The charging was always going to happen and anyone with their eyes open can surely see that.
Well, maybe. But it wasn't what the BMA originally agreed to. Of course, that's just the medical professionals' trade union - so they don't have to follow what the BMA says. Nor is it a given that anyone other than the Police should pay. After all, it is they who feel they need the 'reports' for the
public good - not for the good of the applicant.
It is not for the NHS to pay that bill,
Indeed
and the change in law should necesessarily have forseen that extra administration costs were incumbent on the applicant.
First, the law is that the applicant pays the statutory fee for grant/renewal. That's it.
Second, that law has not AFAIK changed.
They cannot be directly levied by the police as it is not they who incur the costs, but the NHS Trusts, therefore the applicaiton is effectively in two parts now with both parts requiring payment prior to an application being processed.
GPs are not NHS Trusts, but private companies. The application is not in two parts - it is made to the FLD, and the if the FLD wants info from the GP, they're entitled to ask for it becuase we have to give permission for them to do so. If the GP wants money for providing it, the FLD should be resourced to be able to pay the GP. It's very simple, really.
People (including the H/O) are guessing at the costs. GPs will set the costs and with heads of practice earning £130K plus annually, don't expect a cheap meal ticket on this one unless the GMC have agreed a cap....which as yet there's no evidence of.
Again - we should avoid making the same presumptions as the HO and police! Who says it is
reasonable for applicants to shoulder these unspecifed costs? Who even says the whole concept is propotionate or reasonable?
The whole thing is a complete shambles, when all that surely was needed was a marker placed on records where any GP suspecting that (and here all that is needed is suspicion) an individual's suitability may be compromised, has a duty to (rightly) inform the licensing department. What is wrong with just leaving things at that? Honestly, faceless bureaucrats with nothing better to do than invent tick boxes and flow charts have won this battle without using a shred of common sense. It all seems rather to convenient and deliberate, another pressure to dissuade the public from firearms ownership.
Absolutely!
However, the suggestion that the Police and HO have won a battle suggests that there's been some kind of resistance from our organisations - which seems regrettably not yet to have been the case.
The idea that our organisations should ever 'trust' the police or HO seems beyond absurd when you look at the history of firearms control in this country. It isn't that the HO and/or Police have nothing better to do - they both, as they've shown time and time again, regard any obstacle in the way of lawful firearms users as a good thing in its own right.
