Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
If I thought that there was any possibility of this new tweak achieving any improvement to public safety then I would welcome it, but it's nothing more than a politician's knee jerk reaction which, if implemented, may make her look a little less useless.
The cornerstone of the existing system has, for many years, been the home visit made by the Firearms Licencing Officers on first application and renewal. These experienced, careful and steady people not only assess applicants and check the security arrangements and guns, they will also see any strange posters on the walls, signs of alcohol or drug use and anything else that may indicate unusual beliefs or conduct.
If they aren't completely happy they can then approach the applicant's GP for medical information (because the applicant has already agreed to this in writing). In the past, they were reluctant to do this routinely because it was the police who had to pay the cost of that enquiry, but following the Select Committee report into the Whitehaven shooting spree (Bird) the rule was tweaked so that it was the applicant who had to pay for any enquiry to the GP.
Different police forces interpreted the new guidelines differently. West Yorkshire (where I live) used this change correctly and as an extra string to their bow, requiring medical information only if necessary. Some other forces made it a requirement for every application and every renewal, which causes extra expense and extra delays for no gain.
As said before, the existing system works very well and on those very rare occasions when an unsuitable person has slipped through the net the fault has always been with the police failing to follow their own procedures, not with the actual procedures.
So, if it's going to be the GP who assesses me, what can she tell the police (assuming that she is even qualified to assess my mental health)? Well, I have actually met her twice because she is a diabetic specialist and I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, but these consultations were brief and she knows absolutely nothing about me. Other than that, she rings me every 3 months to talk about my care plan. My medical records don't help either, they're just data and prescription history, some of which is wrong anyway.
And, if these assessments are to be carried out by qualified psychologists (assuming that enough of them actually exist and that they can be spared from helping people who actually need their expertise) I would have thought that dodgy characters could deceive them fairly easily, assuming that the consultation is carried out by phone, online or anywhere other than in the home.
The cornerstone of the existing system has, for many years, been the home visit made by the Firearms Licencing Officers on first application and renewal. These experienced, careful and steady people not only assess applicants and check the security arrangements and guns, they will also see any strange posters on the walls, signs of alcohol or drug use and anything else that may indicate unusual beliefs or conduct.
If they aren't completely happy they can then approach the applicant's GP for medical information (because the applicant has already agreed to this in writing). In the past, they were reluctant to do this routinely because it was the police who had to pay the cost of that enquiry, but following the Select Committee report into the Whitehaven shooting spree (Bird) the rule was tweaked so that it was the applicant who had to pay for any enquiry to the GP.
Different police forces interpreted the new guidelines differently. West Yorkshire (where I live) used this change correctly and as an extra string to their bow, requiring medical information only if necessary. Some other forces made it a requirement for every application and every renewal, which causes extra expense and extra delays for no gain.
As said before, the existing system works very well and on those very rare occasions when an unsuitable person has slipped through the net the fault has always been with the police failing to follow their own procedures, not with the actual procedures.
So, if it's going to be the GP who assesses me, what can she tell the police (assuming that she is even qualified to assess my mental health)? Well, I have actually met her twice because she is a diabetic specialist and I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, but these consultations were brief and she knows absolutely nothing about me. Other than that, she rings me every 3 months to talk about my care plan. My medical records don't help either, they're just data and prescription history, some of which is wrong anyway.
And, if these assessments are to be carried out by qualified psychologists (assuming that enough of them actually exist and that they can be spared from helping people who actually need their expertise) I would have thought that dodgy characters could deceive them fairly easily, assuming that the consultation is carried out by phone, online or anywhere other than in the home.
. Almost all laws have unintended consequences.
