I never said it was a failing by BASC to ensure that the process was included within GP contracts, rather a failing
of Government via the Home Office and the Department of Health.
BASC medical panel saves members more than £100k
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
of Government via the Home Office and the Department of Health.
As my dear old Dad would say...half of FA lolMoth to the flame Tim, don’t judge, it’s all he has
To be fair, you didn't actually say whose failing you thought it was; I imagined you meant it was BASC's, as the thread was started by them and the replies have largely been about them.
In fact, my answer holds nearly as well for the HO and the DoH. GP contract changes not straightforward, this has arguably nothing to do with 'health' in the conventional sense, and there was a perfectly functional and well-understood mechanism for the FLD paying GPs for their input when necessary.
indeed however the conclusion i reached was that the FLD (Police budgets) neither liked paying the GPs or the effort involved (inconvenience and time is money) anymore than we do. Like most things in life it comes down to money.
It's called power napping sonny.
Conor used to respond to posts on here but as you can probably imagine given a number of the posts on here, his reasoned responses fell on deaf ears so he quite rightly now only posts BASC updates and leaves it at that.I can't help noticing , when Mr O'Gorman posts something on here he never seems to respond to any of the comments
Light the blue touch-paper and stand back.
Elsewhere such behaviour would result in the OP being accused of trolling.
What gives?
I will however give him 10 out of 10 for thick skin.
Ade8mm
Well-Known Member
@Conor O'Gorman , how did you get the figure you state please? Did everyone who used your scheme ( sorry can't call it a service) tell you how much they were to be charged by their surgery?
With your firearms licensing reform drive will you be asking for a standardised fee from alll surgeries?
With your firearms licensing reform drive will you be asking for a standardised fee from alll surgeries?
I, of course, have saved £11 of my money by joining the CPSA.
CPSA over sixty...Veterans' Rate is £63. BASC...Senior Citizen...is £74.
Now for that £11 saving I don't get offers of discounts on cars, and, sadly am not contributing to MP's "jollies" at Catton Hall.
BUT.... What I do get is this. CPSA insurance cover for members STILL offers legal protection against revocation of SGC or refusal to renew a SGC.
And their cover does insure for game shooting, vermin shooting, stalking and etc..
And, yes, has a discount "code" to have independent GP input at that same £50 as BASC mentions.
Here's the policy document:
So there's a saving to be had as that is what the thread is about isn't it. Savings!
CPSA over sixty...Veterans' Rate is £63. BASC...Senior Citizen...is £74.
Now for that £11 saving I don't get offers of discounts on cars, and, sadly am not contributing to MP's "jollies" at Catton Hall.
BUT.... What I do get is this. CPSA insurance cover for members STILL offers legal protection against revocation of SGC or refusal to renew a SGC.
And their cover does insure for game shooting, vermin shooting, stalking and etc..
And, yes, has a discount "code" to have independent GP input at that same £50 as BASC mentions.
Here's the policy document:
So there's a saving to be had as that is what the thread is about isn't it. Savings!
Enfield, whatever may be the purpose of the thread, one such is certainly keeping BASC in the 'shooting eye' - forgive the pun in rather bad taste.
However, if this little gem is anything to go by, the well of 'things we did for you' is well and truly dry.
As you point out and many others such 'savings', as suggested, can be found in many places and the costs now incumbent upon individual shooters, courtesy of BASC's immaturity, are at least 20 to 30 times the vaunted savings they suggest.
Why else would you put up a headline like this, knowing it is going to receive some unmerciful criticism ?
However, if this little gem is anything to go by, the well of 'things we did for you' is well and truly dry.
As you point out and many others such 'savings', as suggested, can be found in many places and the costs now incumbent upon individual shooters, courtesy of BASC's immaturity, are at least 20 to 30 times the vaunted savings they suggest.
Why else would you put up a headline like this, knowing it is going to receive some unmerciful criticism ?
In truth KES I'd much much be happier posting on here about the benefits of BASC as against all other shooting organisations. I did their Shotgun Proficiency test in the year "dot" at nightschool way back when and I've known Bill Harriman since his days at Weller and Dufty in Bromsgrove Street in Birmingham. So that's at least since the late 1980s. It disappoints, nay saddens, to see how so much the organisation has failed not only its members but those others it purports to speak for as the self appointed "voice of shooting".
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
The real problems I have with GP reports, some as Dalua has already pointed out, include:
1 that GP feedback used to be free of charge or if not, the FLD picked up any charges applicable;
2 I fail to see any significant difference between a positive GP report and one where the GP HAS BY LAW to report back to the police if an FAC patient for whatever reason falls into a "risk" category.
3 Failures in the past resulting in tragic outcomes have in a vast number of cases been EITHER failure of the the police themselves to act on known intelligence about the risk or the GP to pass on the information they're supposed to. The new system will be no more robust at picking up things like mental health or alchoholic/drug abuse issues if the FAC holder develops such issues and doesn't pop in to his surgery to advise them accordingly. Many are already worried about mild depression which may not be long lasting or serious, resulting in seizure of their firearms. Those recently bereaved for example. The new system is incapable of picking or reporting on such things.
4. Many GPs and the NHS generally have no incentive whatsoever to have to FOC make time for any reports outside of general practice normal duties. Some have refused on these grounds and won't accept even if payment is offered due to already long working hours, and some on conscientious objection grounds which seems very common place amongst surgeries across the country.
For all of the above reasons, I consider that the current situation is no better than what we previously had and in lieu of the 10 year FAC never materialising has simply acted to add to the burden of FEOs, increasing approval times, has added to the costs borne by the applicant and all in all has been seen by most shooters as an abject failure. It's a no-win situation except for those profiting financially from it
1 that GP feedback used to be free of charge or if not, the FLD picked up any charges applicable;
2 I fail to see any significant difference between a positive GP report and one where the GP HAS BY LAW to report back to the police if an FAC patient for whatever reason falls into a "risk" category.
3 Failures in the past resulting in tragic outcomes have in a vast number of cases been EITHER failure of the the police themselves to act on known intelligence about the risk or the GP to pass on the information they're supposed to. The new system will be no more robust at picking up things like mental health or alchoholic/drug abuse issues if the FAC holder develops such issues and doesn't pop in to his surgery to advise them accordingly. Many are already worried about mild depression which may not be long lasting or serious, resulting in seizure of their firearms. Those recently bereaved for example. The new system is incapable of picking or reporting on such things.
4. Many GPs and the NHS generally have no incentive whatsoever to have to FOC make time for any reports outside of general practice normal duties. Some have refused on these grounds and won't accept even if payment is offered due to already long working hours, and some on conscientious objection grounds which seems very common place amongst surgeries across the country.
For all of the above reasons, I consider that the current situation is no better than what we previously had and in lieu of the 10 year FAC never materialising has simply acted to add to the burden of FEOs, increasing approval times, has added to the costs borne by the applicant and all in all has been seen by most shooters as an abject failure. It's a no-win situation except for those profiting financially from it
I fully agree with you. Roll-on the day when BASC recovers its wagbi soul. I would rejoin in an instant.
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
I would respectfully disagree. The "old" system still gave police the right to enquire with your GP about your medical history. Whether or not the police chose to do this was down to them. If they did make inquiries, GPs invariably responded because you had given permission in your application for the police to have access, via inquiry, to your medical records. That was always the case, and it was included in your application/renewal/variation fee.
It's also true that the information that GP's are requested to give is classed as a simple statement of fact (I can't remember the exact wording/description), and BMA guidance suggests a fee of approximately £20-£25 for such a service, when provided outside NHS funding. Quite frankly, GP's charging anything more are either mis-understanding what they are being required to give, or they're taking the pi$5.
Doctors aren't reknowned for being thick, so I know which option I'm inclined to believe.
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
From reading your response I don’t believe you are disagreeing - you are just saying you thought the old system worked.
By making the changes the HO is putting the onus on doctors to check every applicant’s history on grant or renewal and confirm having done do.
Under the old system the FEO had no knowledge of the applicant’s medical history so they made a standard request to the doctor asking them to respond if there was a problem. No response meant no problem, alternatively the request had been missed.
Having no oversight of the medical records it would be extremely difficult to make a targeted request without the doctor raising an issue.
The direction of travel regarding restrictions on firearm ownership and lead ammunition is pretty clear.
By making the changes the HO is putting the onus on doctors to check every applicant’s history on grant or renewal and confirm having done do.
Under the old system the FEO had no knowledge of the applicant’s medical history so they made a standard request to the doctor asking them to respond if there was a problem. No response meant no problem, alternatively the request had been missed.
Having no oversight of the medical records it would be extremely difficult to make a targeted request without the doctor raising an issue.
The direction of travel regarding restrictions on firearm ownership and lead ammunition is pretty clear.
The BMA's position is crystal clear. And has been for ever since the updated HO guidance. The BMA are the professionals here.
BTW, my five closest friends, since 11 years old are GPs (OK mostly retired but still keeping up their registrations) Guess who are my referees for FAC renewal ?
Study it: Guidance for GPs on the firearms licensing process
BASC whataboutery and boastfulness regarding this, and some other issues, should be listened to with an open mind. They are not the only "VOICE" of all British shooting.
BTW the marker flag roll-out has not gone well, so far. Still the current position. I had to inform @Conor O'Gorman about this a while ago, seems BASC didn't know.
Update
There will be a temporary pause on the digital firearms marker for practices using the EMIS system, effective from the evening of 14 July 2022. The digital marker system on EMIS should be back up and running after a few weeks, and after it has been cleared through the JGPITC (Joint General Practitioners Information Technology Committee). This temporary pause is to address some issues that have been communicated by GPs and practices, and to enable testing of the accuracy and completeness of the flags that are currently popping up. The TPP system will continue to run during this time.
BTW, my five closest friends, since 11 years old are GPs (OK mostly retired but still keeping up their registrations) Guess who are my referees for FAC renewal ?
Study it: Guidance for GPs on the firearms licensing process
BASC whataboutery and boastfulness regarding this, and some other issues, should be listened to with an open mind. They are not the only "VOICE" of all British shooting.
BTW the marker flag roll-out has not gone well, so far. Still the current position. I had to inform @Conor O'Gorman about this a while ago, seems BASC didn't know.
Update
There will be a temporary pause on the digital firearms marker for practices using the EMIS system, effective from the evening of 14 July 2022. The digital marker system on EMIS should be back up and running after a few weeks, and after it has been cleared through the JGPITC (Joint General Practitioners Information Technology Committee). This temporary pause is to address some issues that have been communicated by GPs and practices, and to enable testing of the accuracy and completeness of the flags that are currently popping up. The TPP system will continue to run during this time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
