BASC to cease legal expenses cover wef 31 July 2020

[oowee]

16 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

+1. So, in truth, yes, as another said "Rants are all very well - but the truth should not be forgotten."

AND THE TRUTH IS THAT BASC HAS ACHIEVED NOTHING IN STOPPING CHIEF CONSTABLES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL MEDICAL INPUT THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED IN THE HOME OFFICE GUIDELINES. 

So what does that "C" really stand for? Given the above it stands for "Canute". Which for those who don't know the story is of a King's futile attempt to command the tide from coming in.

But as the poster has been involved in drafting "the majority" of these forty-five question might he please cut and paste them and the relevant Minusters' responses here on PW? 

Not so sure this is correct as the information given by the HO to the police is at best ambiguous and could be seen as conflicting with the HO advice to applicants. Hence the lack of a legal case to go forward. Following extract from Statutory guidance to Chief Officers. 

This guidance sits alongside the non-statutory Home Office guide on firearms licensing law, and the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on firearms licensing. Whilst there is no legal duty to follow the Home Office guide or the College of Policing APP, these are provided to assist chief officers in interpreting the law and setting operational practices respectively.

1. The provision of relevant medical information from an applicant’s GP is necessary in order to determine the level of risk to public safety arising from the grant of a certificate. The certificate should not, therefore, be granted or renewed if this information is not provided. The police should follow the procedure set out below.

[mick miller]

43 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

But as the poster has been involved in drafting "the majority" of these forty-five question might he please cut and paste them...here on PW? 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/Contributions?startDate=2015-07-08&endDate=2020-07-08&searchTerm=question%3A firearms medical&partial=False

Reading through some of the comments made by MPs just highlights the level of complete ignorance around the facts and truths. I couldn't find much debate specifically directed at either medicals costs or the interpretation and firming up of the 'law' around firearms to remove any potential for ambiguities to be exploited in regard to requiring medical documentation before the grant of an FAC. Most appear to be as an addendum to the debate around the Offensive Weapons Bill.

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by mick miller

[Christopher Graffius]

You will find the questions by looking here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons%2Clords&member=114&dept=1&keywords=firearms

In keywords, put "firearms", under "members", put Sir Mike Penning, Shrewsbury and Loughton, under "for answer by" put Home Office. That will give you the questions I referred to.

 

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, Christopher Graffius said:

You will find the questions by looking here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons%2Clords&member=114&dept=1&keywords=firearms

In keywords, put "firearms", under "members", put Sir Mike Penning, Shrewsbury and Loughton, under "for answer by" put Home Office. That will give you the questions I referred to.

 

More contempt .

' I cant be bothered to answer your oikish questions , so heres a link for you to waste time trawling through'
Even though its nothing to do with the threads subject matter.

Would it have been too much to answer the questions the thread has asked ? It seems so.

[enfieldspares]

Or basically that's two questions, asked and the answer was a "brush off". 

Anyhow click below and we can see how the relevant Minister quivered and cowered under the full blast of "the voice of shooting" and promised to...promised to...promised to...do four/fifths of what? 

I'd have got better results putting the same two questions...especially that dated 8 January 2020...to my cat...and he's been dead these last thirty years.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons%2Clords&member=114&dept=1&keywords=firearms

Edited July 8, 2020 by enfieldspares

[TIGHTCHOKE]

So in really simple terms. BASC are not impressing those people that pay in to their system!

[bottletopbill]

Could we not vote for a vote of no confidence in the committee as they are not taking any notice of the members.

[Fatcatsplat]

56 minutes ago, bottletopbill said:

Could we not vote for a vote of no confidence in the committee as they are not taking any notice of the members.

We could or we could pay £150.00 a year membership fee and include the legal expenses if you like 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Fatcatsplat said:

We could or we could pay £150.00 a year membership fee and include the legal expenses if you like 

Seems funny how other insurance providers seem to be able to provide the cover for around a quarter of that.

But then again glossy, advert filled magazines cost money to print...
Plus we certainly wouldnt want to put BASCs army of staff out of a job would we ?

Next year they will probably remove the personal accident cover because 'its too expensive, and no one uses it ' 

[mossy835]

55 minutes ago, Fatcatsplat said:

We could or we could pay £150.00 a year membership fee and include the legal expenses if you like 

 

 

i wont be doing that

[bostonmick]

So the voice of shooting. They stayed silent over the gp reports. Then the next move was to do the anti lead campaigners job for them. Now dump this insurance cover. I realise if you behave there should be no reason to lose certificate but what about those who suffer at the hands of malicious complaints . Basc boasts 150 thousand members yet can’t afford the insurance CPsa has around 25 thousand and can. I believe it is now time for their gravy train to derail and they not exist.

[flippermaj]

It is indeed interesting that other organisations can offer legal expenses insurance eg CPSA and CCC3.   However what we don't know is how often or how much they paid out on these policies?   Easy to take some ones money for legal expenses if at the end of the year you haven't paid out for a case or only a handful?

Just a thought.

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, flippermaj said:

Easy to take some ones money for legal expenses if at the end of the year you haven't paid out for a case or only a handful

That's the whole point though isn't it?

I rather hope my house doesn't burn down, and very few do, but if it does I know I'm covered financially. 

We all know well, that in the cases of legal issues with firearms use, the odds are usually stacked against you, but that little bit of (very rarely used) reassurance that someone has your back, gives a little piece of mind. 

As they said themselves, it doesn't get used much, and it costs a million quid. They fail to give any more information than that, as we are just plebs. 

It could be that they only take on cases that they know 100% will win, which begs the question, why do you even need the insurance if that is the strategy? 

Some figures are obviously too much to ask though, either that or the figures are just plain embarrassing. 

 

[Remimax]

They must think all current members are teflon coated to withdraw this cover , as we all know it takes very little these days to have your guns taken off you.

one of the main reasons i have been a member was for the so called safety net incase some clown  thinks of  having a pop.

this is not a good move at all ,for the sum of £13.50 why were members not consulted over a membership increase to cover it ?.

 

[mossy835]

and if one of there own at basc got into trouble. i bet they will throw money at it.

[strimmer_13]

3 minutes ago, Remimax said:

 

this is not a good move at all ,for the sum of £13.50 why were members not consulted over a membership increase to cover it ?.

 

This is what I cant understand. I'm not with basc anymore, I was until 3 months ago but I couldn't justify the membership expense vs what I required (plus all the other failures). But the wildfowling clubs and the other shoots where its mandatory for the insurance, by putting it up a extra £5 wouldn't of gained the flak it has,  no doubt they would of lost a few members looking for a cheaper deal like me, but it would of again be better to off consulted it's members first (but they don't seem to do 'consulting' with its members) and give a option and a way forward. But they didn't. Again. 

 

[Zapp]

3 minutes ago, strimmer_13 said:

This is what I cant understand. I'm not with basc anymore, I was until 3 months ago but I couldn't justify the membership expense vs what I required (plus all the other failures). But the wildfowling clubs and the other shoots where its mandatory for the insurance, by putting it up a extra £5 wouldn't of gained the flak it has,  no doubt they would of lost a few members looking for a cheaper deal like me, but it would of again be better to off consulted it's members first (but they don't seem to do 'consulting' with its members) and give a option and a way forward. But they didn't. Again. 

 

This mirrors my views to a large extent.  On the back of several years of being unsure about the direction being taken, we were not consulted on the lead shot phase out and now we have not been consulted on the changes to the insurance provision.

The net result is that that's enough of feeling taken for granted for me, and I'm no longer a member.  

[harkom]

20 hours ago, bottletopbill said:

Could we not vote for a vote of no confidence in the committee as they are not taking any notice of the members.

🤙 ....Long , Long Overdue.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Seem to be a lot less people jumping up to defend BASC!

[lancer425]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Seem to be a lot less people jumping up to defend BASC!

I don't think the dog ever bit the postman, but "pick a scab long enough it will bleed" . no point in defending this dog  any more. "Give a dog a bad name".   .

[bottletopbill]

Why is BASC not answering as i have asked them to do and this shows there attitude to us as members. Pity they did not stop the Magazine instead (my opinion only)

[Rewulf]

On 09/07/2020 at 12:26, bottletopbill said:

Why is BASC not answering as i have asked them to do and this shows there attitude to us as members. Pity they did not stop the Magazine instead (my opinion only)

Theyve just emailed me to ask why I cancelled.

So Ive told them straight, and about the stinking attitude of some of their representatives .

[mossy835]

so when i cancell they will email me, i will tell how useless they are,over the doctors letters.and lead shot.

[holloway]

I am staggered by how many on this thread seem to be members of an association that they absolutely dispise ! why on earth DID anyone join in the first place ? 

 

 

[Terry2016]

I am surprised by how many people want an organisation that fights for shooting but at the drop of a hat one that doesn't is good enough.  if all you want is insurance you should have left long ago... just done pretend you care about the future of shooting.

If there is no BASC trust me, there will be no shooting 

let that resonate for a while...

Edited July 10, 2020 by Terry2016