Heads up...BASC work-around service for FAC / GP problem

Alantoo

Well-Known Member


Alan
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
As, or if I were, Chief Constable who wanted this additional certification I'd certainly not accept the above solution.

So I think BASC's kite won't fly. For a number of reasons.

No long intimacy between the applicant and the BASC GP being one.

So no past visual or verbal observations of any traits or "tics" the applicant may have shown in past times that his long term GP of course would know of.

So this...below:

As of course the BASC GP's opinion will be based ONLY in what was written in the records.

As the same wide discretion that supposedly exists (so no Judicial Review) will see Chief Constables reject the BASC GP's input I fear.

And being shown already as a "paper tiger" over Judicial Reviews BASC...if their GP's input is rejected? What then?
 

riddick

Well-Known Member
anyone else seeing a situation arising whereby basc membership will become compulsory or no ticket granted?
deal with police chiefs over lunch perhaps?
that should swell member #,s and pension funds.
cynical,,,moi, never.

should I say goodbye now?
 

Uncle f

Well-Known Member
I completely agree however when I request a GP appointment at my practice then I see a GP whom I’ve never seen before “a locam” this has happened around 7-8 times in the past six years with me and I’ve been with the practice some 15 years. I appreciate I will have records there etc but there is no continuity with patients and GP anymore to my knowledge. My GP, I’m led to believe was a particular female doctor who retired some 3 years ago!!!!
I understand the long term issues with regards to home office guidance and doctors reports, fees etc but at least BASC are trying to bridge a gap all be it they should be working harder in my opinion for a longer term solution
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
anyone else seeing a situation arising whereby basc membership will become compulsory or no ticket granted?
deal with police chiefs over lunch perhaps?
that should swell member #,s and pension funds.
cynical,,,moi, never.

should I say goodbye now?
I guess there will always be a cloud surrounding a silver lining if you look for it :) ...but there is nothing to stop any of the other insurance providers like NGO or SACS or BDS from providing a similar linking service to their GP members?

Alan
 

Roestalker39

Well-Known Member
anyone else seeing a situation arising whereby basc membership will become compulsory or no ticket granted?
deal with police chiefs over lunch perhaps?
that should swell member #,s and pension funds.
cynical,,,moi, never.

should I say goodbye now?
My thoughts exactly
 

scrumbag

Well-Known Member
I haven't been to my local GP for about 3 years. Last time I did, being treated for the same issue I got several doctors. ES, you might hope for a personal touch but not realistic. I think a medical record check is by far the easiest and fairest option.

Well done BASC!
 

BryanDC

Well-Known Member
As, or if I were, Chief Constable who wanted this additional certification I'd certainly not accept the above solution.

So I think BASC's kite won't fly. For a number of reasons.

No long intimacy between the applicant and the BASC GP being one.

So no past visual or verbal observations of any traits or "tics" the applicant may have shown in past times that his long term GP of course would know of.

So this...below:

As of course the BASC GP's opinion will be based ONLY in what was written in the records.

As the same wide discretion that supposedly exists (so no Judicial Review) will see Chief Constables reject the BASC GP's input I fear.

And being shown already as a "paper tiger" over Judicial Reviews BASC...if their GP's input is rejected? What then?
I am not sure I agree with you. As others have said, for the most part there is no personal contact with your GP any more. 9 years ago when I left the UK I went to the doctor once a year maybe and then it was always whoever was available. So I cannot see a difference in one qualified GP reading your notes or another.
 

riddick

Well-Known Member
I guess there will always be a cloud surrounding a silver lining if you look for it :) ...but there is nothing to stop any of the other insurance providers like NGO or SACS or BDS from providing a similar linking service to their GP members?

Alan
at this moment in time possibly not. further down the road ,,who knows?:)
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
SCRUMBAG it's what is observed and said within the Practice that is, or should be, an important part of the overall assessment. And that will involve input from not only the other GPs in the Practice (that see you when your own GP is unavailable) but also the Practice front desk staff and the Practice nurses.

But, yes, I rarely either see the same GP. In fact the last time I actually saw my named GP was in the local Co-operative. I did remark "Dr Milton...How nice to see you without actually having to be ill." My late father knew his GP since they both went, as boys, to the same public school and had him as his GP until his (my father's) death. And my GP when I was a boy.

Dr. Doleman was the man that when someone jumped on the running board of his car, late on the A6, in the 1930s pulled his .455 Webley Mk VI out of his car glove box with the words "Get back, and put your hands up or I'll plug you where you stand." For there were than at night many car jackings on that part of the A6.

He had a gun at the same 1,000 acre shoot that as, many many, years later well after he was dead, I did too. A fact I discovered from the old keeper in conversation. So I think he'd have been OK to sign my fitness attestation.
 
Last edited:

Dalua

Well-Known Member
SCRUMBAG it's what is observed and said within the Practice that is, or should be, an important part of the overall assessment. And that will involve input from not only the other GPs in the Practice (that see you when your own GP is unavailable) but also the Practice front desk staff and the Practice nurses.
I wonder whether this is correct? If it were, you'd think that the applicant's own GP would be placed under some obligation in law to complete the form - whereas in fact, they're allowed to 'opt out'.

Additonally, as far as I'm aware the the form that the GP is asked to complete requests a professional view of whether anything in the medical notes suggests that the applicant might be considered unsuitable to hold firearms.
I would hope that the receptionists, nurses, cleaners nor anyone else in the practice would be involved in this interpretation of the written record - nor that practice gossip would be solicited, far less find a place in the completed document.

If the GP had concerns which were unrelated to the contents of the medical notes, I guess they should feel obliged to let the FLD know, just as any member of the public should; but not via the form. And you'd not expect the GP to start canvassing for the opinons of his medically-unqualified colleagues.
 

mealiejimmy

Well-Known Member
As, or if I were, Chief Constable who wanted this additional certification I'd certainly not accept the above solution.

So I think BASC's kite won't fly. For a number of reasons.

No long intimacy between the applicant and the BASC GP being one.

So no past visual or verbal observations of any traits or "tics" the applicant may have shown in past times that his long term GP of course would know of.

So this...below:

As of course the BASC GP's opinion will be based ONLY in what was written in the records.

As the same wide discretion that supposedly exists (so no Judicial Review) will see Chief Constables reject the BASC GP's input I fear.

And being shown already as a "paper tiger" over Judicial Reviews BASC...if their GP's input is rejected? What then?
You may be right, but it would be interesting see reasons in writing from Firearms department for why they will not accept a BASC doctor letter.
Length of time registered with a GP is no reason for refusal, although the application form requires you to list all the GPs you have been registered with in the previous 5 years.
Many applicants never see their GP between FAC renewal periods so "visual or verbal observations of any traits or tics" is irrelevant.
Since a GP may not have seen the applicant in 5 or more years, how can the letter be completed other than by a review of the applicants medical record?
If the applicants GP has not seen the applicant for 5 or more years and the GP signs the letter, then why can't another GP who has no knowledge of the applicant other than their medical record not be equally qualified to sign the letter?
The whole fiasco is based on the police wanting a doctor (any feckin doctor) to sign a piece of paper saying that the applicant doesn't suffer from any of the medical conditions listed on the application form and that the doctor has no other reason to question the applicants suitability to hold an FAC/SGC.
It's an arse covering exercise for the police so they can blame someone else when a certificate holder goes doolally.

Cheers

Bruce
 
Last edited:

Dalua

Well-Known Member
It's an arse covering exercise for the police so they can blame someone else when a certificate holder goes doolally.
The arse-covering will go only as far as showing that at a particular point in time, a GP saw nothing in the medical notes that suggested unsuitablity to possess firearms.
I'm sure the Police and the GP's are well aware that unless the 'going doolally' was predictably to do with something that was actually in the medical notes, but which the GP negligently overlooked or misunderstood, then the GP couldn't reasonably be considered to be in any way responsible.
 

Top