The absurd and the ridiculous

[Conor O'Gorman]

It’s fascinating to read the public criticism of BASC, and it’s work for shooting, by a persistent minority of contributors on the forum.
 
Much of it is based on ignorance or conspiracy theories, with towers of criticism built on the shaky foundations of inaccuracy and misinformation.
 
The criticism can be broken down into three lines of attack, all of which defy logic and the published facts.

They are:
 
1. BASC is out to do shooting down
 
A moment’s thought should dispose of this. BASC is an organisation for those who shoot, governed by those who shoot and led by those who shoot. Its success mirrors the success of shooting. More people now shoot over more land in the UK than ever before, leading to a larger membership and more resources to work for shooting. Doing shooting down would be destroying itself.
 
2. BASC is only interested in money and BASC staff in rewarding themselves with high salaries and expensive company cars.
 
BASC never makes a profit, it would be illegal for BASC to do so. As a non-profit making, mutual society registered under the Community Benefits Act, any surplus funds must be used for the benefit of members and the pro-shooting objectives of the Association. Those are decided by Council elected from the members, and which is accountable to the members each year in general meeting. BASC salaries are approved by Council and benchmarked against the market, roughly in the middle of the appropriate spread. None of the minority who need a company car drives a flash model. Staff who carry loads of kit tend to have pick-ups, others typical middle of the range saloon cars including Fords, Toyotas and Skodas.
 
3. BASC is no use
 
This is just an unsubstantiated assertion, but it goes against the facts, established in a court of law. Some years ago, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs withdrew the partial VAT exemption that BASC benefits from as a sports organisation. Their argument was that the exemption was only applicable to organisations that are “essential” to their sport. As BASC didn’t provide the land, guns and quarry used in sporting shooting they weren’t essential. BASC appealed the decision and produced evidence of its work. The judge ruled that BASC were essential to sporting shooting – you can read a report of the case here:

https://www.farminguk.com/news/judge-rules-that-basc-is-essential-to-shooting_18967.html
 
The two takeaway quotes that summarise the verdict are:  
 
“In my judgment, it is an inescapable conclusion that, without BASC’s campaigning, advisory, educational and land management activities, sporting shooting in the United Kingdom in all its forms would be of materially poorer quality, and in some forms would not exist at all.”    
 
"It is clear to me from this unchallenged evidence that it is a far from fanciful proposition that, if BASC or some equivalent did not exist, there would be significantly greater restrictions on shooting than are in fact in place, and that the available facilities would be of a poorer quality."
 
It's impossible to persuade the blinkered and the biased, there will always be those who believe the earth is flat, but those who use abuse devalue their own arguments. 
 
Whether or not you join BASC, or another organisation, or only pay for insurance is everyone’s personal choice, but whether or not you support BASC – why would someone with any interest in the good of shooting want to publicly do it down? Given the facts and the logic that would be absurd and ridiculous.
 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Conor O'Gorman

[London Best]

Well done Conor.

I am appalled by some of the blinkered criticism I read on here.

[clangerman]

typical basc titles a mud slinging thread with a insult you couldn’t make it up! 

[udderlyoffroad]

I wouldn't worry about the 'peanut gallery' on here; I've come to the conclusion that that these are the same people who will do nothing to protect the future of shooting anyway.

Whenever I asked anyone of these posters whether they've, for instance, responded to the HSE's consultation on the proposed REACH lead ban (as they're not a member of an organisation that will respond on their behalf), all I get back is the sound of crickets.

A loud, vocal minority, snarling up threads with negative contributions that leave me feeling dumber than before I read them.  Block and mute.

Hopefully those on the other thread who resorted to outright insults are enjoying a couple of weeks in PW's sin-bin.

[jall25]

Brilliant well said

 

1 minute ago, jall25 said:

soBrilliant well said

 

I like the way you in particular Connor are engaging with "most" of us

We in my syndicate were members many years ago and i felt at the time that maybe BASC had lost sight of the real people so we joined another organisation who i believe do great research - come renewal time next year i will certainly be thinking long and hard about maybe rejoining you guys or having even a two pronged option to support. 

Regards 

[steve_b_wales]

We are all entitled to our opinions, and that's good. Personally, BASC have helped me on many occasion with regard to my FAC renewal/s and have had ridiculous 'clauses' removed. 

[Walker570]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

Well done Conor.

I am appalled by some of the blinkered criticism I read on here.

100% it needed saying even for the very small minority.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

So we can't question BASC, can't have a different opinion on their abilities and the work they do?

 

I will state again that I do not believe the oft quoted membership figures of 150 000.

[Dave at kelton]

Well said Connor. I have said many times that without BASC, and in fairness SACS, we would not be wildfowling here at Caerlaverock. I see what they do behind the scenes. You won’t change some people, like politics so don’t worry about things you can’t influence. It’s a waste of energy when you can be doing something productive

[bruno22rf]

Let the people speak, are members numbers up or down?

[holloway]

Well said Conner as you say it’s the same people spouting the same vitriolic drivel every time Basc get mentioned.

I commend you for sticking at it on this forum I would have given up years ago .

Your on a hiding to nothing but  just remember you still have a lot of support on here.

[bottletopbill]

Yes i have knocked them in the past but also gave them praise but still with them.

Conor  as helped in the past👍

[Weihrauch17]

4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

It’s fascinating to read the public criticism of BASC, and it’s work for shooting, by a persistent minority of contributors on the forum.
 
Much of it is based on ignorance or conspiracy theories, with towers of criticism built on the shaky foundations of inaccuracy and misinformation.
 
The criticism can be broken down into three lines of attack, all of which defy logic and the published facts.

They are:
 
1. BASC is out to do shooting down
 
A moment’s thought should dispose of this. BASC is an organisation for those who shoot, governed by those who shoot and led by those who shoot. Its success mirrors the success of shooting. More people now shoot over more land in the UK than ever before, leading to a larger membership and more resources to work for shooting. Doing shooting down would be destroying itself.
 
2. BASC is only interested in money and BASC staff in rewarding themselves with high salaries and expensive company cars.
 
BASC never makes a profit, it would be illegal for BASC to do so. As a non-profit making, mutual society registered under the Community Benefits Act, any surplus funds must be used for the benefit of members and the pro-shooting objectives of the Association. Those are decided by Council elected from the members, and which is accountable to the members each year in general meeting. BASC salaries are approved by Council and benchmarked against the market, roughly in the middle of the appropriate spread. None of the minority who need a company car drives a flash model. Staff who carry loads of kit tend to have pick-ups, others typical middle of the range saloon cars including Fords, Toyotas and Skodas.
 
3. BASC is no use
 
This is just an unsubstantiated assertion, but it goes against the facts, established in a court of law. Some years ago, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs withdrew the partial VAT exemption that BASC benefits from as a sports organisation. Their argument was that the exemption was only applicable to organisations that are “essential” to their sport. As BASC didn’t provide the land, guns and quarry used in sporting shooting they weren’t essential. BASC appealed the decision and produced evidence of its work. The judge ruled that BASC were essential to sporting shooting – you can read a report of the case here:

https://www.farminguk.com/news/judge-rules-that-basc-is-essential-to-shooting_18967.html
 
The two takeaway quotes that summarise the verdict are:  
 
“In my judgment, it is an inescapable conclusion that, without BASC’s campaigning, advisory, educational and land management activities, sporting shooting in the United Kingdom in all its forms would be of materially poorer quality, and in some forms would not exist at all.”    
 
"It is clear to me from this unchallenged evidence that it is a far from fanciful proposition that, if BASC or some equivalent did not exist, there would be significantly greater restrictions on shooting than are in fact in place, and that the available facilities would be of a poorer quality."
 
It's impossible to persuade the blinkered and the biased, there will always be those who believe the earth is flat, but those who use abuse devalue their own arguments. 
 
Whether or not you join BASC, or another organisation, or only pay for insurance is everyone’s personal choice, but whether or not you support BASC – why would someone with any interest in the good of shooting want to publicly do it down? Given the facts and the logic that would be absurd and ridiculous.
 

If you were an organisation representing Classic Car owners you would be calling for a ban on Petrol.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Weihrauch17

[greylag]

You will have to go a long way to find such expertise under one banner.Have been a member for five decades and have used the advice and help on many occasions.

Keep up the good work,and you can't win over people who refuse to be won over.

[clangerman]

3 minutes ago, greylag said:

Keep up the good work,and you can't win over people who refuse to be won over.

who needs to be won over next gov is a labour certainty          watch how fast the tune changes then from absurd to please support us 

[jall25]

BASC were brilliant during the Covid crisis - can to our shoot and did a workshop that we used as a template so we could continue to shoot 

[PeterHenry]

Apart one or two negative comments I have made on here about BASC on particular issues (significantly outweighed by the supportive comments I've made, I would like to think), my only negative experience of them specifically revolved around one bearded man on the BASC stall at a game fair.

I've spoken to Connor on one or two occasions and he's been nothing but helpful - and the same goes for his colleagues (with the exception of the one with the beard).

So anyway, I take my hat off to BASC (including, begrudgingly, the man with the beard) - keep up the good work

[Weihrauch17]

21 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Apart one or two negative comments I have made on here about BASC on particular issues (significantly outweighed by the supportive comments I've made, I would like to think), my only negative experience of them specifically revolved around one bearded man on the BASC stall at a game fair.

I've spoken to Connor on one or two occasions and he's been nothing but helpful - and the same goes for his colleagues (with the exception of the one with the beard).

So anyway, I take my hat off to BASC (including, begrudgingly, the man with the beard) - keep up the good work

Yes keep up the good work of crucifying many branches of shooting in supporting a totally needless Lead Ban to support commercial shoots, Jesus Christ!  The only saving grace is they will all be out of a job.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Weihrauch17

[PeterHenry]

26 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

Yes keep up the good work of crucifying many branches of shooting in supporting a totally needless Lead Ban to support commercial shoots, Jesus Christ!  The only saving grace is they will all be out of a job.

Politicaly it's not needless, and was already coming down the pipes, regardless of BASC or anyone else. 

There's a sea-change in public option regarding the environment, and dumping tonnes of lead all over the place isn't going to be viewed as acceptable much longer, if it even still is.

To use a metaphor I have previously- you can try and sail against the tide and either get nowhere, or pushed somewhere you don't want to be, or you can go with it, and try and chart the best possible course given the situation. I'm wagering BASC are trying to do the latter - and for what it's worth, they have my support.

Anyway, I've had my say about the lead ban on this forum - if you like you can search my old posts - but I'm not getting drawn into it again.

[Jim Neal]

6 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So we can't question BASC, can't have a different opinion on their abilities and the work they do?

 

I will state again that I do not believe the oft quoted membership figures of 150 000.

Let's have a look at the accounts (see below).  Turnover last year was around £600k which, even if all of it were single memberships at £85 a pop, means there could have been no more than around 7,000 membership subscriptions taken out .

 

8 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 

BASC never makes a profit

 

What about the £360,767 of profit reported in the latest accounts?

 

That doesn't really match my perception of "non-profit making"

 

9 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

any surplus funds must be used for the benefit of members

 

BASC had in excess of £1.2 MILLION sitting in its bank account minding its own business at the end of last year.  Hardly been ploughed back in to anything, has it?

You could fund a lot of research, or fight a lot of legal cases with that amount of money.  Or do something that would benefit the majority of shooters.

How many more lies have you got to tell us?

9 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

"It is clear to me from this unchallenged evidence that it is a far from fanciful proposition that, if BASC or some equivalent did not exist, there would be significantly greater restrictions on shooting than are in fact in place, and that the available facilities would be of a poorer quality."

This statement is a relic, it is from TWELVE YEARS AGO.  It refers to a BASC of the past, and has no relevance to the way the organisation conducts itself in the present.

Even trying to desperately justify BASC's existence you've made a botch of it.  I'd give up and go home mate.

[jall25]

11 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So we can't question BASC, can't have a different opinion on their abilities and the work they do?

 

I will state again that I do not believe the oft quoted membership figures of 150 000.

Yes i think we can but some of the comments and attacks on BASC and its employees are well OTT and the people writing such as members of our shooting community should be ashamed - have a look at the other thread that is running - some of the comments are ridiculous and believe me im from the sticks and stones generation.

[jall25]

4 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Let's have a look at the accounts (see below).  Turnover last year was around £600k which, even if all of it were single memberships at £85 a pop, means there could have been no more than around 7,000 membership subscriptions taken out .

 

What about the £360,767 of profit reported in the latest accounts?

 

That doesn't really match my perception of "non-profit making"

 

 

BASC had in excess of £1.2 MILLION sitting in its bank account minding its own business at the end of last year.  Hardly been ploughed back in to anything, has it?

You could fund a lot of research, or fight a lot of legal cases with that amount of money.  Or do something that would benefit the majority of shooters.

How many more lies have you got to tell us?

This statement is a relic, it is from TWELVE YEARS AGO.  It refers to a BASC of the past, and has no relevance to the way the organisation conducts itself in the present.

Even trying to desperately justify BASC's existence you've made a botch of it.  I'd give up and go home mate.

 

With respect i think you should leave it and stick to the day job or whatever it is.

I presume you have just gone on companies house ?

The British association of shooting and conservation is a charity or mutual - Have a look on the FCA website

Member 149,000 and a few- turnover over 12 million 

 

Miss-information ?

 

1 minute ago, jall25 said:

 

With respect i think you should leave it and stick to the day job or whatever it is.

I presume you have just gone on companies house ?

The British association of shooting and conservation is a charity or mutual - Have a look on the FCA website

Member 149,836 - turnover over 12 million - assets of over 10 million

 

Miss-information ?

 

 

[THEINVISIBLESCARECROW]

When people are divided & argue amongst themselves they are weak. United as one voice they are strong. It's OK to be different, it's OK not to all agree, in the world of shooting there is so much diversity, we are all different but when there is an attack in any form on shooting there should be a united voice. Those that don't like the BASC then feel free to say as you feel but to argue ? To demand you are correct & others are wrong isn't quite the United voice shooting needs in troubled times.

[Scully]

UK shooting doesn’t have a united voice, never has; this forum is a prime example of proof if any were needed. 
Even our shooting organisations can’t agree, which is why there are so many. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Scully

[button]

15 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Let's have a look at the accounts (see below).  Turnover last year was around £600k which, even if all of it were single memberships at £85 a pop, means there could have been no more than around 7,000 membership subscriptions taken out .

 

What about the £360,767 of profit reported in the latest accounts?

 

That doesn't really match my perception of "non-profit making"

 

 

BASC had in excess of £1.2 MILLION sitting in its bank account minding its own business at the end of last year.  Hardly been ploughed back in to anything, has it?

You could fund a lot of research, or fight a lot of legal cases with that amount of money.  Or do something that would benefit the majority of shooters.

How many more lies have you got to tell us?

This statement is a relic, it is from TWELVE YEARS AGO.  It refers to a BASC of the past, and has no relevance to the way the organisation conducts itself in the present.

Even trying to desperately justify BASC's existence you've made a botch of it.  I'd give up and go home mate.

I agree everyone is entitled to an opinion and argue their case but ensure that you use the right information, which you clearly haven’t!

 

10 hours ago, jall25 said:

 

With respect i think you should leave it and stick to the day job or whatever it is.

I presume you have just gone on companies house ?

The British association of shooting and conservation is a charity or mutual - Have a look on the FCA website

Member 149,000 and a few- turnover over 12 million 

 

Miss-information ?

 

 

spot on