BASCing or not in reflected glory ?

[neutron619]

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.

 

David,

 

Many thanks for this - the more clearly it can lay out the texts and explain how we got here and how we (shooters) might prevail, the better. I just think we need to understand where we're at, legally, and where we're going a bit better.

 

Just for the record, I don't believe that there's anything wrong with the police having the right to ask for medical data if there's a justifiable reason for it - I have to submit to this each time I ask for a renewal myself due to some depression in the distant past, so I quite understand the value of checking. My only objection is that I believe the law is clear on where the responsibility for providing the evidence lies, and that the current expectation of applicants paying for that is incompatible with that. (In some respects my position on this issue is a bit like my objection to Government / HMRC's recent crackdowns on tax avoidance: if they want more tax in the pot, they should write new or better tax law, not misapply - or flagrantly contravene - that which exists already because they can't achieve their "targets".)

 

Thanks again,

 

Adam.

Edited September 2, 2014 by neutron619

[David BASC]

Adam,

 

I agree entirely and am in a similar position myself.

 

I have a meeting planned this afternoon with one of our senior directors to go over this

 

David

[neutron619]

David,

 

I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I'll look forward to hearing / seeing the outcome of that discussion.

 

Thanks again,

 

Adam.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

It is nice when this sort of thing can be discussed amicably by adults, I too look forward to seeing any positive outcome!

[Kes]

Kes

 

Have you left BASC yet?

 

webber

I will shortly be a member of NGO - I think my membership of BASC lapsed at the end of August.

Unless they want me to stay, I wont be in your face anymore, and you can relax.

I think I already mentioned your seemingly irresistible penchant for inappropriate sarcasm - the lowest form of wit.

[Guest cookoff013]

i`m a member of basc, i`m not very pro-active about it, i`ve never gone to meets etc....

i use BASC for the insurance, for which the club i shoot at is mandatory, and only basc is a recognised insurer.

i used to be with CPSA but they wasted a silly amount of money on campaigning to go to "ctsa".

 

basc meet some of my needs, thats basicly it.

 

they are representative of shooting and they are there in the media.

 

i`m pretty unsure what else they can do...

[wymberley]

If anything, the one thing that this thread does reflect is the dilemma faced by any membership based organisation such as BASC and that is how do you please all of the members all of the time. The two main topics here are the certificate application medical checks and the NTS situations. I would imagine that there is pretty much general agreement that currently both situations are far from ideal and some action is required to improve them. This, I imagine, would please and satisfy the requirements of all members and in these instances, it would be right to do so. However, what if the organisation (via the Council in BASC's case) were to decide to implement (in this instance, 're-inventing the wheel would be a more appropriate term) a programme which currently the membership appears to see no need for or the benefit of in the short term?

 

Now, straight off let me say that I'm not talking specifically safety here - if I were to, then one member for whom I have a great deal of respect for both his knowledge and sound common sense would quite rightly come down on me like a ton of bricks. No single entity has a leg to stand on should they attempt to criticise us in this respect - should they attempt it, then all we have to say is, provide the evidence for your claim, and they're instantly brought up short. The proof of the pudding is, excluding the odd exception that proves the rule, that the objectors to the ongoing badger culls very rarely mention any safety aspect but are more concerned about the humane aspect of the shooting and the monitoring of the skill and knowledge of the shooters.

 

Have a look at the BASC website and read the Mission Statement for the About Sporting Services item. Sounds the business doesn't it!? Now have a look at the BASC Training Courses page and read the preamble while taking into account the piece about 'public credibility' that you read in the first bullet point under 'Priorities' in 'About Sporting Services'. Now have a look at the list of courses available but exclude those relating to deer. Just the one is over two days, the rest being a one day offering. Now ask yourself do these match the glowing rhetoric of the above two mentioned references. Also, you could have a look at the course prices. If BASC is (rightly) set against mandatory training and wishes to keep it voluntary, why not, as previously, use volunteer trainers - the expertise is there and I'm sure that the willingness is also - and the costs could be dramatically reduced. A prime example is the now sadly defunct (not BASC's fault in as much as there would appear to be little demand in the short term view) Proficiency Award Scheme.

 

Anyone of a mind with evil intent who cared to look closely at the quality and range of training on offer by the UK's largest shooting organisation could justifiably form an opinion that it wasn't up to much despite the rhetoric. Sooner or later there is a distinct probability that our credibility is going to be called into account and the threat of mandatory training will join the medical checks scenario for the issue of any certificate. The only way to prevent this is, as was said, by 'education, education, education' and forward vision by the Council. Should BASC then not be in a position to counter this by ensuring that a range of programmes which would satisfy the public perception was in place to forestall any such eventuality, this would cause the organisation far more damage than those topics currently under discussion.

[Harnser]

I will shortly be a member of NGO - I think my membership of BASC lapsed at the end of August.

Unless they want me to stay, I wont be in your face anymore, and you can relax.

 

I think I already mentioned your seemingly irresistible penchant for inappropriate sarcasm - the lowest form of wit.

I might just add that as you are no longer a member of the BASC ,then you no longer have a right to criticise The association .you have done well so far with your Devils advocate post and I would be grateful if you would stop bashing the main voice of shooters in this country.

Perhaps you should campaign and see if you can persuade 51per cent of the membership to take your views . You would then be able to run the BASC the way you think it should be run . Me ,I am happy with the way it is . Not perfect , but adequate . If you start a thread like this one , then expect a bit of flack .

 

 

 

Harnser

Edited September 2, 2014 by Harnser

[neutron619]

I might just add that as you are no longer a member of the BASC ,then you no longer have a right to criticise

 

This is an extremely illiberal (small "L") thing to say.

 

Everyone in this country is free to express their opinion on any subject that pleases them - you are likewise free to disagree with it, ignore it or give your own opinion (as noisily as you please) as you just have.

 

Don't presume to tell a man that he may not exercise his right to say what he thinks - it's insupportable in a free society. Or, if you do, expect a bit of flak from the people who value our own and others' freedom of speech to a greater degree than you demonstrate for yourself.

Edited September 2, 2014 by neutron619

[webber]

I might just add that as you are no longer a member of the BASC ,then you no longer have a right to criticise The association .you have done well so far with your Devils advocate post and I would be grateful if you would stop bashing the main voice of shooters in this country.

Perhaps you should campaign and see if you can persuade 51per cent of the membership to take your views . You would then be able to run the BASC the way you think it should be run . Me ,I am happy with the way it is . Not perfect , but adequate . If you start a thread like this one , then expect a bit of flack .

 

 

 

Harnser

Here here!!

 

webber

[wymberley]

It is nice when this sort of thing can be discussed amicably by adults,

Sadly, mate, the part of your post quoted now looks like the kiss of death. Shame really.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Sadly, mate, the part of your post quoted now looks like the kiss of death. Shame really.

 

Yep shame, last time it was Fister accusing me of using long words!

[muffin]

Freedom of expression Freedom of choice that's what my dad said he chased Rommel round the desert for to give me freedom of choice. Now you cant tell people because they are not members of BASC they cant give criticism I been reading these posts for a while.

A lot of critics about political parties where only paid up members critics I do not think so

Those critics of RSPCA and RSPB are they paid up members you cannot have it all one way.

[Kes]

It is perhaps because of members like Harnser and particularly Webber who stifle any constuctive debate about any subject they have no sensibly formed opinions on but merely long harboured prejudices. People who dont like change or improvement usually are lost causes. I have to say compare their views with David BASC's- he may not like me or what I say but he's more of a gentleman than either of the two mentioned above.

 

I will remain feeling free to offer constructive criticism on any subject I choose so the pair of you wind your necks in or possibly face terminal moderation (I hope).

Thanks to those who have supported the discussion thus far and those gentlemen who have PM'd me.

[bakerboy]

This thread has become really boring, with Kes continually disagreeing at just about everything and anything.

 

As he is no longer a member of BASC maybe we will see and read his thoughts on the next organisation he is about to join and let us know how and what they are doing to enhance the shooters world, as I requested at the start of this thread.

 

I strongly believe that if you want to change an organisation like BASC you should/must do it from the inside, and I agree with Harnser, if you are not in it, because of your views and beliefs which have been aired and aired again in KES's case then you should shut up and go away.

 

I do not how many times throughout this thread KES has stated that this will be his last comment but he still keeps coming back; with that commitment, staying within BASC maybe he could make a change, rather than moaning and leaving it to others.

 

This is my last comment and I am a man of my word.

[webber]

This thread has become really boring, with Kes continually disagreeing at just about everything and anything.

 

As he is no longer a member of BASC maybe we will see and read his thoughts on the next organisation he is about to join and let us know how and what they are doing to enhance the shooters world, as I requested at the start of this thread.

 

I strongly believe that if you want to change an organisation like BASC you should/must do it from the inside, and I agree with Harnser, if you are not in it, because of your views and beliefs which have been aired and aired again in KES's case then you should shut up and go away.

 

I do not how many times throughout this thread KES has stated that this will be his last comment but he still keeps coming back; with that commitment, staying within BASC maybe he could make a change, rather than moaning and leaving it to others.

 

This is my last comment and I am a man of my word.

Here here, me also.

 

If anyone deserves a dose of terminal moderation its Kes!

 

webber

[Cranfield]

Keep it polite please gentlemen and less of the personal attacks.

 

Agree to disagree and keep off the thread if you find that difficult.

[Scully]

I might just add that as you are no longer a member of the BASC ,then you no longer have a right to criticise The association .you have done well so far with your Devils advocate post and I would be grateful if you would stop bashing the main voice of shooters in this country.

Perhaps you should campaign and see if you can persuade 51per cent of the membership to take your views . You would then be able to run the BASC the way you think it should be run . Me ,I am happy with the way it is . Not perfect , but adequate . If you start a thread like this one , then expect a bit of flack .

 

 

 

Harnser

There is a thread in the Wildfowling section under the title Brancaster, where the KWCA ( I think ) has come under much and severe criticism from various wild fowlers , non of whom are members of the KWCA. It is now running at over 20 pages. I've no doubt those who criticise are doing so because they believe what that organisation is doing, or not doing, has an effect on them and their shooting.

Regardless of the the fact I'm no longer a member, I feel the same way regarding BASC, and any and all other organisations which claim to safeguard the future of shooting. Unfortunately only BASC appear on here, but if the CPSA, NGO ( my present representatives ) the CA, NSRA, NRA, NPA, BFSS want to make an appearance, I'll ask them the same questions I ask of David and those other BASC representatives whom I've phoned and e-mailed in the past.

I don't want to be told the 'party line' politico double speak.

Personal attacks on people who have every entitlement to voice an opinion is a sure fire way to get a thread locked, but perhaps that's the intention.

[welsh1]

How narrow minded of some members to think that because you are not a member of an organisation you can not comment on it.

Sometimes you need to be on the outside looking in to see where things are going wrong,it is a person with a closed mind that does not assimilate all information before making a decision.

[Kes]

I'm finished gentlemen - no need for congratulatory sarcasm or any other rudeness - sufficient has been said hopefully worthy of some consideration and of some benefit. I for one am ready to agree to disagree without further personal slights.

[wymberley]

Unless there's an instance of crass stupidity, it would be good if this thread were to remain 'open' until David BASC has had a chance to respond regarding the outcome of his meeting (see Post #77) as requested by a few members.

[Scully]

If anything, the one thing that this thread does reflect is the dilemma faced by any membership based organisation such as BASC and that is how do you please all of the members all of the time. The two main topics here are the certificate application medical checks and the NTS situations. I would imagine that there is pretty much general agreement that currently both situations are far from ideal and some action is required to improve them. This, I imagine, would please and satisfy the requirements of all members and in these instances, it would be right to do so. However, what if the organisation (via the Council in BASC's case) were to decide to implement (in this instance, 're-inventing the wheel would be a more appropriate term) a programme which currently the membership appears to see no need for or the benefit of in the short term?

 

Now, straight off let me say that I'm not talking specifically safety here - if I were to, then one member for whom I have a great deal of respect for both his knowledge and sound common sense would quite rightly come down on me like a ton of bricks. No single entity has a leg to stand on should they attempt to criticise us in this respect - should they attempt it, then all we have to say is, provide the evidence for your claim, and they're instantly brought up short. The proof of the pudding is, excluding the odd exception that proves the rule, that the objectors to the ongoing badger culls very rarely mention any safety aspect but are more concerned about the humane aspect of the shooting and the monitoring of the skill and knowledge of the shooters.

 

Have a look at the BASC website and read the Mission Statement for the About Sporting Services item. Sounds the business doesn't it!? Now have a look at the BASC Training Courses page and read the preamble while taking into account the piece about 'public credibility' that you read in the first bullet point under 'Priorities' in 'About Sporting Services'. Now have a look at the list of courses available but exclude those relating to deer. Just the one is over two days, the rest being a one day offering. Now ask yourself do these match the glowing rhetoric of the above two mentioned references. Also, you could have a look at the course prices. If BASC is (rightly) set against mandatory training and wishes to keep it voluntary, why not, as previously, use volunteer trainers - the expertise is there and I'm sure that the willingness is also - and the costs could be dramatically reduced. A prime example is the now sadly defunct (not BASC's fault in as much as there would appear to be little demand in the short term view) Proficiency Award Scheme.

 

Anyone of a mind with evil intent who cared to look closely at the quality and range of training on offer by the UK's largest shooting organisation could justifiably form an opinion that it wasn't up to much despite the rhetoric. Sooner or later there is a distinct probability that our credibility is going to be called into account and the threat of mandatory training will join the medical checks scenario for the issue of any certificate. The only way to prevent this is, as was said, by 'education, education, education' and forward vision by the Council. Should BASC then not be in a position to counter this by ensuring that a range of programmes which would satisfy the public perception was in place to forestall any such eventuality, this would cause the organisation far more damage than those topics currently under discussion.

This is a very good post. I must admit I'm probably one of the most vehement anti compulsory safety training opponents on this forum but even I can see that the public perception of shooting and shooters needs to be improved. At the moment we are some of the nations most scrutinised individuals, and we are still regarded by most as a threat, so whether it will achieve the desired effect is unclear, but it has to be worth a try.

I can't see why it would be beyond the capabilities of our shooting organisations to thrash out a scheme by which shooters can gain a nationally recognised qualification. Could they sit down together and work this out?

The major sticking point as I see it, but I may well be wrong, is how it is funded.

While I agree volunteers could be more than capable, would our shooting organisations agree to this? There can be no doubt that a license fee increase is on the books; Cameron wont be in power indefinitely. There is also the very real possibility of applicants paying for a compulsory GP's report regardless of what an applicant reveals on their application, plus any shooting organisation will possibly insist that before the shooter can sit any relevant 'proficiency scheme' they join that organisation. The only way to cancel out favouritism of one organisation over another would be a set fee, but there is still the tricky point of the cost of that particular organisations membership fee. Or, alternatively allow each organisation the freedom to set its own price, which would allow those organisations with fewer overheads to appear a more attractive option? Or possibly mean the wealthiest subsidising the scheme to a point to appear just as attractive? Add on the gun/s, cabinet and all the paraphanalia that us shooters gather, like clothing etc and I think we're pretty close to pricing the average bloke out of shooting, whether the scheme is compulsory or optional, but the latter would render the scheme with probably the same lifespan as the original now defunct scheme. There is also the point as to whether the Police would be satisfied with any scheme, apart from DSC, which would negate a newbie being mentored, or would this not be meant as such?

These are not criticisms of your post. I still think it's a very good post, it just needs someone with a bit more nous than me to fill in the details.

[grrclark]

Scully, following on from your post, I think it would need to be an agreed syllabus and then each organisation could then offer their own flavour of this. This would perhaps allow the core syllabus to be enhanced and better targeted towards the demographic of that particular body, i.e. the various clay target organisations could align their offering to the nuances of a clay ground, whilst the field sports organisation could emphasise that side of it all, both covering the core requirements.

Having competition between the various bodies is not a bad thing, the cost of a proficiency qualification could be incorporated into the first 2 years membership or such like. Probably the bodies that already have affiliated/recognised coaches would be best placed to offer any training scheme via that route, or indeed it may offer an opportunity for independent coaches to offer a route to core proficiency certification through their services.

Ultimately I agree that there should be a maximum fee to make sure that nobody can capitalise unfairly. It perhaps does introduce new revenue earning potential for coaches, but of course ultimately it would have to be paid for by the individual shooters and it does build another barrier to entry into the sport.

I hope that a proficiency certificate is never mandated to hold a ticket, but I can see a day not too far away where it will be.

[kingo15]

Good to see all the other organisations being members on one of the uks biggest shooting forums. Putting in out of hours work to try and give advice.

[utectok]

I learned a long time ago that tilting at windmills is a waste of a life.

If you don't agree with any element of an organised group, don't join.

If one you are already a member of fails to meet your expectations, criteria, etc., then leave.

 

Its no big deal, life goes on.

 

I believe there are something like 140,000 members of BASC, they are either all very satisfied, or very complacent, but they don't appear to be going anywhere.

I agree I left and joined SACS