renew against the advice of the FEO was thought to be easier/cheaper than refusing and being taken to court!

Tightchoke. Correct, that was the information I was given shortly after the event, that I received from a serving Police Officer who was involved at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I genuinely think that most shooters myself included have no objection to paying for a GP to complete the questionnaire. A reasonable fee. And would it be beyond the gmc to send an email to all GP surgeries asking if they will participate in replying. After all they only have to press send to all. Then all forces could publish on their website which surgeries in their area will respond. What does make a mockery of this is you have to have a medical for hgv etc yet this doesn't have to be done by a GP that knows you. A GP can rent a room for a day and then ask a few questions ask you to read a chart on the wall. Then your clear to take to the public highway a 40plus ton killing machine or have 50 plus persons on your coach that if you choose to you could drive straight off a cliff with no understanding of your mental health history. The courts can change democratic decisions taken by the public and then approved by Parliament yet it seems cannot be expected to set standards by which the police should act on this matter legal challenge may bring about a standardised system which is all we ask. So I would ask basc to maybe try for this maybe use the time they take to organise the Christmas ball to help the members. 

Edited by bostonmick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

I genuinely think that most shooters myself included have no objection to paying for a GP to complete the questionnaire. A reasonable fee. And would it be beyond the gmc to send an email to all GP surgeries asking if they will participate in replying. After all they only have to press send to all. Then all forces could publish on their website which surgeries in their area will respond. What does make a mockery of this is you have to have a medical for hgv etc yet this doesn't have to be done by a GP that knows you. A GP can rent a room for a day and then ask a few questions ask you to read a chart on the wall. Then your clear to take to the public highway a 40plus ton killing machine or have 50 plus persons on your coach that if you choose to you could drive straight off a cliff with no understanding of your mental health history. The courts can change democratic decisions taken by the public and then approved by Parliament yet it seems cannot be expected to set standards by which the police should act on this matter legal challenge may bring about a standardised system which is all we ask. So I would ask basc to maybe try for this maybe use the time they take to organise the Christmas ball to help the members. 

All good & valid points. My GPs fee for the medical letter (report) was £25. As this is over and above his NHS remit I have no problem with that fee. A solicitor would ask 6 or 8 times that to knock out a legal letter. As indicated earlier, my understanding from BASC and my FEO is that these points are all currently under discussion. Kent Police for example will advise you were to turn to, if your existing GP will not play ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all this medical record palava was going to make anyone safer no one would object, but its not, there are acident statistics from trucks and coaches but non on shooting whatsoever, so WHY?

 ITs all about pruning gun licence numbers nothing to do with safety.

After dereck bird Cameron said you can not legislate against such events, Atherton and the aftermath kicked up enough stink to give those forces who want to be more pedantic the option, and we are carrying the can  back.

 If they had been as keen on seeing right done with Hamilton his atrocities would never have happened. They mess up we get more hoops to jump through.  I think its time the government got a grip on these police forces so we have a level playing field way to much adjustment of the law joined up with guidance and self imposition, we need rules so we know what we need to do every constabulary.

  With all these laws we are no safer now than we were on the old white card of yesteryear. probably less safe now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JJsDad said:

I am no legal expert, but your explanation above seems to be guidance on how to commit a criminal offence !

I would have thought anyone trying to pull this stunt has got something rather worrying to hide, and if caught, leaves himself open to criminal prosecution with the certain loss of his licence and a fine or time behind bars.

In the light this is a totally public forum where anyone, including the Police can come and have a browse, I find your comments, in particular identifying the Police Force, somewhat naive to say the least.

Why hide the truth? Their are plenty of how to make bombs etc articles on the web and a lot worst than that I am sure like the dark web.

if the police don’t like it they can always scrap the process they have created , which results in such an opportunity, an opportunity which would not be possible if they followed the HOG2016.

simple.

Edited by rbrowning2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JJsDad said:

All good & valid points. My GPs fee for the medical letter (report) was £25. As this is over and above his NHS remit I have no problem with that fee. A solicitor would ask 6 or 8 times that to knock out a legal letter. As indicated earlier, my understanding from BASC and my FEO is that these points are all currently under discussion. Kent Police for example will advise you were to turn to, if your existing GP will not play ball.

So Kent police website states

We now need your medical information to be sent to us by your GP as part of your application. 

Now most normal thinking people would think YOUR GP would mean the GP you are registered with, not some random GP you have never ever met in your life. So clearly when your registered GP will not engage in the process (which Kent claim is frequent) then the process is broken, not fit for purpose so Kent and other forces bend their rules to allow you to use any GP, despite the fact that that GP will be unable to fulfil the EVER statement within the police medical template letter.

total madness.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Extract from the latest published minutes of the FELWG

Medical screening

A discussion took place in relation to the current position on pre-medical screening information. The issues that arose were.

1) More forces have adopted this process in line with Police Scotland

2) The BMA have amended their guidance as of 28 February 2019 to support both the process AND the placing of a marker on patient records where this can be done.

3) Home Office guidance consultation is due to commence in July but has been significantly delayed.

4) Analysis of forces undertaking the process currently is very positive.

5) The Royal College of General Practitioners are supportive of the process.

6) BASC and other shooting groups have been consulted and remain concerned in relation to doctors objecting to the process and costs.

7) DO is briefing the policing minister shortly.

Having discussed the issue widely, and the recent changes with the BMA guidance that the time was appropriate for FELWG to formally recommend pre-medical screening to forces as best practice, in anticipation of Home Office statutory guidance consultation commencing shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every force is going to be adopting this approach.

 

From 1 August 2019 every application for a shotgun/firearm and/or Registered Firearms Dealer certificate will require the applicant to submit, along with their application, a completed medical screening pro forma from their GP.

Thames Valley Police Assistant Chief Constable Tim De Meyer, said: “From 1 August 2019, the responsibility for submitting a completed medical screening pro forma along with the relevant paperwork will be the responsibility of the applicant.

“The decision to change this policy was not taken lightly, however, the current medical arrangements in place may leave a substantial gap in the available information and intelligence assessed at the point of grant or renewal and this has a direct impact on public safety.

“Although the Home Office is due to open its consultation on firearms in July 2019, given the difficulties in negotiating a nationally binding position and the complexity of it, then these discussions may take some time. In the meantime, it is for me to address the overriding concern of public safety in the Thames Valley now and to do so while providing a fair and efficient service to the shooting community.

“The public should be reassured that when firearms and/or shotgun certificates are issued to individuals, that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure the person is fit to hold the certificate. Pre-application medical screening is pivotal to police decision making.

“Thames Valley Police and the Thames Valley Local Medical Council have worked in partnership to agree the content of the medical screening pro forma. The content of the pro forma will ensure that all relevant information as to the suitability of the applicant is assessed, by the police, prior to the grant or renewal of a certificate.

“From 1 August 2019, any applications that are received without the required medical information will be returned to the applicant.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

This is an example of the police making law, not enforcing it! It is up to the government to make law, not the police.........we are supposed to live in a democracy......this country is fast becoming an undemocratic, authoritarian police state! :no:

I never thought i would ever be saying this about our country but i tend to agree with you, its not even a law by stealth its just own way almost adolescent in attitude.

 they do these things because they can its as simple as that.

 

Edited by lancer425
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...