It’s not a problem the very title
STATUTORY GUIDANCE FOR CHIEF OFFICERS OF POLICE
Is an oxymoron.
Cost GP Medical Checks
- Thread starter Afro hunter
- Start date
It’s not a problem the very title
STATUTORY GUIDANCE FOR CHIEF OFFICERS OF POLICE
Is an oxymoron.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
What on earth does that even mean?
Deutsch - Drahthaar
Well-Known Member
It means that if a police force goes against the guidance in say, refusing an application, any appeal against that refusal is almost guaranteed to be successful simply because the police went against the statutory guidance
Statutory guidance is about as strong as they can make it without drawing up and passing new legislation.
Cheers
Bruce
Ergo, medicals was quite specific, it is no longer as no challenge to the approach was taken by anybody. Mine's due for renewal next year maybe it will be straighforward ?
IMHO, no one has challenged any police force when they have insisted on a GP letter for three reasons:
1. You would not have access to your guns while the legal challenge is ongoing and that process could take a long time
2. Even if an appeal is won, you will not get your costs, but if you lose you will have to pay your costs and those of the police
3. None of the shooting organisations have agreed to back an appeal - apparently BASC asked a QC what the chances of winning an appeal were and BASC tell us he said don't bother - although BASC have never made public the details of his advice.
Cheers
Bruce
1. You would not have access to your guns while the legal challenge is ongoing and that process could take a long time
2. Even if an appeal is won, you will not get your costs, but if you lose you will have to pay your costs and those of the police
3. None of the shooting organisations have agreed to back an appeal - apparently BASC asked a QC what the chances of winning an appeal were and BASC tell us he said don't bother - although BASC have never made public the details of his advice.
Cheers
Bruce
But in practice no better than the current guidance, as it will not be law.
I agree that it will not be law, but places the police at far more risk if losing any appeal if they have ignored the guidance
This is from the introduction to the draft guidance:
"1.2. Under section 55A of the 1968 Act, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to chief officers of police as to the exercise of their functions under, or in connection with, the 1968 Act. Chief officers of police in England, Wales and Scotland must have regard to guidance issued under this section and be able to justify any departure on a case-by-case basis."
Cheers
Bruce
This is from the introduction to the draft guidance:
"1.2. Under section 55A of the 1968 Act, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to chief officers of police as to the exercise of their functions under, or in connection with, the 1968 Act. Chief officers of police in England, Wales and Scotland must have regard to guidance issued under this section and be able to justify any departure on a case-by-case basis."
Cheers
Bruce
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
And the handful of applicants who get caught lying on their application regarding medical history will, in the eyes of the police, " justify any departure"
Well, if you lie about anything on the application form and the police refuse it, what grounds do you have for an appeal?
If you lie on the application form and the police refuse the application, there is no departure from the guidance to justify.
Cheers
Bruce
If you lie on the application form and the police refuse the application, there is no departure from the guidance to justify.
Cheers
Bruce
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
I meant that those who have been lying bring about the "departure from guidance" (medical report reqd) for everyone else.
This is the response I got from Police Scotland in march 2017 to a freedom of information request I made:
Our Ref: IM-FOI-2017-0530
Date: 23 March 2017
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002
I refer to your recent request for information which has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act).
1. Since April 2016 how many applications for the grant or renewal of an FAC or SGC have been granted when a response to the initial GP letter was (for any reason) not seen by Police Scotland.
None
2. Since April 2016 how many applications for the grant or renewal of an FAC or SGC have been refused when a response to the initial GP letter was (for any reason) not seen by Police Scotland.
Two in respect of renewals; the circumstances of which were that the outcome of any medical consideration would have played no part in the decision to refuse.
3. Since April 2016 how many holders of an FAC or SGC have had their certificates revoked because the information on their application conflicted with the information included in the GP's response to the initial letter
None
OK, that was only a year after the "no GP letter = No certificate" policy came into force, but it does imply that people telling porkies about their medical condition on the application form was not a major issue
Cheers
Bruce
Our Ref: IM-FOI-2017-0530
Date: 23 March 2017
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002
I refer to your recent request for information which has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act).
1. Since April 2016 how many applications for the grant or renewal of an FAC or SGC have been granted when a response to the initial GP letter was (for any reason) not seen by Police Scotland.
None
2. Since April 2016 how many applications for the grant or renewal of an FAC or SGC have been refused when a response to the initial GP letter was (for any reason) not seen by Police Scotland.
Two in respect of renewals; the circumstances of which were that the outcome of any medical consideration would have played no part in the decision to refuse.
3. Since April 2016 how many holders of an FAC or SGC have had their certificates revoked because the information on their application conflicted with the information included in the GP's response to the initial letter
None
OK, that was only a year after the "no GP letter = No certificate" policy came into force, but it does imply that people telling porkies about their medical condition on the application form was not a major issue
Cheers
Bruce
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Bruce, I can guarantee you that the numbers are higher.
I personally know of 2 chaps who were interviewed and "advised" to withdraw their applications. Both had failed to disclose a previous illnesses and made false entries on their paperwork.
Both were during the brief period when it was the case that if nothing was heard from the GP within a specified period, then the assumption was that there were no concerns on the medical aspect.
The advice given to withdraw was an alternative to being charged and reported.
Both cases were somewhat tragic involving bereavement and seeking solace through drink and drugs
Last edited:
The GP report is hear to stay, the best we can hope for is a process between the applicant, GP and police that is fit for purpose and a fair national set fee. Their should be no reason for any applicant to use the likes of medcert.
The current practice of the applicant obtaining the report or copies of their medical history to send to medcert is not without risk, the latter still in this technology rich day allow for the unscrupulous to edit the data.
Hence the request for the medical report should originate from the police and be supplied by the applicants registered GP directly to the police.
The GP should then have a duty to inform the police if the applicant seeks treatment for any of the relevant conditions or deregisters with the GP.
The fee for the process should be included nationally as part of the firearms application fee at first grant and should not be required again for renewal, otherwise it demonstrates the process is flawed.
But I won’t hold me breath.
The current practice of the applicant obtaining the report or copies of their medical history to send to medcert is not without risk, the latter still in this technology rich day allow for the unscrupulous to edit the data.
Hence the request for the medical report should originate from the police and be supplied by the applicants registered GP directly to the police.
The GP should then have a duty to inform the police if the applicant seeks treatment for any of the relevant conditions or deregisters with the GP.
The fee for the process should be included nationally as part of the firearms application fee at first grant and should not be required again for renewal, otherwise it demonstrates the process is flawed.
But I won’t hold me breath.
I agree the process is here to stay and GP involvement should be formalised.
However, making GP involvement mandatory is going to require a change in the contract GPs have with the NHS
Neither the police nor the Home Office have the clout to make that happen and I can't imagine that, in the present circumstances, it would be very high on the Department of Healths priority list
I must point out that an applicant giving a copy of their medical records to the police is not what the police want because, as they correctly say, they are not medical professionals and not qualified to make a judgement based on medical notes full of terminology they don't understand.
The police have made it plain on many occasions that they simply want a registered GP (not necessarily the GP with which the applicant is registered) to do three things:
1. Confirm or deny the the claims made by the applicant regarding the medical conditions listed on the application form
2. Tell the police if they have any concerns about the applicant being awarded an FAC or SGC
3. Tell the police whether or not the GP has put a marker on the applicants medical records
In Scotland, the police have taken the view that it is up to the applicant to do all the legwork associated with obtaining the letter from the GP
That system is open to abuse because the standard GP letter is available online for anyone to print out, whereupon 3 ticked boxes, a scribbled signature and a name and GMC number from the GMC database The medical register allows anyone to complete the letter and return it along with their application
The police do not contact the applicants GP to confirm the details other than in exceptional circumstances.
As we all know, the whole medical information thing is just an a*se covering exercise to give the police an excuse when they get it wrong and someone to who they grant a certificate goes rage and starts shooting people.
Cheers
Bruce
However, making GP involvement mandatory is going to require a change in the contract GPs have with the NHS
Neither the police nor the Home Office have the clout to make that happen and I can't imagine that, in the present circumstances, it would be very high on the Department of Healths priority list
I must point out that an applicant giving a copy of their medical records to the police is not what the police want because, as they correctly say, they are not medical professionals and not qualified to make a judgement based on medical notes full of terminology they don't understand.
The police have made it plain on many occasions that they simply want a registered GP (not necessarily the GP with which the applicant is registered) to do three things:
1. Confirm or deny the the claims made by the applicant regarding the medical conditions listed on the application form
2. Tell the police if they have any concerns about the applicant being awarded an FAC or SGC
3. Tell the police whether or not the GP has put a marker on the applicants medical records
In Scotland, the police have taken the view that it is up to the applicant to do all the legwork associated with obtaining the letter from the GP
That system is open to abuse because the standard GP letter is available online for anyone to print out, whereupon 3 ticked boxes, a scribbled signature and a name and GMC number from the GMC database The medical register allows anyone to complete the letter and return it along with their application
The police do not contact the applicants GP to confirm the details other than in exceptional circumstances.
As we all know, the whole medical information thing is just an a*se covering exercise to give the police an excuse when they get it wrong and someone to who they grant a certificate goes rage and starts shooting people.
Cheers
Bruce
What are you on about??
There are alternatives available for the sun of £50 so no one will go without their certificate, what are you choosing to ignore that optuon
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Bruce, I'm somewhat puzzled that what you have written is your take on things that apparently "we all know"
I agree that the medical report requirement could be construed as "an arse covering exercise" but I'm am surprised that you look on someone going rage and shooting people as "the police getting it wrong"
If the applicant (and a doctor) ticked all the relevant boxes to grant him an FAC how have they got it wrong?
Sometimes, the blame for a horrible crime being committed rests solely with the person who committed it.
Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane - the police got that wrong because the ACC and Hamilton were both masons and the ACC approved his application in spite of the FEO recommending refusal
Derek Bird - granted an FAC and SGC despite convictions for theft, drink driving and allegations of threatening behaviour
When someone goes rogue and starts shooting people there is no argument that the responsibility rest with the person committing the acts, and I fully accept that in some cases, the police could not reasonably have foreseen what the certificate holder would do
The current medical information system is an a*rse covering exercise because for as long as I can remember, the application form has stated that by signing the form you give the police permission to contact your GP and be given any relevant medical information.
The fact of the matter is that the police almost never contacted an applicants GP, and the then HO Guidance specifically said that the applicants GP should only be contacted in exceptional cases
Rather than the pantomime we have at the moment with GPs responding or not responding, charging or not charging, the current guidance should simply have said that it was mandatory for the police to contact the applicants GP and get their questions answered.
Compared to the number of GPs who make life difficult and expensive for many applicants, not many would get bolshie when a cop phones them up and says "Mr X has given me permission to get you to tell me about his medical condition - so tell me"
That would also remove the possibility of any applicant providing fraudulent GP letter - which as I explained earlier is a real possibility.
It would also mean that the police get the medical information they want in a timely manner rather than being at the beg and call of an obstreperous GP
Cheers
Bruce
Derek Bird - granted an FAC and SGC despite convictions for theft, drink driving and allegations of threatening behaviour
When someone goes rogue and starts shooting people there is no argument that the responsibility rest with the person committing the acts, and I fully accept that in some cases, the police could not reasonably have foreseen what the certificate holder would do
The current medical information system is an a*rse covering exercise because for as long as I can remember, the application form has stated that by signing the form you give the police permission to contact your GP and be given any relevant medical information.
The fact of the matter is that the police almost never contacted an applicants GP, and the then HO Guidance specifically said that the applicants GP should only be contacted in exceptional cases
Rather than the pantomime we have at the moment with GPs responding or not responding, charging or not charging, the current guidance should simply have said that it was mandatory for the police to contact the applicants GP and get their questions answered.
Compared to the number of GPs who make life difficult and expensive for many applicants, not many would get bolshie when a cop phones them up and says "Mr X has given me permission to get you to tell me about his medical condition - so tell me"
That would also remove the possibility of any applicant providing fraudulent GP letter - which as I explained earlier is a real possibility.
It would also mean that the police get the medical information they want in a timely manner rather than being at the beg and call of an obstreperous GP
Cheers
Bruce
Similar threads
