Do you trust BASC

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Fellside said:

I’ve no idea - look at their accounts or ring them up. I would certainly make certain of the facts before publicly recording wild accusations. Well……I would. You do what you like. 

I checked the facts thanks, they all came off bascs website , I can provide the links if you're interested. 

What they don't publish is what they used the money for, and they're idea of 'ring fenced' and '7 figure' bears little resemblance to the reality of their own data.

Thank you for letting me do as I like ..

[Fellside]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

They're doing it to get the thread locked Gordon, they want the criticism of basc shut down.

To be clear (again!) I have not personally requested this. I have concerns that you’re unproven mudslinging and general demeanour are publicly damaging to our collective reputation - that is why you are being challenged. 

[Fellside]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I checked the facts thanks, they all came off bascs website , I can provide the links if you're interested. 

What they don't publish is what they used the money for, and they're idea of 'ring fenced' and '7 figure' bears little resemblance to the reality of their own data.

Thank you for letting me do as I like ..

Perhaps in ‘doing what you like’ you may wish to have a pleasant chat with their accounts dep’t, or simply ask someone to illustrate the ‘fighting fund’ spend. Write them a nice letter…?

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Fellside said:

Perhaps in ‘doing what you like’ you may wish to have a pleasant chat with their accounts dep’t, or simply ask someone to illustrate the ‘fighting fund’ spend. Write them a nice letter…?

I have an open nvitation to have phone conversation with Conor, which I will be taking soon , at the moment I've got covid and my voice is about gone.

What I will say , is that I want the answers to the questions I've asked to be publicly viewable , I don't see why this should be an issue .

7 minutes ago, Fellside said:

To be clear (again!) I have not personally requested this. I have concerns that you’re unproven mudslinging and general demeanour are publicly damaging to our collective reputation - that is why you are being challenged. 

Personally,  I'd let the mods deal with such matters.

Your attempts to paint me as a mudslinger, pale against your personal attacks on me, which , if I had lowered myself to reciprocate,  would have got the thread shut down.

This is not my first rodeo.

[merseamal]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I'll give you the bit about largest and most influential, at least financially, but best chance of protecting us, not feeling that one, and I'm not sure where you get 115 years from? 

 

Go on then, tell us, because you obviously know, is it a secret? 

 

I must have missed that bit 🤔

Really? 

Is this the response we get when we ask the 'wrong' questions? A load of sycophants coming out the woodwork to insult, misdirect, and attempt to end the thread, using any means necessary? 

How much money is in the fighting fund? How much has been spent since it was set up, and what on? 

What has the £1 million a year 'saved' from the legal cover been used for? If its gone into the fighting fund, why does the 21/22 accounts only show £500k in it? 

I’ll answer you questions about the fighting fund again.

accounts are online and free for all to see.

loads of articles online about what the fighting fund has been used for.

 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, merseamal said:

accounts are online and free for all to see.

I've read them , the fighting fund , that basc insinuated would contain potentially millions of pounds , has half a million in it, and if you can provide me with links to where it's been spent, you can shut me up good and proper can't you ?

[Fellside]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I have an open nvitation to have phone conversation with Conor, which I will be taking soon , at the moment I've got covid and my voice is about gone.

What I will say , is that I want the answers to the questions I've asked to be publicly viewable , I don't see why this should be an issue .

Personally,  I'd let the mods deal with such matters.

Your attempts to paint me as a mudslinger, pale against your personal attacks on me, which , if I had lowered myself to reciprocate,  would have got the thread shut down.

This is not my first rodeo.

The thread hasn’t been shut down - because all we (several of us) have done is hold a mirror to your behaviour. This to hopefully make it visible to you.

I hope you have a productive chat with Conor - he’s a decent human being. Let us know how it goes. 

[Gordon R]

I am beginning to feel uncomfortable with the constant attacks on Rewulf. I have disagreed with him many times and didn't always end up in agreement, but found him able to fight his corner.

I do share his view that some are out to get the thread locked for reasons only they understand. 

For the odd (and I do mean odd) person who keeps mentioning mirrors - perhaps they should look into one.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Gordon R

[Fellside]

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am beginning to feel uncomfortable with the constant attacks on Rewulf. I have disagreed with him many times and didn't always end up in agreement, but found him able to fight his corner.

I do share his view that some are out to get the thread locked for reasons only they understand. 

For the odd (and I do mean odd) person who keeps mentioning mirrors - perhaps they should look into one.

Many people interpret having their views challenged as ‘attacks’ and cry victim. It’s a classic social media phenomenon. Perhaps if they can’t tolerate challenge, they ought not to invite it. 

You may well find my mirror analogy odd - and you’re free to say so. Equally however, if I don’t write anything legally contentious, I am also free to offer my views. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Fellside said:

ou may well find my mirror analogy odd - and you’re free to say so. Equally however, if I don’t write anything legally contentious, I am also free to offer my views

What have I said that's legally contentious? 

[Fellside]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

if I don’t write anything legally contentious

Please read.

[Rewulf]

33 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Please read.

So you weren't referring to your earlier statement about me?

11 hours ago, Fellside said:

About your theories: if you wish to denigrate a legal entity such as BASC (or any other), in writing, on an open forum, that’s your risk, your choice. If you’re bringing in to question the honesty of their financial practices, when accounts are published for all to see, you may well be legally exposed. I don’t think crying ‘free speech’ will help you much if challenged

I'm not sure whether you understand the libel process to be honest, but if basc , or any other 'legal entity' start proceedings against any who criticise them , or ask for accountability,  the courts are going to get pretty busy.

But thanks for your concern.

[Fellside]

47 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So you weren't referring to your earlier statement about me?

I'm not sure whether you understand the libel process to be honest, but if basc , or any other 'legal entity' start proceedings against any who criticise them , or ask for accountability,  the courts are going to get pretty busy.

But thanks for your concern.

1st point. Not on this occasion. 

2nd point. Quite correct - you don’t know how much I understand legal process. Incidentally the courts are actually pretty busy with social media generated spats, although I do agree it’s highly unlikely that BASC would challenge. Re my concern, you’re welcome. 
 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Many people interpret having their views challenged as ‘attacks’ and cry victim. It’s a classic social media phenomenon. Perhaps if they can’t tolerate challenge, they ought not to invite it. 

Whilst gazing into the mirror, perhaps you should heed your own words. 

Your posts have a rather odd style.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

you don’t know how much I understand legal process.

You obviously dont understand it enough to take note of the fact , that at no point have I slandered BASC to the point where litigation would be possible ?

 

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

although I do agree it’s highly unlikely that BASC would challenge.

So why would you even mention it ?

I suspect you tried to scare the wee boy off with the implied threat I could be hauled to court , and all my worldly possession stripped away ?
Unless of course I shut my pie hole and slink away ?

Its not unlikely BASC would challenge (I see the implication from you that they could if they wanted to) its impossible , given what has been said.
I took great care with my words you see, unlike you.

 

[Scully]

I have also been contacted by Conor and invited to call him for a chat, which I did just over a week or so ago. 
We had a good chat and discussed many things, one of which was the fact that the vast majority of those PW members invited to call for a chat, don’t take up the offer. 
I’m not about to rejoin, and I doubt we’ll be exchanging Christmas cards, but my responses will possibly be more mellow and not as hostile as a result, and if they can avert all firearms becoming S1, I may well rejoin. 
I’m busy compiling a letter to the Home Secretary regarding the Plymouth  shootings, my opinion of the police and why S1 won’t make one iota of difference to public safety. If anyone can tell me why it will, I’m all ears. 

[Fellside]

52 minutes ago, Scully said:

I have also been contacted by Conor and invited to call him for a chat, which I did just over a week or so ago. 
We had a good chat and discussed many things, one of which was the fact that the vast majority of those PW members invited to call for a chat, don’t take up the offer. 
I’m not about to rejoin, and I doubt we’ll be exchanging Christmas cards, but my responses will possibly be more mellow and not as hostile as a result, and if they can avert all firearms becoming S1, I may well rejoin. 
I’m busy compiling a letter to the Home Secretary regarding the Plymouth  shootings, my opinion of the police and why S1 won’t make one iota of difference to public safety. If anyone can tell me why it will, I’m all ears. 

Well done Scully - you can at least hold your head up as one who did make the effort. As an aside, if the S1 manoeuvre goes through, I do wonder if it could potentially encourage more rifle ownership….?

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Well done Scully - you can at least hold your head up as one who did make the effort. As an aside, if the S1 manoeuvre goes through, I do wonder if it could potentially encourage more rifle ownership….?

Im trying not to be picky here, and Im pretty sure you know how the firearms act works, but for the benefit of those who may have misconstrued the above comment, or dont understand the law.

How on earth would Sec 2 going , encourage more Sec 1 rifle ownership ?

At the moment  (HO guidelines being followed) you dont need a reason for a sec 2 shotgun.
You DO need a reason for any sec 1 firearm (target club or land use)

If sec 2 goes , you will need a reason for your non FAC shotgun, this could be (clay target , land use , or game shooting)
It may be that you have to prove your use when renewing , or join a club, get instruction before grant (this is already happening)
Either way , highly likely many sec 2 users now , will not bother with the extra hassle.
Multiple shotguns , 72 hour rule , and ammunition limits will go out the window.

The fact that your shotgun is soon to be sec 1 , does not automatically entitle you to acquire other sec 1 firearms , each one requires an individual good reason.
If you have no good reason for a sec 1 rifle now (target , pest control, stalking) then you wont have a good reason then.

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You obviously dont understand it enough to take note of the fact , that at no point have I slandered BASC to the point where litigation would be possible ?

 

So why would you even mention it ?

I suspect you tried to scare the wee boy off with the implied threat I could be hauled to court , and all my worldly possession stripped away ?
Unless of course I shut my pie hole and slink away ?

Its not unlikely BASC would challenge (I see the implication from you that they could if they wanted to) its impossible , given what has been said.
I took great care with my words you see, unlike you.

 

Yes - another net based conspiracy theory. They’re very trendy these days. 

Your content? Well, that’s your responsibility, although you will find on an open forum people are free to disagree with it.

Perhaps in railing against BASC’s finances, you expected to cause a great tidal wave, like Carl Bernstein uncovering Watergate. Instead, there’s hardly a ripple as the great reveal hasn’t happened. We’re still waiting for the financial evidence - well?

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Yes - another net based conspiracy theory. They’re very trendy these days. 

What are you talking about ?

 

2 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Your content? Well, that’s your responsibility, although you will find on an open forum people are free to disagree with it.

It would be pretty boring if they didnt ?

 

3 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Perhaps in railing against BASC’s finances, you expected to cause a great tidal wave, like Carl Bernstein uncovering Watergate. Instead, there’s hardly a ripple as the great reveal hasn’t happened. We’re still waiting for the financial evidence - well?

If they dont tell me Im wrong, does that mean Im right ?
Im still waiting for an answer.....

You completely misconstrue why I keep asking about the fighting fund, its not because I suspect Conor has spent it all on expensive whisky and cheap women, or Graffius's private yacht .

I want to know how they are going to use it in the future, by looking at what theyve used it for in the past.
Its not my money, its yours.

[Fellside]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Im trying not to be picky here, and Im pretty sure you know how the firearms act works, but for the benefit of those who may have misconstrued the above comment, or dont understand the law.

How on earth would Sec 2 going , encourage more Sec 1 rifle ownership ?

At the moment  (HO guidelines being followed) you dont need a reason for a sec 2 shotgun.
You DO need a reason for any sec 1 firearm (target club or land use)

If sec 2 goes , you will need a reason for your non FAC shotgun, this could be (clay target , land use , or game shooting)
It may be that you have to prove your use when renewing , or join a club, get instruction before grant (this is already happening)
Either way , highly likely many sec 2 users now , will not bother with the extra hassle.
Multiple shotguns , 72 hour rule , and ammunition limits will go out the window.

The fact that your shotgun is soon to be sec 1 , does not automatically entitle you to acquire other sec 1 firearms , each one requires an individual good reason.
If you have no good reason for a sec 1 rifle now (target , pest control, stalking) then you wont have a good reason then.

The question is: will people be encouraged to find a good reason (?), especially if their fees are similar to the current Firearms plus SGC, i.e the cost and basic principle are equal. This is currently part of the debate and has been mentioned by others. I can’t claim originality on this one, but curious as to what others think. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Fellside said:

The question is: will people be encouraged to find a good reason (?)

Many firearms users gave up because they had to get a doctors note, you tell an old boy with no land , he needs to put 5 appearances in a year at the clay ground, and he likely wont bother either.
One of the features of the Plymouth murders was the fact that Mr scumbag had been clay shooting ONCE, and to all intents, wanted a shotgun for nothing more than bragging rights, with tragic consequences.
He had the shotgun for 2 years with no good reason, and the inquiry has seized upon this fact.

Now , as Scully says what difference will it make ? Because exactly the same thing could happen with a sec 1 firearm, who checks you go to permissions? Target clubs can be manipulated through excuses (Im having an issue with this at the moment)
If licencing are going to make regular checks on firearms usage, to stop those who just 'want a gun' this isnt just going to be some kind of amalgamation between sec 1 and 2 , its going to be  a firearms act re write, and Id be careful what you wish for in that.

[Fellside]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What are you talking about ?

 

It would be pretty boring if they didnt ?

 

If they dont tell me Im wrong, does that mean Im right ?
Im still waiting for an answer.....

You completely misconstrue why I keep asking about the fighting fund, its not because I suspect Conor has spent it all on expensive whisky and cheap women, or Graffius's private yacht .

I want to know how they are going to use it in the future, by looking at what theyve used it for in the past.
Its not my money, its yours.

1. Conspiracy theory: the belief that there is a sinister secret plot against you - often irrational and unproven. 

2. Agree (for once).

3. Different to you’re original assertion, thanks for explaining all the same. Good luck and keep us posted. 

Hey Rewulf, we definitely shouldn’t book seats next to each other on a long hall flight…… 😄

You have to see the funny side, well I do. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Fellside said:

1. Conspiracy theory: the belief that there is a sinister secret plot against you - often irrational and unproven. 

2. Agree (for once).

3. Different to you’re original assertion, thanks for explaining all the same. Good luck and keep us posted. 

Hey Rewulf, we definitely shouldn’t book seats next to each other on a long hall flight…… 😄

You have to see the funny side, well I do. 

[Fellside]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Many firearms users gave up because they had to get a doctors note, you tell an old boy with no land , he needs to put 5 appearances in a year at the clay ground, and he likely wont bother either.
One of the features of the Plymouth murders was the fact that Mr scumbag had been clay shooting ONCE, and to all intents, wanted a shotgun for nothing more than bragging rights, with tragic consequences.
He had the shotgun for 2 years with no good reason, and the inquiry has seized upon this fact.

Now , as Scully says what difference will it make ? Because exactly the same thing could happen with a sec 1 firearm, who checks you go to permissions? Target clubs can be manipulated through excuses (Im having an issue with this at the moment)
If licencing are going to make regular checks on firearms usage, to stop those who just 'want a gun' this isnt just going to be some kind of amalgamation between sec 1 and 2 , its going to be  a firearms act re write, and Id be careful what you wish for in that.

Some good points. I don’t wish for it in any way, shape or form by the way. I’m just ever curious, as to what the downstream consequences might be.