BASC to remove "Legal Expenses Cover" wef 31 July 2020

[Xtrema]

I have supported BASC, by way of membership, since the the WAGBI days.
This is the last straw for me. I think i'll transfer over to the NGO.

 

[Uncle Norm]

I am really struggling to comprehend BASC's logic in this. For many years BASC funded member's appeals to the Crown/Sherriff Court.

They were rightly very selective and careful in which cases they would support with members cash. Bill Harriman and the firearms team were formidable opponents who won several landmark cases for members.

BASC leadership are now saying that only 75 members per annum used the legal protection policy ?? Lets say that BASC lost all 75 appeals and had costs awarded against them, which is highly unlikely, then surely that would come to much less than the figures quoted for legal expenses insurance ?

I was a firearms and explosives licensing manager for 12 years, in which time I had many dealings with Bill and his team, so I might just know a bit about it.

IF BASC are withdrawing legal costs support from members who justifiably need to take chief officers of police to appeal, I find that bewildering !! Surely not so ??!!

 

[Bandit Country]

Obviously, I'm a bit slow, but my advice to clients was always "Go to the market!" If C3 can provide cover at a competitive rate then that's were to go - and thanks for that 'Heads Up' . I wonder if BASC checked out the market. As we all know 'loyalty' in insurance is a mug's game.

I'm afraid the 'Voice of Shooting" is a misnomer. Governments respond to voices (plural) which is why outfits like the GCN get the same hearing as BASC in any firearms related consultation.

I also saw Jimmy M asking what BDS has done to 'benefit the shooting fraternity'. I'd just point out (again ) for all those that don't know - BDS exists as a charity exclusively for the BENEFIT OF DEER WELFARE! There is nothing in their constitution about benefiting the 'shooting fraternity'! If you're only interested in flat packing deer at any and all opportunities and/or shooting insurance, then the BDS is not for you.

I'll be back in another few months to see how you're all getting on ...

 

[Roestalker39]

I am really struggling to comprehend BASC's logic in this. For many years BASC funded member's appeals to the Crown/Sherriff Court.

They were rightly very selective and careful in which cases they would support with members cash. Bill Harriman and the firearms team were formidable opponents who won several landmark cases for members.

BASC leadership are now saying that only 75 members per annum used the legal protection policy ?? Lets say that BASC lost all 75 appeals and had costs awarded against them, which is highly unlikely, then surely that would come to much less than the figures quoted for legal expenses insurance ?

I was a firearms and explosives licensing manager for 12 years, in which time I had many dealings with Bill and his team, so I might just know a bit about it.

IF BASC are withdrawing legal costs support from members who justifiably need to take chief officers of police to appeal, I find that bewildering !! Surely not so ??!!

Oh it’s so buddy you’re just realising what many of us have years ago ....

 

[jimmy milnes]

Obviously, I'm a bit slow, but my advice to clients was always "Go to the market!" If C3 can provide cover at a competitive rate then that's were to go - and thanks for that 'Heads Up' . I wonder if BASC checked out the market. As we all know 'loyalty' in insurance is a mug's game.

I'm afraid the 'Voice of Shooting" is a misnomer. Governments respond to voices (plural) which is why outfits like the GCN get the same hearing as BASC in any firearms related consultation.

I also saw Jimmy M asking what BDS has done to 'benefit the shooting fraternity'. I'd just point out (again ) for all those that don't know - BDS exists as a charity exclusively for the BENEFIT OF DEER WELFARE! There is nothing in their constitution about benefiting the 'shooting fraternity'! If you're only interested in flat packing deer at any and all opportunities and/or shooting insurance, then the BDS is not for you.

I'll be back in another few months to see how you're all getting on ...

I understand that the BDS are a deer specific organisation, however, they rather market themselves towards the shooting fertility in my eyes, my question was only pointed at them really as I see them as possibly no2 in the charts, I could easily have pointed to one of the other organisations.
In recent times the SGA have in the eyes of some become the Golden Boys, and I've no doubt that some really decent guys work within them, however in my eyes as I've said earlier just not putting your name on a piece of paper and stating that "last time I looked" they don't have an opinion until evidence is given (sitting on the fence) doesn't mean that you "to quote" have balls, standing up and saying no I don't agree, we'll find evidence and fight you on it, is having balls. I could also ask what they're doing to get all the other things sorted that BASC get singled out on, ie. Med letters, longer certs, etc. nothing I would imagine but I'm always happy to be proved wrong.
My finger point at SGA could have been a point to any other organisation that take our money,
I'll be cancelling my BASC and my NGO has already gone, I'll keep the GWCT although they signed up for stopping the use of lead, as THEY are the only ones I see doing science based research for all the other organisations to piggy back.
Jimmy

 

[Uncle Norm]

Oh it’s so buddy you’re just realising what many of us have years ago ....

IF you are right @Roestalker39, the decision is sheer madness ! The knowledge that BASC would fund and support an appeal was a powerful deterrent to unreasonable refusals/revocations.

Licensing authorities know full well that many ordinary working folk cannot afford to fund an appeal, particularly if they lost and had to pay costs.

Without going to court, the BASC team successfully negotiated the reversal of numerous bad decisions across the UK, however the threat of court action was always there if the police would not see sense. In fact, often BASC had already served the statutory notice of appeal, prior to opening negotiations. Receipt of the notice was inclined to concentrate minds on what the Law actually said as opposed to the 'make it up as you go along' brigade.

IF BASC will no longer fund appeals, they have not only thrown ordinary shooting people to the wolves but made a decision equivalent to unilateral nuclear disarmament, leaving the other Guy with all his weapons. Incredible.

In the words of Victor Meldrew ''Could you bloody well credit it ?''

 

[Mickeydredd]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't giving gifts to MP's etc to get them to do you favours corruption?

Not if the MP declares it

 

[timbrayford]

And out of how many people who have domestic house insurance have, each year, their house burned down? 1 in 1000? 1 in 2000? Help with the police if you, BASC, are not prepared to ultimately back up your members in the courts up is like having a nuclear deterrent with no means to effectively deploy it. And the police will know that if they refuse, and the individual is a BASC member, then it's all bluff as there's no means then actually to put it before a Judge. Or, as some might put it "all fur coat and no knickers".

I agree, it is very disappointing

 

[Mickeydredd]

Worth £4k pa?

In 2010 Sir Geoffrey was elected as the third Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation (the APPG), and, as such, became the key person for the representation of shooting in British politics. He has since been re-elected by MPs and Peers as Chairman in each subsequent year. BASC provides the secretariat for the APPG, and has done so since playing a part in its formation in 2001. As a result, BASC has worked closely with Sir Geoffrey on every issue with political ramifications involving shooting for the last decade. Sir Geoffrey, as a keen shot, was already a member of the APPG in 2010. He brought to the role his wide political experience and knowledge of shooting and the countryside. The result is a group that has grown to be one of the largest in parliament. It plays a crucial role in informing parliamentarians and securing their support and action to promote and protect shooting and conservation in politics.

Sir Geoffrey was already a busy MP, serving on key committees such as the Public Accounts committee, and maintaining a broad range of international political interests. His ability to represent shooting as well is a testament to his personal commitment to the cause and his capacity for hard work. On every issue from firearms licensing fees, Home Office consultations, medical involvement in licensing to general licenses for pest control and the promotion of game Sir Geoffrey has been a key figure. He has ensured that BASC have been able to put the case to key Ministers. He has spoken to Ministers himself and kept the pressure on to ensure a satisfactory resolution for shooting and conservation.

An outstanding example of his commitment to the sport is his leadership of the campaign to the preserve civilian .50 calibre target shooting in the face of a Bill which included a proposed ban. Despite the opposition of Ministers, he led a strong group of backbench MPs who persuaded a reluctant Minister to withdraw the ban.

 

[Mickeydredd]

just read the 2019 accounts that will be presented at the AGM this weekend.

Staff costs have risen by £1.04m (22%) from 2018 to 2019 financial years and some of you are having a hairy canary about £4k worth of shooting given to the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation.....

 

[finnbear270]

The Hairy Canary is probably a lot more to do with the issues of Medical charges being all over the chart, and put into force without laws being made / 10 year certifications / & the fact that a moderator is considered a firearm in it's own right ..... .50 calibre was saved, In my view a much harder nut to have cracked ........... Why no explanation in detail of the no judicial review descision recently, was it to have been so damaging to the sport if it was explained?

 

[jimmy milnes]

The Hairy Canary is probably a lot more to do with the issues of Medical charges being all over the chart, and put into force without laws being made / 10 year certifications / & the fact that a moderator is considered a firearm in it's own right ..... .50 calibre was saved, In my view a much harder nut to have cracked ........... Why no explanation in detail of the no judicial review descision recently, was it to have been so damaging to the sport if it was explained?

And the countless other organisations were just sat there counting the money rolling in or were they out there fighting these issues ??
Anyone reading the thread would think only basc existed

 

[Mick Miller]

Stating that 'only a handful of members make use' of something sort of misses the point that those 'handful of cases' set legal precedents that benefit each and everyone of us in some way. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Donnachaidh]

Never mind; have a look at the BASC Facebook page....you can learn how to make dog toys out of a pair of old jeans. Is this what it's come to?

 

[Mick Miller]

Never mind; have a look at the BASC Facebook page....you can learn how to make dog toys out of a pair of old jeans. Is this what it's come to?

Yes.

 

[merlin]

just read the 2019 accounts that will be presented at the AGM this weekend.

Staff costs have risen by £1.04m (22%) from 2018 to 2019 financial years and some of you are having a hairy canary about £4k worth of shooting given to the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation.....

....to be honest, I give more of a hairy canary about staff costs going up by 22% in such a short period....

 

[Mike L]

Surely, if BASC are in effect saving 1 million per year, they would be able to financially cover the expenses of the "handful" of members out of their own pocket, without the need of the insurance?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC's website briefing and FAQ on this topic has been updated.

Important notice regarding legal expenses insurance

Thank you to the forum members that contacted BASC with queries and feedback about this.

If you are a BASC member and have any queries or feedback about this please email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk with your membership number and I will ensure that someone gets back to you.

 

[finnbear270]

And the countless other organisations were just sat there counting the money rolling in or were they out there fighting these issues ??
Anyone reading the thread would think only basc existed

Well they are "The voice".

 

[mudman]

Surely, if BASC are in effect saving 1 million per year, they would be able to financially cover the expenses of the "handful" of members out of their own pocket, without the need of the insurance?

Which is what I believe they did for the many years before they had an LEI in place. Although the criticism was they would only take cases to court when they though they were (100%?) winnable, so many members were disappointed when BASC chose not to take their own individual case to court.