BASC and ACPO

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

I note that there has been some severe criticism of BASC recently with regard to the letter that was published last week from ACPO with the CA logo on it. Some on here were claiming BASC had sat back and done nothing, while the CA had done a great deal...

 

Not the case at all. We have been working with the British Shooing Sports Council and ACPO to protect you, this has been on going for many weeks.

 

BASC were concerned that previous comments in the letter currently circulating had implied that visits could be random. With other shooting organisations particularly those which are members of the umbrella group the British Shooting Sports Council we have sought clarification and a new and clearer letter.

BASC has worked to ensure:

· Any unannounced visit must be intelligence based – they cannot be random.

· That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

· That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry.

 

 

All BASC members on email will receive the new copy and it will also be on our web site, I will post a link tomorrow, but as I am out of the office all day it may not be until the evening, never the less of course I will be more than happy if any of you want to post the link as soon as its live.

 

 

David

[DaveT]

David, then why so many news items (spot light in the southwest has been full of them) with no basc comments. There have been several over the last few weeks, one for example linked legal gun ownership with the new for d&c police to buy new guns. Ridiculous nonsense but no sight or sound of basc who are paid to represent law abiding shooters. If acpo are allowed to dictate the news agenda unopposed we've no chance.

[David BASC]

Dave, in some cases news items appear in print or broadcast media without warning, and when they do BASC will send a reply to the editor to correct errors or misunderstandings, but whether we are quoted or not is another matter!

[Blunderbuss]

David, then perhaps you should consider poaching CA's media strategist, as he/she seems to be doing a better job than yours! Like most shooters I read a jointly badged ACPO/CA letter and wondered where my organisation was in all of this.

 

Whilst critical (quite rightly) of the dedicated hotline, BASC issued a statement early on broadly in support of the 'new' policy of unannounced visits. Why?

 

I was (and am) very disappointed by this. I get that these will be intelligence led etc, but the subtle messaging by ACPO insidiously links law abiding shooters with criminal and terrorist firearms use in the public imagination. The fact that ACPO have backtracked a little is welcome, but the PR damage has been done. And Richard Ali was telling me all along this was all fine and dandy.

 

In effect ACPO announced a 'new' policy that was anything but, in order to be seen to be doing something, whilst hinting to the public that licence holders are all wrong 'uns and can't be trusted. I wanted my shooting organisation to be protesting about this vociferously and publicly from the off.

 

I think BASC do a difficult and often thankless job, and I admire you for taking flack on here regularly, but I think BASC managed this badly.

[HDAV]

Will this letter be sent to all certificate holders by their issuing force ? OR just those who are BASC or CA members on email?

[David BASC]

Running a 'good' PR campaign to grab headlines is one thing, protecting the rights of shooters is another matter.

 

The initial guidance that we welcomed contained the very important point that unannounced visits could ONLY be undertaken based on SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE.

 

The PR campaign that some through was so wonderful that followed from the CA managed to change this in the CA ACPO letter to 'largely intelligence based' ie random visits without specific intelligence was OK!..no thanks!

 

Your organisation has been spending the last few days trying to, successfully, get this changed to protect your rights, and we will continue to work with ACPO to this end.

 

If any BASC feels that the police are not sticking to this, then they must get in touch with us , we will investigate, take it up with the relevant licencing authority and if needs be with ACPO.

 

To the best of my knowledge this is an 'open letter' so will not be posted to individual certificate holders but it will be down to each organisation to alert its members.

 

David

[malkiserow]

David, then perhaps you should consider poaching CA's media strategist, as he/she seems to be doing a better job than yours! Like most shooters I read a jointly badged ACPO/CA letter and wondered where my organisation was in all of this.

Whilst critical (quite rightly) of the dedicated hotline, BASC issued a statement early on broadly in support of the 'new' policy of unannounced visits. Why?

I was (and am) very disappointed by this. I get that these will be intelligence led etc, but the subtle messaging by ACPO insidiously links law abiding shooters with criminal and terrorist firearms use in the public imagination. The fact that ACPO have backtracked a little is welcome, but the PR damage has been done. And Richard Ali was telling me all along this was all fine and dandy.

In effect ACPO announced a 'new' policy that was anything but, in order to be seen to be doing something, whilst hinting to the public that licence holders are all wrong 'uns and can't be trusted. I wanted my shooting organisation to be protesting about this vociferously and publicly from the off.

I think BASC do a difficult and often thankless job, and I admire you for taking flack on here regularly, but I think BASC managed this badly.

Running a 'good' PR campaign to grab headlines is one thing, protecting the rights of shooters is another matter.

 

The initial guidance that we welcomed contained the very important point that unannounced visits could ONLY be undertaken based on SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE.

 

The PR campaign that some through was so wonderful that followed from the CA managed to change this in the CA ACPO letter to 'largely intelligence based' ie random visits without specific intelligence was OK!..no thanks!

 

Your organisation has been spending the last few days trying to, successfully, get this changed to protect your rights, and we will continue to work with ACPO to this end.

 

If any BASC feels that the police are not sticking to this, then they must get in touch with us , we will investigate, take it up with the relevant licencing authority and if needs be with ACPO.

 

To the best of my knowledge this is an 'open letter' so will not be posted to individual certificate holders but it will be down to each organisation to alert its members.

 

David

Blunderbuss has made the point, that many BASC members are feeling, quite eloquently. David, your point is also well made and understood. What strikes me as odd is the apparent reaction time from BASC seems to be awfully slow on this occasion.

[David BASC]

I understand what you are saying, BASC were fully engaged with BSSC on this issue, and expressed our complete objection to the Crime Stoppers number as soon as it was announced, as did all members of the BSSC.

 

Further discussions were on-going ...but then surprised and concerned with the CA/ACPO letter that came out of the blue...it would have been very wrong for us to make public comment on this until we had discussed this with ACPO, set the record straight and got the letter changed. Hence the apparent delay.

 

Turning back to unfavourable comments on shooting in the media, we use an advanced press monitoring system that picks up almost everything, in the media, if you see any such stories then let us know, we would rather be told of such comments 100 times than not at all.

 

David

[TIGHTCHOKE]

David it still appears to many that BASC were on the back foot, at least CA were very pro-active in getting the Email out to 497 MPs!

[drut]

David it still appears to many that BASC were on the back foot, at least CA were very pro-active in getting the Email out to 497 MPs!

 

+ 1

[Blunderbuss]

The initial guidance that we welcomed contained the very important point that unannounced visits could ONLY be undertaken based on SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE.

But the clumsy way in which it was worded in ACPO press releases and resulting media coverage, entirely predictably gave the impression that licence holders weren't to be trusted. Your own press release endorsing it helpfully began with "BASC is advising members to ensure their guns are secure following an announcement that police forces may make unannounced visits". Isn't that a little bit condescending? Didn't we already know of our responsibility to keep our guns secure? It adds to the impression, made by ACPO, and endorsed by BASC, that we are all a bit too slack and irresponsible and need a threat to keep us on our toes. Non shooters reading about this at the time could conclude that we were dangerously irresponsible at best, and in cahoots with terrorist at worst. Deeply offensive slander :(

 

What makes it worse, is that it isn't really new policy at all, its the same as it's always been. Smoke and mirrors for media consumption. Don't worry Mr J Public, we've got our beady eye on those dodgy shooters.

 

I am not one of the serial BASC bashers on this forum, but your initial welcoming of this ACPO 'guidance' was ill advised IMHO and has alienated a lot of your members.

 

The good work you do far outweighs this unfortunate blip, and I am not yet about to jump ship, but you got this one wrong.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Blunderbuss

[drut]

"The good work you do far outweighs this unfortunate blip, and I am not yet about to jump ship, but you got this one wrong."

 

+ 1 Totally agree,wish I could have put it so well!

[David BASC]

BASC were certainly not on the back foot, nor did we get anything wrong, as I said we were fully engaged along with BSSC from the very start. The much lauded email campaign achieved nothing apart from forcing through a meeting with ACPO which resulted in a poorly worded initial letter which succeeded only in putting shooters potentially in a worse position than they were before said meeting took place and has taken the best part of the last week for BASC to work with ACPO and the BSSC to ensure

· Any unannounced visit must be based intelligence – they cannot be random.

· That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

· That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry.

 

 

David

Edited November 11, 2014 by David BASC

[Steppenwolf]

I can see what is happening here. I would say for peace between BASC and CA since it seems while not admitting to any wrong doing you are trying to spin it as if CA have done something wrong so you're not renwewing your membership.

 

I think as the shooting community we have to stick together and not be divided and conquered since this is exactly what could happen here. I personally think all shooting orgnaisations should be disbanded and only one shooting organisation made which would protect all shooting disciplines and country sports. It is truly the only way, anything else is just fool hardy.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

David, I'm afraid it all comes down to perception.

 

It appears that BASC were slow to act and the CA were much quicker, they got the email campaign off and running.

 

If as you say BASC were working away in the background then your PR Team are overpaid for their poor performance.

 

CA won this one and has been said in posts above many of your current members are offended and seriously considering paying their hard earned money to another shooters representative body.

 

I note your personal point above to leave the CA, I think you will be in a small minority!

[David BASC]

There is a difference between perception and reality though. Explain please how the CA 'won' this one or did the right thing by agreeing with ACPO,as the letter they promoted with ACPO clearly said, to take away the protection of specifically intelligence based unannounced home visits, which had already been agreed with BSSC?

 

Yes all the main shooting organisations should work together under BSSC I agree, just as BASC have done and will continue to do. As I said above BASC has worked with ACPO and the BSSC to ensure

 

Any unannounced visit must be based intelligence – they cannot be random.

That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry

 

I would rather have this protection, wouldn't you?

 

David

[DaveT]

David, thing is you may of being working bloody hard, but if you don't tell anyone how can they know?! I appreciate your frustration but if your working in silence than how can your members possibly be appreciative of your efforts. Like people above have said, all your own PR was in support of acpo, so why wasn't that revised updated to reflect your true position as soon as it was apparebt they'd sold you a pup?

 

Can you confirm basc have made appropriate co pliabts to the BBC trust if your representTions to spotlight went included in their stories for balance?

 

Dave

[David BASC]

Dave, thanks I understand your point and its well made, but instead of rushing out a campaign or further press release after our first one on the 13th October , we continued attacking crime stoppers firearms line and working with BSSC it was agreed with ACPO that this would be dropped. This led to our next release on November 5th.

 

BSSC and ACPO were continuing discussions , so not much to report. But then the letter that had agreed by the CA went live and, took away the protection of only specifically intelligence led unannounced home visits we had to act to get ACPO to reverse this and go back to what had been originally agreed with BSSC, hence the new letter going out today.

 

With regard to Spotlight, I have sent a message to our press office, I had a quick look on the Spotlight web page last night but could not find the story?

 

David

[Blunderbuss]

David, there are two issues here, and I think you are missing the main point. Firstly there is the hotline encouraging people to report licence holders. BASC and others did well to get this offensive and insulting policy overturned. You have my thanks for this. Then there is this:

 

Any unannounced visit must be based intelligence – they cannot be random.

That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry

 

So in effect this is exactly the same as it has always been? There is no new law or police powers and no new policy. So why then did ACPO trumpet this from the roof tops, all over the media with hints and smears along the way, that shooters couldn't be trusted and were a security risk? And crucially, why did BASC endorse that insulting portrayal of us?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

There is a difference between perception and reality though. Explain please how the CA 'won' this one or did the right thing by agreeing with ACPO,as the letter they promoted with ACPO clearly said, to take away the protection of specifically intelligence based unannounced home visits, which had already been agreed with BSSC?

 

Yes all the main shooting organisations should work together under BSSC I agree, just as BASC have done and will continue to do. As I said above BASC has worked with ACPO and the BSSC to ensure

 

Any unannounced visit must be based intelligence – they cannot be random.

That the home owner is given a clear and reasoned explanation for the visit

That none of this restricts the home owner’s right to refuse entry

 

I would rather have this protection, wouldn't you?

 

David

 

I agree that there is a difference between perception and reality, I live in England and this sort of thing goes on all the time, but I still maintain that the CA got things moving and were seen to get things moving!

 

Chase your Press Team and find out why they didn't go with a big press release that may have put BASCs hard work over in a better way.

 

I feel strongly that the CA will gain members from this and that BASC will lose members.

[David BASC]

BASC did not and does not endorse any suggestion that shooters are not trustworthy, nor was it ever ACPO's intention to suggest this, and the new letter from ACPO makes this more clear.

 

The key point, that perhaps you may not see is that BASC were concerned that previous comments in the letter currently circulating had implied that visits could be random. That was simply not acceptable to us and may I suggest the whole shooting community..

[Kes]

The BSSC has this as one of its aims; -

 

Close contact is maintained with senior police officers involved with the Association of Chief Police Officers Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group. The Council actively participates fully in the fight against armed crime and the Secretary is a member of the Themed National Independent Advisory Group which acts in support of the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Use of Firearms portfolio, providing advice and feedback to senior police officers.

 

 

There is nothing whatsoever on the press access point re the police, ACPO and the 'Terrorism' linking.

 

There is something called 'damage limitation'.

I am no longer a member of BASC and quite pleased with what my new org did. too many people decided this wasn't a problem until far too late. Lack of understanding of the potential damage caused to shooting is no excuse. The damage caused to shooting by delay and an inadequate response is considerable since a huge amount hangs here on 'perception'.

Whatever or not BASC were doing - it was too little and far too late and this response has been triggered by the backlash, not by any altruistic wish to 'set the record straight'.

Wouldnt BSSC have had this on its website for the press ? There is a big fat ZERO.

[Guest stevo]

The BSSC has this as one of its aims; -

 

Close contact is maintained with senior police officers involved with the Association of Chief Police Officers Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group. The Council actively participates fully in the fight against armed crime and the Secretary is a member of the Themed National Independent Advisory Group which acts in support of the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Use of Firearms portfolio, providing advice and feedback to senior police officers.

 

 

There is nothing whatsoever on the press access point re the police, ACPO and the 'Terrorism' linking.

 

There is something called 'damage limitation'.

I am no longer a member of BASC and quite pleased with what my new org did. too many people decided this wasn't a problem until far too late. Lack of understanding of the potential damage caused to shooting is no excuse. The damage caused to shooting by delay and an inadequate response is considerable since a huge amount hangs here on 'perception'.

Whatever or not BASC were doing - it was too little and far too late and this response has been triggered by the backlash, not by any altruistic wish to 'set the record straight'.

Wouldnt BSSC have had this on its website for the press ? There is a big fat ZERO.

You took the words right out of my mouth .

I totally agree .

[panoma1]

"Response triggered by backlash" ? As was the debacle concerning the general licence and as will be when lead shot is completely banned!

 

David BASC...who from "the voice of shooting" (BASC) is defending the continued use of lead shot from within the lead ammunition group.

Discounting the former BASC employee.....who is neither responsible, accountable nor answerable to BASC, it's membership or anyone else for that matter?

 

Is BASC's position still no change unless based on incontrovertible scientific evidence supporting such change?

[grrclark]

David it does seem that this is a classic case where a lot of people think that it is better to be seen doing something quickly otherwise people assume that you (BASC) are being complacent.

 

I take an alternative view on this, I would far rather that the right thing be done instead of rushing to be seen to do something (anything) and making a pig's ear out of it.

 

From what I have seen of the situation so far the CA rushed to do something quickly and in so doing made a subtle, but significant error in respect to the wording that was used in the joint letter with ACPO and this could have led to a much poorer outcome for firearms holders.

 

I also think that the furore around the initial press release from ACPO was actually very limited to the shooting community itself, I honestly don't believe that there has been any particular damage done to shooting by the initial press release, in fact I think that it will have barely registered in the public conscience at all. The anti shooting groups will not have been emboldened by this, they are fervently anti shooting anyway and the general public are mostly ambivalent towards shooting unless there is a mass media interest story. There was time to get the facts right and address any problems, it didn't need an overly heated and instant reaction, but there obviously was an appetite for such in the shooting community that the CA satisfied.

 

Unfortunately we are very much becoming a society that is driven by media sound bites and headlines and we give very little consideration to whether it is accurate or worthwhile, so long as it is loud. The reaction from many of the shooting fraternity to the CA letter highlights that perfectly, they are championed by some for doing something quickly and it matters not if the actions were just background noise and the quality poor. We see this from politicians all the time, not least for the calls for tighter gun controls from certain Labour MP's very recently.

 

Like the vast majority of all minority interest groups the shooting community has a big chip on it's shoulder, much of that may have genuine foundation post Dunblane, but none the less it can be a very narrow viewpoint and one from a 'victims' perspective. That leads to heightened and more exaggerated reactions.

 

I do wonder if there is a possibility for a multi-channel communications approach from BASC? In this case the shooting community obviously did need a faster response from their representative body, as can be seen from the reaction of contributors to this thread, even if that was just a positioning statement to the shooting community itself highlighting what the plan of action was and then a more detailed public facing statement issued to the press, etc issued later.

 

Obviously there are challenges around how to manage a multi-channel approach, but social media tools can help a great deal in this respect. There is perhaps a perception that the BASC organisation in the ivory tower is a little bit removed from the ordinary shooter, the feedback on this forum seems to suggest that the BASC voice is not always reflective of the voices of those on the ground. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, the opinions voiced on forums tend to be more polarised as people obviously feel strongly enough to make their point publicly, but perception ultimately becomes reality.

 

Having said all that, it seems that absolutely every organisation around shooting has its vociferous critics, the rank and file of subscribers always want to throw stones and point a finger as to how it should be done better, but curiously don't seem to to wish to promote themselves to take a more active role.