BASCing or not in reflected glory ?

[David BASC]

All the main shooting and countryside organisations have their own specific remit as set out in their constitution.

 

There is considerably more cooperation between the larger organisations now than there was even two years ago. On all the main issues facing shooting the organisations are singing from the same hymn sheet and each uses its own political and media resources to campaign on those issues as much as their resources allow.

 

Shooters are obviously much better off having a large shooting organisation representing their members and advising and lobbying government accordingly on shooting related issues that an anti shooting organisation or the RSPB for example, I am sure we can all agree with that!

 

But I cant see any shooting organisation getting so close to the political clique that it would sacrifice its members interests to maintain its political position, that would be commercial suicide for that organisation.

 

By the same token, targeting support from just one political party is equally dangerous.

 

Amalgamation of the organisations is not as straightforward as it may seem, because regardless of what the management of the organisations want, ultimately it will be down to the membership of the organisations who would have to vote on such a resolution at AGM, and over the last 19 years I have been closely involved, I can only think if two occasions when this was on the cards, once with BASC and the BFSS (as was) and once with the CPSA, NRA and NSRA. Neither proposal met with the agreement of the membership, and it went nowhere.

 

That's not to say it wont come up again or that it will not happen, but in the meantime what is very important is that the main organisations keep talking and keep a common front on the main issues.

 

David

[Grandalf]

You're missing the point I think. The fact I disagree with some decisions does not stop me supporting BASC as a whole. Or would it be better if we all took our bat and ball home everytime we failed to get our own way?

Paul T has hit this right on the head.

I was a member of WAGBI and was opposed to it becoming BASC - But it did. I still think the decision was wrong and that I, as a fowler, would be better served by an organisation that was only concerned with wildfowling.

I was appalled at the way BASC rolled over at the time of the lead shot ban. The law, as it stands in England and Wales, is ridiculous and everyone knows it but BASC are doing nothing to get it changed but only urge us to comply with it else we get even more draconian measures imposed upon us. That is not in my interest and I would suspect most members would agree with me.

Supporting greylag geese being added to the general list left me incandescent with rage and a feeling that fowlers have been betrayed by the very people that should be protecting their interests.

However, my very small (6 members) syndicate has been loyally supported by BASC during our ten years plus battle with Natural England for our fowling licence. I can't complain about the time and effort they have dedicated to our problems in the past. Unfortunately our battle continues and now the support is not as easily coming as it once was. Finances I suppose.

So I have to consider my position. I hold four BASC memberships every year. Two are because of membership of wildfowling clubs about which I have no say other than to raise a point at the AGM's. One is for my small wildfowling syndicate and the other is for my game syndicate of which I am the Shoot Captain. They all come down to needing insurance from someone. I really did not know what to do this year. I have now renewed all the memberships for this year because I just couldn't bring myself to leave the organisation that took over from my beloved WAGBI. Next year - well we'll see...

If BASC manages to upset me again in the way they did earlier this year then the decision is inevitable. I'll leave and get my insurance elsewhere.

I hope they get their act together and start representing the views of the majority of the BASC membership and not what they think will make them look good in the view of other organisations and government quangos and departments.

BASC, you are on very unsafe ground as far as my memberships are concerned - I watch every decision you make with great interest.

[Kes]

Whilst I think Harnser is right, who cares a bout one ex-member named Kes, he should just go.

I would also councel its a unwise complacency, which does not ask why things go wrong for people and a worse complacency not to acknowledge some things do go wrong and how perhaps things might change for the better. Open the details of exit interviews?

A final thought before I shut up on this (and I can see the posts which say thank god **** off.), where else do others hear of dissatisfaction with things such as this, than on a forum such as this.

It isnt BASC bashing, just as complaints about the NHS aren't unsupportive of that organisation. Change comes from listening or being forced.

For voluntary organisations, I suggest listening is better, and to every member. Therefore someone has to speak (hopefully sense). Being forced, results in and from factional splits and BASC have not done the best of jobs (in my humble estimation) in certain areas, wildfowling is one, despite good work as Grandalf and other shave said.

Reacting to those concerns by suggesting apparently justifiable approaches further alienates those who feel genuinely aggrieved. Opinions in shooting are won by experience usually, those opinions are solid enough and self-tested rigorously such that the best of information needs to be used to change them.

Arrogance or flimflam doesnt cut it. Worse still, the political expedient of finding someone or something blame worthy for self - protection.

 

Altruism isn't dead its just a very endangered ethic these days, I hope BASC doesnt lose it entirely.

 

Fini.

[David BASC]

All good points and personally fully taken on board.

 

BASC is a democratic organisation run by its members for its members, that's exactly what the constitution says, and that's exactly how it is.

 

I accept that some may see some of the decisions made by the BASC Council (committee) are not to their liking, but that's what will happen in any organisation large or small.

 

If you want to change BASC then work more closely with us, communicate with your elected Council, just walking away will not help at all will it, how can it?

 

 

David

[bakerboy]

good point well made

[Kes]

All good points and personally fully taken on board.

 

BASC is a democratic organisation run by its members for its members, that's exactly what the constitution says, and that's exactly how it is.

 

I accept that some may see some of the decisions made by the BASC Council (committee) are not to their liking, but that's what will happen in any organisation large or small.

 

If you want to change BASC then work more closely with us, communicate with your elected Council, just walking away will not help at all will it, how can it?

 

 

David

David,

I appreciate your words and the exact nature of your comments, in your place I would probably say the same thing and mean it (I hope). Its certainly better received than, ' **** off'.

 

A final thought if I may - if such a thing exists.

It would appear to me that what you say about being democratic and run by members is true (prima facie) but, a big one, there is a lot of open ground between many, even the majority of, individual members and Council.

 

If I can draw a military parallel (which is probably inappropriate), crossing that open ground depends upon the reception one might receive on the way. I would like to stay and help/encourage BASC to do better what it does and also should do, ( personal arrogance maybe, perhaps commitment to shooting).

Constructive critics, however constructive, see an entrenched position, the reception one would get is obvious, unless it chimes (open and defensive strategies)

There is no middle ground in which it is obvious (to me certainly) where members can mix, exchange views and reach concensus about possible change in a 'structured' way. Prejudices prevail. Other orgs have seen it and reacted to change perception. There are countless examples - its now a management byword.

Talking about things knocks off the harder edges but nevertheless offers new ideas.

 

May I suggest the idea of a regional forum ( I have never heard of one, if one exists). It would have a loose agenda of subjects offered but where any member can air faults/findings/future direction, even flattery - all would help.

It would have to attract all (sorts) and be genuinely inclusive (I dont like the word but you know what I mean) - so all members can feel comfortable exposing their weird and perhaps not so wonderful ideas before others, without criticism or challenge, or being put-down. PW has some of these flaws now and again, the resulting comments we have all seen.

 

It takes strong managers to thus expose their organisations to such potential scrutiny and criticism but I would argue the payback is worth it.

BASC will and should grow if it does things better, more inclusively and is lean, but fundamentally 'listens' better. Just answer me this- where is that listening without your comments on here, what would the average member get which would ellicit the best from them and their experience? They arent all on PW)

 

Just a personal perspective, as I do not currently feel able to help support beneficial change, even perhaps disenfranchised by perceived internal defensiveness.

For me the BASC strategy could be mistaken,(with one or two exceptions) to be defensive and not supportive. Greylags is an all too classic case.

Also, you are either 'in' or not, some who are 'in' leave much to be desired.

Organisations are judged by whom they are 'friendly' with. (no implied criticism here of the footsloggers at BASC), but NE, on their terms?

Others may be similarly afflicted,sharing some of these views. I know a number who do.

 

Thanks for the less than normally defensive discussion. My apologies for the complexity of comments, they reflect my own thoughts

 

Lastly, few quotes for amusement;

 

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a moulder of consensus. ( on bringing others together?)

“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” (first find - what is necessary?)

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." (once every new Chairman/CE is not often enough)

No amount of training can make a person a better listener UNLESS the person DECIDES to become a better listener. (its a culture thing - top to bottom)

 

Two are from Winston

 

Cheers.

[lister22]

Paul T has hit this right on the head. <

I was a member of WAGBI and was opposed to it becoming BASC - But it did. I still think the decision was wrong and that I, as a fowler, would be better served by an organisation that was only concerned with wildfowling.

I was appalled at the way BASC rolled over at the time of the lead shot ban. The law, as it stands in England and Wales, is ridiculous and everyone knows it but BASC are doing nothing to get it changed but only urge us to comply with it else we get even more draconian measures imposed upon us. That is not in my interest and I would suspect most members would agree with me.

Supporting greylag geese being added to the general list left me incandescent with rage and a feeling that fowlers have been betrayed by the very people that should be protecting their interests.However, my very small (6 members) syndicate has been loyally supported by BASC during our ten years plus battle with Natural England for our fowling licence. I can't complain about the time and effort they have dedicated to our problems in the past. Unfortunately our battle continues and now the support is not as easily coming as it once was. Finances I suppose

So I have to consider my position. I hold four BASC memberships every year. Two are because of membership of wildfowling clubs about which I have no say other than to raise a point at the AGM's. One is for my small wildfowling syndicate and the other is for my game syndicate of which I am the Shoot Captain. They all come down to needing insurance from someone. I really did not know what to do this year. I have now renewed all the memberships for this year because I just couldn't bring myself to leave the organisation that took over from my beloved WAGBI. Next year - well we'll see...

If BASC manages to upset me again in the way they did earlier this year then the decision is inevitable. I'll leave and get my insurance elsewhere.

I hope they get their act together and start representing the views of the majority of the BASC membership and not what they think will make them look good in the view of other organisations and government quangos and departments.

BASC, you are on very unsafe ground as far as my memberships are concerned - I watch every decision you make with great interest.

Sorry Grandalf

But why do you pay four times to be a member of basc or is there something I am missing

[Terry P]

One thing well 2 things I would like BASC to change.

Firstly I would like it to do away with this thing where what council say or how they vote is never revealed. I vote a member in I want to know how they have voted, did they vote how I would have liked. As it is they could do what they like and I would never be able to hold them to account or make an informed desiscion on weather I would choose to vote for then again. Its crazy.

Secondly, why can't the meeting be held on weekends as I believe many more people would stand for council if that was the case.

[EMcC]

I can speak neither way about BASC, I just pay my money and apart from a magazine that takes five minutes to read, I hear nothing from them or about them.

I have approached them on two occasions in the past expecting someone to do something for me but all I was told was the procedure to do it myself and come back if I had no joy.

I knew the procedure to sort the problem I had out, which could easily be found out by anybody, but I didn't want my name rocking the boat so was hoping somebody I pay to stand up for me would, but didn't.

I telephoned them and spoke to the person that is pushing or fronting these discounted vehicle and was talked to about Volvos !!

I have e mailed them twice recently reference the discount on vehicles and asked for specific information about Landrovers but haven't had a reply.

[David BASC]

Kes and Terry,

 

I will forward your thoughts about regional forums, and more transparency, I for one am all for members getting ore involved with their Council members whom they elect.

 

E McC, Some issues with firearm licencing departments for example must be taken up by the individual in the first instance , and once that contact is made them we can act on their behalf.

 

Some more information on the car deals we have are here: http://basc.org.uk/offers/basc-motoring-services/ Although we do not currently have a direct deal with Land Rover, Tyson Cooper , with whom we work on many of these deals, may be able to help.

 

David

[Tollerman]

lister 22. I would hazard a guess that Grandalf pays for four BASC memberships and receives a refund for three of them .Many clubs insist on BASC membership and indeed it is part of the annual subs you pay. However if you contact BASC head quarters they will refund any additional membership fees .

[EMcC]

David, It was you that told me the discount was direct from Landrover on top of any discount offered by the local dealer !

My local dealer knows nothing about nor have heard of BASC discounts.

I had already spoken ref my FC problem and hit a brick wall and was quoted from the Guidance to the Police as the final answer.

A change of staff at the time and I was refused the original quantities of ammunition that I had had for over ten years which I voluntarily reduced anticipating less usage due to retirement but wanted reinstating.

It was not resolved but the wording of my FC and my change of circumstances made it not worth chasing in the end.

[David BASC]

On the car discounts, which are handled by my colleague Nick, we have direct manufactures/ importer backing on all the brands on our website apart from Land Rover.

 

On the other makes, members can get better discounts over and above what the dealer can offer.

 

With Land Rover we have no such manufacture support which is why your dealer was not aware of it. I would always suggest you contact the dealer first to see what deal they can give you, and then, as it says on our web site, contact Tyson Cooper who will do all they can to better the deal.

 

Are you saying your firearm issue is now resolved and you are sticking to you voluntary reduction in ammunition holding?

[norfolk dumpling]

Sorry David it was wrong to say Eastern region was disbanded but by including within Central, where from events and reports there seems to be a bias away from the East it does seem we are rather isolated/neglected. Shooting is of huge importance here and it would be good for us to be given a little more support.

[Scully]

 

just walking away will not help at all will it, how can it?

 

 

David

A tad annoying that.

After many years of supporting BASC I think I'd given it my best shot, but being told each time I phoned about whatever matter was of concern to me "there's nothing we can do I'm afraid' .... 'it's a matter of compromise'..... 'there's not a lot we can do really, but if nothing has changed in 12 months let us know' ,,,, and the best one of all 'if I told you shooting would be banned within 5 years would you stop shooting tomorrow?' I confess this one totally flummoxed me and I still have no idea what it meant.

It wasn't as if I had a lot of problems ( I don't have any , touch wood ) but these are some of the responses I've had when enquiring of BASC at various times 'what are you going to do about .....etc'

Last time I phoned regarding the GP's report matter I was met with an aggressive 'well what would you like us to do?' Fair enough, but I assumed that as I was paying BASC to represent me as 'the voice of shooting' I thought perhaps they could tell me. To cut a very long story short the outcome was.....' Well, there's not a lot we can do really '.

It took me many years to ' just walk away' .

[Kes]

A tad annoying that.

After many years of supporting BASC I think I'd given it my best shot, but being told each time I phoned about whatever matter was of concern to me "there's nothing we can do I'm afraid' .... 'it's a matter of compromise'..... 'there's not a lot we can do really, but if nothing has changed in 12 months let us know' ,,,, and the best one of all 'if I told you shooting would be banned within 5 years would you stop shooting tomorrow?' I confess this one totally flummoxed me and I still have no idea what it meant.

It wasn't as if I had a lot of problems ( I don't have any , touch wood ) but these are some of the responses I've had when enquiring of BASC at various times 'what are you going to do about .....etc'

Last time I phoned regarding the GP's report matter I was met with an aggressive 'well what would you like us to do?' Fair enough, but I assumed that as I was paying BASC to represent me as 'the voice of shooting' I thought perhaps they could tell me. To cut a very long story short the outcome was.....' Well, there's not a lot we can do really '.

It took me many years to ' just walk away' .

You have a lot of patience - I'm just incredibly frustrated about "rate of change v uniform motion".

[David BASC]

Norfolk Dumpling, No problem, as I said I will pass you concerns and comments onto Steve, you regional director.

 

Scully, I have no idea who you spoke to and in what context the various replies were given, so I cant really comment.

 

However, I can say that the medical reports issue is one that is equally frustrating for us too, especially when the new HO guidance removed the very clear direction that it was the police who should pay if they wanted a medical report from your GP, and until this matter is resolved there is little we can do, unless of course the police have reacted wrongly or in an over zealous way, then we can and have done something on a case by case basis. The legal expenses insurance we now have is helping in this tremendously.

[neutron619]

However, I can say that the medical reports issue is one that is equally frustrating for us too, especially when the new HO guidance removed the very clear direction that it was the police who should pay if they wanted a medical report from your GP, and until this matter is resolved there is little we can do, unless of course the police have reacted wrongly or in an over zealous way, then we can and have done something on a case by case basis. The legal expenses insurance we now have is helping in this tremendously.

 

David,

 

You'll recall my comments from another recent thread so I don't propose rehashing them here.

 

However, regarding the medical reports, it would be hugely helpful, especially for those of us who disagree with the particular reasoning BASC have used, to have a summary published of how the law, the guidelines and all the other factors have been weighed up to influence BASC's response to this issue, and - if possible - to understand where there is room for manoeuvre or challenge of the police's current actions within the scope of those laws / guidelines / etc.

 

To me, it is clear - the chief of police is responsible for a refusal and the evidence given for it, so in my book he should pay. However, after repeated questioning, and what appears to me to be a refusal to acknowledge the contents of the firearms acts or anything I've said on the subject, you (on behalf of BASC) seem to disagree.

 

I am wholly prepared to stand up and say I'm wrong about all of this, but if I'm going to do the honourable thing and admit my mistake and apologise, I would very much like to understand what pieces of information I've been missing so as to fall into making it.

 

Since BASC's lawyers have no doubt read all of the relevant law and have decided that the current position is the best supportable one, please could BASC publish a half-page summary of their reasoning so that uninformed members and ex-members can at least understand in clear English how they got from "the Chief police is responsible for providing the evidence of an applicant's unsuitability" to "I must show I'm a suitable person to hold an SGC"?

 

If I and others received such an explanation, I'm sure we would all be a lot happier or at least, more content with the issue. We would understand why we've made a mistake in our reasoning and at least be able to reconcile ourselves to the idea that this is now "accepted practice" because we would be able to see, step by step - preferably with the relevant law referenced in the appropriate places - why what we thought was true is in fact not. Personally, if I see such a clear explanation of law / guidelines / etc. I will accept that my interpretation of the Firearms Acts has been too literal and I will certainly consider re-joining BASC which I very much would like to see (as I'm sure would many of those of us who have left) turn into an effective and powerful voice for the protection and advancement of shooting in this country.

 

(By saying all of this I merely wish to state what it is I'd like explained to me and why I think it would be helpful. I am specifically not intending to complain, belittle or otherwise provoke David or any other BASC members into an argument about the organisation's value, which I continue to recognise.)

 

Adam.

Edited September 1, 2014 by neutron619

[Scully]

The legal expenses insurance we now have is helping in this tremendously.

Is that it? No elaboration?

[Kes]

I would also like to know how many cases it has helped in and why we havent heard more of this to date ? Information is perhaps, again .....lacking ?

[David BASC]

Neutron, please let me start by saying that BASC do not think that the way some foreces seem to be asking for medical reorts almost as a matter of course is a good thing, nor do we think it its supportable.

 

However as I have said before, it is now, as it always has been, the case that if an applicant puts anything on their from or says anything at interview, or some other evidence comes to light that castes doubt on their suitability to possess firearms on medical grounds, the Police are entitled to ask for a doctors report. Under the old HO guidance it was clear that in these cases the police had to pay. Under the new guidance there is no such instruction, that's the big issue, and one that we are trying to resolve.

 

However, you point about more information on the overall situation on medical reports, as opposed to the specific issues we have dealt with at Durham is a good one, and I will ask for such a summary to be produced.

 

Scully, many forces are very cooperative and will work with us and the member when there is a risk of refusal to grant, vary or renew. Others are far less so, so the only alternative is to lodge a formal appeal , and only when this is lodged will the police release the full bundle of information, the cost to review this bundle in preparation for the court case is costly, it can be several thousand pounds, and having the legal expenses policy in place means we can get such cases reviewed by expert layers very quickly.

 

Kes, The policy has only been in place since April, there are currently 26 cases in various stages of appeal, and not all have gone to court yet, but there were 2 in June that were successful although they never got to court, and there are three more that are very close at the moment. The two June successes were reported on the BASC web site, in the BASC bites section...

[Scully]

Thanks for the explanation David; I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression the legal expenses insurance help was forthcoming in the GP's report issue and not, as you state in your last post, due to a possible risk of a refusal to grant.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Scully

[Kes]

David,

 

Below are 2 statements you have made recently. The first I like because it seems to be more honest. The second, forgive me, is flimflam. I know you are first and last a BASC employee and that you get frustrated etc but the message in these two statements is not the same, nor with the same emphasis. The first says nothing about what BASC is doing, the second implies all is well BASC is sorting it - successfully.

Maybe I'm picky but selling BASC is not the same as representing BASC, the first is merely a consequence of doing the second well, IMHO. I'd like to see a lot more of the second and none of the first - as a starting point. Listening is not shouting down criticism. Let people draw their own conclusions. If you have to tell people how successful you are - you are probably not. If your members say how successful you are, not by propoganda but by believing it, You are on a real winner.

 

 

BASC do not think that the way some foreces seem to be asking for medical reorts almost as a matter of course is a good thing, nor do we think it its supportable.

 

We're told on another thread that, (BASC are) "resisting compulsory medical reports - successfully".

[Grandalf]

Sorry Grandalf

But why do you pay four times to be a member of basc or is there something I am missing

Because each of the mentioned shooting groups obtain their insurance from BASC. I have to pay the membership fee of which part is my BASC membership through that club or syndicate. Then, eventually, BASC reimburses me for three of the membership fees by placing the cash back into my bank account. All of us, well except the super rich, with multiple memberships operate like this.

[webber]

Kes

 

Have you left BASC yet?

 

webber