15-4-2019 Medical Fee Latest from Been Already Shafted Cheers (BASC)

Orion

Well-Known Member
And the elephant in the room, (more like a herd/parade though), is that despite all the costly 'medical evidence' hoops that the FAC/SGC applicant is having to jump through to satisfy some constabularies operating outwith HOG, the promised 'continuous monitoring', that was meant to lead to the holy grail of a 10 year certificate, is no such thing.

Unless the GPs are required by law to place the 'enduring marker' on the applicants medical record, there is no guarantee it will be done. Without that IMHO the scheme is worthless.

One has to ask if any thought at all went into an analysis of the potential flaws and pitfalls of the scheme before it was wholeheartedly 'welcomed'?
 

Orion

Well-Known Member
Presumably these third-party doctors will be asked to review your medical record and then to provide the police with a standard-form statement that (based on that record) they see no reason to prevent you from owning firearms.
But no method of placing the 'enduring marker' on the medical record held by your GP, by which 'continuous monitoring' can be undertaken, which IIRC was a cornerstone of the whole medical evidence scheme?
 

gonzo

Well-Known Member
Surely the whole point of the reference to the doctor, is that they are confirming that the declaration that the applicant has made, is correct. Something that I can't see the majority of shooters having any problem with. It's on;y the lack of any formal arrangement with the doctors, and the make it up as you go fees that they are charging.

And all that these independant contractors are doing, is asking the same question of the applicant again, not giving an independant review of the medical records.
So nothing is achieved.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Nobody, I suggest, resents medical checking or assessments in any form but to sacrifice a system funded from within the licence fee for one which costs whatever a doctor demands, (if you can get one to respond) is hardly the apotheosis of negotiating skills, intelligence, farsightedness , tactical aplomb - make up your own criticism.
 

countrryboy

Well-Known Member
The way I read the original post was basc are speaking to the company and talking about costs.
While not anideal situation to be in ( intact a pretty shitty situation) which would be far better resolved, but in the meantime it would be good to give folk a visible alternative to there own go if there charging a fortune or simply refusing

The more expensive medicals involve real medical tests, eyes, colour blindness, hearing, urine for drug tests etc.
So if there doing all that for 120 I'd hope a simple review of medical history should be way cheaper

I totally agree with wot Orion has said it totally makes a mockery of the whole system and defeats any benefit of it.
No matter wot u think or wot org ur with it this will not be a quick fix, seems more a more police forces are now going against HOG.
It will be a long drawn out fix so surely better to have a reasonably cheap alternative to ur to already in place
 

Orion

Well-Known Member
See my post #22. It is worth nothing if there is no mechanism to place the marker on the applicant’s medical record.

A quick fix but nothing achieved other than another means of lightening the applicant’s pocket.
 

countrryboy

Well-Known Member
See my post #22. It is worth nothing if there is no mechanism to place the marker on the applicant’s medical record.

A quick fix but nothing achieved other than another means of lightening the applicant’s pocket.
I agree Orion, not even a quick fix really but at least it will give gun owners an option if there docs are being difficult or blackmailing them.
Possibly it might stop some practices charging rip off prices as they know there are other options. At the moment really u have no options, esp in many areas where u can't change practices ( probably most rural parts)

While it may lighten the applicants pocket atleasrt it means u can still renew ur licence and take some off the stress/unknown out off it
 

kes

Well-Known Member
I wonder if a new force adopts the 'I will only approve on receipt of a satisfactory medical report' whether that decision (as its new and can therefore be challenged, I would suggest) will be challenged by an application for a judicial review ? If so and it were successful, long odds I know - but the whole despotic system would fall, except for the poor guys north of the border. I know its pointless asking, but each decision, newly made by a Chief Con is a decision by a public body, ignoring Government advice, e.g. road design standards.
Any odds on this being taken up ? Renewed 'political route activity ? Nothing? Maybe the CA ?
Answers on a dirty post card from the seaside - at least it would give shooters a laugh.
 

AN DU RU FOX

Well-Known Member
I am not trying to rub people’s noses in it, but I’ve never been charged anything by my GP either in Herts or Wilts and yet they charge for any other type of report. So much for a national uniform approach. Whilst I am not moaning (obviously) I wonder how much longer it will last. Surely it’s not beyond the grasp of BASC to get a grip of this?
IT IS!! they sat at the table while this crap was unvieled and wellcomed. And why is it allways refered to as a (medical fee)when there is no medical involved or expertise used ,unless you count someone pressing print on a mouse pad as expertise! that is. experts at cohersion.
 
Last edited:

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
The one big problem with this whole doctor / medical / Firearms fiasco is that any FAC / SGC holder is unlikely to mention any potential issues to their Doctor until it is well advanced.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of my GP.
 

ChanonryMac

Well-Known Member
The one big problem with this whole doctor / medical / Firearms fiasco is that any FAC / SGC holder is unlikely to mention any potential issues to their Doctor until it is well advanced.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of my GP.
Yes, it leaves firearms in the possession of people who have developed mental health issues while providing a positive disincentive for them to get the treatment really need
 

Tf223

Well-Known Member
Surely the whole point of the reference to the doctor, is that they are confirming that the declaration that the applicant has made, is correct. Something that I can't see the majority of shooters having any problem with. It's on;y the lack of any formal arrangement with the doctors, and the make it up as you go fees that they are charging.

And all that these independant contractors are doing, is asking the same question of the applicant again, not giving an independant review of the medical records.
So nothing is achieved.
The only and best way to correct this mess is to amend the Act to make it a statutory duty on the applicants GP to confirm the medical history on submission of a prescribed declaration form and make it subject to a maximum fee of £ (20-30 maybe?).
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
BASC and everyone else involved desparately need to stop missing the main point, which is in my opinion the following:
The process of certification to possess and use firearms is not an application to be granted some kind of priviledge, but rather a process through which applicants must pass not for their own benefit, but for that (ostensibly) of the public at large: and the fee paid by the applicant for this process is meant to be set by Parliament.

We need to be aware that increasing the costs to the applicants by whatever means has been seen, and probably still is seen, as a way of reducing the number of certificates issued - an end which the Home Office and the Police seem ongoingly to support.

We, and our organisations particularly, must take great care not to adopt a position that colludes with any deviation from the principle in law whereby the fees paid by an applicant for the administration of the Firearms Act by the Police are statutorily set.

It doesn't matter whether the GPs, neurologists, psychologists, osteopaths, forensic podiatrists or whoever else the Police decide they want reports from, would charge only 50p each for their reports: if the police decide they want reports, then they must pay for them - and if the requirement is justifiable and propotionate in terms of benefit to the public then there should be no argument from the Home Office or Parliament to provide them with the necessary funding.
 

Poster123

Well-Known Member
but rather a process through which applicants must pass not for their own benefit, but for that (ostensibly) of the public at large:
But our opponents will ask: How does the public at large benefit from the recreational ownership of firearms in the first place? The medical check is to lessen the risk of guns falling into the wrong hands, but why should the hard-pressed NHS or the police (ie taxpayer) fund this? Some will retort that the answer is to ban firearms owned for recreational purposes, or at least make it very difficult. To simply say "we want guns for fun, and to ensure we aren't going to misuse them against the public, the public will have to pay" is not the sort of line that will go down well. (See the Guardian's take, in my earlier post.)

I think we need a better argument.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
But our opponents will ask: How does the public at large benefit from the recreational ownership of firearms in the first place? The medical check is to lessen the risk of guns falling into the wrong hands, but why should the hard-pressed NHS or the police (ie taxpayer) fund this? Some will retort that the answer is to ban firearms owned for recreational purposes, or at least make it very difficult. To simply say "we want guns for fun, and to ensure we aren't going to misuse them against the public, the public will have to pay" is not the sort of line that will go down well. (See the Guardian's take, in my earlier post.)

I think we need a better argument.
There are far, far more people killed by cars, drunk drivers and drug drivers of those cars even on our roads some 3000 people killed or seriously injured EVERY YEAR. Many are too old to drive but compulsory retests at 70 are ignored yes, because its politically acceptable, the alternative would drive voters to other parties.
This is not about risk quite obviously, its not about using existing legislation, its about agendas and the use or abuse of the law to serve those agendas. When CC Fahey was at Cheshire he made it clear, committing himself in public, that he felt citizens should not have guns. He also committed himself to reducing casualties (KSI's). However he denied that data collected by the police (which was often literally miles out) was a problem for accident site identification and thus casualty reduction. He's now retired. I often think how many poor souls and families suffered because he was more interested in self-promotion than solving the problems of his service.
To me its no chance that Cheshire licensing have improved. Persuing a personal agenda in public office at public expense (paid service) should be made illegal even for Chief Cons. Competence testing might also be a good idea, including knowledge of Guidance issued to the police SERVICE.
This view is backed up by other peoples experience who were with me at the time.
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
But our opponents will ask: How does the public at large benefit from the recreational ownership of firearms in the first place? The medical check is to lessen the risk of guns falling into the wrong hands, but why should the hard-pressed NHS or the police (ie taxpayer) fund this? Some will retort that the answer is to ban firearms owned for recreational purposes, or at least make it very difficult.
This raises a number of points.
1. recreational or otherwise, public ownership of firearms is by right. It is therefore not for those who hold the right to show how the public benefits from it, but rather those who wish further to restrict the right, or to take it away, to show that such an infringement of liberty is justified.
2. The claim is made that 'the medical check is to lessen the risk of guns falling into the wrong hands'. Fair enough, perhaps? But even before the recent changes the police had access to our medical histories - so what's changed, and why?
3. Why should the taxpayer fund this? The same reason the taxpayer funds other things that are for the public good, of course. Assuming it can be shown it be to the public good, rather than just a cynical, underhand attempt to further the agenda of the police and Home Office in increasing cost and inconvenience for law-abiding shooting folk in the hope of reducing their number.

To simply say "we want guns for fun, and to ensure we aren't going to misuse them against the public, the public will have to pay" is not the sort of line that will go down well. (See the Guardian's take, in my earlier post.)

I think we need a better argument.
I can't think of a better argument than civil rights and the just rule of law.
So how about:
Being of good standing, and meeting the requirements in law to qualify for certification to exercise our right as subjects of the Crown to own and use firearms, we are happy to pay the fair and reasonable statutory fees, recognising that these contribute to a public good afforded by the Firearms Act.
 

Mick Miller

Well-Known Member
I am sorry to say this but after having tried and failed, BASC is incompetent and unworthy of the trust of shooters but then, it does provide shoot insurance.

Those who seek insurance and do not accurately measure the success of BASC, fund a lazy and inept organisation which is damaging shooting and which will lead to its own demise at the same time we lose the right to shoot. A dictatorial monopoly which owns wildfowling, tried to own pigeon shooting, makes servants of game shoots, suppliers etc, I cannot, nor will I again, count and explain the failures and the lost opportunities, its simply too shocking.
Cancelled my sub yesterday and joined the CA, the real voice of shooting.
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
Yes, it leaves firearms in the possession of people who have developed mental health issues while providing a positive disincentive for them to get the treatment really need
Yes. The people in the UK least likely to seek support for a mental health issue are those with firearms. That has got to be an insane state of affairs.
 

Top