Joined December 19th 2014 ... says it all, it must mean something when comments are coming from these members.
BASC to remove "Legal Expenses Cover" wef 31 July 2020
- Thread starter enfieldspares
- Start date
Conor,
Does the BASC REALLY think they are instilling confidence in the members, by editing the original release, with modified figures, to suggest the cost per person is £5.80 pa, rather than the £13.50, in the original release ????
For me, I'm afraid BASC's credibility, has dropped below any acceptable level, where trusting them to look after my best interests, rather than their own financial gain, has become a major issue !
I've started looking for an alternative company, who isn't under the impression, that removing member services, that they have stated are costed at £13.50 per head, whilst offering zero in return, are "in the members best interest" !
Assuming the above is correct.
Lateral is reliable source.
Says rather a lot when a press release about costs is incorrect (maybe ) by considerably more than 100 %. £13.50 v 2*£5.80.
It also says a lot when its members who find the fault. I wonder if the paper to Council is suspect as a result ?
Just not what should happen in a well run organisation of any sort, surely. Forgiveable if it were the first but we rely on what is said by them, member or no. Diane Abbot isnt the only one then.
Since the cost is now less than half what it was before, does that mean the decision will be reviewed since that decision is considerably less credible as a result, given their members comments ?
Lateral is reliable source.
Says rather a lot when a press release about costs is incorrect (maybe ) by considerably more than 100 %. £13.50 v 2*£5.80.
It also says a lot when its members who find the fault. I wonder if the paper to Council is suspect as a result ?
Just not what should happen in a well run organisation of any sort, surely. Forgiveable if it were the first but we rely on what is said by them, member or no. Diane Abbot isnt the only one then.
Since the cost is now less than half what it was before, does that mean the decision will be reviewed since that decision is considerably less credible as a result, given their members comments ?
Last edited:
Grannysmith
Well-Known Member
I am going to contact the nra in the us and ask if they would start a branch here we cant go on like this!
Grannysmith
Well-Known Member
Still got my wagbi badge from 1970 the founders must be turning in their graves!
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Less credible !! That is putting it mildly. The numbers are there in black and white on BASC's website.
A costing that is out by more than double is disastrous.
Unlikely that the decision will be reversed methinks.
Just one more debacle to add to a steadily increasing list.
Such a sad situation. There are many good people working at BASC, however the leadership seems a different matter altogether.
If the decision was based on the wrong figures (now magically edited) then someone has some questions to answer. Maybe the same person that posted a story about birds of prey but couldn't tell the difference between merlin and a lanner falcon! amateur night at the mill!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Sorry Conor, I am a member of BASC and frequently stand up for it on this forum but I have to say that ditching the legal expenses insurance is a serious backward step.
The message that this sends to those police forces that choose to add to and embellish existing firearms laws and ignore HO guidance is that except for the wealthiest gun owners they may do so with impunity and without fear of legal challenge. I don't believe that BASC as a leading shooting organisation will do its reputation any good at all by putting itself in the position of being a police poodle.
In any case I have a far better idea, BASC needs to make a substantially greater effort to secure competitive pricing and terms for the legal expenses cover, with a claimed membership of over 150,000 that represents a lot of business for somebody, how about rising to the challenge instead?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
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.
Evening All,
I'll stick my oar in here.
How many of the other "ORGS" and associations currently provide Legal Expenses Cover??
I am only a BASC member so do not know.
I also understood like a previous poster that the Legal expenses cover has not been provided for that many years.
How many of the other associations can you phone and speak to a regional member of staff, up and down the country for help and advice?
Cheers
I'll stick my oar in here.
How many of the other "ORGS" and associations currently provide Legal Expenses Cover??
I am only a BASC member so do not know.
I also understood like a previous poster that the Legal expenses cover has not been provided for that many years.
How many of the other associations can you phone and speak to a regional member of staff, up and down the country for help and advice?
Cheers
David.evans
Well-Known Member
With respect Conor , it’s not us you need to get back to it’s the people above you mate, making unfounded decisions
No wonder BASC looks like sinking ship at the moment
Regards
No wonder BASC looks like sinking ship at the moment
Regards
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
To be fair tattie for all of the above basc is pretty much the only org u can do the above.
But there just so incompetent now it's almost impossible to defend them or even give them the benefit of doubt anymore.
I honestly think there doing more harm than good now, which is a very sad state.
Would u trust an org which claims to have consulted with the ammo makers when it turns out they never even warned them never mind consulted with them.
Or can't even figure out how much the insurance is costing, other than too much
Just how stupid are they, wot other mistakes are they making daily if they can fcuk up such high profile announcements knowing there going to get grief over.
I've been a member for well over 3 decades but now the sooner they go bust the better for all shooting
But there just so incompetent now it's almost impossible to defend them or even give them the benefit of doubt anymore.
I honestly think there doing more harm than good now, which is a very sad state.
Would u trust an org which claims to have consulted with the ammo makers when it turns out they never even warned them never mind consulted with them.
Or can't even figure out how much the insurance is costing, other than too much
Just how stupid are they, wot other mistakes are they making daily if they can fcuk up such high profile announcements knowing there going to get grief over.
I've been a member for well over 3 decades but now the sooner they go bust the better for all shooting
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
So at £5 or £6 per member to give legal cover in case of licensing issues between a member and his or her Chief Constable per year it is too expensive? Heck people p1ss that down the lavatory after a drinking couple of coffees during a single half hour break at a Starbucks on the M1 or M6. Yet to pay that every twelve month for legal cover is too expensive? Nah! Something's not right here. Something stinks.
David.evans
Well-Known Member
I can just imagine what would happen if car insurance company’s took away
Hit by a none insured driver cover ,
I just think BASC. Should have informed members before there renewal date , as I bet there’s thousands like me that have renewed in the last 2 months
Hit by a none insured driver cover ,
I just think BASC. Should have informed members before there renewal date , as I bet there’s thousands like me that have renewed in the last 2 months
Even more interesting:
So, the policy costs £1,000,000.00, .
This equated to £13.50 per head, in the original release.
The costing has now been revised at £5.80 per head, approximately 43% of the original claim, and it was apparently half that the previous year
Just how exactly does that work ?????? Has the membership over doubled in a short space of time, to reduce the numbers by half ? Is the BASC number cruncher a total incompetent ?
Or, do you feel like someone is trying to make the numbers look a little more justifiable ?
Either way, it's a total nonsense, and I don't trust the BASC one bit..............................
So, the policy costs £1,000,000.00, .
This equated to £13.50 per head, in the original release.
The costing has now been revised at £5.80 per head, approximately 43% of the original claim, and it was apparently half that the previous year
Just how exactly does that work ?????? Has the membership over doubled in a short space of time, to reduce the numbers by half ? Is the BASC number cruncher a total incompetent ?
Or, do you feel like someone is trying to make the numbers look a little more justifiable ?
Either way, it's a total nonsense, and I don't trust the BASC one bit..............................
The nra in the U.K. offers insurance cover in the field!
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
BASC are regulated by the FCA. Send an email to BASC requesting a refund with fourteen working days or else you will make a complaint to the FCA.
I am still as I decided to hold on to the AGMwhich was July I believe and debate the lead issue but this is Not Good! does this removal of legal expenses mean if you get an unfortunate ricochet and kills say a prize ram in a field half a mile away and the farmer decides to sue you that you have no cover for that either or is it just against police forces for licensing issues?
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
This image was posted on Pigeon Watch. I had to smile at the last sentence. Given, of course, the recent BASC musings on lead shot. Maybe someone else wants to cut and paste the picture below and start a thread on it elsewhere on SD?
Last edited:
daytona mark
Active Member
If this is the case I am out .shows me just how much out of tune with the membership these people really are they should have asked us ,not difficult
Similar threads
