Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Mickeydredd - thanks for the accurate quote, rather than lancer425 citing figures without grasping what they meant. It would have been nice to know what the outcome was in the 75 cases. 

Could that information be found  out via the freedom of information act.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Mickeydredd - thanks for the accurate quote, rather than lancer425 citing figures without grasping what they meant. It would have been nice to know what the outcome was in the 75 cases. 

30 cases were quoted to nic in the other thread, that info from BASC themselves.
So 4/5 ths of all those who wanted to go legal , got talked out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I was hoping that you would know it without recourse to that. Just ask the BASC rep.

I have the statement and i have quoted from it multiple times on these related threads. i am confused why you feel i have any more insight or interest in any more insight into this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have the statement and i have quoted from it multiple times on these related threads. i am confused why you feel i have any more insight or interest in any more insight into this subject.

The problem was that your quote was selective and not the full picture. I accept that you are confused, as it comes across quite clearly in your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have to remember Home office guidance is not law and the police / courts can ignore it, the only thing that is relevant is the actual Firearms act. 

The problem we have is clause 27 for firearms or 28 for shotguns

"28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates.

[F11(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace."

It is such a broad-brush legislation it gives the chief officer of police the ability to refuse a grant or renewal based on whether he/she is satisfied or not which is completely subjective to the individual chief officer of police hence the discrepancies between forces.

Cases have gone to court on security issues and the above sections have been successfully used to win those cases for the police or pass the threshold for reasonableness so costs are not awarded against the police even though they lost the case.

 

All it takes is the chief of police to stand up in court and say he/she is not satisfied without a medical check or on security or (insert whatever) and section 27 / 28 of the firearms act requires them not to grant or renew.

Obviously the above is an oversimplification of the problem and no QC has any idea which way the judge would go on this but the question for BASC members is, would winning one case set a precedence that the police have to follow in all future cases.

 

Judges are going to be very reluctant to give a blanket ban on a chief officer of police having a judgement call to ask for medical reports or (insert whatever) as they see fit. So how does any single judgement set a precedence that overrides the actual firearms act. They are just going to say in this instance each court case has individual circumstances therefore does not set a precedence for all other cases. The same as security of shotguns, this is still not defined in law even though there have been court cases won and lost on it.

Therefore, going to court to win an individual case which doesn’t set a precedence would seem pointless fight to try and overturn the need for medical checks on mass.

 

I’m not defending BASC I think their communication on all this was horrendous but I am often called upon to be an expert witness and see the only people that win in court are those that are paid to be there not the litigants so I can see why they are reluctant.

I’m in the CPSA so I am still covered for the moment anyway.

Just my opinion on it for what it is worth.

Edited by timps
Link to post
Share on other sites

Timps - fair point. My problem is that the Chief Officer of the Police accepts a letter from a GP who may or may not know the applicant. It seems like passing the buck, because any letter from a GP is much like an MOT certificate - valid at the time of issue, but no guarantee the day after.

GPs should notify the Police if any licence holder becomes a risk. The actual letter seems like an extra obstacle rather than ensuring public safety. That is what I think should be tested - whether the extra obstacle actually achieves anything..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2020 at 12:43, 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?

None in my opinion - because there are too many small orgs instead of one massive one with big names that .GOV would be rather pally with at the top, the type that contribute to Tory coffers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Timps - fair point. My problem is that the Chief Officer of the Police accepts a letter from a GP who may or may not know the applicant. It seems like passing the buck, because any letter from a GP is much like an MOT certificate - valid at the time of issue, but no guarantee the day after.

GPs should notify the Police if any licence holder becomes a risk. The actual letter seems like an extra obstacle rather than ensuring public safety. That is what I think should be tested - whether the extra obstacle actually achieves anything..

Gordon for what it is worth I agree with you, the certificate is next to useless.

The problem with testing it is how do you go about it, the legislation as written is so broad brush on purpose so the chief of police could react to unforeseen problems with licencing without the need to change the legislation in parliament and the delay that would impose.

Unfortunately, they assumed the police would follow guidance not just impose their will, and without a change in legislation I don’t really see how a court case could impose restrictions on the chief of police with the wording of the act. It will always be seen as a legislative / political issue rather than a legal one by judges, I fear.

 

Unless some high flying QC that knows what they are doing gets on board which is always a hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

 

That`s the point that seems to be missed by many ! Surely a level playing field in terms of a consistant approach was achieveable .I can accept a fee but we should all be paying a fixed amount .It seems like we`ve abandoned that fight though.....that sounds familiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one thing everyone can agree on about BASC, which unfortunately the committee cannot see for themselves, is that they are severely lacking in modern communication skills.

I do not blame them for not having the skills, good customer service takes years to master. But I do blame them for not recognising their shortfall, after all they have had enough feedback.

Over the years I have many times made the suggestion that BASC should employ a professional publicity company. I have made this suggestion to my local reps, higher up folk that I have met at shows and higher up folk that I have spoken to directly. I will obviously not name names but I can assure folk that there are plenty of folk working for BASC who are just as frustrated as their members and sometimes as much as the non-members who would almost certainly wish to support a strong, professional, shooting organisation.

So once again I will make the suggestion to the committee, before sending out poorly worded communications that can be easily mis-interpreted by members and non-members, send them to a professional third party first. They could also ask for volunteers from the general membership of all backgrounds to act as proof readers, folk who are prepared to give their feedback to head off the types of debacle we have seen in the last few months. I would even say that some non-members should be recruited for this - there are a few folk on here that I am sure would like to be involved - you never know BASC they might even re-join if they thought they were being listened to!

The BASC committee should not be basing their performance on the often quoted membership number, they should be basing their performance on the numbers of shooting folk who are not members

As at 31 March 2019, there were:
159,745 firearm certificates on issue
572,488 shotgun certificates on issue

Even making a ridiculous assumption that all FAC holders are also SC holders I cannot see why BASC should not be aiming for 400000 members, to me that is 245000 folk missing

To overcome this deficit will require some serious strategic thinking and action, I am sad to say that I do not feel that BASC currently have a mechanism for the change required to achieve this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 243deer said:

I think that one thing everyone can agree on about BASC, which unfortunately the committee cannot see for themselves, is that they are severely lacking in modern communication skills.

I do not blame them for not having the skills, good customer service takes years to master. But I do blame them for not recognising their shortfall, after all they have had enough feedback.

Over the years I have many times made the suggestion that BASC should employ a professional publicity company. I have made this suggestion to my local reps, higher up folk that I have met at shows and higher up folk that I have spoken to directly. I will obviously not name names but I can assure folk that there are plenty of folk working for BASC who are just as frustrated as their members and sometimes as much as the non-members who would almost certainly wish to support a strong, professional, shooting organisation.

So once again I will make the suggestion to the committee, before sending out poorly worded communications that can be easily mis-interpreted by members and non-members, send them to a professional third party first. They could also ask for volunteers from the general membership of all backgrounds to act as proof readers, folk who are prepared to give their feedback to head off the types of debacle we have seen in the last few months. I would even say that some non-members should be recruited for this - there are a few folk on here that I am sure would like to be involved - you never know BASC they might even re-join if they thought they were being listened to!

The BASC committee should not be basing their performance on the often quoted membership number, they should be basing their performance on the numbers of shooting folk who are not members

As at 31 March 2019, there were:
159,745 firearm certificates on issue
572,488 shotgun certificates on issue

Even making a ridiculous assumption that all FAC holders are also SC holders I cannot see why BASC should not be aiming for 400000 members, to me that is 245000 folk missing

To overcome this deficit will require some serious strategic thinking and action, I am sad to say that I do not feel that BASC currently have a mechanism for the change required to achieve this.

 

Well posted.

BASC ceased to have a comprehensive idea of its members opinions when it replaced the straw bales in the Members Enclosure at the Game Fair with plastic tables and chairs. Listening to a.group of shooters with anyone close at hand joining the conversation while putting the world to rights very quickly gives one an idea of what they think about any given matter. It was quite easy to steer the conversation towards any topic you wanted their opinion on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like any org, BASC has its faults. But the sheer side of its membership seems to indicate that it is doing something better than its many competitors. Which isn't to say it couldn't do better, but let's keep some perspective, shall we?

In America, the NRA has an estimated  6 per cent of gun owners signed up - and it is currently in turmoil due to internal wrangles. In this country, BASC has about 25 per cent of certificate holders - which is a higher sign-up rate than any other type of sports membership organisation I know of (ie skiing). Its membership seems pretty stable (though is bound to be impacted by the coming recession) and in total amounts to more than all the other fieldsports orgs put together. It has the most comprehensive insurance - and it is first resort insurance, unlike the bargain basement versions offered by other orgs (ring and ask them to explain the difference). It is the only org with a fulltime firearms team, accessible by phone (the others have a part-time consultant, if you are lucky).  

The CA does little for shooting nowadays - it just hasn't got the resources. Its membership has been drifting downwards for years, having peaked before the hunting ban. SACS won't even give membership figures nowadays, so draw your own conclusions  (oh, and they got rid of their legal expenses cover a year or two ago, but kept schtum about it). The NGO is a good org but going nowhere, having seen its membership peak at about  13-15K a few years ago. The SGA is an even smaller body representing keepers in Scotland (and I am sure they were grateful that BASC sorted out the Covid relief fund eligibility  for sporting businesses north of the border). The BDS is in freefall.  The GWCT (brilliant scientific org - we really need them) is now desperately short of funds, because of Covid, and nowadays has less than 20k members. 

By contrast, BASC has recently ring-fenced more than £1 million for legal actions in defence of shooting. Hmm. There are a  host of challenges facing shooting, but we'd be worse off without BASC.

 

Edited by stagboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, stagboy said:

Like any org, BASC has its faults. But the sheer side of its membership seems to indicate that it is doing something better than its many competitors. Which isn't to say it couldn't do better, but let's keep some perspective, shall we?

In America, the NRA has an estimated  6 per cent of gun owners signed up - and it is currently in turmoil due to internal wrangles. In this country, BASC has about 25 per cent of certificate holders - which is a higher sign-up rate than any other type of sports membership organisation I know of (ie skiing). Its membership seems pretty stable (though is bound to be impacted by the coming recession) and in total amounts to more than all the other fieldsports orgs put together. It has the most comprehensive insurance - and it is first resort insurance, unlike the bargain basement versions offered by other orgs (ring and ask them to explain the difference). It is the only org with a fulltime firearms team, accessible by phone (the others have a part-time consultant, if you are lucky).  

The CA does little for shooting nowadays - it just hasn't got the resources. Its membership has been drifting downwards for years, having peaked before the hunting ban. SACS won't even give membership figures nowadays, so draw your own conclusions  (oh, and they got rid of their legal expenses cover a year or two ago, but kept schtum about it). The NGO is a good org but going nowhere, having seen its membership peak at about  13-15K a few years ago. The SGA is an even smaller body representing keepers in Scotland (and I am sure they were grateful that BASC sorted out the Covid relief fund eligibility  for sporting businesses north of the border). The BDS is in freefall.  The GWCT (brilliant scientific org - we really need them) is now desperately short of funds, because of Covid, and nowadays has less than 20k members. 

By contrast, BASC has recently ring-fenced more than £1 million for legal actions in defence of shooting. Hmm. There are a  host of challenges facing shooting, but we'd be worse off without BASC.

 

Agreed 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i must try this stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong approach what is the point of joining organisations who salt the cash away and make every effort to avoid spending it on defending the people who’s money it is the members when you have millions gathering dust in a fighting fund you must be putting up the worst fight in history 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 243deer said:

I think that one thing everyone can agree on about BASC, which unfortunately the committee cannot see for themselves, is that they are severely lacking in modern communication skills.

I do not blame them for not having the skills, good customer service takes years to master. But I do blame them for not recognising their shortfall, after all they have had enough feedback.

Over the years I have many times made the suggestion that BASC should employ a professional publicity company.

 

Well it appears they have tried to solve your proposed solution by recruiting:

Average Communications & Public Affairs staff numbers rose from 21 to 28 from 2018 to 2019

Not sure it has been a great success

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stagboy said:

Like any org, BASC has its faults. But the sheer side of its membership seems to indicate that it is doing something better than its many competitors. Which isn't to say it couldn't do better, but let's keep some perspective, shall we?

In America, the NRA has an estimated  6 per cent of gun owners signed up - and it is currently in turmoil due to internal wrangles. In this country, BASC has about 25 per cent of certificate holders - which is a higher sign-up rate than any other type of sports membership organisation I know of (ie skiing). Its membership seems pretty stable (though is bound to be impacted by the coming recession) and in total amounts to more than all the other fieldsports orgs put together. It has the most comprehensive insurance - and it is first resort insurance, unlike the bargain basement versions offered by other orgs (ring and ask them to explain the difference). It is the only org with a fulltime firearms team, accessible by phone (the others have a part-time consultant, if you are lucky).  

The CA does little for shooting nowadays - it just hasn't got the resources. Its membership has been drifting downwards for years, having peaked before the hunting ban. SACS won't even give membership figures nowadays, so draw your own conclusions  (oh, and they got rid of their legal expenses cover a year or two ago, but kept schtum about it). The NGO is a good org but going nowhere, having seen its membership peak at about  13-15K a few years ago. The SGA is an even smaller body representing keepers in Scotland (and I am sure they were grateful that BASC sorted out the Covid relief fund eligibility  for sporting businesses north of the border). The BDS is in freefall.  The GWCT (brilliant scientific org - we really need them) is now desperately short of funds, because of Covid, and nowadays has less than 20k members. 

By contrast, BASC has recently ring-fenced more than £1 million for legal actions in defence of shooting. Hmm. There are a  host of challenges facing shooting, but we'd be worse off without BASC.

 

This is exactly the perspective that I am talking about. There is no perspective that is right or wrong, but, as in business, there are those that accept that things are going OK and so do not question themselves hard enough about what they could and should do better. I agree Stagboy, BASC are doing many things very well but are extremely poor at communicating this. You cannot expect internal staff, especially new recruits, to be in a position to challenge the gods that are the committee. Hence with absolutely no disrespect intended to Connor ( in fact I have a great deal of respect for someone who keeps trying and does not give up) he is manacled by the corporate line, when that corporate line is badly written he personally inevitably receives all the usual unjust sniping.

I also challenge the membership number in terms of how many members, like myself, were forced as part of their syndicate/club to join BASC rather than doing so voluntarily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, asmew said:

Stagboy - can you check your facts please?

see BASC online liability policy wording Condition 5 “Other Insurances”

Standard legal disclaimer. You are not allowed to actually profit from an insurance claim (only to be put back to the position you were in before)  so if you have multiple cover, the various ins cos may come to a deal between themselves. You won't get multiple payouts for the same claim.  But BASC insurance is first resort, so they will take up the claim for you (if eligible) and then later, if necessary, deal with other insurance cos. Some other orgs' cheap policies are last resort - their ins co may want to see all your other policies upfront before even entertaining your claim (if it gets past their small print exclusions). If they think you might be covered under, say, your general household policy, then they won't touch it.  Big difference.  BASC states on its website that it is Financial Conduct Authority authorised and  regulated, thereby coming under FCA complaints process etc. Are any other fieldsports orgs? (Ask them  - while you are also asking about whether their policy is last resort and what that means).  

 

Edited by stagboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it’s a standard clause - that is exactly my point. Nothing in BASC contract to say its first resort ( not a legal term anyway) anymore than any of the others says theirs is or isn’t. All the others carry the same clause and may just as easily adopt in practice the same claims handling procedure . BASC need FCA because of the structure of their business , it’s got nothing to do with claims handling practices where dual insurances exist . All insurance is Regulated.

You have chosen to in effect slag off all shooting insurance arrangements except BASC, or is it just some? Where is your evidence? Do tell so we can all avoid those rogues. Or are you just doing a smoke and mirrors job on behalf of BASC?

Link to post
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.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...