BASC to cease legal expenses cover wef 31 July 2020

[Terry2016]

The real point here is that the gripes of a few people (mostly the same ones) on these pages are moaning about BASC and yet they say they are not members???  therefore it will have no impact to BASC whats so ever. 

Yes its their opinion and they are entitled to it, however the opinions seem to pushed onto whomever disagrees with you.

There are no facts coming form this thread at all- BASC have removed legal expenses cover because it was increasing at an alarming rate making it unviable for the membership.  If that sounds like a poor decision to anyone that was a member ( not the ones who are not) you can leave.

The truth is that BASC are the largest organisation who is doing the most for shooting.  just because you do not like what they are doing doesn't mean it wrong. 

Just maybe thats why you do not work for a shooting organisation.?

I suggest if you are a member speak to your local team and see what is happening you may well be surprised as i was and how much they are doing. 

if you are not a member ... well ... I need say no more. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Terry2016

[grrclark]

27 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

I do not mean to offend you, honestly.  I would sincerely appreciate it if you gave me any BASC failing. even one will do for starters. Shooters have lost much, most of it down to knee jerk firearms legislation after hunger ford etc, but BASC. Please give me a failure.

 

Their lack of action in challenging the BMA and the multiple UK Police forces that chose to act outside of the government guidance for a doctors assessment during licence grant and renewals.

Despite shooters losing guns in Scotland due to a refusal of Police Scotland to work in line with the home office guidelines BASC continued to take a hands off approach and advise the shooters not to comply with a request to pay for a doctor's note.  Seeing how the approach of Police Scotland worked it has now been followed by other police forces throughout the UK, after all it was completely uncontested in any meaningful sense.

Shooters absolutely stitched up and their members organisation, "the voice of shooting", abandoned them saying don't comply with the police, even if it means you lose your guns and an ability to enjoy your sport/hobby or even in some cases make a living.  You can show the police how unhappy you are by effectively giving up shooting whilst we, the voice of shooting, do absolutely heehaw, but remember we are doing heehaw on your behalf!  We do issue a nice glossy magazine full of adverts and with a whole load of other marketing spam bundled in the plastic wrapper though. 

There was a clear opportunity for BASC to make a challenge through the courts against one police force and actually influence a wider outcome, instead they took a complete hands off approach and threw their members under the bus.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

real point here is that the gripes of a few people (mostly the same ones) on these pages are moaning about BASC and yet they say they are not members???  therefore it will have no impact to BASC whats so ever

No, if you care to read the gripes, they WERE members but BASCs performance at doing its job of representing its MEMBERS was found to be lacking, so they left, as did I last week.

 

10 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

There are no facts coming form this thread at all- BASC have removed legal expenses cover because it was increasing at an alarming rate making it unviable for the membership

No , they initially tried to insinuate that it wasnt being used enough,  then they said it cost too much.

What they didn't do was offer any other option.

To many ,that wasnt acceptable. 

13 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

If that sounds like a poor decision to anyone that was a member ( not the ones who are not) you can leave

Many will have done , but that's a poor attitude for any organisation/business , and usually one that comes to be regretted. 

 

15 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

suggest if you are a member speak to your local team and see what is happening you may well be surprised as i was and how much they are doing. 

if you are not a member ... well ... I need say no more

We did have a chat with BASC reps on here , look what happened , we got the brush off.

It proved to me what they are really about, profit.

[stuartyboy]

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

The real point here is that the gripes of a few people (mostly the same ones) on these pages are moaning about BASC and yet they say they are not members???  therefore it will have no impact to BASC whats so ever. 

Yes its their opinion and they are entitled to it, however the opinions seem to pushed onto whomever disagrees with you.

There are no facts coming form this thread at all- BASC have removed legal expenses cover because it was increasing at an alarming rate making it unviable for the membership.  If that sounds like a poor decision to anyone that was a member ( not the ones who are not) you can leave.

The truth is that BASC are the largest organisation who is doing the most for shooting.  just because you do not like what they are doing doesn't mean it wrong. 

Just maybe thats why you do not work for a shooting organisation.?

I suggest if you are a member speak to your local team and see what is happening you may well be surprised as i was and how much they are doing. 

if you are not a member ... well ... I need say no more. 

I read that as being patronising to people who have the audacity to question BASC. Possibly you don’t intend it to come across as such.

 I disagree with elements of what BASC has done, so have left after many years of support and I wish them all the success for the future but there seems an inability to listen to genuine concerns and respond to them 

[Terry2016]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No, if you care to read the gripes, they WERE members but BASCs performance at doing its job of representing its MEMBERS was found to be lacking, so they left, as did I last week.

 

No , they initially tried to insinuate that it wasnt being used enough,  then they said it cost too much.

What they didn't do was offer any other option.

To many ,that wasnt acceptable. 

Many will have done , but that's a poor attitude for any organisation/business , and usually one that comes to be regretted. 

 

We did have a chat with BASC reps on here , look what happened , we got the brush off.

It proved to me what they are really about, profit.

As i said i spoke to me regional team, thats what the service is for.  a lady kindly explained why the insurance was removed it makes sound business sense to me. 

I am suggesting you do the same, you will never get the interaction you desire through social media.  statements were posted not 121 dialogue. 

i do not think the insurance will ever be  a regrettable decision as the cost is only ever going to go one way i was told it went form 250k to 400k and now 1mil. 

who's to say next year its not 2 million then 3 then 4 .  you have to draw a line. that seems to be what they have done . 

sounds sensible to me. 

[Terry2016]

11 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

I read that as being patronising to people who have the audacity to question BASC. Possibly you don’t intend it to come across as such.

 I disagree with elements of what BASC has done, so have left after many years of support and I wish them all the success for the future but there seems an inability to listen to genuine concerns and respond to them 

Patronising ? no quite the opposite. I feel if you have an issue with BASC you should call your local rep and discuss it. if you do not like the answer you can complain or you can leave. 

if we spent as much time talking to the orgs rather than sitting on a forum complaining to each other it may actually achieve something. 

I called my rep and I also dialled into the AGM and found it useful to clarify some areas i was unsure of. 

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

I feel if you have an issue with BASC you should call your local rep and discuss it. if you do not like the answer you can complain or you can leave. 

 

This is exactly what I did after many years of BASC’s underachieving. 

[Terry2016]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

This is exactly what I did after many years of BASC’s underachieving. 

Thats fair enough Scully. you have expressed that you are also unhappy with NGO and leaving or left them also. 

Exactly my point. if you are not satisfied you can leave. failing that give them a call and discuss it as you said things can change in these organisations you have sat on committees enough to know that. 

if you all speak to your rep you may get change ?? 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Terry2016

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Thats fair enough Scully. you have expressed that you are also unhappy with NGO and leaving or left them also. 

Exactly my point. if you are not satisfied you can leave. failing that give them a call and discuss it as you said things can change in these organisations you have sat on committees enough to know that. 

if you all speak to your rep you may get change ?? 

It was after speaking to my NGO rep’ that my decision to leave was enforced, exactly as it panned out after talking to Mike Eveleigh of BASC. 
Admission that they are powerless to act, as was the case with BASC, or as in the case of the NGO, an inability to explain a contradictory policy decision, makes me question why I’m funding this ineffectiveness. So I’m not anymore. 

[button]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

Their lack of action in challenging the BMA and the multiple UK Police forces that chose to act outside of the government guidance for a doctors assessment during licence grant and renewals.

Despite shooters losing guns in Scotland due to a refusal of Police Scotland to work in line with the home office guidelines BASC continued to take a hands off approach and advise the shooters not to comply with a request to pay for a doctor's note.  Seeing how the approach of Police Scotland worked it has now been followed by other police forces throughout the UK, after all it was completely uncontested in any meaningful sense.

Shooters absolutely stitched up and their members organisation, "the voice of shooting", abandoned them saying don't comply with the police, even if it means you lose your guns and an ability to enjoy your sport/hobby or even in some cases make a living.  You can show the police how unhappy you are by effectively giving up shooting whilst we, the voice of shooting, do absolutely heehaw, but remember we are doing heehaw on your behalf!  We do issue a nice glossy magazine full of adverts and with a whole load of other marketing spam bundled in the plastic wrapper though. 

There was a clear opportunity for BASC to make a challenge through the courts against one police force and actually influence a wider outcome, instead they took a complete hands off approach and threw their members under the bus.

I understand where you are coming from but I'm not sure that the police have acted outside guidance regarding doctors letters/medicals etc, while we might not agree with it, my understanding is that if that is what the chief constable decides that is what they require to satisfy themselves of an applicant's suitability then that I believe is acting within HO guidance, and if that is the case maybe BASC knew that is a fight they are never going to win

[grrclark]

38 minutes ago, button said:

I understand where you are coming from but I'm not sure that the police have acted outside guidance regarding doctors letters/medicals etc, while we might not agree with it, my understanding is that if that is what the chief constable decides that is what they require to satisfy themselves of an applicant's suitability then that I believe is acting within HO guidance, and if that is the case maybe BASC knew that is a fight they are never going to win

How do BASC know they will never win the fight if they don’t try?

The opportunity was there to take on a challenge, but instead they recommended passive resistance no matter what the cost to the shooter.  In the meantime the BMA gathered their troops and pushed policy from the sidelines, the Police were happy to see shooters marginalised and the “voice of shooting” was deafening in its silence.

There is a lot that they appear to quietly concede without trying.

There are tons of self serving lobbyist groups that hobnob around parliament  telling themselves they are important while spending other people’s money.  They shout their message into their own echo chamber and hear back how important they are.  BASC are one of those.

Nannying around the periphery name checking the same faces who are quite content to take whatever handouts BASC are prepared to offer, but when it comes down to it what actually happens?

[clangerman]

2 minutes ago, grrclark said:

How do BASC know they will never win the fight if they don’t try?

The opportunity was there to take on a challenge, but instead they recommended passive resistance no matter what 

you beat me to it nobody knows the outcome of a fight until the last man is left standing 

[Dave-G]

3 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

As i said i spoke to me regional team, thats what the service is for.  a lady kindly explained why the insurance was removed it makes sound business sense to me. 

I am suggesting you do the same, you will never get the interaction you desire through social media.  statements were posted not 121 dialogue. 

i do not think the insurance will ever be  a regrettable decision as the cost is only ever going to go one way i was told it went form 250k to 400k and now 1mil. 

who's to say next year its not 2 million then 3 then 4 .  you have to draw a line. that seems to be what they have done . 

sounds sensible to me. 

Surely BASC can self fund that very rare need for such legal challenges and the representations that might avoid court actions?

[matone]

10 hours ago, grrclark said:

Their lack of action in challenging the BMA and the multiple UK Police forces that chose to act outside of the government guidance for a doctors assessment during licence grant and renewals.

Despite shooters losing guns in Scotland due to a refusal of Police Scotland to work in line with the home office guidelines BASC continued to take a hands off approach and advise the shooters not to comply with a request to pay for a doctor's note.  Seeing how the approach of Police Scotland worked it has now been followed by other police forces throughout the UK, after all it was completely uncontested in any meaningful sense.

Shooters absolutely stitched up and their members organisation, "the voice of shooting", abandoned them saying don't comply with the police, even if it means you lose your guns and an ability to enjoy your sport/hobby or even in some cases make a living.  You can show the police how unhappy you are by effectively giving up shooting whilst we, the voice of shooting, do absolutely heehaw, but remember we are doing heehaw on your behalf!  We do issue a nice glossy magazine full of adverts and with a whole load of other marketing spam bundled in the plastic wrapper though. 

There was a clear opportunity for BASC to make a challenge through the courts against one police force and actually influence a wider outcome, instead they took a complete hands off approach and threw their members under the bus.

Exactly ,that has been their most glaringly obvious failing of recent times ! Advising individual members to take a stand against Police Licensing Depts is a laughable approach .Sadly not the only fail.

5 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Surely BASC can self fund that very rare need for such legal challenges and the representations that might avoid court actions?

I know several people who have had to fund their own legal fight to keep their guns over the years and have been successful ,so it should be possible for what you have suggested BASC do !!!

Capability and willinigness are two different things though.........

Edited July 14, 2020 by matone

[button]

6 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Surely BASC can self fund that very rare need for such legal challenges and the representations that might avoid court actions?

That's just what I was thinking

[Mickeydredd]

9 hours ago, grrclark said:

How do BASC know they will never win the fight if they don’t try?

They took legal advice on whether they would have a chance of winning or not.  They were advised they wouldn't.

[Gordon R]

I think I would need to see the barristers opinion before agreeing with that. Ask ten barristers the same question and I will be astonished if you get more then a couple to agree.

BASC should have tested the water.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Mickeydredd said:

They took legal advice on whether they would have a chance of winning or not.  They were advised they wouldn't.

By that token, it makes you wonder if ANYTHING is worth challenging then ?

It also makes me wonder, do you know the above statement to be fact, that BASC sought legal advice, and they were told there is NO CHANCE of winning ?
Which goes back to my first statement, if thats the way the legal system works, why do we need courts ?
Why dont the legal teams work out the percentages between them, and then decide whos won , without anyone having their day in court ?

Maybe they could charge less for this service 

[lancer425]

56 minutes ago, Mickeydredd said:

They took legal advice on whether they would have a chance of winning or not.  They were advised they wouldn't.

This is the case BASC folowed their legal advice.

We are where we are ,  "DUE to the incompetence of the POLICE" in their handling of simple straightforward cases From Ryan  hamilton and Atherton and others others.

 They had all they needed to prevent these atrocities, but the POLICE fail, demand more laws knee jerk reactions of ill thought out amendments to  the 68act  the 89 etc. we are where we are today. .

 BASC or anyone else is in a no win situation with the Firearms licensing in this country today .  There is no answer to the police / firearms licensing issue. We are where we are accept it and go as long as the police allow us too.

 no shooting organisation in the world can deal with the UK police they are just too power full .  No way out i am afraid.

 

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

This is the case BASC folowed their legal advice.

We are where we are ,  "DUE to the incompetence of the POLICE" in their handling of simple straightforward cases From Ryan  hamilton and Atherton and others others.

 They had all they needed to prevent these atrocities, but the POLICE fail, demand more laws knee jerk reactions of ill thought out amendments to  the 68act  the 89 etc. we are where we are today. .

 BASC or anyone else is in a no win situation with the Firearms licensing in this country today .  There is no answer to the police / firearms licensing issue. We are where we are accept it and go as long as the police allow us too.

 no shooting organisation in the world can deal with the UK police they are just too power full .  No way out i am afraid.

 

Then just what exactly are people paying subscriptions for? They promote themselves as the ‘voice of shooting’ yet won’t take up a challenge. Advice such as ‘keep a low profile’ or ‘dont comply’, and in doing so leaving the shooter to the whims of authority, amount to the same thing, an inability or unwillingness to act lest it cost them money.....members money! 
We pay our shooting organisations to oppose unwarranted, illegal and biased agendas, just as you are doing with then in your challenge of NE policy. Or does it just apply if you’re a wild Fowler? 
The evidence and instances of BASC’s Ineffectiveness and inability to act is far too commonplace and compelling for even your blinkered attitude to ignore. 
 

[lancer425]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Then just what exactly are people paying subscriptions for? They promote themselves as the ‘voice of shooting’ yet won’t take up a challenge. Advice such as ‘keep a low profile’ or ‘dont comply’, and in doing so leaving the shooter to the whims of authority, amount to the same thing, an inability or unwillingness to act lest it cost them money.....members money! 
We pay our shooting organisations to oppose unwarranted, illegal and biased agendas, just as you are doing with then in your challenge of NE policy. Or does it just apply if you’re a wild Fowler? 
The evidence and instances of BASC’s Ineffectiveness and inability to act is far too commonplace and compelling for even your blinkered attitude to ignore. 
 

Advice in all aspects of shooting third party insurance . Support assistance and representation for wildfowling clubs and others. that would run up considerable costs if done outside of BASC year on year.  I have just highlighted a few of my reasons here but there are many others.

I think i get my moneys worth easy, if i did not i would leave.

[udderlyoffroad]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Why dont the legal teams work out the percentages between them, and then decide whos won , without anyone having their day in court ?

That is exactly what happens in (civil) litigation cases quite a lot.

Legal advice is privileged, and neither BASC nor WJ or the government will divulge it unless they really have to.

[clangerman]

24 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

 

 BASC or anyone else is in a no win situation with the Firearms licensing in this country today .  There is no answer to the police / firearms licensing issue. We are where we are accept it and go as long as the police allow us too.

 no shooting organisation in the world can deal with the UK police they are just too power full .  No way out i am afraid.

 

at last we have the CORE message from shooting organisations  submit to bullies roll over and suck it up what a disgraceful message to young shooters give in raise the white flag if i followed cowardice like that i would have lost my tickets years ago 

[lancer425]

Just now, clangerman said:

at last we have the CORE message from shooting organisations  submit to bullies roll over and suck it up what a disgraceful message to young shooters give in raise the white flag if i followed cowardice like that i would have lost my tickets years ago 

 FIGHTING BATTLE COWARDICE WHITE FLAGS. give to a good old bellows pump with THE YOUNG SHOOTERS.

 lets not hold anything back here hey?

  There is only so much any shooting organisation can do no matter where they are in the world or how big a membership or how much money they have.

The NRA in the states huge ny our standards, and even in a pro gun country struggling to hold on to shooters rights, even if we would never want such rights to do our sport on these shores.

Basc can challenge what they stand a chance of winning, to expect them to go against their legal advice to challenge the doctors letter etc. is unrealistic.

Debate here surrounding the core point of this thread is long exhausted. If your not happy with their decision tell them.

 

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

That is exactly what happens in (civil) litigation cases quite a lot.

Of course, I understand that, litigation is there to prevent matters getting to court by resolving the matter outside of it, but that isnt what we are talking about here.
There isnt any litigation, there is an organisation that has had its members challenged/encumbered, and it has basically asked its legal team 'How much is a challenge to this going to cost 'us' potentially ?' (Note the 'us' )
Then a sharp intake of breath later, and ' Ooh ! , that much ? , best leave it then' 

Rinse and repeat.

1 minute ago, lancer425 said:

The NRA in the states huge ny our standards, and even in a pro gun country struggling to hold on to shooters rights, even if we would never want such rights to do our sport on these shores.

The NRA keeps its core values and yields results, thats why they have the membership they have.
To say they are struggling is complete rubbish.

The US also has the 2nd , but you left that bit out for some reason...