You leaving Conor?
BASC - fighting your corner on firearms
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
MAH
Well-Known Member
Hi Conor.
I think you may have misunderstood @Dalua 's post # 94.
In summary I read that post as.
The statuary fee is fix.
It should not be increased.
Any charges made by a GP providing information to the police should be paid by the police and covered by the tax payer via police budgets.
My thoughts.
A one size fits all to data collect is often flawed, in that the recipients are swamped with data and can't see the wood for the trees.
I've spent a good part of my orking life in Qualty Assurance, and feel the "one size fits all approach " leads to a tick box mentality. Those involved stop thinking and hold a belief that its working, because boxes are ticked.
Afterall the D&C police were not short of data on the killer in Devon, they just failed to act on it.
Whereas, a risk base approach, in which FLOs have sufficient time to focus on and follow up concerns diligently, more questions, more data. That is more likely to prevent a reoccurrence of such incidents in the future.
Thanks for your contributions to the site.
M.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks @Liveonce @Dalua @Greenmist and @MAH for the latest comments about firearms law and licensing - those viewpoints illustrate the challenges ahead. In my experience there can often be a chasm between the principle and the practical realities and indeed what one sets out to achieve is rarely what one gets in policy with so many involved. For example:
www.plymouthherald.co.uk
MP hopes new Home Secretary will meet Keyham families
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport MP Luke Pollard said sacked Suella Braverman had agreed to meet with the families of 2021 shooting - but never did
www.plymouthherald.co.uk
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
The last time we spoke about the fighting fund on PW you said something very similar.
You spent 10 + pages dodging the answer, saying it had been answered, until eventually giving in and saying it wasn't going to be answered.
It seems that little has changed.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
No, I intend to keep posting and appreciate feedback including constructive criticism. But my patience for the nonsense has run out.You leaving Conor?
That's a good and realistic point.
My point is that in the 'medical fees' business BASC didn't seem to notice that they were agreeing with a course of action that undermined what appears to me an important principle - and if that's the way one goes about things, the chasms might well turn out deeper and wider than they might otherwise be.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I respect your view but still don't understand why you continue to believe that 'BASC didn't seem to notice that they were agreeing with a course of action that undermined what appears to me an important principle'? WAGBI and BASC staff and the elected Council members have been engaged in policy developments on firearms law since 1908. That's a lot of collective experience. What evidence do you have to back up your assertion other than your opinion?
If you are a BASC member perhaps email me your assertion and I can seek an answer from those that were closer to the policy developments than I - or come to the next BASC AGM submitting your question in advance to then hear a full answer in front of the senior management and Council members which also goes on public record in the AGM minutes.
.
The evidence appears to be that BASC did indeed approve applicants paying for specialist reports on declared conditions and didn't think that, notwithstanding it was a marked departure from the former practice of applicants paying the statutory fee and FLDs paying GPs for reports, it might be a step on the road to all applicants paying GPs for note-reading and form-filling.
Being 'engaged in policy developments on firearms law' is not a good in itself, but rather an opportunity to do good. I fear that in this episode, the opportunity might have been misspent.
I'm no longer a BASC member: like yours, my patience for the nonsense also ran out - though in a different direction, and from different nonsense.
I think it started when BASC said not to pay for the initial GP letter, but that it was fine to expect people who'd declared a relevant condition to fork out for specialist reports. One would need to have a look at BASC's historic position as outlined, for example, in BASC David's thread of June 2016, and the one from May, which I quoted earlier in this thread.
The evidence appears to be that BASC did indeed approve applicants paying for specialist reports on declared conditions and didn't think that, notwithstanding it was a marked departure from the former practice of applicants paying the statutory fee and FLDs paying GPs for reports, it might be a step on the road to all applicants paying GPs for note-reading and form-filling.
Being 'engaged in policy developments on firearms law' is not a good in itself, but rather an opportunity to do good. I fear that in this episode, the opportunity might have been misspent.
I'm no longer a BASC member: like yours, my patience for the nonsense also ran out - though in a different direction, and from different nonsense.
Last edited:
The question is what power or influence do the shooting organisations really have on firearms policy?
In reality very little is my view when it comes to the big changes in policy.
As individuals it is divide and conquer for if it’s your application to keep your firearms and the police say no GP report no firearms then little choice but to play the game by their way.
In reality very little is my view when it comes to the big changes in policy.
As individuals it is divide and conquer for if it’s your application to keep your firearms and the police say no GP report no firearms then little choice but to play the game by their way.
Just had a read back of this,GP reports update
Thanks, Finnbear - I'd missed that thread of David's when looking back earlier.
Among other interesting stuff, post 56 remains pertinent, I think.
Post #59 even more so
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Much of the evidence of what was being recommended and why (for greater GP involvement) is in the 2015 report 'Targeting the Risk' - and that looked at events a decade or more previous.
Suggest we await the publication of the outcome of the recent Home Office firearm licensing consultation for further discussion on a way ahead as not sure there is much more to be gained from going over old ground.
Have you gained anything from the old ground we've gone over? You did ask me to produce some evidence supporting my understanding of what BASC role in the matter was - and I wonder whether anything has come up in that dredging that looks to you like such evidence?
All I'm actually trying to gain is some sense that BASC realises what went wrong with its 'engagement with policy developments' in 2016; and based on that they undertake to do better in future.
I would actually like to feel able in good conscience to rejoin BASC, as there is a lot to be said for being a member of the biggest organisation - and, as I've said, it's support of members to get involved with their MPs, with consultations etc. is admirable.
However, there seems no evidence of organisational learning from what went on - and although size may make up for want of understanding is some undertakings, 'negotiations' with the HO and the Police are not likely to be among them.
Well said Conor
Calm down all, BASC are a members organisation not a statutory body, they can only seek to influence hearts and minds in order to protect our activities in the long term. Events out of all our control and a substantially urban minded public sector will always make this a difficult enough task, without sideline finger waggers.
Put the green ink away chaps and go for a stalk.
Calm down all, BASC are a members organisation not a statutory body, they can only seek to influence hearts and minds in order to protect our activities in the long term. Events out of all our control and a substantially urban minded public sector will always make this a difficult enough task, without sideline finger waggers.
Put the green ink away chaps and go for a stalk.
Also focusing disgruntled ire on Conor, who started this thread as many in all good faith to inform, is entirely inappropriate (IMHO).
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
It was a 'thing' back in the day, that very senior officers wrote in 'green ink' - never quite sure why.
As a young (in service) Cop, I was posted (night duty) to the front desk, at Harrow Road Police Station (remember them?).
At some stage during my shift, I 'abandoned' my post for about five minutes, to take a 'comfort break'.
When I returned, there in bold green script in the OB (Occurrence Book - a big leather tome which lived on the Front Desk), was the immortal lines.
"Visited. All correct. Commissioner"
To this day, I am not sure whether it was him or just a windup from some wag...
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Personally I have gained a lot from the discussions - but I am not 'BASC' which has many staff, volunteers, elected Council, advisory committees, 150,000 members. I hope you re-join and get more involved in BASC on a topic that you are passionate about and I do get where you are coming from, even if I disagree with some of your viewpoints based on my personal experience. BASC is a broad church of people and shooting interests.
I'm pleased to hear it.
D'you think I've produced, in response to your specific request, any evidence to support the point I raised - that BASC went along with the idea that some applicants paying for medical input, and were then for some reason surprised when that turned into all applicants paying for medical input?
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Me too.
Agreed,
Its a members organisation that never seems to take notice of what its members want.
The image of 'WE know whats best for you' and not just members , but everyone who shoots, is not something that sits well with me.
Similar threads
