Wow!, That little highlighted bit at the end has done it for me! ................... A better advert for joining basc I have not seen .. If you ain't a member go whistle, the rest of you are under the bus.
Compulsory medical verification (with fee) - Beds./Cambs./Herts now.
- Thread starter Sinistral
- Start date
unlikely to work, deliver the improved public safety. all the time police use the EVER word in their GP template letter as some still do, and as the alternative GP is unable to add the marker to the applicants medical records then no long term monitoring and no ten year certificate.
also from Pigeon watch posted by David, read the nick Hurd response and letter to BASC Which states
”so that inappropriate pricing can be challenged“
I for one would like to challenge the fee I paid my GP so perhaps David or mr Hurd can confirm the process that has been set up to do so by, the HO, Police, BMA or Tom thumb. The police are running out of control a head of the HO.
Medical procedure consultation to be launched shortly - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
The Home Office has written to BASC to announce that the consultation on firearms licensing statutory guidance, including medical involvement, will be launched shortly.
basc.org.uk
Last edited:
These reports could be a poison chalice as in the future, FAC holders could to be less likely to go and ask doctor for help thinking it is going on there record, and is likely to get them a refusal when renewal time comes around.
To be honest I think thats long been a problem - and is also a contributory factor in my view as to why there is such a tragically high suicide rate among gamekeepers....
HOW DID WE GO FROM THIS:
Background
From 1 April 2016 new information sharing processes between GPs and the police were introduced in an attempt to ensure those licensed to possess firearms and shotgun certificates are medically fit to carry arms.
We have significant concerns about these arrangements and we continue to raise them with the Home Office with the aim of agreeing a process that is fair to GPs in particular, and doctors in general, and safe for the wider public. Discussions are ongoing and any future improvements may necessitate the revision of this guidance.
The following advice on the current system takes into account our discussions with the Home Office, the police and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), as well as external legal advice.
TO THIS:
My email earlier today said I would be speaking to Zoey Evans the TV Police Firearms Manager. We have now had a very good conversation
The first thing to say is that I feel she is on our side. She has managed to get the Home Office to agree that individual forces can modify the original mandatory Home Office letter to GPs (the current Thames Valley version is attached).
I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups.
Her revised letter contains the following boxed text summarising the TV police request
The part that broke the camel's back for me was this statement that goes to show that Political Lobbying DOES NOT WORK and BASC has led us ALL up the creek with out a paddle.
"I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups."
My BASC membership expires in 26 days time and I WILL NOT be renewing it, as I will save the money to pay my GP. I also have membership with the GWCT who help to fight our corner with factual scientific evidence, and not with pegs for the elite and political lobbying, and attending all those Home Office Guidance meetings......what a waste of frigging time and money they were.
Background
From 1 April 2016 new information sharing processes between GPs and the police were introduced in an attempt to ensure those licensed to possess firearms and shotgun certificates are medically fit to carry arms.
We have significant concerns about these arrangements and we continue to raise them with the Home Office with the aim of agreeing a process that is fair to GPs in particular, and doctors in general, and safe for the wider public. Discussions are ongoing and any future improvements may necessitate the revision of this guidance.
The following advice on the current system takes into account our discussions with the Home Office, the police and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), as well as external legal advice.
TO THIS:
| To All BBOLMC Practices | Issue date: 24.11.17 |
The first thing to say is that I feel she is on our side. She has managed to get the Home Office to agree that individual forces can modify the original mandatory Home Office letter to GPs (the current Thames Valley version is attached).
I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups.
Her revised letter contains the following boxed text summarising the TV police request
|
The part that broke the camel's back for me was this statement that goes to show that Political Lobbying DOES NOT WORK and BASC has led us ALL up the creek with out a paddle.
"I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups."
My BASC membership expires in 26 days time and I WILL NOT be renewing it, as I will save the money to pay my GP. I also have membership with the GWCT who help to fight our corner with factual scientific evidence, and not with pegs for the elite and political lobbying, and attending all those Home Office Guidance meetings......what a waste of frigging time and money they were.
I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups. -
I wonder what precisely this means and why "beyond the Thames Valley" - It could be because shooting groups agreed to all this and then back peddled which I suspect is the most likely, or someone needs to improve their lobbying skills from novice to veteran.
Perhaps a member might ask BASC and the other lobby groups,etc
I wonder what precisely this means and why "beyond the Thames Valley" - It could be because shooting groups agreed to all this and then back peddled which I suspect is the most likely, or someone needs to improve their lobbying skills from novice to veteran.
Perhaps a member might ask BASC and the other lobby groups,etc
I'm with SACS. Two adults at the same address. Doesn't have to be husband and wife can be two, as with me, father and son. Just renewed. Cost me £70. BASC joint membership is not only twice the price but also the two members are required to be "living as partners".That's less than the single membership of BASC and the saving will pay for any GP letter I'll be needing.
Kes, as a BASC member I have several times asked them for their plan of action, timescales etc and how many MPs have they won over to support shooting, have they met with the current Home Secretary etc but you never get a full and transparent reply which is getting very frustrating. The only logical conclusion is it’s a lost cause and nothing BASC or any organisation say or do will change the situation. Will be interesting to see what BASC actually do with regards the JR for releasing game birds and then the GLs ... more political canvassing?
May be BASC they have an ace up their sleeve and are keeping quite about it!
May be BASC they have an ace up their sleeve and are keeping quite about it!
It works for some though if you get a £700 value driven day at Catton Hall out of it! See my earlier post.
Its has been a hope of mine for a long time (and perhaps many others) but based on past performance i'd rather do it myself.
There is already a fee for grant and renewal of certificates, as set by Parliament.
Your organisation does seem, as if blindfolded, to have walked the entire shooting population of the UK into a position where they are liable for fees payable to medical practitioners for reports requested by FLD.
I say 'as if blindfolded', because this direction of travel was clear to some of us at the time BASC welcomed the suggested change in practice.
This seems to me to be undeniably correct , though BASC seems still not to share my insight - a state of affairs which makes me anxious about BASC's likely future insights when dealing with bodies whose skill and sleight-of-hand in the discussions (which might have been mistaken in the past for negotiations) have been honed over decades of underhanded chicanery with repsect to firearms legisalation and its administration.
I wonder whether BASC should concentrate on pointing out to the HO that, since the fees payable by applicants for grant/renewal are specified by Parliament and applicants have given the FLD permission to approach their GPs, all that needs to happen is that the FLD contact the GPs, pay them for the information they require, and then get on with issuing/renewing the certificates (or not) as the Law requires them to do?
Mick Miller
Well-Known Member
Okay, this one has been niggling away at me, and I posted it months ago and then deleted the comment.
Do these GP's pay BASC any sum in order to be included in the register of third-party GPs allowed to conduct medical reviews for BASC members, or does their fee cover their time and expense only? I only ask as the latter would be a noble service provided for members, whereas the former smacks of profiteering. Genuine question.
Do these GP's pay BASC any sum in order to be included in the register of third-party GPs allowed to conduct medical reviews for BASC members, or does their fee cover their time and expense only? I only ask as the latter would be a noble service provided for members, whereas the former smacks of profiteering. Genuine question.
BASC could JR NOW.
Current HO Guidance and process of renewal, includes a fee for a medical assessment in line with HO guidance as at 2016. Asking for a further and replacement medical process at the applicants own cost has to be contrary to HOG 2016. Why is no-one doing this ????
There will never be a better time to take the POLICE to task for flouting HOG and making up their own process.
This statement "I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups" attempts to justify a departure from HOG - you cant just simply impose such a change - it has to be sanctioned by HO - unless we are now in a police state and the Government of the land has no control over what the Police do. This seems so simple to me but does anyone else see it this way ?
If only I had enough spare resources to challenge this, I most certainly would begin JR.
There has to be a lot of things we are not being told here.
JR is the ONLY way to force the Police (a public body to conform with the rules set out by the Home Office another public body.
J**** this really piddles me off - its so obvious.
Current HO Guidance and process of renewal, includes a fee for a medical assessment in line with HO guidance as at 2016. Asking for a further and replacement medical process at the applicants own cost has to be contrary to HOG 2016. Why is no-one doing this ????
There will never be a better time to take the POLICE to task for flouting HOG and making up their own process.
This statement "I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups" attempts to justify a departure from HOG - you cant just simply impose such a change - it has to be sanctioned by HO - unless we are now in a police state and the Government of the land has no control over what the Police do. This seems so simple to me but does anyone else see it this way ?
If only I had enough spare resources to challenge this, I most certainly would begin JR.
There has to be a lot of things we are not being told here.
JR is the ONLY way to force the Police (a public body to conform with the rules set out by the Home Office another public body.
J**** this really piddles me off - its so obvious.
May be we are going about this the wrong way ie discussing it on SD how about posting on BASC Facebook given they are selling how they are fighting the medical process via a political solution and their alternative GP service.
already some interesting posts of Facebook may be we should add to it, to reach the BASC members who are not on SD.
already some interesting posts of Facebook may be we should add to it, to reach the BASC members who are not on SD.
Excellent idea for those who are BASC members or can I do it too ?
Two Doctors have commented. The guy who has not yet qualified seems to think any fee is justifiable and right whereas the other, BASC member called Anne, does not agree with him. Very sensible and reasoned argument.
Perhaps commenting on “the voice of shooting’s” own fb page might get a wider audience?
Though I do believe that one of the qualifications for developing and managing strategy and policy at “the voice of shooting” is a thick skin as well as being hard of hearing and possibly an extraordinarily large disconnect from reality!
I doubt very much that anyone in that wonderful organisation will take any notice at all!
Seems to me about £1300 here is the relevant document - https://assets.publishing.service.g.../540585/administrative-court-fee-increase.pdf
I would suggest anything reasonable is worth it when £30 Million is the cost consequence of doing nothing.
One Org would however pay the £1300 whilst all of us individually would pay the £30M.
Just in case here is what to do for BASC Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review - Civil Procedure Rules
Similar threads
