Not so far. I do know that over a decade ago there were various policy developments around greater medical involvement in firearms licensing - from memory that included a pilot in Essex? Somewhere along the line applicants were required to pay for GP reports if further information was required because of the medical declaration information given in their application. As you correctly point out, this was requested and paid for by the police force. In the mix were growing concerns around medical involvement in firearms licensing due to a number of tragic incidents involving certificate holders and the 2015 report 'Targeting the Risk' goes into some detail on that. There were calls for greater medical involvement in every application regardless of what was declared (as is the case now). The 2016 guidance was intended to provide a solution to all of this but did not work in practice, as we know, and then the various police forces started introducing their own processes, then the statutory guidance came in, and here we are now. That's a quick summary of my understanding, sorry if I missed anything - a busy day. As regards 'BASC' it would be the actual people involved in the policy developments on behalf of BASC that would be best to ask on the strategy and then how it all played out. Or maybe someone will publish memoirs at some point in the future!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?