BASC opposes Durham police demands for mandatory medical references.

Moray Outfitting

Well-Known Member
There's a time and a place for 'harder line' comments - spot on!:tiphat:

That BASC is perceived as having been 'too polite' previously now adds weight to those quite scathing comments. I remain convinced that constructive, reasoned and sensible progress is the way to go - but the occasional well judged reminder that 'we' are keeping track of the cock-ups and will punch back is to be applauded.

The ball is in play - it just now needs spectators; lets hope this press release is promoted with equal gusto. Its of little value whilst it remains only within the shooting media.
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
Good on you BASC, so you really have got some balls. just need to keep them rolling with the rest of the country.:british:
 

Moray Outfitting

Well-Known Member
With genuine respect, can we not re embark on a session of self destruction?

The release by BASC was positive on several fronts - the bit of iron in it was well judged and personally a welcome bit of steel in terms of a response ( see I'm keeping it lead free :D ). This is a step - and a step only - in the right direction in my personal view. I'll be seriously impressed if BASC and others can promote that release into wider media.

I believe within context, the nature and intent of my comment was quite clear. That Dalua felt he needed to spin things back to a potential internal fight is personally disappointing and extremely frustrating - BUT equally is a reminder to BASC and other organisations of the deep seated feelings and divisions that remain to be addressed; I can respect that position.

However, if this positive simply gets diverted into yet another Stalking Directory self-inflicted wound I really do think we are all stuffed.
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
That Dalua felt he needed to spin things back to a potential internal fight is personally disappointing and extremely frustrating

I'm sorry to have cause you these distressing feelings, and have therefore removed the offending comment: I'm afraid in a moment of frivolity, I felt the irony was simply too delicious not to share.

It is quite right that Mr Harriman has comdemned the concept of FAC-applicants paying for the medical reports requested by the FLD: it will be interesting to see how his comments are received.
 

Moray Outfitting

Well-Known Member
Dalua - it is a free forum for views. But really appreciate your decision :tiphat:

Dont over worry 'my disappointment' - as JAYB will no doubt point out, I'm used to repeated disappointments & frustration on the diet front if nothing else :D

Frivolous or not - your comment in the general scheme of things was valid - BASC have taken eye off ball at various times.
 

JAYB

Administrator
Site Staff
It can only be a good thing that BASC has reminded Durham Constabulary of their glaring mistakes made in the past. It is only right and proper that they, Durham Constabulary, sing from the same hymn sheet as the rest of the shooting world, and by that I not only mean those that hold a FAC or SGC, but those that issue these certificates as well.

I had forgotten the bit where they disclaimed any knowledge of the Home Office guidelines, and now my blood is boiling all over again, to claim that has to be one of the most negligent claim by any Police Force in the last 50 years if not ever.

Well done BASC and please keep applying pressure as you are better placed than any other organisation to do so.

John
 

dodgyrog

Well-Known Member
Well done BASC.
As I reside in County Durham I support your activity 100%
I suspect their demand for medicals comes down from Ron Hogg, the new PCC. He is a walking disaster area and thinks he is knowledgeable in all things relating to Firearms Licensing. His pal is the new Chief Constable who gives the impression of being a thick thug but is in fact very clever and slippery.
They are a dangerous couple of characters promoted to positions they are not suited to.
 

Mr. Gain

Well-Known Member
Sometimes there's no substitute for a well-aimed verbal kick in the plums, and it was a pleasure to see Mr. Harriman deliver one so adroitly. :tiphat:
 

Sinistral

Well-Known Member
This is a more sinister development than the BASC press release conveys.

It's a joint initiative between the Local Medical Council & Durham Constabulary, and (I suspect) a development and refinement of an existing agreement whereby GP's are already notified of patients who happen to be FAC holders.

Judge for yourselves ....... the link to the new 'requirement' is below:-

https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licencing/Documents/URGENT%20INFORMATION%20-%20ALL%20APPLICANTS.pdf
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
This is a more sinister development than the BASC press release conveys.

It's a joint initiative between the Local Medical Council & Durham Constabulary, and (I suspect) a development and refinement of an existing agreement whereby GP's are already notified of patients who happen to be FAC holders.

Judge for yourselves ....... the link to the new 'requirement' is below:-

https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licencing/Documents/URGENT%20INFORMATION%20-%20ALL%20APPLICANTS.pdf

Very informative, what happens if you politely decline? atb Tim
 

Sinistral

Well-Known Member
For those who haven't followed the link, this is what's required of every Durham SGC/FAC applicant for the Initial Grant, and on every Renewal .......

1. Copy of front page of Application (Form 101) has to be sent by the FAC/SGC applicant direct to his/her GP who will check and/or correct what's been written in the medical declaration section.

2. Accompanied by a separate (non-statutory) Permission Form sent to the practice authorising the GP to release all 'relevant' personal medical information & history to the FLD .

3. An ongoing requirement on the GP to notify any changes or new medical information which occurs on every FAC/SGC Holder, whose medical record will be earmarked.

4. The release of CRO intelligence by the police direct to the GP.

5. A full additional medical report to be requested from the GP by the FLD in 'doubtful' cases - for which the Applicant must pay the fee.


The Applicant won't be informed of what the GP is told by the police, and is therefore unable to correct any errors of fact.

The only information the Applicant is entitled to see is what's on the additional medical report (5.) he has paid for, and must formally request to see (incidentally).

My daughter is a GP, and isn't allowed under GMC Rules to release confidential data of any kind without express permission of the patient who can, of course, quite rightly withold consent. Presented with a 'blanket' consent of the like of this - which in has effectively been strongarmed from FAC/SGC applicants by the police - she would be obliged to release any and possibly all the medical records (which includes all sorts of background or 'social' circumstances) held on her patient.

I think that's a fair summary of the implications of the new 'pilot' licensing requirements BASC are opposing.

Do correct this if I've missed something, or perhaps been unfair.
 
Last edited:

Dalua

Well-Known Member

This is indeed sinister. Does anyone know what a 'Local Medical Council' is?

The abbreviation LMC usually refers to the Local Medical Committee, which is as far as I'm aware a body belonging to the British Medical Association ( or BMA - the medical practitioners' trade union), and while, as the police suggests the LMC 'oversees local GPs', it is also concerned with looking out for the GPs', rather than anyone elses', interests.

I would not be keen to trust either the BMA or any LMC with the interests of lawful firearms users.
 

Bandit Country

Well-Known Member
It is only right and proper that they, Durham Constabulary, sing from the same hymn sheet as the rest of the shooting world,

The real worry is that they are starting to get on the same page with this medical report fandango. 'Guidance' on West Mercia website is very similar, putting the onus on applicants to arrange and pay for a GP's report. Apparently it will facilitate the processing of your application!
 

Moray Outfitting

Well-Known Member
Mr Gain - well said - that's what my waffle was getting at!

Thank you for those extra details - concerning read. If I follow correctly absolutely no basis in law?

There are two slightly oblique elements I'd like to put into the mix -

1. BASC are the single biggest shooting organisation. They chose the motto - 'The Voice of Shooting'. They are quite aware of a substantive negative feeling toward them within certain quarters of the shooting community - some possibly justified some likely just 'one of those things'.

Love or loathe, they are currently best placed to properly fight our corner - right now. Not next month week or year - now.

Shall we say that by choosing the right voice, a beneficial message could be sent to the shooting community as much as the law makers?

2. An Organisation is a collection of individuals. I've said it until you are bored rigid - but unless each and everyone of us pulls together at least some common ground; then we are frankly stuffed in the long term - regardless of the organisation representing us. If shooters will not speak up for themselves, the voice of any organisation is actually a whisper.

Linking back to the above - a still reasoned, but much more robust line by BASC may just be the lead some people are waiting for to encourage a more active involvement - maybe?

In a wider context - we are trapped in a mindset of arguing about a fundamentally flawed system that only partially delivers what it is supposed to do. Whilst that remains, certain fundamental flaws/ injustice/ silliness will forever remain that.
 
Last edited:

BASC Firearms Dept

Well-Known Member
Official Member
My daughter is a GP, and isn't allowed under GMC Rules to release confidential data of any kind without express permission of the patient who can, of course, quite rightly withold consent. Presented with a 'blanket' consent of the like of this - which in has effectively been strongarmed from FAC/SGC applicants by the police - she would be obliged to release any and possibly all the medical records (which includes all sorts of background or 'social' circumstances) held on her patient.

Where patients have NOT given pemrission GP's are allowed and should divulge information under duty of care where there are wider implications.

If for example the GP refused to disclose depression and suicidal activity on principle, knowing full well the patient was a danger to themselves and others, the GP would be for the high jump in any subsequent investigation and liable to civil claim from the families of anybody hurt or killed as a result of the patients actions.

I suggest she contacts the BMA ethics department for advice as there are clear BMA guidlines to be followed.
 
Last edited:

CharlieT

Well-Known Member
BASC

I think you got the wrong end of Sinistrals post.

​Your reply has not addressed his comments or concerns one bit.
 
BRACES of Bristol - Mauser M12 with Schmidt & Bender 2.5-10x56 Illuminated Scope
Top