INSURANCE

[IanClark]

SACS is delighted to announce that as of noon today (14 october 2009), our Public Liability Insurance cover has been increased from £5 million to £10 million at no extra cost to our membership.

 

SACS also remains the ONLY countrysports organisation to provide the vital £100,000 legal fees insurance to all of our members.

[garyb]

whoop de doo

[perfect]

Good to know cheers for that i will be renewing mine soon.

[David BASC]

Ian,

 

Could post post me a copy of you liability policy and legal expenses policy please? If you have an electronic copy then by all menas e-mail it.

 

Glad to hear that SACS have caught up with all the other orgs that have been offering £10 M for a few years now

 

Ta

 

David

[McF]

:unsure: Dont you just love the guys at SACS nice one Dave

[PaulABF]

Ian are you still doing discount for PW members like you did the other year?

[David BASC]

I think SACS membership is cheap as it is dont you! :blink:

[Boromir]

I think SACS membership is cheap as it is dont you! :blink:

 

And I think BASC is as expensive as it is. And guessing that it will rise again when out of the recession.

 

How many threads I have read about Dont Bash BASC but look you do the same to others how stupid

[magman]

I think SACS membership is cheap as it is dont you! :blink:

 

May be cheap david but who was it that advised certain people that the hmr was not suitable for fox and also brought foward the need dsc1 :blink:

[markbivvy]

And I think BASC is as expensive as it is. And guessing that it will rise again when out of the recession.

 

Dont think they will wait that long,but they can always send out more begging letters. :blink:

 

SACS is taking its toll on the bigger organisation,s members numbers that why so many of them are crying. :blink:

[mayfly36]

And worth every penny they get "S.A.C.S". I will be renewing again next year, ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT. :blink:

[monkeyboots]

,

Edited May 5, 2010 by monkeyboots

[Bazooka Joe]

Just in time for Nov 1st Ian, my renewal.

 

BJ.

[David BASC]

Not sure how me suggesting that SACS membership is cheap enough without further discounts is ‘bashing’ them? I think they are cheap enough without further discounts. All well and good asking for your membership fee to be discounted even more but all you do is starve the association of resources. :blink:

 

Yes BASC is more expensive, and yes our membership fee is likely to rise by a couple of quid next March, but BASC is a very different product that’s why it costs more. But if you cant afford BASC or you do not agree with our objectives and do not want to support them, then there are many cheap options.

 

No BASC have not gone round saying 17 is not OK for fox nor did BASC start DSC1 nor have we promoted DSC1 to the FLO’s, on the contrary.

 

It is important that SACS have at last increased their PL cover. The £10 million is certainly more and more in demand from land owners for example, but as I posted earlier I would like to see a copy of the policy wording.

 

It is a mater of fact that in general principal, cheaper insurance policies cover less; look at your own car or home insurance for example, now maybe this is not the case here, but I would like to see a copy of the full policy wording (so would you if you think you are covered by it) to double check there are no clauses in there that negate the cover under certain circumstances.

 

You may recall in 2007 I think it was, a well documented case where a member of another organisation made a claim on his membership policy, and they refused to pay out because there was a clause saying that if he had home insurance for example, the membership policy would not pay up.

 

I have seen this clause creeping onto another, larger, membership organisation’s policy just recently. My point being that regardless of who we choose to be insured by for our shooting, fishing, etc surely we members should be confidant that we are buying cover without exclusions that will catch us out in the event of a claim?

 

So, if I could have a copy of the policy that would be great. :blink:

 

Ta

 

David

[al4x]

out of interest who did start DSC 1

[Pinkfooty]

BASC's membership increased by another 2000 last month - their biggest monthly increase on record, I believe. So they must be doing something right!

 

I just find it incredible that there are some people around who think that the price of half a pint of beer a week is too much to pay to support the ONLY organisation that is 100% committed to protecting and promoting their shooting and is not diluted by interests in other (sometimes conflicting) sports.

 

If you want cheap insurance and have absolutely no interest in the future of shooting, then there are alternative ways of getting that cheapo insurance. But if you have no interest in the future of shooting, why do you think you need insurance anyway.

 

Make absolutely no mistake about this. If it had not been for the work of WAGBI/BASC over the past 60 years, then 95% of the people on this Forum (including me) would have no chance of owning shotguns and would have nowhere to shoot and would have no quarry to pursue. Only the idle rich with their big estates and their posh gamebirds would still be shooting. BASC has, without any doubt whatsoever, enabled the "common man" like you and me to still be shooting in 2009.

 

And the threats to our sport are increasing all the time - so get a life and get into BASC. Your sport depends upon it - now more than ever, as the protectionist organisations become wealthier and more influential and government quangos become even more intrusive.

 

If you don't believe me, just make sure you buy a copy of next week's Shooting Times and read what I say there.

[webber]

out of interest who did start DSC 1

 

I'm almost certain that it was British Deer Society

 

webber

[Pinkfooty]

I'm almost certain that it was British Deer Society

 

webber

 

It was - and that is another reason why we NEED an organisation like BASC to make absolutely sure that no similar scheme is imposed upon us for shotgun shooting.

 

When DSC started, it was seen as a "voluntary" method of improving standards in deer stalking. It was not, we were assured, anything like "compulsory testing".

 

But, of course, it has now become compulsory testing in all but name. Now there are significant numbers of stalking providers who insist upon DSC 1 (or even 2) before they will grant a stalking lease. So while it is still technically a "voluntary" scheme, in many places the average guy cannot get decent stalking without it.

 

WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN WITH SHOTGUN SHOOTING. Any attempt to introduce "voluntary" certification for sporting shotgun shooters (as opposed to professionals like gamekeepers, foresters and others who use guns in their employment) must be resisted at all costs. Like the DSC, we can be 100% certain that any voluntary scheme would very soon become de facto compulsory.

 

Another good reason for joining BASC - to fight any attempts to "do a DSC" on us.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Pinkfooty

[Mungler]

This topic / thread has been done before.

 

If you just want cheap insurance (liability, legal or otherwise) then phone your local insurance broker; if you don't already have cover under an existing insurance policy then you could buy a fresh stand alone insurance policy for f-all.

 

If you want to be part of an established National organisation that supports shooting and is well run (and you get the usual insurances to boot) then join BASC.

 

Indeed, if you don't want to join BASC then join another SACS, CA, NOBS or whatever, the choice is yours.

 

P.S.

 

Can anyone tell me whether any insurance claim has been made under any shooting related insurance policy (BASC, SACS, CA, NOBS or otherwise) that has approached a sum North of £5 million in any event :look:

[al4x]

so basically if you're prone to wearing a kilt join SACS if not then BASC?

 

I'm guessing the answer to that question is no Mungler but certainly could if you didn't kill someone and only disabled them.

[IanClark]

Pinkfooty, you old smoothie! Good to see you’re still alive and well! :look:

 

You still have that wonderful way with words too, suggesting that (without actually saying so, of course) anyone who doesn’t join BASC isn’t interested in the future of shooting – what a Sir Humphrey you would have made!

 

I agree though, that things would be a lot worse if there had been no WAGBI/BASC – of course they would have been worse.

 

Where we tend to disagree is that in my opinion, if BASC had done its job more robustly, we would be rather better off than we actually are now – but that’s just an opinion.

 

David – as I have explained more fully on another forum, I have neither the time nor the inclination to send you a copy of the HUGE file I have here on SACS insurance – if you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them either in private or in the forum if you prefer.

 

Like Pinkfootie, you have a wonderful way with words, but in fact SACS has been considering increasing our public liability to £10 million for some time – in fact since the institutions began to ask for it for shooting leases.

 

In practical terms, the chances of that level of cover being needed are virtually nil, and since it does cost more to have the increased cover, we decided to wait until it became necessary to avoid unnecessary expense for our membership. It is now necessary, so we increased it – simple as that.

 

Paul – the discount is still in place – PW members can join at the reduced rate for the first year exactly as before – we have no plans to change that. :look:

 

Monkeyboots – I’m concerned about your friend where is seems we didn’t help him – can you PVT me with some more details and I’ll look into it? I certainly doesn’t sound like the sort of thing we would do, unless maybe it was before I became Director, in which case I wouldn’t know anything about it.

 

Onwards and upwards….

[David BASC]

Personally I quite like wearing a kilt- but that still does not make me inclined to leave BASC and join SACS. :look:

 

I can’t speak for the other orgs, but only BASC, we certainly have several claims in the hundreds of thousands category and a couple at or near £1M.

 

I think the market is also influenced not just by shooting related claims but PL claims in general and there certainly have been some v. big ones outside of shooting.

 

BUT I still say, indeed I said it to a group of licensing managers at a talk I gave yesterday, lets not get too hung up about insurance.

 

BASC insures 130,000 people, and on average just 60 a year make a claim, a tiny number- so shooting is demonstrably very safe. How many do SACS average every year? I bet it’s not in double figures!

 

BUT as Ian had posted elsewhere, many land owners are insisting on £10 million, so the cover has to be at that level regardless of real ‘need’

 

David

[monkeyboots]

:

Edited May 5, 2010 by monkeyboots

[David BASC]

In all fairness, none of the oganisations will get it all right all of the time!

 

D

[Pinkfooty]

I agree though, that things would be a lot worse if there had been no WAGBI/BASC – of course they would have been worse.

 

Where we tend to disagree is that in my opinion, if BASC had done its job more robustly, we would be rather better off than we actually are now – but that’s just an opinion.

 

Ian,

 

Very true. I don't think there can be any doubt that if BASC had been even more effective then things would be even better. Nothing is 100% perfect - and never will be.

 

For example, in my lifetime we have lost over half of our quarry species (When I said this a few years ago John Swift counted them up and told me we still had one more than we had lost - but he was counting for England. In Scotland the whitefronted goose tips the balance the other way!)

 

But, ignoring anything that WAGBI did in the olden days, before I became interested in the subject, the main pieces of legislation that have restricted shooting sports and would have done so even more dramatically if WAGBI/BASC had not campaigned on our behalf, include:

 

1955 Protection of Birds Act

1968 Firearms Act

1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act

1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act

plus innumerable government orders, etc.

 

If we had not had BASC then the original intentions of the politicians who promoted the Bills leading to that legislation would have gone through. In that case:

 

• Shotguns would have been subject to the same controls as firearms.
  
• You would need a "good reason" for each shotgun you wanted to own.
  
• "Sport" would certainly not have been a good reason for most of we plebs.
  
• All birds would be protected except gamebirds with no exceptions for ducks, geese and waders and no general licences for pest species.
  
• With no general licence for woodpigeon, etc., farmers would have to apply for specific licences and the chances are that they would have to exercise them personally rather than being able to authorise someone else to do it on their behalf.
  
• Therefore, pest control would not be an acceptable reason for owning a shotgun unless you were a landowner. Similarly with wildfowling.
  
• Even if you did qualify to own a shotgun, you would need to pass a test before you would get a certificate.
  

 

In other words, only the wealthy landowners and their lawyer friends (i.e. those who wield the real power in class-ridden Britain) would be able to shoot. The rest of us would be stuffed.

 

Thank God we have had BASC to redress some of the power balance on our behalf and, as I said above, the protectionists have far more members than we have and far more money. The quangos are being given ever-increasing powers of regulation - from Europe as well as UK parliaments. The threats are going to increase; not decrease. What I have described above is not merely old history. It is a taste of what we will increasingly be hit with unless we all support the organisation that is geared up to work on our behalf.

 

Just last night I was talking to a couple of guys of my own age (60s) that I used to shoot a lot with. There were both of the same opinion - "We have seen the best of shooting in this country. The youngsters of today and tomorrow will never have the sport we had!" Sorry guys, I just cannot accept that. It is up to us to ensure that future generations do have the same opportunities as we had.

 

End of Sermon!!