BASC - Now and the Future

Well, given the above, I think "at this time" I'll be holding on to my £76 and looking at other associations. Because, as a member, I'm not happy at all with the lack of transparency over and above what could be said without any compromise of any party's legal position.
 
Must admit really don't see wot all the fuss is about.

Look at recent press releases, is any other org putting as much out as Basc? even with its problems?
Most folk's only care is cheap ins anyway, basc are still providing that (althou not that cheap) but there still doing more than most other orgs.

I know many on here rave about sacs. when was the last time u heard about them getting something printed in press? or meeting MSP's or MP's (as scottish doubt they will have any clout anyway)

And they are the only member led org (perhaps the problem) if ur so upset put urself up for election or atleast vote, think their is usually only about 10% of membership ever bother to vote


Its far from ideal, but i can see exactly where there coming from. Ideally more should have came out but i don't know just hoe much there hands are tied.
 
I cannot comment over and above what's been said in the press release i.e. To protect employment rights and allow due process to be followed, we cannot comment further at this time.


Fair comment David, a little patience from the membership would not go amiss at this time, but I hope that when matters are resolved the management will release further details to us members as may become appropriate.
 
Fair comment David, a little patience from the membership would not go amiss at this time, but I hope that when matters are resolved the management will release further details to us members as may become appropriate.
Chairman resigns, but members should be patient?
 
I cannot comment over and above what's been said in the press release i.e. To protect employment rights and allow due process to be followed, we cannot comment further at this time.
Personally I think the cannot comment is rubbish, obviously naming of individuals and as yet unproven allegations against them would not be correct but surely a statement to members denying any untrue rumours or gossip or exaggerations and an assurance to fully inform the membership of the facts after due process has been served would have been the correct course of action???
As a member of more than 20 years I believe that the lack of any communication to members shows contempt for the very people that it is supposed to be representing.ie:- The Membership
BASC would do well to remind itself that it exists because of the membership not the other way around.
 
VSS I appreciate your PM and, as requested, confidentiality is confidentiality and what you advised will remain only with me. Thank you.
 
Well, given the above, I think "at this time" I'll be holding on to my £76 and looking at other associations. Because, as a member, I'm not happy at all with the lack of transparency over and above what could be said without any compromise of any party's legal position.

While I am as curious as the next man (or woman) to know the full details of what has gone on I think the organisation is taking the entirely correct approach in not making any further comment. Indeed it would totally unprofessional and quite reckless of them to do so.

I am also strongly of the opinion that this debate should be closed and locked just the same as previous debates on the very same subject. I really wonder what purpose has been served by resurrecting the subject.:locked:
 
VSS I appreciate your PM and, as requested, confidentiality is confidentiality and what you advised will remain only with me. Thank you.

Couldn't you have pm'd that to be even more sneaky and confidential?
 
I disagree. Other threads, rightly closed, were mere BASC "bashing". This is genuine concern by paying members, my number is 15557368, about a wish for clarification as to what is happening at the Association we fund and which represents us.

In 1988 at its AGM that year I proposed a motion, from the floor that John Farr MP be expelled from BASC following his appaling input to the post-Hungerford Firearms Act 1988.

He in fact resigned from BASC either after, or before, the motion was put. Whilst no individual should be bigger than the "team" there are some individuals who are, to public perception, BASC...and if someone has upset them we need to know.

For if they left BASC so would I. Others I couldn't care less about and, in fact, think it'd be better without them. So, yes, who exactly is involved does affect my wish, or not, to renew. That is all.
 
Last edited:
You are right, I could but with others suggesting I would 'leak info' I thought it better to be 'open'. Sorry, I'm me, you are you.
 
I disagree. Other threads, rightly closed, were mere BASC "bashing". This is genuine concern by paying members, my number is 15557368, about a wish for clarification as to what is happening at the Association we fund and which represents us.

In 1988 at its AGM that year I proposed a motion, from the floor that John Farr MP be expelled from BASC following his appaling input to the post-Hungerford Firearms Act 1988.

He in fact resigned from BASC either after, or before, the motion was put. Whilst no individual should be bigger than the "team" there are some individuals who are, to public perception, BASC...and if someone has upset them we need to know.

For if they left BASC so would I. Others I couldn't care less about and, in fact, think it'd be better without them. So, yes, who exactly is involved does affect my wish, or not, to renew. That is all.


The text of the Guardian article was previously posted by moi. The thread was duly smothered, and abruptly closed with accusations of biased journalism, and the advice to wait & see what transpires from ‘the investigation’. That had already taken place at this time so the Guardian was reporting it as fact, not hearsay.

The Guardian & LACS had actually seen the ‘independent report’ (that phrase is worth emphasis) produced by the law firm Hill Dickinson who are retained by, and represent BASC. It looks like BASC have a mole or a whistleblower in their employ who leaked the entire confidential report to the press…. and why not? That’s the only form of transparency seen so far in this sorry saga.

The fragment of the Times piece on its’ website confirms that HD are BASC’s lawyers. You can’t read the rest of the piece unless you register your EMA & identity, or take out a paid subscription. I didn’t bother. The Daily Mail just quotes the Guardian article parrot fashion as you’d expect from this rag, so adds nothing to our knowledge.


The essential difference between the Guardian and other newspapers is that as an independent trust it covers whatever news stories break in a responsible way, and offers the whole newspaper on a totally free website. I pay for the hardcopy version anyway, so on noticing the article I edited & posted the text for SD & BASC members who otherwise might have missed it. I am not a BASC basher, and in fact couldn’t really care less about it. I pay the subs only because their liability insurance is a compulsory part of my syndicate fees.

http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/124798-Dirty-deeds-BASC-confirmed?
 
My apologies, certainly I didn't have your Guardian referencing thread in mind when I commented on BASC bashing. Not at all.

Just those earlier threads from 2015 and 2016 that clearly are and were (or developed into such). And, rightly, were closed.
 
Last edited:
"The essential difference between the Guardian and other newspapers is that as an independent trust it covers whatever news stories break in a responsible way, and offers the whole newspaper on a totally free website."

Sorry but I have problems with this. The Guardian has a huge anti fieldsports bias and if you don't recognise this perhaps you should.

David.
 
Back
Top