new medical procedures from 1st April.

[Greymaster]

Does the retard who came up with this not have any knowledge of the Data Protection Act of which this is a clear violation .Why should everyone in the doctors know i have firearms in the house and more worrying my address .The scale of this failure of common sense is breathtaking B.A.S.C what have you done .If they wanted to prevent medically unfit people from owning firearms surely the simple part of the application form asking if the doc has medical grounds or not to say no is more than enough.Actually flagging up your records to show ownership is beyond stupid.Still BASC are proud of this so thats fine then,this should have been opposed to the hilt not pushed in through the back door.6 receptionist,s at my Doctors ,plus doctor,s admin staff and several nurse,s can now all see i have firearms and where i live do you think this is a good idea???

It is clear that with so many ex-plod on the payroll of BASC, it was bound to turn its back on the legitimate concerns of its membership and simply become a rubber-stamping capitulation monkey for whatever the regulators require. Whether it is general licences changes, fee increases, medical records, lead shot, unannounced visits. You name it they have caved in to every demand, and then seek to sell the cave in as good for shooters, good for shooting.

 

[kes]

BASC welcomes Home Office changes to licensing

[COLOR=#CCCCCC !important]Mar 24, 2016
[/COLOR]

BASC has welcomed Home Office changes to the application process for firearms licensing as a sensible response to several years of consultation with the association, the police and other key groups.
As of April 1 this year, not only will the forms change, but GPs are being asked to place an encoded reminder onto an applicant’s medical record to prompt doctors to consider notifying the police of health concerns which may affect firearms possession.
The changes are in response to recommendations initially tabled by coroners, medical professionals and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
BASC, however, fought to allow Essex Police to run a successful pilot of the scheme which has ultimately been adopted; this involved more than 7,000 firearms licence holders and suggested GPs in fact needed to be consulted in fewer than two per cent of applications.
BASC, the UK’s largest shooting organisation with a membership of over 144,500, considers this new process will take shooting a step closer to 10-year certificates.
BASC had always opposed plans to introduce a compulsory scheme which forced applicants to complete a self-declaration medical form before submitting it to their doctor with a fee.
In turn, the GP was expected to amend or corroborate the information, place an encoded reminder on the patient record, then forward the form to the police. BASC fiercely resisted this proposal as wholly disproportionate.
Gary Ashton, BASC’s director of firearms operations, said: “BASC has been at the vanguard, ensuring certificate holders were protected from the original disproportionate and expensive proposals.
“BASC welcomes the commitment of the Home Office to the development of a sensible and pragmatic solution which will both mitigate the concerns expressed by the IPCC, coroners and medical profession and enhance public safety.”
A full version of the Home Office factfile on firearms licensing is available here.

Nothing on NGO or CA websites - sorry.

 

[tFl]

Im gobsmacked by the idiotic responses on this string.

the alternative could have been far worse. Basc have defended and got the best with the controls for data protection. You'd all be calling for basc to do something if they hadn't got stuck in.

your all to critical. Today we cannot escape government changing things. Its extremely naive to take the stance that because changes to process have happened, that basc caused it. Why dont you read, digest, take time to think and realise that the greater damage comes from people like atherton and bird who might have been stopped earlier. It could be your community effected. What would you prefer.

 

[tFl]

Does the retard who came up with this not have any knowledge of the Data Protection Act of which this is a clear violation

this is rather inflammatory isnt it. With such a viewpoint, could you be medically unfit? Do you really think the Information Comissioner hasn't vetted the procedure?

 

[tFl]

I was speaking to an NGO big cheese yesterday who assures me that they objected strongly to the Home Office about placing the info on the NHS IT system for all to see. Apparently the Home Office have very reluctantly agreed (but only after the NGO applied pressure) so some way of recording that is accessible to far less NHS staff must be on the cards.

was it a big cheese who really knows? Its only the GP who has the info not the whole NHS.

 

[kes]

was it a big cheese who really knows? Its only the GP who has the info not the whole NHS.

All patient records can be seen by all hospitals and therefore go on to a central database which is happening now - massive project but shortly all patients data will be 'seen' by anyone who may treat them. Its probably therefore correct what tozz says.

 

[tFl]

All patient records can be seen by all hospitals and therefore go on to a central database which is happening now - massive project but shortly all patients data will be 'seen' by anyone who may treat them. Its probably therefore correct what tozz says.

Not correct. Not all data is handed over. Your gp would have sent you an opt in/out form. You can opt out at any time but sharing is not automatic. In any case the firearms encoded reminder stays in the GP surgery. The only data that can be shared with wider nhs must be relative to patient care only.

the reason gp's are the link with the police is because they are the main point of contact for your records. If you have had treatment with the nhs the nhs write to your gp for your record to be updated. Theres no reason to pass firearms data to hospitals as they are not carrying out the function of communication with the police.

 

[Taff]

Its done and nothing is going to change it, you can all slag off who you like, but how many of you have actually done something to protect your sport, and I don,t mean join a society and then hope they do it for you.

 

[kes]

Its done and nothing is going to change it, you can all slag off who you like, but how many of you have actually done something to protect your sport, and I don,t mean join a society and then hope they do it for you.

Bit ott of a comment - I have done my bit, have you?

 

[Bandit Country]

Im gobsmacked by the idiotic responses on this string.

the alternative could have been far worse. Basc have defended and got the best with the controls for data protection. You'd all be calling for basc to do something if they hadn't got stuck in.

your all to critical. Today we cannot escape government changing things. Its extremely naive to take the stance that because changes to process have happened, that basc caused it. Why dont you read, digest, take time to think and realise that the greater damage comes from people like atherton and bird who might have been stopped earlier. It could be your community effected. What would you prefer.

Of course one 'alternative' would be no change, which would really have been the best result for BASC to obtain? I don't think anyone has yet suggested that BASC 'caused' this change, so I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

I have no idea who 'atherton' might be but from the little I know of the Bird shootings I don't think this new system is likely to have prevented them. The Wiki article reports Bird presented to a local hospital with a 'fragile mental state', rather than his GP? Apparently part of the trigger for him to go do-lally was that he was being investigated by HMRC. Perhaps HMRC should also have 'encoded markers' on all our files, just in case...?

I certainly have no problem with changes to process that actually make things safer, simpler, better... I'm afraid this latest imposition is just a poorly thought through knee-jerk response to the 'something must be done!' brigade. As to "What would I prefer"? I'd prefer it if known dodgy geezers with criminal records didn't have access to guns.

 

[Bandit Country]

Not correct. Not all data is handed over. Your gp would have sent you an opt in/out form.

Err ...not correct. Unless you actively opt out you will automatically be enrolled on to the Summary Care Record scheme. Hopefully your GP will have sent out the opt out information, but in a number of cases that hasn't happened. Having had a look at the info that is automatically included on the SCR for 'data enrichment' purposes I see that GPs using the EMIS system (which mine does) will include the contents of the 'Active Problems' box - which is where the notification is recorded that I have a SGC. The info on line is very much open to interpretation about 'data enrichment' as, on the one hand it says it only occurs with explicit patient consent, while on the other it mentions information automatically included. Enriching SCRs with additional information — Health and Social Care Information Centre

Personally, I'm not at all bothered as I opted out at the earliest opportunity; primarily because of concerns about data security. It's worth noting that all the GPs I spoke to, across several practices, expressed major reservations about the capability of the wider NHS to protect personal data. There appears to be a trend emerging in the monetarisation of data by the NHS - Patient records should not have been sold, NHS admits - Telegraph but who worries? After all if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear -yeah? BTW I'm still waiting for the email log in details that I requested...

 

[Taff]

Bit ott of a comment - I have done my bit, have you?

yep for the record on more than one occasion.

 

[tozzybum]

Hardly being unfit worrying about security or who has your information is it.I live in Leicestershire and if i go to the Doctors here or Burton hospital or Loughborough Hospital they all have my records on their database/system so how many will see them in a year ??Yes i am in BASC and respond to their surveys on subjects ,but no this is not a change for the better or the "best of a bad job",its a lets be seen doing something .The FAC application has its medical section for a good reason but to flag your records as a firearms holder is a violation of DATA protection and why should this be public knowledge .BASC themselves tell you not to openly show you have firearms and be discreet when coming and going with them and then tell the biggest employer in the country to put it on your records ??

 

[And]

It shouldn't surprise me that people get aggressive with others on here that they don't even know, but it does.

tFL, the big cheese knows his stuff as apparently do other people on this thread.

Personally, I have BASC membership but admire the way that the NGO seem to take on causes and issues that others won't. I can't vote with my feet as membership is part of my club membership. Should members not be free to voice their opinions even if they don't agree with the BASC line?

Last, and by no means least, i strongly believe that anyone who questions other people's 'fitness' should be given a public warning by the mods. It strikes me as one of the most divisive things you can post on what is a very public forum and I see it too often.

 

[old man]

It shouldn't surprise me that people get aggressive with others on here that they don't even know, but it does.

tFL, the big cheese knows his stuff as apparently do other people on this thread.

Personally, I have BASC membership but admire the way that the NGO seem to take on causes and issues that others won't. I can't vote with my feet as membership is part of my club membership. Should members not be free to voice their opinions even if they don't agree with the BASC line?

Last, and by no means least, i strongly believe that anyone who questions other people's 'fitness' should be given a public warning by the mods. It strikes me as one of the most divisive things you can post on what is a very public forum and I see it too often.

And,sorry but you will have to explain your point?

 

[JTO]

Doctors, or is it just GPs, have one of the highest(perhaps THE highest) suicide rates. Does that mean they are the ones who should decide on our mental state?

 

[Toxster]

Doctors, or is it just GPs, have one of the highest(perhaps THE highest) suicide rates. Does that mean they are the ones who should decide on our mental state?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, most GPs won't have anything to do with it and will see it as the politicised blame-shifting exercise it really is.

Talked to a Dr friend and he said that he will take the same attitude he takes when asked about work sickness or fitness to work, which is that if someone says they are unwell, his job is to treat them, which is what he signed up for, nothing else.

I recall reading that they tried something similar in the US, and decided against it on the basis that if someone was depressed then it was better that they sought treatment and that such laws would deter people form seeking treatment. I believe in the state where they tried this there was a recorded drop in people seeking Doctors' help for depression. Surely it's better to have a FAC and be treated for an illness, than still have an FAC and but be scared to seek help from your Doctor? For someone with a mild depression, it's hardly helpful to have the unpleasantness of a weapons seizure and the consequent removal of their stress relieving hobby.

It's all round a triumph of tabloid-esque "common sense" over empirical evidence.

 

[tFl]

It shouldn't surprise me that people get aggressive with others on here that they don't even know, but it does.

tFL, the big cheese knows his stuff as apparently do other people on this thread.

Personally, I have BASC membership but admire the way that the NGO seem to take on causes and issues that others won't. I can't vote with my feet as membership is part of my club membership. Should members not be free to voice their opinions even if they don't agree with the BASC line?

Last, and by no means least, i strongly believe that anyone who questions other people's 'fitness' should be given a public warning by the mods. It strikes me as one of the most divisive things you can post on what is a very public forum and I see it too often.

its not about following a line or expression of opinion. The objection was to the term retard. And you think thats ok. Half the people on here im sure would have been revoked by now if they werent hiding behind a pseudonym

 

[tFl]

Err ...not correct. Unless you actively opt out you will automatically be enrolled on to the Summary Care Record scheme.

either way, firearms data nor the encoded reminder is passed to the nhs. Only info relative to your health such as medication prescribed, chronic conditions. The parties involved with this scheme have sought/given assurances as to where the firearms marker sits.

 

[tFl]

Hardly being unfit worrying about security or who has your information is it.I live in Leicestershire and if i go to the Doctors here or Burton hospital or Loughborough Hospital they all have my records on their database/system so how many will see them in a year ??Yes i am in BASC and respond to their surveys on subjects ,but no this is not a change for the better or the "best of a bad job",its a lets be seen doing something .The FAC application has its medical section for a good reason but to flag your records as a firearms holder is a violation of DATA protection and why should this be public knowledge .BASC themselves tell you not to openly show you have firearms and be discreet when coming and going with them and then tell the biggest employer in the country to put it on your records ??

how is it against data protection if the ICO approved it. How is it public knowledge? GPs are the most secure data holders in the uk due to the oath they take. They have an exemption only for passing information to the police and only the police where they feel a patient is a risk to themselves or others. Its not simply a medical condition but behaviour that they might be worried about.