Jump to content

Country club services or BASC


The birdman
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have worked with ACPO and licencing teams and many have significantly improved their service, but there are some who are frankly awful and we continue to do all we can to get them to improve.

 

We have fought the compulsory medical report and will continue to do so.

 

Although pistol shooting was not in our immediate remit, that was the role of the NPA, it was only BASC that was prepared to go live on TV that day to defend pistol shooting, it was only BASC that fielded staff to do live interviews on TV the following days, it was BASC that fought for 22's to remain, although I accept the Labour land slide put an end to that. :sad1:

 

Which other organisation constantly steps up to the plate to defend and promote shooting in the media when it comes under attack? Perhaps you did not see the BASC shotgun coach live on BBC TV this morning promoting how safe and well run shooting is in the UK, and how its important for young people to be allowed to take up shooting?

 

On helping shooters with licencing problems, so far this year we have resolved successfully literally hundreds of licencing problems for our members. We have around 12 cases at the moment on appeal waiting to go to court

 

On licencing conditions we were responsible for the new HO guidance including the AOLQ condition on S1, and yes we have always said that its the person who should be licenced

 

To say that BASC's position, especially under the new CEO is that 'we will not bother' is a ludicrous suggestion!

 

Good luck finding another organisation that delivers even half what BASC does...

 

David

 

David any chance you could have a look over this link http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/289333-merseyside-firearms-unit/ and let us know what is going on regarding the medical reports as the reply from BASC didn't sound like they were fighting it at all infact it sounds like they have given in and rolled over for the police to do as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case stokie's comments were directed at me:

 

 

I didn't say all the stuff I said above because I wanted to raise a flag or have a go at David or any of the other BASC staff - I want to be able to find a reason to remain a member, but at the moment, I'm not seeing the kind of robust campaigning and political intervention that I'm paying for.

 

I hope that that indicates the overall tone of what I've been saying, which I hope has come across as disappointed but constructive, rather than disappointed and wanting to have a go.

 

From reading David's comments and contrasting them to my own and others', it's seems the real picture is probably a lot more "grey" than any of us want to admit. For my part, I don't feel that they're doing enough on the big issues, but then that's one of the things I'm interested in and that's just my opinion.

 

The same is true in reverse - I don't benefit particularly from their wildfowling work, for example, (much as I'd like to go fowling often) because I live in the middle of the country, the nearest marsh is 50-60 mins drive away and I can't find the time to go once (let alone sustain going regularly) at the moment because I have a young child and knackered wife who need my support. I don't get the benefit of the insurance as (for example) I don't shoot power lines (though I'm not saying I'd ever allow myself to be uninsured) and by and large I've managed my applications myself, so much of what they do / have done has had no relevance to me.

 

I guess the mismatch between what I want to do and what BASC are doing plays a part in my dissatisfaction. If I started to see more statements of intent saying that issues widely relevant to the whole (or a majority of the) shooting community were going to be addressed, I might think about spending the money again. Licensing the person, doing away with the ridiculous post code lottery that we have for rifle calibres, etc. Nothing much ever seems to happen about those big things - "discussions are continuing" but having a policy is not the same as aggressively pursuing it. I'm sure that other people have other interests and needs and feel that they have been better served than I have.

 

Ultimately, this all seems to be about communication. If BASC are doing all these great things, we need to hear more about it. As I've said above, little of what they have done has affected me so I probably haven't got a clear picture, but I would hope that some of those involved could start getting onto forums like this one and talking about what they're doing.

 

Publishing things on the BASC website is fine, but it's passive, and again, my view is we need BASC to be proactive - in action and in telling us about it. I fully recognise all the time that David spends on this forum and others, answering queries and giving BASC's view, but there are more than just him in the organisation. Why don't we see other BASC staff popping onto PigeonWatch and giving us updates on what they're doing? There are many departments in the organisation - couldn't one member of each find the time to log on and write a couple of lines every now and again saying "this month we're working on XYZ - no promises, but we'll see what we can do" or something?

 

For those of us who get most of our shooting news "on the grapevine" (i.e. via forums and talking to each other), hearing from more than just David would be a valuable thing and would give us the impression of there being more "activity". It might go some way to countering what has been my experience of the last 12 months or so, which is largely hearing where BASC has compromised unnecessarily on this issue, or has rolled over on that. It's all been a bit underwhelming, frankly. Again - I recognise that my own personal experience is not broadly representative.

Edited by neutron619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its part of my role to come on forums to answer questions etc, taking a brief from different members of staff, even at weekends, in the evening, and days like today when I am on leave.

 

We post a snapshot of what the different teams are doing on a monthly basis on our web site

 

What issues in the last 12 months have we 'compromised unnecessarily on?

 

I will take a look at the other thread and respond later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whilst recognising that I'm not as qualified as you to speak about this, medical reports are the obvious answer. The reaction from BASC (and all the other shooting organisations) has been rather muted to say the least. I'm sure you're aware of the arguments, but for the benefit of others, I'll recount my thinking.

 

  • Everyone in the country has a right to a shotgun certificate unless the Chief Officer of Police for the local area can show a reason why they cannot be entrusted to hold one.
  • It therefore follows from this that it is the Chief Officer's duty to demonstrate why the medical condition of a given applicant makes them unfit to possess a shotgun certificate, if the Chief Officer believes that to be the case and is inclined not to grant the certificate.
  • The guidelines, which are not the law, are silent on the issue of who should pay for this, but the implication of the law is clear. Let me repeat the significant portion: "unless the Chief Officer of Police for the local area can show a reason why they cannot be entrusted to hold one". This is unambiguous - it is the Chief Officer's responsibility to show evidence against, not the applicant's responsibility to prove suitability.
  • In other cases where the police have a duty to provide evidence, the police are required to allocate resources to the investigations which will provide them with that evidence - i.e. to prosecute criminals. There is of course no discussion, publically or otherwise, as to whether they should or should not pay for this.
  • Criminals, against whom sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be compiled, are presumed to be innocent.

I'm sure you see the point I'm making, but in case it isn't clear, let me spell it out.

 

The police provide a public service, investigating crime and gathering evidence to prosecute criminals. This work is paid for out of their budget and is expense effectively made on behalf of criminals for the benefit of society. The public gain great benefit from this.

 

The police provide another public service, administering the licensing of firearms and gathering evidence to prevent those who are perhaps unsuitable (but not necessarily criminal) from having access to firearms. The public gain great benefit from this.

 

Let us consider the persons under investigation: one is possibly (or even probably) a criminal, but presumed innocent and upstanding until the police can prove otherwise. One is almost certainly not a criminal, but is now presumed innocent and upstanding only if they can afford to pay to prove otherwise, since the implication from some forces has been that if a medical report is not provided, a certificate will not be granted.

 

From a legal and moral point of view, this is insupportable.

 

Ownership of firearms and shotguns is not, as someone from BASC was recently quoted as saying, a privilege. It is our right. The requirement of medical reports paid for by the applicant absolves the Chief Officer of responsibility for proving unsuitability and places the onus on the applicant to prove their suitability. This is not what the law states, or what the spirit of the law intends.

 

If the Chief of Police cannot be bothered or cannot afford to demonstrate that an applicant is unsuitable, the law is clear - a certificate must be granted. They may have to answer to their superiors for that attitude, but that is what the law demands. Since the point of law on which this question turns is clear even to an untrained layman like myself, it cannot be hard or difficult work for a trained lawyer in the employ of BASC to bring a winnable case which would clarify the legal position.

 

This issue is certainly something which can and ought to be challenged pro-actively in court and I have not the faintest idea why BASC is not doing so.

Edited by neutron619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that a few people took a pop at me for not responding on that thread...well the simple fact was that for the best part of three weeks at the end of July and beginning of August I was either working away or out of the country...however no one bothered to call me, PM me or email me...but happy to have a pop... was it ever thus!

 

At the moment, the issue is that the old Home Office guidance made it clear that the police had to pay for medical reports. Under the new guidance there is no such recommendation, ie its silent on who pays. ACPO have told all constabularies that after reviewing an applicants form, if there is anything on there that rings alarm bells regarding their medical history, and after properly risk assessing, the police can ask for a medical report and that the onus is on the applicant to pay. If this should happen I would recommend that the applicant contacts the licencing team to ask exactly why a report is required, and what the issue is.

 

However, at the same time ACPO made it clear that there should be no blanket policies. Several forces have tried to introduce blanket polices, requiring people to send in medical reports, this has been fought and defeated by BASC.

 

Similarly, where the police have over reacted, we have fought and won for our members on an individual basis.

 

All updates on this very important issue will be in the BASC mag and on the web site

 

However there is still, in some areas, an uneven approach and this is something we are meeting the ACPO, HO and others to sort out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After having a moan about not being able to find anything regarding cancelling membership, have just this morning received a very nice letter from BASC in response to my query regarding this some time ago, confirming the cancellation of my membership. More than a little sad to be honest, but there you go, done now.

I've had some good times while a member, and taking loads of kids to YSD's and Improvers days over the years has been great fun ( remember I almost shut a Colonel/Majors (?) fingers in the breech once as he loaded for me on an Improvers Day I'd taken some kids to!) and remember fondly Jean Pugh and others I'd got to know fairly well over the years, but I sincerely believe that the survival of the organisation has taken precedence over all else now and as such the 'voice of shooting' is afraid to shout. The last two conversations I had with Alasdair Mitchell and Mike Eveleigh confirmed it for me really.

Have BASC stated on a nationwide scale to Police authorities everywhere that they have advised all members to not comply with extraneous demands come renewal/ application times for instance ? If they have then I've missed it, as have some licensing authorities seemingly. Admittedly none of the others have either, and I have been informed that some members of CPSA have been asked 'how much do you want your license?' in reference to complying and paying GP's reports. But at least the NGO have informed their members when faced with this, that they should ask for the individuals badge number, rank, position, name or otherwise and they will then respond with a view to that person acting outside statutory requirements and harassment of said applicant.

After saying all that, if you shoot you should be insured, and if you shoot you should be a member of the organisation which you feel best represents your interests, but at the same time you should give them a bloody hard time if you feel they aren't delivering or up to the job. As in any other business, we pay for results, if they aren't forthcoming, you take your business elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, and not withstanding Post #31, I can't help feeling that often the somewhat glib or 'political' type answers that BASC gives to the points/criticisms raised indicate that the organisation simply isn't listening.

 

The wish to ensure its (BASC) survival has been mentioned. It will do so provided the new intake matches or exceeds those departing to pastures new - a bit like Pigeon Watch really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge I have never given glib or political answers, I have always tried my best to a blunt open and honest.

 

You are spot on that for BASC to grow we need to take in more members then we loose, and that's exactly what's happening.

 

And yes members should let me know what they are not happy to want my help and support to try and fix things, that's what I am here for. By all means come on here or other forums and post your compliant, but please get in touch with me directly and I will promise to do all I can to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that a few people took a pop at me for not responding on that thread...well the simple fact was that for the best part of three weeks at the end of July and beginning of August I was either working away or out of the country...however no one bothered to call me, PM me or email me...but happy to have a pop... was it ever thus!

 

At the moment, the issue is that the old Home Office guidance made it clear that the police had to pay for medical reports. Under the new guidance there is no such recommendation, ie its silent on who pays. ACPO have told all constabularies that after reviewing an applicants form, if there is anything on there that rings alarm bells regarding their medical history, and after properly risk assessing, the police can ask for a medical report and that the onus is on the applicant to pay. If this should happen I would recommend that the applicant contacts the licencing team to ask exactly why a report is required, and what the issue is.

 

However, at the same time ACPO made it clear that there should be no blanket policies. Several forces have tried to introduce blanket polices, requiring people to send in medical reports, this has been fought and defeated by BASC.

 

Similarly, where the police have over reacted, we have fought and won for our members on an individual basis.

 

All updates on this very important issue will be in the BASC mag and on the web site

 

However there is still, in some areas, an uneven approach and this is something we are meeting the ACPO, HO and others to sort out

 

But you see David, everything you've just said is an illustration of my problem with BASC's approach to these things.

 

I read it and I think "ooh - this is nice, sugar and honey and rainbows and unicorn farts" but then I get to the end and realise that it has the same underlying defeatist attitude that we've seen so far from BASC on this issue.

 

Behind every statement you've made is the assumption that it is acceptable or legal for the police to ask an applicant to pay for a medical report when the law is quite clear - it is not. I'm not talking guidelines or minutes from FLWG meetings or ACPO memos - I'm talking about the law as in the Firearms Acts 1956, 1991 and etc. It's quite clear: it is the Chief Officer's responsibility to show why an applicant it unfit to be trusted with a shotgun - and in my book "his responsibility" means "he pays".

 

The alternative that we have now is that applicants are now to be charged for the privilege of having their certificate applications denied. That is neither lawful, nor fair and BASC should be kicking up a stink about it, not conceding the major point and then promising to do what they can for those who run into trouble with the minutiae.

Edited by neutron619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, and not withstanding Post #31, I can't help feeling that often the somewhat glib or 'political' type answers that BASC gives to the points/criticisms raised indicate that the organisation simply isn't listening.

 

No, it's not just you; it is the impression I've had for some time now. I find it very, very disappointing and frustrating. There just appears to be a very real reluctance on an organisational level, to commit past a certain point. I am totally convinced there is a real reluctance to 'rock the boat' for fear of upsetting powerful allies. Such a shame.

But anyhow, that's just my opinion. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not just you; it is the impression I've had for some time now. I find it very, very disappointing and frustrating. There just appears to be a very real reluctance on an organisational level, to commit past a certain point. I am totally convinced there is a real reluctance to 'rock the boat' for fear of upsetting powerful allies. Such a shame.

But anyhow, that's just my opinion. Time will tell.

 

I'm afraid I agree. I found David's reply to have that same sickly sweet flavour of "we're doing all we can" whilst feeling (as I said above) that they've missed the major point of contention completely and allowed it to pass unchallenged.

 

One wonders whether, now we have to pay for medical reports, the police will reimburse us the cost of doctor's fees paid when they refuse our applications in the same way that they return the £50. Somehow I think I know the answer, which means we're now having to prove our suitability, not have them prove us unsuitable. The law seems to be disregarded by the police and our shooting organisations alike - as you say - they won't go past a certain point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You are spot on that for BASC to grow we need to take in more members then we loose, and that's exactly what's happening.

 

 

AS you admit that BASC is losing members, has the reason why ever been looked into? Disregarding those who left as they 'retired' from the sport, has, for example, BASC ever contacted them to find out why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid I agree. I found David's reply to have that same sickly sweet flavour of "we're doing all we can" whilst feeling (as I said above) that they've missed the major point of contention completely and allowed it to pass unchallenged.

 

One wonders whether, now we have to pay for medical reports, the police will reimburse us the cost of doctor's fees paid when they refuse our applications in the same way that they return the £50. Somehow I think I know the answer, which means we're now having to prove our suitability, not have them prove us unsuitable.

 

The law seems to be disregarded by the police and our shooting organisations alike - as you say - they won't go past a certain point.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are doing all we can:

Resisting compulsory medical reports - successfully

Meeting with ACPO to drive a uniform and fair approach

Meeting with the Home Office to get full support of this and clarity in the Guidance

Dealing at Ch Constable level with authorities that try to introduce blanket policies

Running training course in constabularies

Dealing on a case by case basis with members who have issues

Using some of the top lawyers and barristers specialising in firearms law to ***** cases

Challenging by way of legal appeal in cases where the police have acted wrongly

 

And all that is going to be dismissed by you guys as simply 'sikly and sweet' :no:

 

The vast majority of applications and renewals go through without a hitch and without any further investigation needed, only when the applicant writes something on their form or says something at interview, or in some other way is brought to the attention of the licencing teams which casts some doubt on their suitability to own firearms will further investigation be warranted, that's they way its always been hasn't it?

 

The only thing that has changed recently is the disagreement between the BMA and ACPO as to who pays in the event of a medical report being requested, and that specific issue needs more work, and that's exactly what BASC are doing.

 

David

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has gone way off track and will now close.

 

There are many, many threads available through the search function where the relative merits of the various organizations' insurance packages are discussed in great depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...