Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
I was left out in the cold with an issue years ago Jimmy hence why I left Joined the ngo and they got it sorted for me , basc couldn’t be bothered , did that take the p£ss too or was it ok because it’s me ?
BASC AGM
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
jimmy,
the case was most certainly a valid one, but a long story! Safe to say a certain Scottish rep of the Basc at that time wasn’t popular.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the extra” on the insurance??
my decision to go with SGA was their willingness to discuss on the phone what was available and why they were passionate about field sports in general.
Prior to the case above where the shooter was unsupported by BASC I did find they were a little too “automated”....you got glossy magazines and stickers and pin badges but they didn’t seem to actually be that proactive for the members. Just my opinion of course.
Regards,
Gixer
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
No that's the first facts you've given, an if thats true then ya did right
Now answer the question I've asked you on several threads give me evidence that "let's say SGA as your a member, that way you won't have to troll through rakes of Internet" are fighting for the things you slate BASC for not doing..
I've already told you on a previous thread that last I looked SGA have no opinion on a possible lead ban until evidence is given, great... But are they doing the job of getting the evidence needed?
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
All valid points
By extra I meant the fact that membership of BASC is a lot more expensive.
Cheers Jimmy
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
It's all very well joining 3c cover or any other non org ins, BUT none of them care 1 jot f shooting was banned tomorrow.
None will ever lobby or have an opinion on anything and to be honest if some anti group started moaning to the parent company about profiting from bloodsports/murder do u really think they'd keep ur insurance going??
No chance only in it for easy money as soon as money isn't easy they will pull the plug.
Basc may be f ing useless but atleast they claim to do stuff ( hard to see any positive results)
NGO are similar money to private ins.
I wouldn't put too much faith in there legal cover, has anyone ever heard of anyone using it?? Even wot basc had the insurance company wants a 100% expected succes before they take it case on.
This being commercial I expect will be even tighter wot cases they take on, or may even be quota'd to a few a year
None will ever lobby or have an opinion on anything and to be honest if some anti group started moaning to the parent company about profiting from bloodsports/murder do u really think they'd keep ur insurance going??
No chance only in it for easy money as soon as money isn't easy they will pull the plug.
Basc may be f ing useless but atleast they claim to do stuff ( hard to see any positive results)
NGO are similar money to private ins.
I wouldn't put too much faith in there legal cover, has anyone ever heard of anyone using it?? Even wot basc had the insurance company wants a 100% expected succes before they take it case on.
This being commercial I expect will be even tighter wot cases they take on, or may even be quota'd to a few a year
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
I hear ya CB totally agree with you in respect of private insurance only being in it for the money..
Regards to BASC being useless then yeah again I have to agree that it seems too many chips off the iceberg are being allowed by them, but I don't see any others picking up the colours and advancing into battle either,
That's my whole point on all these threads where BASC get a shoeing.. They all what the shoeing cause non are doing it.
ATB matey.
P's.. New dog arrives in 3 weeks I'll ping ya some pictures again when I get it to UK..
What you say may be the case and in regard to the legal cover all insurance companies treat prospective cases in the same way, they will look at the possibility of winning and if it meets certain criteria they will take it forward and fight the case, the ALL do that. The difference lies in the fact that if you have insurance cover your case will be initially assessed without cost, if you have to get it assessed yourself then you are going to be paying a lawyer/barrister to give you an assessment. Many cannot afford to spend that initial cost to see if the case has any chance and the authorities know this. How many will say they know their case will win in court but will not fight it because they cannot afford the legal representation. This is where the biggest issue lies in the removal of legal cover.
I agree that BASC "appear" to do stuff and as you say its difficult to see positive results but they are rolling over on issues that are of great concern to many and treating the membership very shoddily by not consulting on some of those issues. The only way they will take notice of the membership is if they loose them and unfortunately it seems to be the only course of action most members feel is left to them if they want to make some impact. Jimmy Milnes agrees that there are too many chips off the iceberg but what is he going to do about that, perhaps keep on paying membership and encouraging more of the same. If enough members leave then BASC will have to admit that they are not representing everyone properly and many firmly believe that it is only the interests of larger shoots that are being taken into consideration. I left BASC some years ago and joined the CA because I felt they represented broader interests and I have in the past e mailed both organisations asking why they and the other organisations don't speak as one voice to represent us on important issues and I never got a reply form either of them. needless to say I have left the CA as well but before doing so asked for an explanation of their stance on lead shot. again no reply. If BASC changed its attitude and fought everyone's corner they would enjoy much more support unfortunately many feel like "the voice" is silent whenever a difficult question is asked.
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Nice post, I'm an on a shoestring regarding leaving BASC, I've chopped off my NGO in May but will stick with the GWCT "yes the put their name on the lead ban, but they're science based an science says lead is bad so in a black an white situation they have to back it imo" an without them who'd do the science based research.
Sorry but I had to laugh at your last 10 words as they reminded me of jimbo
Thank you Jimmy, the last 10 words were not there a an unfounded "dig" at BASC but my observation of what many feel and not just Jimbo, they also reflect my experiences where e mails were ignored and as previously stated I had the same issues with the CA.Nice post, I'm an on a shoestring regarding leaving BASC, I've chopped off my NGO in May but will stick with the GWCT "yes the put their name on the lead ban, but they're science based an science says lead is bad so in a black an white situation they have to back it imo" an without them who'd do the science based research.
Sorry but I had to laugh at your last 10 words as they reminded me of jimbo
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of any of that to my point.The latest information is as follows.
Providing a solution on medical firearms verification - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Bill Harriman describes the solution put forward by BASC to ease the medical verification aspect of the certificate application process.basc.org.uk
What’s the problem with firearms licensing? - BASC
One of the aims of the 2016 Home Office guide to firearms licensing law was to bring about consistency in how the police administered firearms licensing in England and Wales, particularly around medical involvement in the process.
As shooters, we all know there are problems with the fair administration of the Firearms Act, and that there have been for decades. The problems have hitherto largely been caused by the Home Office and the Police working together to make things difficult for the shooting public.
During the development of this extension of involvement of medical practitioners (we mustn't forget that they'd been involved in a more-targeted way for many, many years), I was surprised to see BASC joining those two bodies in agreeing on what at the time was being recognised by some outside BASC as being a complete deviation from the spirit of the Act - namely the introduction of arguably unlawful and uncapped charges which would be applied in a manner that discriminated against applicants with particular kinds of infirmity.
This quickly changed into random GP charges for (nearly) everyone - since the principle that applicants should pay only the statutory fee for certificates had already been abandoned in the first bit of BASC-support decision-making.
To summarise, BASC seem ongoingly to support the idea that applicants might have to pay for medical involvement in the process of grant/renewal of certificates. This position is at odds with the well-established principle under the Firearms Act that the service of renewal/grant is carried out by the Police on payment of a statutory fee. Since the certification process is very clearly intended to benefit the public at large, rather than the applicant, it seems profoundly wrong that any applicants should be put at the risk of having to pay more than the fee set by Parliament.
As a current BASC member I’m starting to feel this year’s membership may well be my last.
There are many statements across many forums about BASC representing certain factions of the shooting community more than others and whilst I have accepted that in the past I have been happy to continue funding them for the greater good and the fact they would represent me legally if I were to need them even if the bulk of their lobbying etc didn’t reflect my actual needs.
It doesn’t look as if that’s the case any longer
There are many statements across many forums about BASC representing certain factions of the shooting community more than others and whilst I have accepted that in the past I have been happy to continue funding them for the greater good and the fact they would represent me legally if I were to need them even if the bulk of their lobbying etc didn’t reflect my actual needs.
It doesn’t look as if that’s the case any longer
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Let's have a discussion on here where it is open and transparent.
So the first subject I would like to discuss is medical letters for renewal. And I don't want to hear about the medical company you have set up. I want to know want you are doing about the need for them in the first place.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Let's just recap that this is a thread about the BASC AGM that took place last Saturday that nobody from this forum attended as far as I know - and if they did - they asked no questions. Happy to be corrected wrong - in the interests of openness and transparency.
In this thread about the BASC AGM - that nobody from this forum attended or asked questions at - a number of people have posted off topic comments that I have answered.
So, let's turn to your off topic request 'in the interests of openness and transparency' for a discussion on police forces in the UK implementing mandatory GP verification of the medical information that you and I provide in our SGC/FAC grants/renewal.
In the interests of openness and transparency, before we discuss, may I ask - what organisation do you currently belong to and have you asked them about what they are doing about police forces in the UK implementing mandatory GP verification of the medical information you and I provide in our SGC/FAC grants/renewals? If you have asked, what was the answer?
May I also ask you to PM me with your name and email address in the interests of openness and transparency so that I know with whom I am having this discussion in an open public forum given that you posed your question to me in the interests of openness and transparency.
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Paragraph 4...
Exactly what I've said all along, all these folk banging on about an organisations failings on certain topics when they're not in said organisation and the organisation they give their annual payment to gets away Scott free
even though they're not doing anything about it typical SD bandwagoning "if that's actually a word"
You should be down in "That Place" , Petulant and avoiding just like an MP.
And, As to non attendance in any form by myself, (A member), Why would I feel anything brought up at AGM wouldn't be ignored / avoided / or just plain punted into "The long grass"?
You have a point there Jimmy, but what you must realise is that the frustrations of some is partly a result of when they were members of BASC, they left at some point because staying a member encourages more of the same and the only way to get the attention of those who run BASC is to leave. Not so much bandwagoning more a shared experience of dissapointment and frustration. There was recently a comment posted in a thread by BASC along the lines of " our comments are having an impact" unfortunately that was never expanded on and it would be good to hear more on that, IF in fact it is true. If there is a change in attitude at BASC that takes on board the concerns raised here and it comes clean in particular about how very poorly they have behaved over the promotion of self imposed bans without proper consultation maybe our veiws will start to change. BASC do a lot of good stuff but you simply cannot put those forward as an excuse for pi$$ poor behaviour in other areas and if you want to portray yourself as the voice of shooting then you should make that voice heard in defense of ALL of us and fight our respective corners not capitulate if you think you may loose an arguement.Paragraph 4...
Exactly what I've said all along, all these folk banging on about an organisations failings on certain topics when they're not in said organisation and the organisation they give their annual payment to gets away Scott free
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
I suppose I'm "for my sins" in the better the devil you know camp although like I've said I'm really hanging on by a shoestring.
You make some valid points regarding folk quoting from past experience an I get it, but the point that I keep trying to make is people leave basc to join another organisation because they believe basc are failing them but then don't seem to see the fact that they're being led up the path by the new organisation too.
We had a recent poll on here about who your with for an organisation, not looked at it for a while but last I looked SGA were top, yet when you go to their website the very same things you possibly left basc for don't get a mention.
It just seems to me like a conga at a wedding, everyone is joining in because it looks like the thing to do.
I've no problem with anyone leaving basc, after all it their money to spend as they wish, but I don't see any point leaving an organisation because of failings to give money to another with the same failings.
If someone came on an said I've left basc because of their failings and I'm going to another organisation that has the same failings but it only costing me half the money then I'd get it, but that's not happening.
Regards
Jimmy
Similar threads
