Medical issues with your FAC....

[Walker570]

Just had an e mail from the BASC with details of a 'stop gap' arrangement to speed up medical details for you application/s.

If you do not receive a similar e mail circular then contact BASC for details

Edited January 6, 2020 by Walker570

[welsh1]

You could just share the email.

[mossy835]

saw on there webb site, if you have trouble with your doctor, then tell basc. and they will put you in touch with a doctor who is a meber of basc.if your not a basc meber then they wont help you.

Edited January 6, 2020 by mossy835

[rbrowning2]

The merits of which are being discussed at

https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/heads-up-basc-work-around-service-for-fac-gp-problem.180806/

Interesting reading.

 

Anybody used medcert?

 

[Snoozer]

https://basc.org.uk/new-basc-service-bypasses-unhelpful-gps/

[mick miller]

They can go do one.

Edited January 7, 2020 by mick miller

[panoma1]

On 06/01/2020 at 21:28, mossy835 said:

saw on there webb site, if you have trouble with your doctor, then tell basc. and they will put you in touch with a doctor who is a meber of basc.if your not a basc meber then they wont help you.

Why should they? Members pay to be members and rightly get any benefits BASC can negotiate, non members pay nothing, so will not get any benefits BASC arrange for its members!.........but even though non members pay nowt! They will still benefit (or lose) from any national general law changes or agreements they can get via negotiations!

 

16 hours ago, mick miller said:

They can go do one.

Join BASC if you want the benefits membership offers!.......Or don’t, and plough your own furrow! 😭

[mick miller]

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Join BASC if you want the benefits membership offers!.......Or don’t, and plough your own furrow! 😭

If by benefits you mean the proffering of extra hoops through which to jump with little benefit in public safety and nothing in return then yes, I'll plough my own furrow. Thanks.

Edited January 8, 2020 by mick miller
grammar

[David BASC]

Some seem to assume it was BASC that came up with the idea of medical checks in the licencing process - this is completely untrue and incorrect,  the HO were put into this position due to three coroners reports that recommended medial checks were implemented. See here for more info: https://basc.org.uk/providing-a-solution-on-medical-firearm-verification/ 

 

[Mr.C]

It seems Sussex, a formerly very helpful and efficient authority, are now requiring GP confirmation. Mates GP won't play ball and as he's an occasional clay shooter he will probably give up his ticket. They're slowly winning!

[mick miller]

Quote

This marker would be a major contribution to public safety, and I am staggered that currently there is no compulsion for GPs to participate in its universal adoption.

I'd love to see an analysis of how this statement is believed to be true? Statistically speaking, there was virtually zero risk to the public with the pre-existing system. To claim otherwise is simply false. I won't derail this thread anymore.

Edit: Actually, I think I may know why this has been worded in this way, despite the fallacy. If there is the legal requirement for a permanent marker there would be an argument for 10 year licences, as the medical marker adds an additional layer of (I'd argue inconsequential) security. The current trend is toward further gold-plating though, not less. At least my GP only insisted on a donation to a local charity for £25, rather than pulling my pants down. Something to be commended under the circumstances.

Edited January 10, 2020 by mick miller

[Scully]

42 minutes ago, mick miller said:

I'd love to see an analysis of how this statement is believed to be true? Statistically speaking, there was virtually zero risk to the public with the pre-existing system. To claim otherwise is simply false. I won't derail this thread anymore.

Good point. 

[mossy835]

21 hours ago, Mr.C said:

It seems Sussex, a formerly very helpful and efficient authority, are now requiring GP confirmation. Mates GP won't play ball and as he's an occasional clay shooter he will probably give up his ticket. They're slowly winning!

 

if he is with basc, then looks like they can help him.

[Mr.C]

Unfortunately he's not, at the moment. 

[mossy835]

its not to late.to go with them.

[panoma1]

4 hours ago, mick miller said:

I'd love to see an analysis of how this statement is believed to be true? Statistically speaking, there was virtually zero risk to the public with the pre-existing system. To claim otherwise is simply false. I won't derail this thread anymore.

Edit: Actually, I think I may know why this has been worded in this way, despite the fallacy. If there is the legal requirement for a permanent marker there would be an argument for 10 year licences, as the medical marker adds an additional layer of (I'd argue inconsequential) security. The current trend is toward further gold-plating though, not less. At least my GP only insisted on a donation to a local charity for £25, rather than pulling my pants down. Something to be commended under the circumstances.

As I understand it.......

During the licensing review, for GP’s to place a “marker” on an applicants medical records, it was agreed there would be no charge.....the BMA agreed it! So did the police, so did the HO, so did the shooting organisations!......After the event the GP’s didn’t!.....so the BMA reneged on the deal! GP’s wanted paying, so they refused to do it unless they were! The police still wanted GP involvement, so the police supported GP’s getting paid.........instead of a free “marker” placed  on an applicants medical record, the police (certain forces) decided to demand a written medical declaration from a GP, on every applicant, for which the GP was entitled (as per original HO guidance) to demand payment........as you say the shooting organisations agreed to the permanent free marker on an applicants medical records (as did everyone else involved!) presumably, because it would be good reason to extend certificates to 10 year duration! They did not agree to a GP report in every case, for which the applicant had to pay!.....

Now the GP’S are getting paid and the police have imposed a no report no certificate rule........so everyone is happy.......except the shooter!!

[mick miller]

BASC are happy now too, new revenue stream for them and a perfect way to drive membership don't forget. It's just the shooter's that are unhappy with this new, arrangement/hoop/hurdle. Claiming that the marker is 'a major contribution to safety' is just cobblers, but I get why it may have been said, although I doubt we're ever going to see 10 year certs given the subsequent loss of revenue for all involved.

Still, we all love a bit of unnecessary gold plating don't we? After all, it's all very British.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by mick miller

[David BASC]

BASC is,  of course, a membership organisation so it's obvious that we try to deliver the best member benefits and offers for our members. It's interesting that its those who are not members of BASC but I trust are members of another organisation seem to be moaning about BASC trying to help its members! It's a bit like me complaining that the petrol station down the road is giving discounts for regular customers but still buying my petrol somewhere else!

[oowee]

On 08/01/2020 at 11:29, panoma1 said:

Why should they? Members pay to be members and rightly get any benefits BASC can negotiate, non members pay nothing, so will not get any benefits BASC arrange for its members!.........but even though non members pay nowt! They will still benefit (or lose) from any national general law changes or agreements they can get via negotiations!

 

Join BASC if you want the benefits membership offers!.......Or don’t, and plough your own furrow! 😭

5 minutes ago, David BASC said:

BASC is,  of course, a membership organisation so it's obvious that we try to deliver the best member benefits and offers for our members. It's interesting that its those who are not members of BASC but I trust are members of another organisation seem to be moaning about BASC trying to help its members! It's a bit like me complaining that the petrol station down the road is giving discounts for regular customers but still buying my petrol somewhere else!

[GingerCat]

My current gp, who I've seen twice in maybe 7 years, charges £54. 

[mick miller]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

My current gp, who I've seen twice in maybe 7 years, charges £54. 

Factor in your own insurance (£25 per annum) and this fee (£11 per annum) and you're still saving money I guess. Why pay more for less?

[David BASC]

You spectacularly miss the point. Some of our members have GPs who will not sign the forms or charge a huge fee for doing do, hence we have developed a service for those who are caught in this trap. Saving a few quid on a membership fee is all well and good but if your GP will not play ball saving a few pence a week come to naught.

[clumber]

Could I ask if the BASC are pushing the H O, Police and the BMA to sort out the unfair disparity in charging up and down the country? 

I wonder how many GPs would refuse a request or charge a ridiculous price if the request and payment for a medical report came directly from the issuing force? 

[Scully]

I’m not sure he’s the only one ‘spectacularly missing the point‘ if in fact anyone is. He was making the point that a marker on ones medical file isn’t going to improve safety by any significant amount whatsoever. I too, am struggling to see what difference it will make. 
It isn’t about saving ‘ a few quid on a membership fee’, it’s about paying for a service which is claimed but seldom delivered. 
Any news on the 10 year certificate Mike Eveleigh stated shooters would receive as a compromise to GP’s reports? 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Scully
Predictive text

[mick miller]

Scratch that.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by mick miller
I've had my say already. I'm just derailing this and I hate it when that happens