BASC says don’t pay medical fee

[kes]

All this from the 'forces' which failed to vet out Hamilton - Its a disgrace and a political expedient - I sincerely hope it blows up in their face. Anyone want to try the European Court of Human Rights before we leave - maybe a shooting org that thinks being guilty before being found so, is unacceptable ?
" you are unsuitable until I am told you are suitable".
Nonsense.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Where does it state that the HO Guidance as a whole only applies to England & Wales?

I am aware that the 'Firearms Licensing and Medical Evidence: Factsheet' issued by the Home Office and reproduced at Appendix 11; Annex C of the current HOG states that:

"The new system will be introduced in England and Wales on 1 April. Because processes in Scotland may differ, separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland."

Has any separate medical evidence guidance for Scotland been issued by the HO to date?

I have an e mail from Police Scotland inspector Jillian Kerr which states specifically, and I quote ". Police Scotland will follow the Guidance as it is intended to allow for consistency of practice throughout not only Scotland, but the UK. "

Then of course they absolutely ignore the Guidance

Cheers

Bruce

 

[mealiejimmy]

Police Scotland's argument:


Act requires CC to be 'satisfied' person presents no risk
Without medical report CC cannot be 'satisfied'
Act trumps guidance.
So yar boo sucks to you.

No argument that the Act trumps the Guidance and that the Act says cc must be "satisifed" that the applicant is a suitable person.

According to an e mail I have from Inspector Jillian Kerr, Police Scotland have defined "satisfied" to mean "full assurance or certainty" and have based their current policy of no medical report= no certificate on this definition.
I have been unable to find the source for that definition, so if anyone knows where it comes from I'd be most grateful for a link.
Police Scotland were either unable or unwilling to provide one when I asked them.
The word "satisfied" has been in the Act since it came into law in 1968, and it's meaning cannot have suddenly changed in April this year when the new medical rules came into force.
It's also the case that for many years prior to April 2016, the Police have had the power to contact an applicants GP to check that their declaration on the application/renewal form is truthful (when you sign the form you give them that power)
So, I conclude that Police Scotland have been in dereliction of their duties for years because they have not been "satisfying" themselves that applicants have been suitable because they have been neglecting to contact the applicants GP
It then follows that everyone in Scotland who holds an FAC or SGC issued before the new medical rules came into force has not "satisfied" the cc and, in theory, should have their certificate revoked !!!
That's not going to happen, but it does show how Police Scotland have developed a policy that can lead to unintended consequences.
I would also point out that the College of Policing requires a cc to explain their rationale to FELWEG when they deviate from the Home Office Guidance.
I've reviewed all the minutes of FELWEG meetings I can find online and have yet to find anything from Police Scotland which explains why they have deviated from the Guidance

Cheers

Bruce

 

[mealiejimmy]

All this from the 'forces' which failed to vet out Hamilton - Its a disgrace and a political expedient - I sincerely hope it blows up in their face. Anyone want to try the European Court of Human Rights before we leave - maybe a shooting org that thinks being guilty before being found so, is unacceptable ?
" you are unsuitable until I am told you are suitable".
Nonsense.

Of course it's political expedient.
It allows the SNP government to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK on a matter which is reserved to Westminster and in which they should have no influence. The SNP government are now able to say that Scotland is a safer place than the rest of the UK because shooters here have to pass a higher standard before being allowed to have an FAC/SGC than in England and Wales.
It's quite possible that Police Scotland cooked up the policy either at the behest of the SNP Government or cooked it up themselves and then took it to the SNP Government (knowing that they would love it) in return for some easing of their current budget crisis.

BTW Hamilton lived in, what was at the time, the area of Scotland covered by Central Police.
His application was rejected by the Central police firearms team, but he appealed and it was granted on the direct instruction of the (now deceased) ACC - whether they were pals or not, I don't know.
However, Hamilton was known to the previous cc of Central police, who at the time of Dunblane had become cc of Grampian Police.
I have it on excellent authority that as soon as news of the shooting started to filter out, but before any names were known, that the cc of Grampian police knew who the shooter was.

The best hope of getting this ridiculous policy changed is for someone to refuse to pay for the GP response to the initial letter, and when the Police say the licence is not being renewed, to appeal the decision and if necessary, go to court.
You would hope that the appellant is a member of a Shooting organisation such as BASC who could provide the legal assistance need to take on such an appeal.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Dalua]

According to an e mail I have from Inspector Jillian Kerr, Police Scotland have defined "satisfied" to mean "full assurance or certainty" and have based their current policy of no medical report= no certificate on this definition.
I have been unable to find the source for that definition, so if anyone knows where it comes from I'd be most grateful for a link.
Police Scotland were either unable or unwilling to provide one when I asked them.
The word "satisfied" has been in the Act since it came into law, and it's meaning cannot have suddenly changed in April this year when the new medical rules came into force.

Good stuff, this and the rest of the post.

The Act requires the CC to be 'satisfied' - but Lord V's assertion that the CC is simply allowed to interpret that exactly as he pleases is unhelpful. What if he couldn't be 'satisfied' without a report from a forensic psychiatist and/or psychologist? Where would it end?

 

[kes]

No updates from any shooting org?

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Of course it's political expedient.
It allows the SNP government to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK on a matter which is reserved to Westminster and in which they should have no influence. The SNP government are now able to say that Scotland is a safer place than the rest of the UK because shooters here have to pass a higher standard before being allowed to have an FAC/SGC than in England and Wales.
It's quite possible that Police Scotland cooked up the policy either at the behest of the SNP Government or cooked it up themselves and then took it to the SNP Government (knowing that they would love it) in return for some easing of their current budget crisis.

BTW Hamilton lived in, what was at the time, the area of Scotland covered by Central Police.
His application was rejected by the Central police firearms team, but he appealed and it was granted on the direct instruction of the (now deceased) ACC - whether they were pals or not, I don't know.
However, Hamilton was known to the previous cc of Central police, who at the time of Dunblane had become cc of Grampian Police.
I have it on excellent authority that as soon as news of the shooting started to filter out, but before any names were known, that the cc of Grampian police knew who the shooter was.

The best hope of getting this ridiculous policy changed is for someone to refuse to pay for the GP response to the initial letter, and when the Police say the licence is not being renewed, to appeal the decision and if necessary, go to court.
You would hope that the appellant is a member of a Shooting organisation such as BASC who could provide the legal assistance need to take on such an appeal.

Cheers

Bruce

Excellent post, I have just delivered the doctor part of my renewal last week. I am a member of BASC. If I get an invoice from my GP i shall send a copy to BASC for a response and report back..

 

[Dalua]

Police Scotland's argument:


Act requires CC to be 'satisfied' person presents no risk
Without medical report CC cannot be 'satisfied'
Act trumps guidance.

So yar boo sucks to you.

Interestingly, it actually requires the CC to be satisfied not that the applicant 'presents no risk', but that he can be permitted to have the firearm/s 'without danger to the public safety or the peace'.
Paraphrasing an article by 'Cadmus' in Guns Review Sept 1979 - This phrase 'without danger to the public safety or the peace' was introduced at the recommendation of the Blackwall Committee for the 1920 Act. The Committee was very clear that this meant:
'1. that the person is of good character and
2. that there is no reason to suppose that he intends or desires to use the weapon for unlawful purposes'.

Why after more than 80 years a medical report should be considered essential to 'satisfy' the CC of the every applicant's bona fides and character is far from clear. It might well be more of that same lust for control that has since the mid '70s the absurd 'discretionary condition' fetish among FLDs.

 

[kes]

Interestingly, it actually requires the CC to be satisfied not that the applicant 'presents no risk', but that he can be permitted to have the firearm/s 'without danger to the public safety or the peace'.
Paraphrasing an article by 'Cadmus' in Guns Review Sept 1979 - This phrase 'without danger to the public safety or the peace' was introduced at the recommendation of the Blackwall Committee for the 1920 Act. The Committee was very clear that this meant:
'1. that the person is of good character and
2. that there is no reason to suppose that he intends or desires to use the weapon for unlawful purposes'.

Why after more than 80 years a medical report should be considered essential to 'satisfy' the CC of the every applicant's bona fides and character is far from clear. It might well be more of that same lust for control that has since the mid '70s the absurd 'discretionary condition' fetish among FLDs.

The 'need' for a medical stems from police failings.Every individual that used legally held firearms for mass murder could have been stopped before the event, if someone in the police had listened or done their job properly.
This approach amounts to - take no responsibility, blame anyone else involved, and remove weapons from civilians, so obvious mistakes cannot be made in the future. Appalling.

 

[Greymaster]

Of course it's political expedient.
It allows the SNP government to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK on a matter which is reserved to Westminster and in which they should have no influence. The SNP government are now able to say that Scotland is a safer place than the rest of the UK because shooters here have to pass a higher standard before being allowed to have an FAC/SGC than in England and Wales.
It's quite possible that Police Scotland cooked up the policy either at the behest of the SNP Government or cooked it up themselves and then took it to the SNP Government (knowing that they would love it) in return for some easing of their current budget crisis.

BTW Hamilton lived in, what was at the time, the area of Scotland covered by Central Police.
His application was rejected by the Central police firearms team, but he appealed and it was granted on the direct instruction of the (now deceased) ACC - whether they were pals or not, I don't know.
However, Hamilton was known to the previous cc of Central police, who at the time of Dunblane had become cc of Grampian Police.
I have it on excellent authority that as soon as news of the shooting started to filter out, but before any names were known, that the cc of Grampian police knew who the shooter was.

The best hope of getting this ridiculous policy changed is for someone to refuse to pay for the GP response to the initial letter, and when the Police say the licence is not being renewed, to appeal the decision and if necessary, go to court.
You would hope that the appellant is a member of a Shooting organisation such as BASC who could provide the legal assistance need to take on such an appeal.

Cheers

Bruce

To be relying on BASC to provide legal assistance would be unwise. Unlike the NGO, the BASC seem particularly averse to asserting shooters rights through judicial review. Perhaps because they perceive themselves to be "fully engaged", they think it is not necessary to push for legal precedent through JR.

I am becoming less and less satisfied with the shortcomings of BASC, their internal managerial debacle, their naivety in dealing with former ACPO lead Marsh, their naïve delusion that they are fully engaged with the licensing parties (HO, NPCC etc.).

The more the BASC trumpets how good they are the more glaring their real time inadequacies appear. To fully capitulate on licencing fee increases without binding efficiency improvements was amateurish, and has cost shooters dear. And now we have the debacle of the "agreement" with the BMA over medical fees etc.

I will be looking around for a reputable organisation which succeeds in representing the shooting interest when my current BASC subs expire.

 

[Dalua]

The 'need' for a medical stems from police failings.Every individual that used legally held firearms for mass murder could have been stopped before the event, if someone in the police had listened or done their job properly.
This approach amounts to - take no responsibility, blame anyone else involved, and remove weapons from civilians, so obvious mistakes cannot be made in the future. Appalling.

It is appalling, though not surprising; as it is pretty much what one might expect given the history of police involvement in firearms control.

It is less easy to explain the role of our organisations in this. I fear that a naive approach to 'close working relationships' or feeling 'fully engaged' with Home Office and Police might, in the context of some rather harmful outcomes, look rather like complicity with those bodies - who have shown themselves since the 1930s to be unwaveringly inimical to civillian firearms ownership and use.

We should keep in mind that historically it is not Home Office, nor the Police that have supported civil liberties with respect to firearms ownership: their role has always been the direct opposite.
Rather, it has been Parliament, particularly in the form of MPs who have been willing to speak up for maintenence of those liberties in the face of spuriously-reasoned Goverment-proposed (usually) and Home-Office supported (always) attempts to reduce them.

 

[Miki]

Where does it state that the HO Guidance as a whole only applies to England & Wales?

I am aware that the 'Firearms Licensing and Medical Evidence: Factsheet' issued by the Home Office and reproduced at Appendix 11; Annex C of the current HOG states that:
"The new system will be introduced in England and Wales on 1 April. Because processes in Scotland may differ, separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland."
Has any separate medical evidence guidance for Scotland been issued by the HO to date?

The HO Guidelines themselves have a 'not in Scotland clause ...

Scotland
[FONT=&amp]11.39 This guidance on medical evidence applies in England and Wales. As processes in Scotland may differ separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland. The firearm and shotgun application forms apply in England, Wales and Scotland.

No guidance has been issued by the Scottish Ministers at this time .... that I am aware of.[/FONT]

 

[Miki]

//snip//

The best hope of getting this ridiculous policy changed is for someone to refuse to pay for the GP response to the initial letter, and when the Police say the licence is not being renewed, to appeal the decision and if necessary, go to court.
You would hope that the appellant is a member of a Shooting organisation such as BASC who could provide the legal assistance need to take on such an appeal.
Bruce

Correct, however I don't think this has happened, no-one wants the hassle and despite the grumblings everyone has paid up, but you are right, it's the only way things will change. I think your wrong about the BASC (or any shooting organisation) in that I don't think they will help financially as the chance of "winning" is quiet likely very small. Frazer (Sturgeon) Lamb is retiring soon and is currently "tidying his desk", the new Cheif Inspector and head of PS FELD will be Ms Marsh - I can't see her doing a U turn and following HO guidelines but it would be good for her, PS and the FELD's image/perception if she did.

 

[Orion]

............,,I am aware that the 'Firearms Licensing and Medical Evidence: Factsheet' issued by the Home Office and reproduced at Appendix 11; Annex C of the current HOG states that:

"The new system will be introduced in England and Wales on 1 April. Because processes in Scotland may differ, separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland."

Has any separate medical evidence guidance for Scotland been issued by the HO to date?

The HO Guidelines themselves have a 'not in Scotland clause ...

Scotland
[FONT=&amp]11.39 This guidance on medical evidence applies in England and Wales. As processes in Scotland may differ separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland. The firearm and shotgun application forms apply in England, Wales and Scotland.

No guidance has been issued by the Scottish Ministers at this time .... that I am aware of.[/FONT]

As I said in my earlier post, I am aware of the stated intention to issue separate Guidance on medical evidence for Scotland. If this has not been forthcoming, and apparently it hasn't appeared, has anyone either directly affected by this debacle, or coming under the jurisdiction of Police Scotland FELD, written to the Secretary of State at the Home Office and/or the Scottish Ministers at the Safer Communities Directorate asking what the feck is going on?

 

[Miki]

As I said in my earlier post, I am aware of the stated intention to issue separate Guidance on medical evidence for Scotland. If this has not been forthcoming, and apparently it hasn't appeared, has anyone either directly affected by this debacle, or coming under the jurisdiction of Police Scotland FELD, written to the Secretary of State at the Home Office and/or the Scottish Ministers at the Safer Communities Directorate asking what the feck is going on?

That's a good point. Let me ask the BASC if they've done that ....

 

[Orion]

That's a good point. Let me ask the BASC if they've done that ....

I was thinking more of individuals writing directly to the SoS or Scottish Ministers.

Different time and place, but when the HO sent me a letter suggesting that our S.5 RFD Authority would be revoked due to 'lack of trading turnover', (apparently they were unable to differentiate between specialist sales of tranquilising equipment to zoos, safari parks etc. and multi-million £ weapon deals with Saudi Arabia ), I requested a face-to-face meeting with Jack Straw, the SoS at the time and the signatory of the S.5 Authority, to explain the situation. Needless to say the problem soon went away.

Aim for the the organ grinder not the monkeys and it can be amazing how minds get focused and results achieved.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Police Scotlands' policy of "no medical information = no certificate" clearly contradicts the Home Office Guidance, and I'd like to know how they came up with that policy.
Have a look at this https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ion-and-public-protection/firearms-licensing/
and note that when a police force (including Police Scotland) does not follow the Home Office Guidance they are REQUIRED to inform FELWG and give their reasoning for not following the Guidance.
I can't find anything relating to this matter in any of the minutes of FELWG meeting which are online so I have made a Freedom of Information request to the cc of Police Scotland asking him to confirm if Police Scotland have informed FELWG of their deviation from the Guidance and if they have, to provide me with a copy of their rationale for the deviation.
I am legally entitled to receive a response within 20 days and if they refuse to provide the information I'll be straight onto the Information Commissioner

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Dalua]

I was thinking more of individuals writing directly to the SoS or Scottish Ministers.

I think this is an important point. FAC-holders who have been affected making their complaint by well-drafted letter to sufficiently important people (Chief Constable, Scottish ministers) and cc. their MP/MSP is likely to be less ineffective than telephone calls or letters/emails to less-important persons.

This is partly because of the volume of correspondence this will produce compared to a single communication form each of the organisations - but mainly because it is the individual FAC-holders whose rights in law are being infringed, and therefore it is by them that Police and Parliament should be held to account: not BASC, or whoever.

 

[Nobleman]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...SX8bogOi0-E3aIsAg&sig2=3UxxA_gTyOB57jzVz8UiAg

 

[rodkayak]

I read the latest BMA advice as: Ask the patient for a reasonable fee tho be paid up within 2 weeks and then do the note reading, code the notes, tick the boxes and be prepared to except medical responsibility if something is overlooked or misjudged. If no fee is paid then inform the police that the applicant is not prepared to pay for the work and that GP will not do the form. If the GP feels that the applicant is not fit then the GP should try to persuade the applicant to withdraw their application. If they don't then GP should inform the Police