Jump to content

BASC AGM


Recommended Posts

Given the significant interest in BASC on this forum I thought forum members might be interested in the following update following BASC’s first ever online AGM this morning due to Covid-19. 

BASC Council elections

Oliver McCullough was elected to the  Northern Ireland seat; and Ann Mortimer and Al Gabriel were elected to the National seats.

You can watch recent interviews with Al, Ann and Oliver and all the other candidates on FieldsportsTV here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16lT3cMDXfA

Vice Presidents

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP was elected a BASC Vice President.

Sir Geoffrey is the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation and has played a key role in representing shooting and conservation interests in Westminster over the last ten years.

BASC Fighting Fund

BASC has launched a new legal fighting fund that will make a significant contribution to promoting and protecting sustainable shooting and conservation in the UK.

The seven-figure fund will hold ring-fenced reserves that will enable the association to push forward with proactive legal initiatives to secure the future of shooting.

In addition, it will enable BASC to launch effective defences to disruptive legal challenges that could negatively impact our community. 

BASC chairman Eoghan Cameron said: “The fund, the first of its kind, will set BASC on a new path to promoting and protecting shooting, our community and the countryside.

“This fund will allow us to further our aims and lead from the front when presented with opportunities and when facing down legal challenges.

“We are already fighting legal cases in England and Wales and there are other potential cases in the wings.

“For shooting to be heard and represented effectively in court, it must have an ability to fund legal action. Thanks to the generosity of our members and sound financial management, BASC has the means to do so.”
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it dosnt excactly say what the fund will be spent on................i would be staggered and surprised if BASC launched a full out defence/attack on Packham et al...............they have left it too late..............BASC would end up looking like the bogey man

i would guess it would go on more "limp wristed" education campagnes...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Given the significant interest in BASC on this forum I thought forum members might be interested in the following update following BASC’s first ever online AGM this morning due to Covid-19. 

BASC Council elections

Oliver McCullough was elected to the  Northern Ireland seat; and Ann Mortimer and Al Gabriel were elected to the National seats.

You can watch recent interviews with Al, Ann and Oliver and all the other candidates on FieldsportsTV here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16lT3cMDXfA

Vice Presidents

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP was elected a BASC Vice President.

Sir Geoffrey is the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation and has played a key role in representing shooting and conservation interests in Westminster over the last ten years.

BASC Fighting Fund

BASC has launched a new legal fighting fund that will make a significant contribution to promoting and protecting sustainable shooting and conservation in the UK.

The seven-figure fund will hold ring-fenced reserves that will enable the association to push forward with proactive legal initiatives to secure the future of shooting.

In addition, it will enable BASC to launch effective defences to disruptive legal challenges that could negatively impact our community. 

BASC chairman Eoghan Cameron said: “The fund, the first of its kind, will set BASC on a new path to promoting and protecting shooting, our community and the countryside.

“This fund will allow us to further our aims and lead from the front when presented with opportunities and when facing down legal challenges.

“We are already fighting legal cases in England and Wales and there are other potential cases in the wings.

“For shooting to be heard and represented effectively in court, it must have an ability to fund legal action. Thanks to the generosity of our members and sound financial management, BASC has the means to do so.”
 

Brown was the labour guy who voted for the ban on fox hunting was he not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time truth came out from martford mill??

Cost of insurance?

Consultation with ammo makers?

No science no change???

And that's just the last few months

 

Unfortunately so far on back foot still in the car park while others have started the race.

To little to late but worse are the people controlling it they are the real problem, wouldn't matter how much the fund was

Have done more to divide shooters in past 6 months than p ackham wj has ever done.

Very sadly basc are more of the problem than the solution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotslad said:

When was the last time truth came out from martford mill??

Cost of insurance?

Consultation with ammo makers?

No science no change???

And that's just the last few months

 

Unfortunately so far on back foot still in the car park while others have started the race.

To little to late but worse are the people controlling it they are the real problem, wouldn't matter how much the fund was

Have done more to divide shooters in past 6 months than p ackham wj has ever done.

Very sadly basc are more of the problem than the solution.

 

 

So lets assume all the above is fact. My question is What are the other options besides BASC that offer the same support knowledge base and infrastructure as basc and can be a viable voice for shooting in the UK today. WHO? WHAT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

So lets assume all the above is fact. My question is What are the other options besides BASC that offer the same support knowledge base and infrastructure as basc and can be a viable voice for shooting in the UK today. WHO? WHAT?

That is pretty much the same as offering up a choice between a rock and a hard place where neither option is anywhere near suitable or acceptable. If someone has limited facilities but makes the best use of what they do have may we'll succeed. If  you choose to do very little when you have everything required at hand to do the same, you will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

That is pretty much the same as offering up a choice between a rock and a hard place where neither option is anywhere near suitable or acceptable. If someone has limited facilities but makes the best use of what they do have may we'll succeed. If  you choose to do very little when you have everything required at hand to do the same, you will not.

Reallity is showing shooting in the uk today is indeed right there. bETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.  But we are still here still going, so if not happy with BASC change it for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, lancer425 said:

So lets assume all the above is fact. My question is What are the other options besides BASC that offer the same support knowledge base and infrastructure as basc and can be a viable voice for shooting in the UK today. WHO? WHAT?

 Nobody on this forum has an answer to that question or not one that I have seen posted anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“For shooting to be heard and represented effectively in court, it must have an ability to fund legal action.

Perhaps BASC should have mounted a legal challenge to the Doctors' letter fiasco. Perhaps they could use the money that was to be used for the insurance they just ditched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Perhaps BASC should have mounted a legal challenge to the Doctors' letter fiasco. Perhaps they could use the money that was to be used for the insurance they just ditched.

Re the legal Firearms cover element. it was not required by many, 1 in 1000 and even then only 1 in 2000 got taken up. out of theose adopted how many were successful ? the element was nice aspect of BASCs package but given the figures is it prudent use of funds. / they obviously did not think so, and i tend to agree with them. YOMV, in which case complain to BASC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you care to read the posts from a number of people, complaining to BASC is a waste of time. 

YOMV - makes about as much sense as your posts.

According to your posts there were only 1 in 2000 instances taken up. As you question how many were successful, it implies that there were multiples of the 2000. Assuming you know your stuff, there were 4000 instances of the insurance being needed. It seems quite high. 

Have you got the exact figures? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Have you got the exact figures? 

Thats surely asking too much of them Gordon :lol:

Ours is not to question their wisdom, just pay the money and take whatever they give us...
Poor advice and a magazine full of adverts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Perhaps BASC should have mounted a legal challenge to the Doctors' letter fiasco. Perhaps they could use the money that was to be used for the insurance they just ditched.

I would love to see a challenge but how can BASC challenge the police for following their own statutory guidance and ignoring the advisory guidance given to shooters. I dont think there is anything to challenge. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A court should decide whether the Police are acting within the law. Not every force follows the same procedure, so I cannot accept it is clear cut.

PS - still waiting for lancer425 to produce the figures. I am genuinely interested, as I was unaware of the scale of the problem. 

 

Edited by Gordon R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oowee said:

I would love to see a challenge but how can BASC challenge the police for following their own statutory guidance and ignoring the advisory guidance given to shooters. I dont think there is anything to challenge. 

 

Any process with the lack of consistent national approach, where behaviour was at odds with aspects of the guidance (whether in our favour or othewise) and where the BMA and GPs took a stand that permitted some doctors to charge £400 is absolutely ripe for challenge.

If all we achieved was a consistent approach where services were delivered in a timely manner and there was repeatability and predictability in the process it would be fine, but we are as far from that as ever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Didn't I notice that ,at last years AGM, you already had a 6 million "fighting fund"? What has that been SUCCESSFULLY used for? Fighting to get to the bar first?

I like it ! 
Sounds plausible, these long discussions on the 'future of shooting' must last well into the night after a couple of rounds of golf.
They must be terribly dehydrated after all that hard work :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Re the legal Firearms cover element. it was not required by many, 1 in 1000 and even then only 1 in 2000 got taken up. out of theose adopted how many were successful ? the element was nice aspect of BASCs package but given the figures is it prudent use of funds.

lancer425 seemed a little tardy, so I Googled the figures.

BASC has a membership of 155,000. The "legal Firearms cover element" was required by 1 in 1000. So 155 people required it. Of the 155, only 1 in 2000 "got taken up". As there were only 155, I'm not sure where the extra 1,845 came from. Of the one person who got taken up, how many were successful? It is either 100% success or 100% failure.

Given lancer425's appreciation of the prudent use of funds, can I ask him to share his insider knowledge. I don't want a patronising cliche or platitude, I just want the figures.

That should be an easy task for someone who bats off criticisms of BASC and clamours for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

A court should decide whether the Police are acting within the law. Not every force follows the same procedure, so I cannot accept it is clear cut.

PS - still waiting for lancer425 to produce the figures. I am genuinely interested, as I was unaware of the scale of the problem. 

 

Its certainly not clear cut but reading the stutory guidance to the police I can understand why, they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

41 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Any process with the lack of consistent national approach, where behaviour was at odds with aspects of the guidance (whether in our favour or othewise) and where the BMA and GPs took a stand that permitted some doctors to charge £400 is absolutely ripe for challenge.

If all we achieved was a consistent approach where services were delivered in a timely manner and there was repeatability and predictability in the process it would be fine, but we are as far from that as ever.

 

As you say the lack of consistency and the approach taken certainly looks ripe for challenge. I understood that BASC took advice and were told there was little chance of winning a case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

lancer425 seemed a little tardy, so I Googled the figures.

BASC has a membership of 155,000. The "legal Firearms cover element" was required by 1 in 1000. So 155 people required it. Of the 155, only 1 in 2000 "got taken up". As there were only 155, I'm not sure where the extra 1,845 came from. Of the one person who got taken up, how many were successful? It is either 100% success or 100% failure.

Conor quote from the other BASC thread - "With regards to the legal expense’s insurance only around 150 (1 in 1000) members a year make a claim, and of those only around a half (1 in 2000 members) have their cases taken up."

so, 150 members made a claim

75 of these claims were deemed to have a > 50% chance of winning and were taken up by the legal representatives (so 75/150,000 = 1 in 2000, there weren't 2,000 claims)

You're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...