Scully Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Up at shoot this morning mate told me that his local RFD has told him that for the purposes of insurance, the NFU are proposing that shooters receive instruction at a cost of £140 for each certificate for shooters who shoot live quarry and are also proposing farmers insist on seeing the training certificate of each shooter prior to allowing them to shoot on their land. The RFD in question has just invested large sums of money in building a purpose built range and training facility and so may have a vested interest, so it may be nothing more than wishful thinking on his behalf. Must admit I laughed when he told me, as it smells of bullpoo, but just wondered if anyone had heard anything similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Seems like a bit of a pipe dream to me. The vast majority of us have our own insurance through BaSC or one of the other shooting organisations so why would the NFU need a seperate guarantee for their insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7daysinaweek Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) several farmers i know say they do absolutely nothing to support, lobby or legislate in respect of the farming community and have either moved insurer or are looking at moving. know 4 or 5 that say all they are interested in is increasing premiums year on year without discussion in relation to premiums. as said above, most have insurance via other organisations, sounds like someone spinning a web for their own gains. just had a quick look on tinterweb, cannot find anything to suport this at present. Edited February 14, 2016 by 7daysinaweek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) This morning I had a chat with the son in law that is in the process of applying for his fac and has been told by his feo that he has to go on a firearms awareness course that is being run by a bloke with a certificate in horticulture and trees or something and who wants £125 for the day course for the privilege. son in law has had a sgc for about 10 years and has been around guns and shooting for a lot longer so he knows what they are and what they do. Son in law says that he was looking at a web site of an outfit somewhere down in Somerset where his father lives and they are advertising a similar course for similar money. this firearms awareness course that son in law was told that he had to go on to get a cert was touted as approved and in conjunction with basc. similar to a dsc1 sort of idea. >> This is a bullet. This is the pointy end. That is a sheep. that is a cow. that is a footpath walker. NOOOO dont look down the pointy end. Nice little earner. AND you get a certificate as well. >> Charlie bloggs has attended an awareness course and has been told not to look down the pointy end. AND, Charlie bloggs has attended a pigeon decoying course and has been told the difference between a pigeon and a sheep. look he's even got a certificate. A Nice little earner. Edited February 14, 2016 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clakk Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Man with training facility dreams ,then engages mouth whilst brain is still in idle mould.Making everyone take tests for this that and the other is the money line of shooting and gets a regular outing ,luckily its the 1 thing shooter,s stand against .Methinks he built his new range in the hope we would all bend over and give him our wallet.Fortune that training con has been mentioned on S.D and its go no legal basis at all ,BASC knew nothing about it and it is not in Home Office advice or legal requirements for FAC.You dont need it and it isnt in any firearm law was the basis of much discussion on S.D.atb Iain Edited February 14, 2016 by clakk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 This morning I had a chat with the son in law that is in the process of applying for his fac and has been told by his feo that he has to go on a firearms awareness course I do hope you told him to inform BaSC of this and to not submit to a non legal requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Man with training facility dreams ,then engages mouth whilst brain is still in idle mould.Making everyone take tests for this that and the other is the money line of shooting and gets a regular outing ,luckily its the 1 thing shooter,s stand against .Methinks he built his new range in the hope we would all bend over and give him our wallet.Fortune that training con has been mentioned on S.D and its go no legal basis at all ,BASC knew nothing about it and it is not in Home Office advice or legal requirements for FAC.You dont need it and it isnt in any firearm law was the basis of much discussion on S.D.atb Iain The RFD in question in my initial post built the training facility as he already has commitments via contracts from Government departments to use for the safe training of armed personnel. Like you suggest, the rest of it may well be wishful thinking, but the matter of 'shooters standing against it' is neither here nor there. Shooters will have no option but to comply if the suggestion is given serious consideration by the HO with the backing of insurance companies and unopposed by our shooting organisations. Why would our shooting organisations oppose it if it were true? Hopefully it is just wishful thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 While i think it is bull at the moment, sadly i doubt it will be too far away. I read something recently which reckoned farmers could in future be held accountable for wot happens on there land including shooting (u already have vicarious laibility in scotland now, where landowner is held responisble for any/all wildlife crime on his land no matter who done it) If that happens will mean all shooters will have to be insured (which they should be anyway) but the next logical step for any insurance company is to insist on training/tickets to cover behinds. It will also make farmers think twice about who they ley on there land U only have to look at stalking now more and more estates/forests are following FC's footsteps and insisting on DSC 1 or 2 + many other equally useless tickets Not entirely aggainst training but a 1,2 or even 4 day course does not give u years of experience or common sense, which is sadly not as common now and most gun safety/etequitte is really common sense. But possibly as more people now seem to come into shooting completely 'green' and less been brought up around guns/shooting since kids it mibee is a good thing. But i'd also say stand up to FEO and speak to Basc etc as no legal standing for making u do a course legally, if we carry on accepting things it will only get worse, stalkers should of put there feet down with FC years ago as demands got more ridiculas each year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 With regard to Fortune's post (#4), I just had a look at this outfit. AIM Training as can be readily seen is part of the Rifleman Firearms establishment. Perusal of both elements reflects no details of any applicable qualifications held by any of the staff to run such a course(s). Surely, it would make sense that if there were such would be well advertised. Can anyone more local throw any light on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I can see it from an HSE perspective you have to do a one day course at that cost to be on a building site (UKCG) and I know agribusiness a focus of HSE and NFU tend to cover commercial not recreational operations, BASC CPSA etc won't cover professional activities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I read something recently which reckoned farmers could in future be held accountable for wot happens on there land including shooting Yes, mate did say his RFD had mentioned this as one of the reasons the NFU were pursuing it. Hopefully he's just go the wrong end of the stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 DONE MINE FOR £25 TOOK ABOUT 10 MINS LOAD OF ************* STILL HAD TO DO IT AS FARMER WHISHED IT. I NOW DONT SHOOT THE FARM AS GOT TAKEN OVER BY A MUPPET WITH HAWK, STILL GOT PLENTY OF OTHER LAND Who took the course and who did you pay, and what 'qualification' does it entitle you to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Scully I've not, myself, heard anything from the NFUon the matter, nor have I seen any mention in their magazine Would it have something to do with the insurance element mentioned here.......http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/325015-basc-pigeon-shooting-service/?hl=%2Bnfu+%2Bbasc+%2Bshooting+%2Bscheme&do=findComment&comment=2944008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Neither have I Charlie T. Was going to pop into local NFU tomorrow to enquire (they insure my house contents and guns) but am in Staffordshire again all week from tomorrow. The link you posted may have a bearing on it, I really don't know. Time will tell no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 This is no different to the mentoring condition that some had imposed on them. Who or what was a mentor? what place in law did this have and what qualifications did they have? who was responsible if something did go wrong and what insurance cover if any did anyone have that would cover them in the event of an accident? On the face of it. it is a good idea but when you get into the operational side it is a can of worms. AND in the event of something happening everyone would turn away and say "Not my fault" When this started to appear the orgs should have been down on it like a ton of bricks as an unworkable load of nonsense. But I suppose that they had too much other important stuff on their PLATES to deal with at that time. Quote from #8. "Not entirely against training but a 1,2 or even 4 day course does not give u years of experience or common sense, which is sadly not as common now and most gun safety/etiquette is really common sense. But possibly as more people now seem to come into shooting completely 'green' and less been brought up around guns/shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Either that fortune or a cynic might say the orgs seen a great oportunity to pile on the gravy train again, great source of funds for them and private individuals. When DSC first came about was all volantry and to expand stalkers knowledge and skills, all great in theory. But as many sail at the time it has sneaked in the back door and is often used by Police as a qualification to gain a deer rifle despite no legal basis and by many companies as a min level of competance. Scotland tried to make it complsory as part of the WANE and it was reviewed just last year/possibly still ongoing. Training is amassive industry and money spinner but no real standards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 It's a solution to a problem that's doesn't exist....... So they will need to make the problem exist so the solution is required...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 It may be for public liability, but if the people running courses have no qualifications then anyone can do it! the only problem with that is if you certificate a person as a safe shooter then they shot someone you could have an insurance company and or the courts looking for you. Courses are funny things. I had to do one on a some equipment used in my work, it was being run by someone how i had taught to use the equipment in the first place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 And they're available to buy if you know where to look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben0850 Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Anything coming from the NFU will be a load of ****. They do nothing for agriculture or the rural economy, I'm not sure I even know anyone in this Dale who actually uses or has owt to do with them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 NFU = NO FLIPIN USE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 If anyone can send to me more details of any forces or FLO's that are suggesting or insisting on people taking a course please let me know, because that seems way off side to me, and I will pass such info to our firearms team to investigate If an insurer is requesting that people have been on certain courses as a condition or warrant on the policy, then that's the underwriter risk managing the policy, nothing more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 his name was w may & its a safe shot cert run by basc The Safe Shot Certificate has been run by BASC for many years' it's nothing new. It costs £25,and takes around 1 hour to complete. It is aimed at game shooters who use a shotgun. It is an assessment of capability and knowledge, not a training course; however from experience many game shooters fail to get sufficient marks first time round as generally they fail to do some research before attending the assessment. All of the information required to pass Shotgun Safe Shot is available on the BASC website. I am a BASC Safe Shot Assessor. I can conduct the assessment either at Rixton & Astley Shooting Club or at another suitable location subject to numbers wishing to take the assessment. www.astleygunclub.co.uk webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 While i think it is bull at the moment, sadly i doubt it will be too far away. Sadly, it's more than likely that you're perfectly right. According to BASC the Safe Shot certificate costs £20 and takes about 20 minutes to do the assessment. Twenty five years or so ago, you could do a professional standard course over ten weekly evening sessions. The fee for this which included the lectures, theoretical assessment, practical assessment, certificate, badge and the course handbook was not too much more - hardly any in fact - than the aforementioned £20. It was possible to do this over two full weekends - 4 days - and we now see that any day course is going to cost c£125. So, at today's rates this £20+ is now some £500. Even allowing for a generous inflation increase, this does not compute. One could wonder why this should be, but it would be a pointless exercise as the fact of the matter has to be accepted. Consequently, if Scotslad is correct and any change to the licensing/insurance/call it what you will legislation and particularly if we have to adopt a similar system to much of Europe (groan!) will mean that things are going to get decidedly iffy. Unfortunately, burying our collective head in the sand and hoping it misses us is probably not the best solution. The one that is, has now been hit by a massive £500 stumbling block and collectively, again, we're more than likely to get what we deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Well it's a mirror of industry changes and hse gone mad That said at least employers take h&s s lot more serious these days Insurers are keen to ask for things they can't have yet ask very quietly This way they can refuse or pay out less when something happens My company insurance is like a big thick book and I bet only a very few have actually read thier home insurance stipulations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.