A good point really.
BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
Also, such a one-off fee adds to the case for a much longer certificate life, to my mind
But that WAS the deal AFAIR. And BASC were sucker punched into the situation we now are in. Doctors' fees but NO ten year licence. More and more I feel that BASC don't have the calibre of staff capable of negotiating, even, their own way out of a wet paper bag.
This should be the basis of the BASC counter punch to the current proposal: If we agree to pay a [govt legislated tariff level] medical cert fee, then the FAC issued on the back of that should usher in a license period of 15 years.
Highlandsjohn
Well-Known Member
What's your bargaining chip? Maybe you have missed it this last hundreds of pages in numerous threads.. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US OR OUR ORGS..john
So do you get a refund if the doctor does not offer an opinion for one of the following reasons?
BMA - Firearms
The BMA is not exactly enthusiastic about this system, not exactly within the skills of a GP to say yes or no on medical grounds.
- I refuse to provide a report because I have a conscientious objection to the holding of firearms. (Sample Letter 1)
- I refuse to provide the requested report, because it seeks an opinion on matters falling outside my medical expertise, namely assessment of behavioural and personality disorders. (Sample Letter 2)
BMA - Firearms
The BMA is not exactly enthusiastic about this system, not exactly within the skills of a GP to say yes or no on medical grounds.
Sample letter two was the one that Cheshire decided to read between the lines, & that caused a shitstorm with my recent renewal.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see why F'Bear.
It's like those job reference letters that say "We are happy confirm Mr X worked for use between AAA and BBB but do not wish to reply further..."
It's like those job reference letters that say "We are happy confirm Mr X worked for use between AAA and BBB but do not wish to reply further..."
Last edited:
reloader54
Well-Known Member
Doctors are easily fooled,,
Unlikely as it sounds, in the 18th Century a woman called Mary Toft convinced doctors she had given birth to rabbits. Yes, doctors. And yes, rabbits.Mrs Toft, a servant from Godalming in Surrey, surprised her family by going into labour. Even more surprisingly, she produced something resembling a kitten.
Her explanation was rooted in the long-discredited theory of "maternal impression" - caused by being startled by a rabbit in a field in 1726 . From that moment, she said, she dreamed about, and had a "constant and strong desire" to eat, rabbits.
An obstetrician named John Howard, who seems to have been less than rigorous with his examinations, was convinced by her story. He wrote to some of England's greatest doctors and King George I, informing them of the miraculous births - including the momentous occasion when his patient produced nine dead bunnies.
The King sent his doctor to investigate. The medic, who arrived when Mrs Toft was in labour with her 15th rabbit, was certain she was genuine - and took some of her offspring back to London to show the monarch and Prince of Wales.
A surgeon was then sent by the royal household to have a look. The surgeon, apparently more sensible than the others, examined the rabbits and found that dung inside one of them contained corn - proving it could not have developed inside Mrs Toft's womb.
Meanwhile, Mrs Toft was busy giving birth to other unusual things, including a cat's legs and a hog's bladder.
Medical opinion was divided - until a man was caught sneaking a rabbit into Mrs Toft's room.
She was eventually forced to admit she had manually inserted the dead rabbits and then allowed them to be removed as if she were giving birth.
The hoaxer was later charged with fraud and imprisoned. She spent a few months in prison then returned to relative obscurity.
As for the King's doctor - he met an unhappy end after being convinced by the scam. He published a pamphlet called A Short Narrative of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbets but after the ruse was exposed, he lost favour with the court and died a pauper.
Unlikely as it sounds, in the 18th Century a woman called Mary Toft convinced doctors she had given birth to rabbits. Yes, doctors. And yes, rabbits.Mrs Toft, a servant from Godalming in Surrey, surprised her family by going into labour. Even more surprisingly, she produced something resembling a kitten.
Her explanation was rooted in the long-discredited theory of "maternal impression" - caused by being startled by a rabbit in a field in 1726 . From that moment, she said, she dreamed about, and had a "constant and strong desire" to eat, rabbits.
An obstetrician named John Howard, who seems to have been less than rigorous with his examinations, was convinced by her story. He wrote to some of England's greatest doctors and King George I, informing them of the miraculous births - including the momentous occasion when his patient produced nine dead bunnies.
The King sent his doctor to investigate. The medic, who arrived when Mrs Toft was in labour with her 15th rabbit, was certain she was genuine - and took some of her offspring back to London to show the monarch and Prince of Wales.
A surgeon was then sent by the royal household to have a look. The surgeon, apparently more sensible than the others, examined the rabbits and found that dung inside one of them contained corn - proving it could not have developed inside Mrs Toft's womb.
Meanwhile, Mrs Toft was busy giving birth to other unusual things, including a cat's legs and a hog's bladder.
Medical opinion was divided - until a man was caught sneaking a rabbit into Mrs Toft's room.
She was eventually forced to admit she had manually inserted the dead rabbits and then allowed them to be removed as if she were giving birth.
The hoaxer was later charged with fraud and imprisoned. She spent a few months in prison then returned to relative obscurity.
As for the King's doctor - he met an unhappy end after being convinced by the scam. He published a pamphlet called A Short Narrative of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbets but after the ruse was exposed, he lost favour with the court and died a pauper.
If we look at the facts on the basis of current stats, as previously stated, less than 1% of those applying or renewing have any medical issues requiring potential refusal even after second medical. How many licensed firearm owners have gone on to murder people ? 4 in recent years?
Of those, how many were flawed assessments by police (including one where the investigating officers report was ignored) - 4. So therefore the probability of any doctor getting an assessment wrong is less than 1% - in fact its zero to date, despite them having been involved in the process for a long, long time.
So, why do they want more money for the first assessment when they will be paid for any necessary second assessment ?
Answer, in my book, greed, opportunism? and a complete lack of Hippocratic ethic; or maybe they too want to see an end to public firearms ownership and use?
Of those, how many were flawed assessments by police (including one where the investigating officers report was ignored) - 4. So therefore the probability of any doctor getting an assessment wrong is less than 1% - in fact its zero to date, despite them having been involved in the process for a long, long time.
So, why do they want more money for the first assessment when they will be paid for any necessary second assessment ?
Answer, in my book, greed, opportunism? and a complete lack of Hippocratic ethic; or maybe they too want to see an end to public firearms ownership and use?
According to Jethro, a woman in Redruth has given birth to piglets. They're trying to find the swine responsible.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
"see what happen waas"Jethro is brilliant
Hornet 6
Well-Known Member
It's inevitable anyway, why fight it ?
Guns in private ownership will end in my lifetime, we all know it will happen eventually.
After all "we voted" for this crap PC European run country.
Neil.
After all "we voted" for this crap PC European run country. Not quite what I remember, I was happy to join a "Common market" ... but I do not remember a ballot on an EU membership.
What's the EU got to do with UK firearms legislation?
Private gun ownership may get more difficult but I can't see it ending. Creation and maintenance of forests are a central pillars of Government Climate Change policies. Removal of the only viable method of deer control would be in direct conflict with the development of forestry.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Been reading this thread with interest. It is little doubt that BASC have the result it’s got. This seems to be the standard way this government behaves when put under pressure. At present they are so vote conscious that they cannot dare siding with the gun lobby as it is seen as a vote looser. We just have to understand this and live with it.
There have been some interesting points made and I’ve been away and checked a few things.
1. Signing non clinical forms is not part of the NHS constitution and therefore outside of the work expected of a GP. This means that they cannot be forced to do it and are NOT behaving unprofessionally if they decline.
2. The fee structure should be open and transparent and the Government needs to set out what the charges will be.
3. The BMA are a union and therefore fighting for the best for their members, they are not a statutory body. That is the GMC who oversee professional behaviour of the doctors. We all have the right to flag up unprofessional behaviour to the GMC if we believe it to have happened and they are duty bound to investigate.
4. Flagging notes and reporting illnesses to the FLO when they happen will require a change in the law as it is at present a breach of confidentiality. The law insists hospital practitioners to report incidences which they believe put the community at risk, but this is not the case in GP as it is the responsibility of the individual although the GP can suggest they do it.
6. For those who require it for work it should be allowed to be claimed tax exempt.
For me the failing in a of this is the fact that we the consumers do not know what the process will be and the total costs. If we all knew that every 5 years a renewa would cost £X and what we have to do to get a renewal we could then make a valid judgement. What we should ask BASC to do is insist that this Government gives clarity of the process and fees and that they are the same across the whole of the Union.
There have been some interesting points made and I’ve been away and checked a few things.
1. Signing non clinical forms is not part of the NHS constitution and therefore outside of the work expected of a GP. This means that they cannot be forced to do it and are NOT behaving unprofessionally if they decline.
2. The fee structure should be open and transparent and the Government needs to set out what the charges will be.
3. The BMA are a union and therefore fighting for the best for their members, they are not a statutory body. That is the GMC who oversee professional behaviour of the doctors. We all have the right to flag up unprofessional behaviour to the GMC if we believe it to have happened and they are duty bound to investigate.
4. Flagging notes and reporting illnesses to the FLO when they happen will require a change in the law as it is at present a breach of confidentiality. The law insists hospital practitioners to report incidences which they believe put the community at risk, but this is not the case in GP as it is the responsibility of the individual although the GP can suggest they do it.
6. For those who require it for work it should be allowed to be claimed tax exempt.
For me the failing in a of this is the fact that we the consumers do not know what the process will be and the total costs. If we all knew that every 5 years a renewa would cost £X and what we have to do to get a renewal we could then make a valid judgement. What we should ask BASC to do is insist that this Government gives clarity of the process and fees and that they are the same across the whole of the Union.
^^^^ Sums it up for me too.
Leadwasp
Well-Known Member
Remove BASC's support for GP's in this process - lacking expert opinion (as it is primarily an issue of intemperence or mental health) https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j1311
This raises the bar as to who should provide such expert advice.
BASC challenges the HO in the courts as to what constitutes as reasonable definition of 'satisfied' in terms of fitness to possess.
BASC has fulfilled it's role in representing it's members interests.
This raises the bar as to who should provide such expert advice.
BASC challenges the HO in the courts as to what constitutes as reasonable definition of 'satisfied' in terms of fitness to possess.
BASC has fulfilled it's role in representing it's members interests.
A huge whole lot in fact! Remember 1988 and Thatcher's rifle ban? And 1997 and Major's handgun ban? One HUGE difference. By 1997 EU Law had developed. You know that ECJ that Theresa May hates so much as it kept stopping the Home Office act as if this country was run as her private dictatorship?
In 1988 the UK Government banned rifles under then then existing EU Law. In effect there was no real compensation. Private owners got a flat rate 150.00 or 50% of the market value for the rifles alone. Nothing for magazines, reloading dies, dedicated accessories. The trade got...nothing. As was said by the Tory Minister "They must bear the loss as part of the risk of business."
In 1997 EU Law had developed. It wasn't 1988 anymore! There could be no UK handgun confiscation without a full and comprehensive compensation scheme set in place. Elsewise the ban was illegal. Thus as many can recall the guns, the dies, the bullets, the cases, the powder, the moulds, the magazines, the holsters were all compensated for the private owner and the trade equally alike.
It would have been EU Law that would have also have obliged compensation if there were to be any future UK gun ban. It wouldn't stop any such ban. But at least it would oblige compensation. When we leave the EU we will lose that right. The EU was a check on a UK Parliamentary dictatorship imposing a ban with no compensation. We have no lost that in 2019.
Why was Comrade Corbyn against the EU? Because he knows that when we leave that compensation right will also be lost by the gas and electric privatised companies, by the privatised water companies and by the shareholders in those companies. After 2019 he can re-nationalise anything he wants at a value determined solely by the whim of a Labour Parliamentary dictatorship.
The EU and our right to have guns on a EU Firearms Pass and so at anytime take them out of the UK if a ban were in the offing and seek to sell them or store them abroad will end in 2019. We have, as shooters, now lost that and will have to accept what, if anything, the Home Office decides. Be aware...they will not be nice to us. I like many remember bitterly 1988.
The EU is most certainly not the source of our property rights. In England (sic) it has been illegal to take private property without compensation for hundreds of years (though I suppose one could argue about the level of compensation). The right to the enjoyment of one's possessions was most recently encompassed in the European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 1, article 1 (which itself predates the formation of the EU).
In short, any human rights protection afforded by EU law was based on our own longstanding laws and customs - they followed us, not the other way round.
In nay case, when it comes to licences, we have it relatively easy compared to, say, France and Germany, where hunters have to pass a comprehensive and expensive test to qualify for a gun licence. And in France, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) you need to pay for an annual medical test. Oh - and you also have to have insurance, by law.
I like Europe have many friends there. But Europe is not the same as the EU. Many Europeans detest the EU as much as the majority of us Brits do.
Look at the Swiss - the richest and arguably most gun-happy country in Europe; they are outside the EU and have absolutely no intention of joining it. And because such a measure would require a referendum, the Swiss political elite cannot get it past the electorate (they have tried) as has happened elsewhere. The Swiss enjoy their guns without any prospect of expropriation or too much state interference. The EU is irrelevant.
In short, any human rights protection afforded by EU law was based on our own longstanding laws and customs - they followed us, not the other way round.
In nay case, when it comes to licences, we have it relatively easy compared to, say, France and Germany, where hunters have to pass a comprehensive and expensive test to qualify for a gun licence. And in France, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) you need to pay for an annual medical test. Oh - and you also have to have insurance, by law.
I like Europe have many friends there. But Europe is not the same as the EU. Many Europeans detest the EU as much as the majority of us Brits do.
Look at the Swiss - the richest and arguably most gun-happy country in Europe; they are outside the EU and have absolutely no intention of joining it. And because such a measure would require a referendum, the Swiss political elite cannot get it past the electorate (they have tried) as has happened elsewhere. The Swiss enjoy their guns without any prospect of expropriation or too much state interference. The EU is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Similar threads
