CA urge Home Office to reconvene MEWG
- Thread starter Orion
- Start date
Unfortunately, the BMA has no power over it's members to make them do anything that they don't want to do - getting doctors to agree on anything is like herding cats.
Unfortunately, the only real solution to this problem is for a fixed fee to be included in the Doctors contract with the NHS which Doctors would charge to the NHS for their response to the initial letter and for that charge to be added to the cost of the grant/renewal of an SGC/FAC.
Shooters would have to bear this cost but at least it would get rid of the discrimination that is currently happening in Scotland.
Cheers
Bruce
Unfortunately, the only real solution to this problem is for a fixed fee to be included in the Doctors contract with the NHS which Doctors would charge to the NHS for their response to the initial letter and for that charge to be added to the cost of the grant/renewal of an SGC/FAC.
Shooters would have to bear this cost but at least it would get rid of the discrimination that is currently happening in Scotland.
Cheers
Bruce
Now look here mealiejimmie how dare you suggest that the rest of the UK pay for what is a total cluster**** going on in your country, this is a problem peculiar to scotland not England not Wales, your probelm not ours, sort it out yourselves, you wanted devolved government so now you have to live with the consequences.
Angry Ian.
Last edited:
Ian,
I agree totally that it's cluster*** in Scotland and dearly wish that Police Scotland would simply follow the HO Guidance as happens in most, if not all of England and Wales.
However, the inconsistencies between how GPs deal with the process really only has one solution - and that's to include responding to the initial GP letter in their contract with the NHS.
That way they have to do it, but with the current state of the NHS finances, I can't see it being done for free, and since we are the people who need to get the GP to respond, then in all likelihood, it's us who will have to pay.
I certainly don't see the HO dropping or reducing the medical requirements
BTW I didn't vote for devolution in Scotland and would be more than happy to have one less parliament in my life.
Cheers
Bruce
I agree totally that it's cluster*** in Scotland and dearly wish that Police Scotland would simply follow the HO Guidance as happens in most, if not all of England and Wales.
However, the inconsistencies between how GPs deal with the process really only has one solution - and that's to include responding to the initial GP letter in their contract with the NHS.
That way they have to do it, but with the current state of the NHS finances, I can't see it being done for free, and since we are the people who need to get the GP to respond, then in all likelihood, it's us who will have to pay.
I certainly don't see the HO dropping or reducing the medical requirements
BTW I didn't vote for devolution in Scotland and would be more than happy to have one less parliament in my life.
Cheers
Bruce
I have no sympathy jimmy, the problem is not the GPs in scotland my friend its Police Scotland Chief Constable who through devolved power does not need to adhere to the The HO guidelines, the home office through that devolved power gave the chief constable the right to interpret the HO guidelines as he deems fit.
Ian.
Ian.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
We don't need the GPs letter though as the GO guidance states without it the applicant should not be punished and the application should continue. If police Scotland don't want to follow that and can get away with it then why should others have to pay for it?
It's not a matter of devolvement. Police Scotland simply 'interpretted' the Home Office guidelines to say that 'they could not be fully satisfied' unless the applicants Doctor completede a tick form and agreed to place a marker on the applicants medical records. This requirement was proffered by the Rt Hon Damian Green MP in 2013 and was pushed forwards by the following Policing Minister Michael Green and his following incumbents Brandon Lewis and now Nick Hurd.
It came from Westminster not the Scottish Ministers.
In the latest HO guidelines there is a "not in Scotland" clause which allowed Police Scotland's FELD under the leadership of Chief Inspector Fraser Lamb(1) to 'self declare' that no form = no renewal/licence grant. Although in my conversations with him (when he was Chief Inspector, before he joined SACS) he stated that the "not in Scotland clause wasn't behind the reasoning and that the HO guidelines are just that, guidelines not law or instuction".
Police Scotland have led the way towards what most of the controlling people/upper management in the SACS, CA and BASC believe their members agree with. I have spoken at length with the good Doctor Colin @ BASC and Alex @ SACS (both of which are organisations "run by members for members") and both tell me that their members are "Happy to pay a fee". In fact when Alex Stoddart reccommended that his members "should not pay the Doctors fee" he was severely critised 'by the SACS membership".
BASC took the same stabce in the beginning (do not pay) however both organisations have backed down from this statement and are now "reccommending that you do pay".
They are saying this because their membership have said they are happy to pay.
If anyone is reading this and is a member of SACS and/or BASC please send an email to their respective organisation and clearly state that you are "NOT HAPPY TO PAY A DOCTORS FEE". I'd be very happy if you would send an eMail to both organisations.
mailto:info@sacs.org.uk
mailto:Colin.Shedden@basc.org.uk
Of course if, of the thousands of members, only a few complain/object then, as a members organisation, they will, as per their constitution, obey the wishes of their members....
The worry is that the Government/Westminster want the doctors to be involved and if we can't do it amicably ourselves they will make make it a legal condition.
Lets hope before that before that happens the BMA realise that this is indeed a cluster**** and define a maximum (and reasonable) charge.
(1) I used to call Ch'Ins Fraser Lamb, Fraser (Sturgeon) Lamb (FSL) but Alex objected to this as now Fraser is a member of his staff, he doesn't want to show any form of political affiliation or allegiance and as I quite like Alex ....
Ian. That is inncorrect, there is no devolved power relating to the Firearms Act.
Here ....
Whitebeard said:
I think it was your use of the term " Police Scotland Chief Constable who through devolved power" and "the home office through that devolved power gave the chief constable the right to interpret the HO guidelines as he deems fit" yeah, those parts of that sentence really, the other parts don't mention it at all, by the other parts I mean the first 6 words the preface the other 28 words that make up the 35 word sentence, wot you wrote - but i'm not counting ....
This issue is a poisoned chalice since we should unite against an unjustified threat to shooting wherever it is - as the CA are suggesting.
On the other hand Scotland voted for its own party and they are responsible for these anti-shooting proposals and effects.
Were shooters in a majority I have no doubt the Scots could solve their own problem but whilst its annoying (I am mightily p'd off by the independence issue), we down here must support them up there as fellow minority shooters.
On the other hand Scotland voted for its own party and they are responsible for these anti-shooting proposals and effects.
Were shooters in a majority I have no doubt the Scots could solve their own problem but whilst its annoying (I am mightily p'd off by the independence issue), we down here must support them up there as fellow minority shooters.
The question we should be asking is how we ever got into a situation where it is considered reasonable for the applicant for pay any more than the statutory fee for grant or renewal of FAC or SGC.
The certification process administered by the FLD is not for the benefit of firearms users; but for the benefit of the public and the peace.
The situation in Scotland is bad, but the rot started with the acceptance of the idea generally that the police could request reports from medical practitioners at the applicant's expense. It seems to me that this was accepted into the HO Guide by the negotiating parties on the basis that most applicants (i.e. those without relevant medical history) wouldn't need to pay; an approach that overlooked the two important points.
First, that the applicant has already paid the fee for the application and given permission for the police to approach his GP - on the understanding that beyond that, it is between the police and the GP;
and second that thereby, although most folk won't have to pay extra, those who by definition have a greater burden of ill-health will be faced with additional bill for these reports, most likely in the region of several hundreds of pounds.
The certification process administered by the FLD is not for the benefit of firearms users; but for the benefit of the public and the peace.
The situation in Scotland is bad, but the rot started with the acceptance of the idea generally that the police could request reports from medical practitioners at the applicant's expense. It seems to me that this was accepted into the HO Guide by the negotiating parties on the basis that most applicants (i.e. those without relevant medical history) wouldn't need to pay; an approach that overlooked the two important points.
First, that the applicant has already paid the fee for the application and given permission for the police to approach his GP - on the understanding that beyond that, it is between the police and the GP;
and second that thereby, although most folk won't have to pay extra, those who by definition have a greater burden of ill-health will be faced with additional bill for these reports, most likely in the region of several hundreds of pounds.
waterford103
Well-Known Member
This plus the SNP police SERVICE is now quoting 4 MONTHS for a variation , devolved by the SNP into a pathetic shadow of it's former self.
Well I got my renewal thru .....runs out last 1/4 of January .....filled all stuff out, paid fee , doctor letter in and paid .....then phoned Dundee to tell them I’m away for 6 weeks with work ..... so if FEO try’s to pick up my paperwork and interview he won’t be able to .....told them my concern was I did not want the 6 weeks to mean delay in renewal and guns to have to go into storage ....last time I just had to post in paperwork .....now FEO has to pick it up and interview ....
I was told it won’t come to storage.....I’ve logged time date of call and we will see .....as soon as I’m home I’m on the blower telling them I’m back... come get the paperwork!
The system we have now is not in any way fit for purpose
Paul
I was told it won’t come to storage.....I’ve logged time date of call and we will see .....as soon as I’m home I’m on the blower telling them I’m back... come get the paperwork!
The system we have now is not in any way fit for purpose
Paul
We all know the NHS is a postcode lottery with some areas offering much better service than others?? If you go on holiday and want jabs you have to pay? If you need a medical for work/insurance you have to pay.
There are a huge number of things that are not covered by the NHS (tax payer), which means under the contract a GP has with the NHS, he/she will not be paid for the time it takes them to review your medical history and compare that to the relevant guidelines, fill out tick box forms/write letters ect... If they are going to stake their professional reputation on it I suspect they do a thorough job?
There is a lot of talk of how this is hugely unfair in Scotland because Police Scotland have decided they require this letter, but its your GP that is charging you for his time?
Why is this an issue? I don't work for free? Maybe I have missed something?
There are a huge number of things that are not covered by the NHS (tax payer), which means under the contract a GP has with the NHS, he/she will not be paid for the time it takes them to review your medical history and compare that to the relevant guidelines, fill out tick box forms/write letters ect... If they are going to stake their professional reputation on it I suspect they do a thorough job?
There is a lot of talk of how this is hugely unfair in Scotland because Police Scotland have decided they require this letter, but its your GP that is charging you for his time?
Why is this an issue? I don't work for free? Maybe I have missed something?
Perhaps it is the point that the Firearms Act is for the public benefit and therefore, apart from the statutory fee for grants, renewals and variations, its administration has previously been paid for out of the public purse.
I see no reason at all why GPs shouldn't be able to claim a reasonable fee for producing reports at the behest of FLDs.
However,I can also see every reason why the FLDs should pay that reasonable fee.
I'm not sure the average Joe would view doctors and police spending time and resources on the shooting minority a 'public benefit'. When BASC press office are continually stating that shooting is worth 2bn to the economy and the perceived opinion that everyone who shoots is a wealthy 'toff' and the media reporting that children in every major city are going to school hungry and charity food banks are being overwhelmed. A lot of people who don't stalk could think of many reasons why the 'public purse' shouldn't pay those reasonable fees. I know this point of view doesn't stand up, but I remember Boris Johnson next to that bus that didn't stand up but we still left the eu and no one is building a new hospital a week. But hey I'm not the average Joe, I'm a stalker just trying to see this from the outside.
I could see professional stalkers/deer managers having a case to object to these fees, because it hinders their ability to earn a living, if their gp is holding them to ransom, but lots of professions require you to pay for independent certificates of competency before you can work.
Playing devils advocate here but doesn't putting pressure on already over tasked FLDs to incur more costs just give Antis more fuel for the fire. I can hear them now 'Hunting is cruel and unnecessary and costs the taxpayer millions' at which point we've all had it.
Mealiejimmy's opinion that all FAC holders be charged even higher fees to subsidise Scottish stalkers, or those that have 'relevant medical conditions' is a slippery path. Ultimately I think we will be forced to cover all the associated costs ourselves as public sector cuts get worse?
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
The issue is if you believe having an FAC is a privilege or more of a right. In a nutshell unless there is a good reason not to grant one then it's a given that you can get it. The police administer the Certificate and decide who gets one in order to protect public safety, it's not for the gun owners benefit it's there for the public to ensure they are safe, hence why it is/should be covered in the majority by the public regardless of their opinion.
Sorry, this turned into a rant avoid if you wish.
Too many people will do anything to retain an FAC.
We pay for renewal - the majority have no medical issues - they dont pay, how much should an 'all ok' cost? Whatever it is, its part of the renewal cost.
Down south this extra cost is profiteering by the medical profession - who have lost their understanding of the public good as far as this very very old legislation is concerned. How much public (taxpayers) money does the NHS get to spend on the whole of the health service - its in the multi billions.
We are facing another hike in FAC charges just after the last one.
Lets get this straight, efficiency is needed - public health service should not get preference to any other public 'good' including licensing firearms users for the public 'good'.
This licensing business is becoming a free for all - who can shout loudest and claim its too expensive without further funding. Its not, there.s a job to do for the sake of the public - just get on with it and stick to the rules that were agreed until they are varied by legislation or further 'mandatory' guidance.
Parking enforcement has had to be done by Councils since the police had 'no resources'. Dangerous parking causes casualties - far more than the use of legal firearms. Road casualties can be reduced by knowing the causes and addressing those by engineering measures and yet the vital police records to analyse crashes do not accurately record. location precisely. Other causative factors are masked by inadequate or no recording and yet the police seek more resources. They simply arent doing the best with what they have and the record of the police contribution to casualty data recording and from this casualty reduction is poor to pathetic. More lives by a mile could be saved by doing it properly than have EVER been lost by the use of legal firearms. Dunblane, Hungerford and Durham all lie at the door of a flawed implementation process. Councils have a DUTY to reduce casualties, their partners, the police do not - change this first and save the approximate 'cost' of a single fatal accident - now estimated at approx £2M and there are 3000 annually.
You do not pay more for a poor service and this is one of the worst, significant regional variation aside.
Too many people will do anything to retain an FAC.
We pay for renewal - the majority have no medical issues - they dont pay, how much should an 'all ok' cost? Whatever it is, its part of the renewal cost.
Down south this extra cost is profiteering by the medical profession - who have lost their understanding of the public good as far as this very very old legislation is concerned. How much public (taxpayers) money does the NHS get to spend on the whole of the health service - its in the multi billions.
We are facing another hike in FAC charges just after the last one.
Lets get this straight, efficiency is needed - public health service should not get preference to any other public 'good' including licensing firearms users for the public 'good'.
This licensing business is becoming a free for all - who can shout loudest and claim its too expensive without further funding. Its not, there.s a job to do for the sake of the public - just get on with it and stick to the rules that were agreed until they are varied by legislation or further 'mandatory' guidance.
Parking enforcement has had to be done by Councils since the police had 'no resources'. Dangerous parking causes casualties - far more than the use of legal firearms. Road casualties can be reduced by knowing the causes and addressing those by engineering measures and yet the vital police records to analyse crashes do not accurately record. location precisely. Other causative factors are masked by inadequate or no recording and yet the police seek more resources. They simply arent doing the best with what they have and the record of the police contribution to casualty data recording and from this casualty reduction is poor to pathetic. More lives by a mile could be saved by doing it properly than have EVER been lost by the use of legal firearms. Dunblane, Hungerford and Durham all lie at the door of a flawed implementation process. Councils have a DUTY to reduce casualties, their partners, the police do not - change this first and save the approximate 'cost' of a single fatal accident - now estimated at approx £2M and there are 3000 annually.
You do not pay more for a poor service and this is one of the worst, significant regional variation aside.
Similar threads
