Thames Valley Police to insist on paid GP report

[JMikeyH]

Why’s that jimbo?

What was it I said that puts me with the antis?

I personally feel you made a concise point. My only issue with this system is that the GPs seem to charge whatever the f**k they want or sometimes don't comply at all!

 

[JMikeyH]

Hmm let’s see the references to hungerford and dunblane ? I’m not advocating anyone with serious mental health problems having access to firearms but at the end of the day these conditions have always been mandatory to report to the police while applying for a cert and checked with the doc , the way you speak and welcome this stuff makes me Think you must be either and anti or work for basc ? ( which let’s be fair ain’t much different )

Hungerford WAS done with legally owned firearms. Perhaps mental health screening back in 1987 could've stopped the loss of 16 innocent lives

 

[jimbo1984]

Hungerford WAS done with legally owned firearms. Perhaps mental health screening back in 1987 could've stopped the loss of 16 innocent lives

My point being these days a doctor is always contacted , it’s the charging part that I don’t agree with and that basc seems to welcome

 

[finnbear270]

Hungerford WAS done with legally owned firearms. Perhaps mental health screening back in 1987 could've stopped the loss of 16 innocent lives

Hungerford was not just an issue with one problem individual.

 

[JMikeyH]

My point being these days a doctor is always contacted , it’s the charging part that I don’t agree with and that basc seems to welcome

I agree, that needs to be set in stone to either be free or a reasonable price, under 30 quid or so. And "conscientious objection " cannot bean option either!

 

[User00025]

Hungerford was not just an issue with one problem individual.

Spot on Finn, the police hesitated instead of making that one call which could have saved lives. Big,Bad, mistake.

 

[kes]

Well how patronising, imbecilic and unworthy of BASC.
I urge the CEO to change BASC's approach - take legal advice and go for it or, let us see (or your members) the legal justification for not going for JR, the reasons why you are not taking forward the test cases you pleaded for and a detailed explanation why this response to a BASC member can be justified.

This is not the voice of shooting we need its the timorous wee beastie of a reply, without Burns concern for the mice, let alone members.
BASC is heading downhill with its foot on the throttle - every shooter will need a medical, thats a lot of money and I urge all shooters to save the BASC membership fee and go for private insurance, since your organisation has sold you down the river.
It isnt even correct - every, yes every, mass killing at the hands of a licence shooter was stoppable and failed to be prevented by the Police. Hungerford the exception but from the police investigation no-one could have predicted or stopped that.
Durham, Cumbria (Bird), Dunblane (Hamilton) all obvious and all failures - why now will paying for a medical make that better ? I apologise to the lady officer who tried to stop Hamilton, she deserves special respect.
BASC's view was that there should be no increase in Licence fees until e -forms and efficiencies had been made available by all police forces so why now capitulate and ask EVERYONE for an extra £30-£200 because it will make everyone safer - when it clearly cannot.
If their firearms licensing team take this view they should all be sacked for lacking the intelligence to mount an effective and much needed defence of shooting, even with the facts to support their case.
Bird's firearms were returned to him. Hamilton should have been refused.

It is clearly obvious that the 'political route' BASC justified this stance with, is really reaping the rewards - with statements like that from BASC's firearms people.
I cannot state this clearly enough, unless do something they absolutely do NOT deserve YOUR support.
If you are a BASC member you are paying to support this - demand action or go down with it.

Sorry I cant keep stating the obvious - I'm out.

 

[Finbarn]

Hmm let’s see the references to hungerford and dunblane ? I’m not advocating anyone with serious mental health problems having access to firearms but at the end of the day these conditions have always been mandatory to report to the police while applying for a cert and checked with the doc , the way you speak and welcome this stuff makes me Think you must be either and anti or work for basc ? ( which let’s be fair ain’t much different )

“The way I speak & welcome this stuff” - well thanks for explaining that so clearly.

No I’m neither an anti nor a basc worker. Just as much a passionate shooter as you Jimbo just with a different perspective on it all.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

My point being these days a doctor is always contacted , it’s the charging part that I don’t agree with and that basc seems to welcome

Spot on jimbo. thumb..

 

[enfieldspares]

No one objects to input from one's GP. What I, and others, object to is that the cost of this hasn't been quantified AND that supposedly the 'deal' that the 'authorative voice for shooting' were boasting was agreed was a ten year FAC and/or FAC in return.

 

[Orion]

No one objects to input from one's GP. What I, and others, object to is that the cost of this hasn't been quantified AND that supposedly the 'deal' that the 'authorative voice for shooting' were boasting was agreed was a ten year FAC and/or FAC in return.

You forget about the keystone to the whole medical evidence scheme, which was to be that the GPs would place ‘an enduring marker’ on the applicant’s records so that they could flag up to police if anything went awry.

There has been no agreement from the medicos to do so, nor is there any enforcement to ensure they do. Without the guarantee of that marker the whole shebang is worthless and we are effectively paying through the nose for nothing.

 

[Benelli m2]

So is this instead of the medical records that are asked for currently

 

[Benelli m2]

Put yourself in the place of the Chief Officer of Police who has to comply with the following when granting licences to complete strangers to possess firearms....would I like to take on board this responsibility, no thanks, when something goes wrong you’ll carry the blame & have the responsibility placed at your door...

“The Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and Home Office Guidance states that before granting or renewing a firearm/shot gun certificate the Chief Officer of Police needs to be satisfied that applicants can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/shot guns/ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Details that are required in order to make an informed decision on an applicant’s suitability, includes information relating to their medical history.”

The form everyone’s getting so excited about looks like this....apart from names, addresses, dates etc.

View attachment 130689

Is there really anyone here who thinks it’s an unreasonable imposition on our sport for the police & medical profession to consider these when handing out certificates to buy firearms. I don’t. This seems quite sensible & the bare minimum I’d want to know if I were the chief officer of police signing off a stack of FACs.

I don’t know about anybody else but I’d not want anyone with the above issues to be holding firearms & we’d all rightly gutted if someone with one of these conditions was to use their legally held firearm in a way that brought our sport into disrepute & attracted emotionally charged calls to further restrict firearm ownership.

Surely it’s better to have sensible, proportionate & proactive measures in place to filter out those unsuitable to hold guns than fight against any change on the basis on a paranoia fuelled conspiracy theory that the establishments coming for our guns & any change is bad.

We should embrace anything that prevents another Dunblame or Hungerford from drawing more negative attention to firearm ownership, if anything’s going to accelerate an end to our sport it’s a pile of the general public shot up by a legitimate firearms owner.

Personally, working in construction, an industry over run with form filling & box ticking, this form is a stroll in the park for a doctor. I paid £25 on my renewal for my Dr to do a reference - £5 a year - bargain!

I thought the BASC statement was fair do’s under the circumstances so fair play to them. It’s too easy just to keep bashing these guys, maybe the odd bit of support could help......?

So do the police send you the form or what

 

[mealiejimmy]

So is this instead of the medical records that are asked for currently

The police do not now or have ever, asked to see an applicants medical records.
The police make it clear that what they want is the written opinion of a registered medical professional with regard to the suitability of the applicant in relation to the list of medical conditions on the application form plus any other medical conditions the medical professional feels is pertinent to the application.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[imnotrucknut]

Hungerford WAS done with legally owned firearms. Perhaps mental health screening back in 1987 could've stopped the loss of 16 innocent lives

You mean aswell as the complaints to police by the people that he threatened with guns

 

[B&W FOX]

I see this is up on the BASC home page, just when all ticket holders in the Manchester area thought they were safe.......

BASC urges GMP not to pre-empt government consultation
Jun 21, 2019

BASC is urging Greater Manchester Police (GMP) not to pre-empt a government consultation after the force announced it would be changing its firearms licensing policy from next month.
GMP has said that from July 1st it wants a GP to verify the medical information provided by those seeking firearm and shotgun certificates at the point of application, which is a significant deviation on a previously agreed national protocol.
But the Home Office is not due to open its consultation on firearms – including medical involvement in licensing – until next month.
BASC is seeking an urgent meeting with the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police to discuss concerns about the change in policy which will unduly penalise the vast majority of applicants.
Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms, said: “It seems bizarre that GMP should choose to introduce new policy ahead of the Home Office opening a consultation on that very issue.
“When government has said it will be calling for the views of key stakeholders before making statutory or legislative changes, it is entirely reasonable to expect those stakeholders would not pre-empt that consultation.

“The lawful, legitimate firearms community in Manchester will be rightly aggrieved that its police force is making unnecessary, punitive changes to policy without letting government do its work first.”

GMP’s change in policy runs contrary to Home Office guidance for England and Wales and will be in breach of an agreement made in 2016 by the Home Office Medical Evidence Working Group which clearly set out that medical involvement would only be necessary if an applicant declared a relevant condition on their initial application form.
Mr Harriman added: “The vast majority of applicants do not have such conditions, but the changes proposed by GMP will likely see everyone being forced to pay up for their GPs to review their medical records, regardless of whether they actually have medical issues that required further investigation.

“This is an unnecessary burden on GPs and inherently unfair on the vast majority of applicants who will now be forced to pay for another layer of bureaucracy they don’t actually need.”

GMP say the change will affect new shotgun and firearm applications submitted from 1st July 2019 and any renewal from 1st October 2019.
For more information, click here.

CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK !!!!!!!

 

[Orion]

Errr, so what did they do when the other Police Forces introduced the exact same policies?

Paper Tigers comes to mind.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Errr, so what did they do when the other Police Forces introduced the exact same policies?

Paper Tigers comes to mind.

Should have been at least challenged in Scotland to see the outcome.
Hard to believe that less than a year ago our English members were advising each other to ignore any request for medical fees.☹
Now we are all on the same boat which has been holed below the water line..

 

[Benelli m2]

Plod don't want us to have guns do they it stands out a mile and they will make it harder with Thier own ****ing rules

 

[Orion]

Do the BASC employees Mr Perring and Mr Harriman actually speak to one another, or is the Marford Mill complex now so vast that communication is difficult, if not impossible? How otherwise can the totally contrary messages to their membership be explained?