BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees

[Hornet 6]

So if you end up paying for a medical report (after arguing about it) and the police issue your renewal, should you not get your money back ?
In this country we are innocent until proven guilty, we filled in the renewal form and stated that there was nothing wrong with us, but the police believed otherwise
which is why they asked for a medical report in the first place.
It's high time firearms licensing was administered by someone with a backbone, someone who would make a decision and stick by it, and be prepared to stand by that decision.
Unlike the police (civilian dept) who just want to cover their own arses, and charge for a medical report because they dont know what they are doing.

Neil.

 

[JTO]

Unlike the police (civilian dept) who just want to cover their own arses, and charge for a medical report because they dont know what they are doing.Neil.

Like a lot of things in the modern World, a lot of this probably goes right back to the doors of lawyers and financial institutions/insurance providers.
After Dunblane, the police are bricking it for fear of being sued, so they pass it on to the medical profession's negligence insurance cover.
I think a policy of non-co-operation by firearms holders will cost a lot more than the medical fees talked about.

 

[Dalua]

After Dunblane, the police are bricking it for fear of being sued, so they pass it on to the medical profession's negligence insurance cover.

I don't think that GPs believe that there is any transfer of liability in law at all. The GPs are being asked pretty much for facts from the medical notes. Not particularly contentious, and if they thought they'd have any liability pinned on them (unless they gave inaccurate information, of course) they'd be very imprudent to get involved at all, at any price.

I don't think the Police or the HO think there's any transfer of liability either. I think they've just seen an opportunity to make further baseless impositions on lawful firearms users, and thereby both to annoy them and, most likely, to reduce their numbers a bit.

 

[reloader54]

I don't think that GPs believe that there is any transfer of liability in law at all. The GPs are being asked pretty much for facts from the medical notes. Not particularly contentious, and if they thought they'd have any liability pinned on them (unless they gave inaccurate information, of course) they'd be very imprudent to get involved at all, at any price.

I don't think the Police or the HO think there's any transfer of liability either. I think they've just seen an opportunity to make further baseless impositions on lawful firearms users, and thereby both to annoy them and, most likely, to reduce their numbers a bit.

^this^ sums it up really.

 

[ss03947]

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/featured-news/basc-statement-on-lincolnshire-police/

Took all of a nano second to read it,

I was expecting basc to have the bit between the teeth on this one...

 

[caorach]

David BASC - do you believe that the police are acting lawfully in respect of this, have BASC taken advice?

In the end this is probably the crux of the matter in the sense that the "bottom line" is if the police actually have the power to do this.

In England and Wales there are about 155,000 FAC holders and about 561,000 people with a shotgun certificate, say 700,000 people. This is going to cost us at least £10 per year in fees plus the added interference in our lives etc. So, if we each put in £10 that would give a fighting fund of £7 million, more than enough even for a judicial review. If we got a win this would be a definite line in the sand in terms of police powers to treat firearms holders as "guilty until proven innocent at their own cost." To lose would, of course, be a disaster which is why such a move needs careful thought.

The other problem, should someone like BASC run a campaign for such a fighting fund and ask for £10 from each shooter, is that, based on the number of people willing to discuss matters on forums but unwilling to do anything useful about it, I'd guess the total sum raised will be about £50.

 

[kes]

David BASC - do you believe that the police are acting lawfully in respect of this, have BASC taken advice?

In the end this is probably the crux of the matter in the sense that the "bottom line" is if the police actually have the power to do this.

In England and Wales there are about 155,000 FAC holders and about 561,000 people with a shotgun certificate, say 700,000 people. This is going to cost us at least £10 per year in fees plus the added interference in our lives etc. So, if we each put in £10 that would give a fighting fund of £7 million, more than enough even for a judicial review. If we got a win this would be a definite line in the sand in terms of police powers to treat firearms holders as "guilty until proven innocent at their own cost." To lose would, of course, be a disaster which is why such a move needs careful thought.

The other problem, should someone like BASC run a campaign for such a fighting fund and ask for £10 from each shooter, is that, based on the number of people willing to discuss matters on forums but unwilling to do anything useful about it, I'd guess the total sum raised will be about £50.

If David thought they were acting unlawfully then I am sure he would recommend action but its not his job to, as far as I am aware. He can, I suspect, only pass this upward to the CE and Council to act on, based on member responses he gets from here. BASC is Council and the Chief Exec. Most of the staff probably feel as we do and are maybe a bit frustrated too.

 

[long_range_rob]

With the jailing yesterday of an A&E consultant for illegal possession of 3 Skorpion machine pistols and two other semi automatic handguns that he had reactivated in his shed, along with a “hit list” and live ammunition for said firearms I am starting to wonder if the medical profession is in any position to make assessments?

 

[ashray]

IF this is true can the law abiding people of the uk EVER trust a doctor again,most dont trust the police and now how many will trust very highly paid medical staff? not very many!

 

[reloader54]

IF this is true can the law abiding people of the uk EVER trust a doctor again,most dont trust the police and now how many will trust very highly paid medical staff? not very many!

some never have.

 

[Whitebeard]

So if you end up paying for a medical report (after arguing about it) and the police issue your renewal, should you not get your money back ?
In this country we are innocent until proven guilty, we filled in the renewal form and stated that there was nothing wrong with us, but the police believed otherwise
which is why they asked for a medical report in the first place.
It's high time firearms licensing was administered by someone with a backbone, someone who would make a decision and stick by it, and be prepared to stand by that decision.
Unlike the police (civilian dept) who just want to cover their own arses, and charge for a medical report because they dont know what they are doing.

Neil.

This is something i have been saying for ages, the Police have us fill in a form under threat of prosecution for false information, yet they still dont trust us to tell the truth so seek conformation from our GPs, that just shows their sheer contempt for us

Ian

 

[starr shot]

David BASC were BASC at this meeting or just informed that one had taken place.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

IF this is true can the law abiding people of the uk EVER trust a doctor again,most dont trust the police and now how many will trust very highly paid medical staff? not very many!

i am sure you can't be saying,because a doctor is found guilty of a firearms offence that no other doctor can be trusted.

Glasgow Airport attack ten years on - the men who tried and failed to bring terror to the city - Glasgow Live

This happened up here ten or so years ago,I don't recall us blaming every doctor because of a couple of terrorists who happened also to be doctors.

Lets not cloud the issue at hand which is, the imposition of charges for tagging medical notes. Medicals are not going away, so our organisations need to negotiate is a fair charge across the board for the most law abiding group, we the FAC holders.

If the tag triggers,sorry,further investigation and an extended medical examination required, this should be when an org steps in to represent their member. After all that is what we pay for,insurance and assurance. Perhaps the BASC and others will require a medical before accepting us as members. Sounds like it on here sometimes.

These few cases should not be an excuse or allow the police to broad brush the majority of straightforward FAC holders.
There are bound to be a few holders of FAC who will not pass muster but they should also be represented. john

 

[reloader54]

no I don't think all doctors were blamed,, didn't do a certain religion any favours though did it.

but as you say, lets not cloud the issue at hand.

 

[Dalua]

Lets not cloud the issue at hand which is, the imposition of charges for tagging medical notes. Medicals are not going away, so our organisations need to negotiate is a fair charge across the board for the most law abiding group, we the FAC holders.

I agree that we need clarity here.
The issue on hand is that a change of policy by various police forces has added non-statutary costs to legally-deifned process which is meant to cost the applicant a statutorily-defined fee.
'Medicals' have in fact not yet even arrived. The fees are for GPs to produce either a brief statement of the absence on certain medical conditions or, should any such conditions be present, a fuller report of some kind on that condition with respect to the applicant's suitability to possess firearms.

I, and I suspect most certificate-holders, do not have a big problem with either of these - having for years been signing to allow the FLD to contact our GPs exactly for this purpose.

The problem is the cost, which - and this is the issue which must not be clouded - must clearly fall to the FLD rather than the applicant; the applicant having already paid the statutory fee, and the additional reports being (ostensibly, at least) necessary not for the good or convenience of the applicant, but rather the good of society at large. Not that anyone has yet convincingly shown this actually to be so, of course.

 

[kes]

I agree that we need clarity here.
The issue on hand is that a change of policy by various police forces has added non-statutary costs to legally-deifned process which is meant to cost the applicant a statutorily-defined fee.
'Medicals' have in fact not yet even arrived. The fees are for GPs to produce either a brief statement of the absence on certain medical conditions or, should any such conditions be present, a fuller report of some kind on that condition with respect to the applicant's suitability to possess firearms.

I, and I suspect most certificate-holders, do not have a big problem with either of these - having for years been signing to allow the FLD to contact our GPs exactly for this purpose.

The problem is the cost, which - and this is the issue which must not be clouded - must clearly fall to the FLD rather than the applicant; the applicant having already paid the statutory fee, and the additional reports being (ostensibly, at least) necessary not for the good or convenience of the applicant, but rather the good of society at large. Not that anyone has yet convincingly shown this actually to be so, of course.

What has been shown to be the problem with identifying legal firearms owners who have killed is not a lack of medical information but a lack of rigorous use of existing process as I have said before. That said, you are right that who pays to salve the conscience of the 'public' is what this is all about and since we are law-abiding people, we have NO problem with more examination of who we are - but at our cost when it does serves no useful purpose ?

Time for our shooting organisations to show some 'steel'.

 

[Dalua]

What has been shown to be the problem with identifying legal firearms owners who have killed is not a lack of medical information but a lack of rigorous use of existing process as I have said before. That said, you are right that who pays to salve the conscience of the 'public' is what this is all about and since we are law-abiding people, we have NO problem with more examination of who we are - but at our cost when it does serves no useful purpose ?

I agree. Making clear that these reports are being required on behalf of the public, and should therefore be paid for by the public is (apart from clearly being the just and right position) much more likely to get their apparent 'neccessity' subjected to some kind of scrutiny in order to avoid wasting a limited public resource.

 

[kes]

BASC news report stated (5/4/2018) that they were taking legal advice. It is now the 8th and, assuming they acted before they spoke (always an unwise assumption with BASC), they have had over a working week to respond with preliminary views from that legal advice.

I have had legal advice within hours, firm conclusions within days, and a definitive QC's response within 1 week, followed later by it in writing.

I'd just like to know how long BASC is going to take and who it is asking for 'legal advice', since the Chairman isn't the first choice and someone of eminence will be required. Will they ever come back to the membership ?

 

[jimbo1984]

BASC news report stated (5/4/2018) that they were taking legal advice. It is now the 8th and, assuming they acted before they spoke (always an unwise assumption with BASC), they have had over a working week to respond with preliminary views from that legal advice.

I have had legal advice within hours, firm conclusions within days, and a definitive QC's response within 1 week, followed later by it in writing.

I'd just like to know how long BASC is going to take and who it is asking for 'legal advice', since the Chairman isn't the first choice and someone of eminence will be required. Will they ever come back to the membership ?

As you've probably already worked out basc really don't care about getting back to or serving their members as long as the money keeps coming in and sadly many are so stupid they'll keep paying no matter how bad the service is

 

[kes]

No BASC response yet to "taking legal advice"?