Sink away buddy.
Thoughts on BASC's new stance on Police Firearms Licensing Departments!
- Thread starter TomTalks
- Start date
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC's update on legal expenses insurance is here:
basc.org.uk
BASC's legal expenses insurance was introduced in 2014 which pre-dates the humane dispatch case mentioned earlier which was BASC-funded. Most BASC-supported cases are resolved before they reach court and there are always a few cases on the go at any one time. Additionally BASC has always funded cases where a principle is involved in the interests of the wider membership.
Important notice regarding firearms licensing legal expenses insurance - BASC
BASC announces changes to membership package.
basc.org.uk
BASC's legal expenses insurance was introduced in 2014 which pre-dates the humane dispatch case mentioned earlier which was BASC-funded. Most BASC-supported cases are resolved before they reach court and there are always a few cases on the go at any one time. Additionally BASC has always funded cases where a principle is involved in the interests of the wider membership.
Iv'e been a member for a good number of years, and joined for exactly the same reason as most others have, which is peace of mind if something went wrong and i needed help. I need to review my membership benefits it seems!
Will Basc still act to support a deserving member against an unjust police decision and if necessary, go to court to defend a deserving member now though? If not and it’s predictably down to the cost of the legal process, why are Basc members paying exactly the same membership fees for what is in effect, a lesser service.BASC's update on legal expenses insurance is here:
Important notice regarding firearms licensing legal expenses insurance - BASC
BASC announces changes to membership package.
BASC's legal expenses insurance was introduced in 2014 which pre-dates the humane dispatch case mentioned earlier which was BASC-funded. Most BASC-supported cases are resolved before they reach court and there are always a few cases on the go at any one time. Additionally BASC has always funded cases where a principle is involved in the interests of the wider membership.
Some members are saying that after consulting Basc, they are now left to challenge the police themselves and that Basc now has a tendency to say, let us know how you get on.
As has been pointed out, if Basc has saved a claimed £2 million by dropping this part of the legal expenses insurance, why hasn’t this saving been passed back to the members? and why weren’t Basc‘s members consulted in the first place rather than just being informed that this part of the insurance had been dropped, when it was being fully funded by the members themselves in the first place.
If Basc has a quoted 150,000 members, it works out that just over £13 of the £85 full membership fee (15%) was being used to pay for this part of the insurance premium.
If you state that this money has been put into a fighting fund then what exactly is it being used for? Surely the first port of call should be to defend the members who fund your organisation.
BASC's position should be to keep in mind what happened when they agreed with the police and the Home Office that all FAC/SGC applicants should have a form completed by their GP at no cost to the applicant - the only fee being payable for further medical reports it needed.
This might focus their corporate mind on how not to conduct themselves in quasi-negotiations with those two bodies: who are better at it than they are, and whose goal always has been and clearly remains the gradual erosion of the lawful possession and use of firearms in the UK.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Yes the members may fund it. But you do as BASC tell you.
If they don't ask them they will not get any answers they don't like.
My bad, I recalled £2m being mentioned, based on £13.5 x 150,000, but having looked back, that related to the total cost of the insurance element.
The interesting point, is we buy insurance hoping never to need it, but having it, in case we do ! We accept the cost, for peace of mind.
We, the members were happy to pay the small premium, for the legal cover, for the same reason. We hoped never to need it, but had it, just in case.
The members should have been asked if they wanted it to continue, and if too few wanted it, to make it viable, then fair enough. IMPO, it wasn't for the BASC to remove it, claiming the cost, when WE were paying it. NOT THEM.
And now it's been confirmed, that they only ripped the members off for ONE MILLION pounds, is that supposed to make us feel all warm, and fuzzy inside ???
^^^^^
That is how insurance works. I thought!
Not everyone will need it, we hope, but one court case can help everybody if it sets a precedent, or can be referred to.
Not correct, precedent can be challenged/precedented/overturned.
I really like that "Challenged" word.
Yes and for me BASC provides the Arran stalking scheme, the only organised event I know of which gives week-long access to a block of land holding deer that you can hunt properly, on your own wits and skills, for a very reasonable fee. This alone is worth the £85 per year membership, anything else is jam.Well I would hardly call it a blasting .
I’ve heard a harsher telling off from a mother to a toddler
Our shooting orgs have have no teeth at all , it’s all nothing but mouthing off and lip service.
BASC have never taken on , defended and won a legal case since its inception .
It is what it is .
As far as I'm aware BASC exists to promote the shooting sports. I think it does this very well in a licensing environment intended to restrict access to firearms and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stalking without them.
CH
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Woohoo!
And how many take advantage of this scheme no ones ever heard of?
A change to Cloud 9 from Cloudhopper?
TomTalks
Well-Known Member
Seems things are getting a bit heated (Who'd have thought 
)
Remember folks, like it or not, we are united in our common interest.
AND remember we are not woke, we are allowed to, and expect to, have differing opinions and remain cordial (Sarcastic is ok though
)
Appreciate all your opinions folks, they matter.
)Remember folks, like it or not, we are united in our common interest.
AND remember we are not woke, we are allowed to, and expect to, have differing opinions and remain cordial (Sarcastic is ok though
)Appreciate all your opinions folks, they matter.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
I totally agree in everything in this post.
But can I ask why are you still a member time and time again they do what BASC THINK IS BEST. NOT WHAT THE MEMBERS WANT.
I go every year and it's usually fully subscribed. That being the case I doubt they feel the need to advertise, I'm pretty sure most in the stalking world are familiar with the Arran scheme. It's unique and I have to say that the BASC guys who I deal with on this, James, Chris (and Bob), are excellent and they come up with the goods every time.
CH
I suppose it depends on how willing BASC are to utilise the replacement fighting fund.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Pssst... I'll let you in on a secret... There isn't really a fighting fund.
There are only BASC funds, its not your money, it's THEIRS
Similar threads
