Home Office to change Doctors Fee agreement, everyone to pay

[Dark Skies]

The usual piffle.

Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor, is taking a stand against this:

“Our shooting community are very responsible and want to work with us to ensure the safety of all."

Translation: 'Anyone that complains of our high-handed interpretation of guidance, the forced expense of the illusion of safety, and the meddling heel-dragging of GPs that impose their distaste for shooting sports clearly are not responsible, don't want to work with us, and therefore are clearly of dubious character.

I suspect the shooting community in his neck of the woods simply want to be left alone to enjoy their sport rather than indulge this BS.

https://www.lincs.police.uk/news-campai ... 77c9fa5ce5

[GeeRam]

The usual piffle.

Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor, is taking a stand against this:

“Our shooting community are very responsible and want to work with us to ensure the safety of all."

Translation: 'Anyone that complains of our high-handed interpretation of guidance, the forced expense of the illusion of safety, and the meddling heel-dragging of GPs that impose their distaste for shooting sports clearly are not responsible, don't want to work with us, and therefore are clearly of dubious character.

Exactly.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, divided we stand.

[joe]

Under the old system, there hasn’t been a crime committed by an unstable FAC holder who’s medical report wasnt made available before issuing an FAC ! The Durham case, wasn’t about medical records / reporting. It was a history of domestics which plod new about from the first time he applied
This is just a farse and should be scrapped

[Oddbod]

Funny how the doctors seemed to be against it on moral grounds and the fact that they didn't want the responsibilty of declaring people fit to own firearms.

Seems as soon as somebody waves some dosh under their noses all this dissappears.

My main issue is it is the police that require the report they should pay for it, secondly I do not trust the professionalism and integrity of doctors any more and think they would use this to further their own agendas if that was anti gun.

Scuba divers medical reports is to ensure their own safety, gun owners reports are to ensure public safety, that is comparing apples and oranges.

Indeed, so the public should pay for these reports.
I wonder how they'd feel if the true costs of pest control currently paid by shooters were passed on to them.
I'm guessing the amount would be in the hundreds of millions, if not more should time spent & travel costs be included.
I reckon my costs would run to several hundred pounds a year & I only cover three farms along with a mate.

[artiglio]

The rationale for the changes is public safety, which is all well and good, but the levels of risk to the public are extremely low.
In comparison there are around 120 deaths a year caused by disqualified drivers of whom there are around 180,000 ( according to google) , so wevhave a known group of individuals that as a result of their previous actions are banned from driving but who choose to ignore this and drive again resulting in a considerable loss of life and no doubt other damage/loss to society. But there appears to be little being done to reduce this and society accepts it.
There are around 600,000 ( very rough) sgc/fac holders who will not have been banned from having a certificate, and whom are responsible for very few fatalities. From the figures above around 400 deaths a year would seem a cut off point at which the focus should switch from banned drivers to firarm certificate holders.
An absurd comparison I agree but raises the question of society’s viewpoint. If nothing else a banned driver being found in possession or using a vehicle should at least be sentenced as harshly as someone caught in possession of a firearm illegally.

[GeeRam]

The rationale for the changes is public safety, which is all well and good, but the levels of risk to the public are extremely low.
In comparison there are around 120 deaths a year caused by disqualified drivers of whom there are around 180,000 ( according to google) , so wevhave a known group of individuals that as a result of their previous actions are banned from driving but who choose to ignore this and drive again resulting in a considerable loss of life and no doubt other damage/loss to society. But there appears to be little being done to reduce this and society accepts it.
There are around 600,000 ( very rough) sgc/fac holders who will not have been banned from having a certificate, and whom are responsible for very few fatalities. From the figures above around 400 deaths a year would seem a cut off point at which the focus should switch from banned drivers to firarm certificate holders.
An absurd comparison I agree but raises the question of society’s viewpoint. If nothing else a banned driver being found in possession or using a vehicle should at least be sentenced as harshly as someone caught in possession of a firearm illegally.

Sound logic.

However, the Home Office civil serpents and polititcians that dream up this s*** have all been on Govt training courses to have sound logic and common sense removed from their thought process.

[bradaz11]

i think before my next renewal comes around, I will be requesting a copy of my medical records from my gp, and will enclose them in my application. this way it should be £10, and the police can feel free to talk to my dr as aand when they feel like

[phaedra1106]

Currently going through this with Durham. My son is Autistic (Aspergers) and despite having shot safely for almost 12 years they are yet again (third time) dragging their feet about his SGC/FAC application.

He has three very supportive letters from his clubs which is more than most people applying have but they've cherry picked one line out of his psychiatrists report about not possibly recognising a dangerous situation that is identical to one they previously identified if the situation is slightly different. This isn't referred to as a problem with him, just a general aspect of some of the more pronounced types of Autistic spectrum disorders, Aspergers is a very mild form.

First they asked for a doctors letter, this we paid for and submitted. Next they wanted his full medical history, again they insisted we pay for this despite that clearly being in breach of the H.O. guidance,

10.24 If the applicant has declared a relevant medical condition (see list of relevant medical conditions in chapter 12) the police may ask the applicant to obtain and pay for a medical report to assist with their consideration of medical suitability. The medical report should normally be provided to police within one month of the request. If a further medical report is required the police will pay for this.

After yet another phone call to them they insisted on a further letter from his doctor saying he doesn't have any other medical conditions, agin I pointed out that should they actually read the original letter it says that very clearly.

As it stands I've written to the firearms supervisor and asked to put in writing exactly what it is they want to know or have clarified. Also why the one line in his report (which the vast majority of Autistic applicants don't even have) is being singularly applied to him?, they have several other FAC holders under them and none of them had this applied to their risk assessment. The National Autistic Society and North East Autism both say it's a form of disability discrimination.

It's now over a week since she said she'd look into it and get back to me, so far no reply.

[phaedra1106]

Apparently my last edit didn't go through :(

One thing I almost found funny, when talking to the girl doing his application she was very keen to stress how fair they were being, some forces would have just refused him straight away!.

She then went on to tell me about a lady who'd applied and was bipolar, she heard her give a talk about it and decided that she was OK!.

So, apparently someone with a chemically imbalanced brain that has to be managed by anti-psychotic medication that could change at any time is fine but someone with a low level unchanging lifelong condition that doesn't use any medication isn't?

[Plumose]

It is almost as though the people making the decisions based on medical reports don't have any medical training or understanding...