Do you trust BASC

[Fellside]

20 minutes ago, Scully said:

You would think they’d be actively engaged wouldn’t you? But apparently not!
Less than 1% of BASC members responded to the recent HSE consultation, which also means less than 1% of the members of other shooting organisations did so too! 
We certainly do live in interesting times. 

Yes that was disappointing. I think it was 1.6%, but still….?! Apparently this was above the normal response rate….! I have always urged people to write directly to their MP. It only takes a few minutes to send a quick email. Imagine the chatter in the Commons bar if MPs received hundreds of thousands of emails in support of shooting. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that people who support any of the shooting org’s are likely to be more actively engaged than those who consume vast hours of streamed content

By support, do you mean subscription paying members, who most likely, simply require BASC s rather expensive broker driven insurance services? 

Or stand alone, business driven 'donators' who support BASC out of the goodness of their heart, rather than the more likely reason that those business interests will be favourably promoted and protected by BASC? 

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

No not a commercial platform - definitely not.

It makes money does it not? 

It has millions in the bank, does it not? 

I'm not saying theres any skulduggery here, but BASC turns a profit every year, has assets? 

But when the time comes to spend that money? 

Except of course when it comes to wining and dining lobbyists {which tends to produce nothing of note} or investing into game dealer alliances to protect future revenue streams? 

I'll of course completely change my attitude if they actively fight the HSE legally, but I don't see them being willing to spend the money. 

[Fellside]

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

By support, do you mean subscription paying members, who most likely, simply require BASC s rather expensive broker driven insurance services? 

Or stand alone, business driven 'donators' who support BASC out of the goodness of their heart, rather than the more likely reason that those business interests will be favourably promoted and protected by BASC? 

It makes money does it not? 

It has millions in the bank, does it not? 

I'm not saying theres any skulduggery here, but BASC turns a profit every year, has assets? 

But when the time comes to spend that money? 

Except of course when it comes to wining and dining lobbyists {which tends to produce nothing of note} or investing into game dealer alliances to protect future revenue streams? 

I'll of course completely change my attitude if they actively fight the HSE legally, but I don't see them being willing to spend the money. 

Krikey - I can only spend so much time on this stuff…..?!

1st question. No I meant people getting out there and making a difference. Also to a certain extent taking an interest in the issues their org’ is involved with. 

2nd question. It generates money for the causes it campaigns for. It’s a simple model really. I believe it’s a limited company for tax purposes. As to what BASC spend their revenue on, I’ve seen a lot of evidence that it is spent wisely - especially re dining out with politicians. BASC bashers will of course have other ideas and that’s fine. They’re entitled to their opinion, as long as they get off their backsides and help shooting in some way. I have more respect for their views if they do. 

Hope that answers your questions. Have a pleasant evening. 
 

 

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, Fellside said:

2nd question. It generates money for the causes it campaigns for. It’s a simple model really. I believe it’s a limited company for tax purposes.

Take your time , you don't need to rush answers, but I'm finding your viewpoint interesting. 

Surely if its campaigning for a cause , it would be better registering as a charity,  then the tax part would be less important , but it SELLS services and products,  at a profit, so it's a commercial enterprise ?

We could say the magazine costs money , but it sells advertising , which judging by the amount of them, MAKES money? 

It has the potential to turnover 150000x£80 =12 million a year in subscriptions ? Rents and wages surely don't cost £12 million a year do they ?

They supposedly saved a million a year by dropping legal cover, and said they would put it in a fighting fund, when will this be used ?

I'm sure it spends money on promotion and stands etc, but when it comes to demos and shooting days for kids etc,  it CHARGES them for it.

There must be an excess of cash , let's call it profit, if as you say , its a cooperative , when will the membership receive their share of this ?

[Fellside]

42 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Take your time , you don't need to rush answers, but I'm finding your viewpoint interesting. 

Surely if its campaigning for a cause , it would be better registering as a charity,  then the tax part would be less important , but it SELLS services and products,  at a profit, so it's a commercial enterprise ?

We could say the magazine costs money , but it sells advertising , which judging by the amount of them, MAKES money? 

It has the potential to turnover 150000x£80 =12 million a year in subscriptions ? Rents and wages surely don't cost £12 million a year do they ?

They supposedly saved a million a year by dropping legal cover, and said they would put it in a fighting fund, when will this be used ?

I'm sure it spends money on promotion and stands etc, but when it comes to demos and shooting days for kids etc,  it CHARGES them for it.

There must be an excess of cash , let's call it profit, if as you say , its a cooperative , when will the membership receive their share of this ?

Hi Rewulf,

Sorry I was in a dash earlier. I was out looking at pigeons on OSR for tomorrow. Pigeon watch in the real sense! 

I must confess, I don’t know the full detail of their business model. My observations earlier were more about contrasting commercial web streaming companies with those like BASC - who generate revenue for their campaigns. 
Re the shooting days for kids, I do know from first hand experience that this is done at cost. I am involved with a local programme funded by BASC and the youngsters are getting a professionally coached lesson, 25 cartridges and 25 clays for £10 per child. This is on a shooting ground, in a sheltered stand, so not a muddy field. Pretty exceptional value. The coaches are giving their time for very little return also. 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Surely if its campaigning for a cause , it would be better registering as a charity,  then the tax part would be less important , but it SELLS services and products,  at a profit, so it's a commercial enterprise ?

------------

They supposedly saved a million a year by dropping legal cover, and said they would put it in a fighting fund, when will this be use ?

Just to jump in and answer questions couple of your questions -

1 - charities are heavily regulated in the UK. I have a strong suspicion BASC do not qualify on technicalities.

2 - I'm fairly sure the 'fighting fund' was utilised in some of the genreal licence challenges re Wild Justice. 

[Gas seal]

I started shooting before the shotgun certificate came out. When the shot gun permit from the police came out in 1968 I called at the police station for two forms for my brother and myself we completed the form and got our license. A lot of shooters said that it was the end of shooting, some of my friends never bothered  to get the license. In the 1980s the firearms law changed but BASC had an agreement with the crown to allow members to use the foreshore for fowling, shooters not in any clubs thought it was the end of shooting for them. The late 90s the lead shot ban  , the end of wildfowling no . The change in the general licence , now the talk of the (lead shot ban) , and plastic wads, again is it the end of shooting. Cardboard wads for non lead pellets are nothing new I’ve used them for reloading non lead shot for about 15 years . That’s a lot of change. We may all have to change our way of shooting. If BASC are encouraging youngsters into shooting that’s a good thing, I don’t see many youngsters coming in to the sport it must be difficult for them unless they are brought up with shooting. 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Fellside said:

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

Hi Rewulf,

Sorry I was in a dash earlier. I was out looking at pigeons on OSR for tomorrow. Pigeon watch in the real sense! 

I must confess, I don’t know the full detail of their business model. My observations earlier were more about contrasting commercial web streaming companies with those like BASC - who generate revenue for their campaigns

No problem, I must also confess to not knowing how they run things, or how much money they make. 

I know some have looked at companies house data, and found it confusing. 

Perhaps @Conor O'Gormanwould like to clarify for transparency, and put me right? 

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

1 - charities are heavily regulated in the UK. I have a strong suspicion BASC do not qualify on technicalities

Fair enough. 

 

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

2 - I'm fairly sure the 'fighting fund' was utilised in some of the genreal licence challenges re Wild Justice

I believe BASC did use some money for this, but to clarify, it wasn't BASC doing the 'fighting' ie legal challenging on the GL matter, NE and NRW did the heavy lifting, BASC registered as an 'interested party', but to read their press releases, you would have though it was BASC taking wild justice to court! 

 

1 hour ago, Gas seal said:

The late 90s the lead shot ban  , the end of wildfowling no . The change in the general licence , now the talk of the (lead shot ban) , and plastic wads, again is it the end of shooting. Cardboard wads for non lead pellets are nothing new I’ve used them for reloading non lead shot for about 15 years .

I'm confident that using shotguns for shooting live quarry and clays will survive, not so much some other types of shooting, like rim fires and air, not exactly BASCs fault, but it will certainly be interesting to see how hard they fight for types of shooting outside of their usual sphere of concern? 

[PeterHenry]

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

I believe BASC did use some money for this, but to clarify, it wasn't BASC doing the 'fighting' ie legal challenging on the GL matter, NE and NRW did the heavy lifting, BASC registered as an 'interested party', but to read their press releases, you would have though it was BASC taking wild justice to court!  

I think you may be underestimating what being an intrested party entails - they still had to pay for lawyers / counsel, and they still provided evidence / arguments - and rightly so.

The way judicial reviews work don't allow for the involvement of frivolous parties - the fact that BASC were successful in their petition for participation in its self says an awful lot.

[Rewulf]

8 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

I think you may be underestimating what being an intrested party entails - they still had to pay for lawyers / counsel, and they still provided evidence / arguments - and rightly so.

The way judicial reviews work don't allow for the involvement of frivolous parties - the fact that BASC were successful in their petition for participation in its self says an awful lot.

Not disputing their involvement or contribution, but like I said, if you only read BASC  press releases, and didn't read them too closely, you could be lead into thinking they fought and financed the whole battle with WJ on their own? 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Not disputing their involvement or contribution, but like I said, if you only read BASC  press releases, and didn't read them too closely, you could be lead into thinking they fought and financed the whole battle with WJ on their own? 

You can get the wrong impression from a lot of things if you don't read them too closely. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

You can get the wrong impression from a lot of things if you don't read them too closely. 

Very true, but try reading the press releases and make your own conclusions on that one. 

I just found this from a few years ago, it's a 2017 release of how BASC spend subscription money. 

 

[grahamch]

Is it not time these BASC bashing posts were banned?

It does more for shooting in general that all of the other smaller organisations put together. 

Folk moaning and complaining just sowsthe seeds of division when as a sport we should be uniting. 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Very true, but try reading the press releases and make your own conclusions on that one. 

I just found this from a few years ago, it's a 2017 release of how BASC spend subscription money. 

 

I have re-read some of them, and I really don't know what you are complaining about. They are press releases that focus on BASC's contribution - as you would imagine. That's rarther the point of press releases.

They don't give the impression that BASC is anything other than an intrested party. I get the feeling that you may not be too familiar with what a judicial reveiw is or it how it works, and this is maybe in turn influencing your thoughts.

Very briefly - someone (1) who is unhappy with a point of law applys for a judicial reveiw to take place. If its found to have merit, the JR can proceed.

(2) is always the applicable part of the state - and it is up to it to primarily defend its disputed course of action.

BASC (3) are not part of the state and are not responsible for issuing the genreal licenses. They can only have played the role of an interested party.

If you read the press releases, and are familiar with what it's actually talking about, they do not give the impression you suggest.

The press releases I have read talk about BASCs contribution to a process in which BASC played - by definition - an important supporting role.

Re the pie chart - I'm not an accountant or financial analyst, so maybe I don't know what I'm looking at - but it doesn't seem too contentious to me. Perhaps you could prepare one with your own preferences given to each weighting by way of contrast?

Edited March 5, 2023 by PeterHenry

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, grahamch said:

Is it not time these BASC bashing posts were banned?

It does more for shooting in general that all of the other smaller organisations put together. 

Folk moaning and complaining just sowsthe seeds of division when as a sport we should be uniting. 

And with it FREE SPEECH!   

[scolopax]

BASC have spent a reasonable chunk of money from the fighting fund in the fight against restrictive NE wildfowling consents. Now they might have not had startling success, NE hold all the cards so to speak in regards to the law. But the money has been spent.

Edited March 5, 2023 by scolopax

[mossy835]

if basc packed in, how would we get on, they do a lot for shooting.

[Rewulf]

6 hours ago, grahamch said:

Is it not time these BASC bashing posts were banned?

It does more for shooting in general that all of the other smaller organisations put together. 

Folk moaning and complaining just sowsthe seeds of division when as a sport we should be uniting. 

Calling into question, BASCs ability to defend shooting should be banned? 

Shall we ban discussion of the government's inability to deal with illegal immigration too? After all, they've done more to defend us than anyone else? 

The fact that they have failed miserably, attracts criticism, and rightly so. 

4 hours ago, scolopax said:

BASC have spent a reasonable chunk of money from the fighting fund in the fight against restrictive NE wildfowling consents

How much have they spent? 

How much is in the fighting fund now? 

6 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

Re the pie chart - I'm not an accountant or financial analyst, so maybe I don't know what I'm looking at - but it doesn't seem too contentious to me. Perhaps you could prepare one with your own preferences given to each weighting by way of contrast?

The pie chart makes it easier to digest the financial data. 

If we knew what total subscription revenue was for 2017 we could do a more accurate evaluation, but let's say it was £10 million. 

That means each 1% = £100,000

Now apply that to say, what BASC spent on firearms, £350,000

They put £1.25 million into the fighting fund {if this was spent that year, I'd love to know what on} 

Various admin, 'representation and fundraising' ect £3.5 million? 

Media and 'politics' £400,000 {is this the wine and dine fund?} 

Communication, and running the magazine £820,000 {you would think all those adverts would pay for that!} 

You would think the biggest cost would be the actual insurance itself, but at £1.16 million, nope. Funny thing is BASC told us they had to drop the legal cover, as it cost £1 million a year, and no one used it? 

Perhaps we could scrutinise some recent figures, problem is, BASC don't publish them to its members any more. 

Feel free to tell me where I've got it wrong, not just that I'm wrong. 

Lets have an adult discussion about it. 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The pie chart makes it easier to digest the financial data. 

If we knew what total subscription revenue was for 2017 we could do a more accurate evaluation, but let's say it was £10 million. 

We dont - that makes all of this guesswork unless we know the actual figures.

That means each 1% = £100,000

See above 

Now apply that to say, what BASC spent on firearms, £350,000

See above 

They put £1.25 million into the fighting fund {if this was spent that year, I'd love to know what on} 

See above re methodology. 

Various admin, 'representation and fundraising' ect £3.5 million? 

Media and 'politics' £400,000 {is this the wine and dine fund?} 

Presuming for the sake of argument you are correct, 'wine and dine' = diplomacy. Not a bad thing I would say. Likewise, re admin - what are you suggesting?

Communication, and running the magazine £820,000 {you would think all those adverts would pay for that!} 

What goes to say advertising revenues are not included? I realise they are not attributed, but you yourself admit this isn't a detailed financial breakdown.

You would think the biggest cost would be the actual insurance itself, but at £1.16 million, nope. Funny thing is BASC told us they had to drop the legal cover, as it cost £1 million a year, and no one used it? 

Wasn't it the legal insurance that was dropped? Not the shooting insurance? Unsure what year these changes were made.

Perhaps we could scrutinise some recent figures, problem is, BASC don't publish them to its members any more. 

As you love to keep pointing out, BASC are a limited company - so feel free to look up their accounts at Companys House.

Feel free to tell me where I've got it wrong, not just that I'm wrong. 

Lets have an adult discussion about it. 

Difficult to have a discussion based entirely on guesswork.....

See comments in bold.

Edited March 5, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, PeterHenry said:

We dont - that makes all of this guesswork unless we know the actual figures.

I've asked, maybe Conor will come on and put me right? 

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

As you love to keep pointing out, BASC are a limited company - so feel free to look up their accounts at Companys House.

Many have, and come up with limited data on expenditure, produces more questions than answers. 

 

4 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Wasn't it the legal insurance that was dropped? Not the shooting insurance? Unsure what year these changes were made

As I said. 

2020 off the top of my head. 

 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You would think the biggest cost would be the actual insurance itself, but at £1.16 million, nope. Funny thing is BASC told us they had to drop the legal cover, as it cost £1 million a year, and no one used it? 

 

6 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Difficult to have a discussion based entirely on guesswork...

It is, but unless we have full transparency, it's all we've got. 

BASC seem to spend rather a lot of money on promoting the company, according to the 2017 report, and not so much providing services to members. 

Again, how much defending the sport? You might say, which part of the sport? 

The question at the top of the page, is do you trust BASC? It would be better to define, trust BASC  with what? 

Your money, your sport, or both? 

[Weihrauch17]

On 02/03/2023 at 08:11, Scully said:

I’ve said all I’m going to say about Swift on this forum,  I’m simply staggered to discover BASC deemed him worthy of life membership after his implicit collusion of deceit and dishonesty with Paine and the Wetlands Trust in their campaign ( a campaign  which BASC itself at the time fought hard against ) against lead shot, it’s toxicity to flora, fauna and in particular human health. 
I’m totally baffled. 

Me too, the guy was the enemy within!

[holloway]

11 hours ago, grahamch said:

Is it not time these BASC bashing posts were banned?

It does more for shooting in general that all of the other smaller organisations put together. 

Folk moaning and complaining just sowsthe seeds of division when as a sport we should be uniting. 

Pigeon watch did ban these threads a few years back ,not sure when they stopped doing it mods must be different from the old ones ,

   Page after page of the same old drivel ,very depressing really ,always the same non Basc members with the same old moaning and whining some members posting hour after hour Jesus they must have empty lives.

[London Best]

8 hours ago, holloway said:

 

   Page after page of the same old drivel ,very depressing really ,always the same non Basc members with the same old moaning and whining some members posting hour after hour Jesus they must have empty lives.

Well said!

[Scully]

9 hours ago, holloway said:

Pigeon watch did ban these threads a few years back ,not sure when they stopped doing it mods must be different from the old ones ,

   Page after page of the same old drivel ,very depressing really ,always the same non Basc members with the same old moaning and whining some members posting hour after hour Jesus they must have empty lives.

If they were banned we wouldn’t be aware of just how useless BASC’s membership were! 😀

Perhaps there’s your answer as to just how ineffective our organisations are? Any union ( in the literal sense ) is only as effective as its members, after all. 
 

[Rewulf]

12 hours ago, holloway said:

 Page after page of the same old drivel ,very depressing really ,always the same non Basc members with the same old moaning and whining some members posting hour after hour Jesus they must have empty lives.

Lets be clear here , you say non BASC members ? To a man , they are all EX BASC members, and they are EX for a reason.

You can choose to live in an echo chamber where BASC never gets anything wrong , and valiantly fights for shooting 24/7/365, or you can take them to account, question their motives when they do something wrong , and praise them when theyre right.
The lead ban proposals are a very serious issue for UK firearms users, and I dont believe BASC are taking it as seriously as they should. The reasons for this are probably because the type of shooting BASC favours ,CAN survive a lead ban.
The rest of us can be thrown under the bus.

If you dont believe we have the right to question BASC , then you dont believe we have the right to question anybody or anything.