Which "Shooting Organisation" and Insurance?

I do actually wonder what would happen if I needed to make a claim and had three overlapping policies in place.

You would get paid out by one of them and one of them only. You'd have to let the underwriter sort out who was going to pick up the tab.
 
David thanks for confirming that BASC would pay out first regardless of any other insurance.
Smullery thanks for that advice, seems we should all check our insurances more carefully.
 
Last edited:
Taff,

The real scary thing is Life Insurance. Currently in the UK there is a £500,000 limit "before" you have to inform your insurers (because after that your premiums go up because of the actuarial risk).

Now, you may have lots of little bits included in your membership of former company pension schemes, insurance policies, bank account "valued customer accounts" etc.

If you go over the £500K limit "without realising it" then your executors will spend half their lifetime and your money fighting "their" claim.

Too much insurance too cheaply will mean you pay, but the claim will fail.

All the TV adverts of "cheaper insurance" are actually true. You do pay less. You also get less....

It's always down to YOU to read all the printed legal matter.

Stan
 
For goodness sake! BASC did not 'roll over' on S/A rifles - check your facts I think you will find it was another organisation that did this not BASC! This has been mentioned before on this forum.

Same with steel - what are you on about? No one has rolled over on steel?

Maybe you are talking about the sign up by the UK to AEWA to ban lead from wetlands etc? This is not a UK issue but an international issue to remove lead shot from wetlands and other areas.

Maybe you did not know it was BASC alone that fought and delayed the implementation of the ban in the UK for over 10 years?

Maybe you did not know it was BASC alone that negotiated a two year voluntary restraint for wildfowlers.

Maybe you did not know it was BASC alone that got some of the restrictions lifted in England after 2 years?

Hardly rolling over is it?

As for airguns, a win is a win, close shave or not.
There are many issues facing shooting at the moment, and to be honest I think there always will be, and yes I agree it’s important for BASC to focus its resources on fighting to protect your freedom to go shooting, that’s what we will always do. And we will always work with others who share our objectives.

BASC, and several other orgnisations are all members of FACE - so come together on an international level.

BASC, along with several others are part of the British Shooting Sports Council , a UK 'umbrella' body for shooting organisations.

BASC along with a few are members of the Shoot Summit, a UK group concentrating on live quarry shooting.

So yes we do try to work with other organisations ,but its important that we all retain our own identity in my view.

Mergers have been suggested in the past, BASC and BFSS, CPSA, NSRA, NRA for example and all have come to naught.

At the end of the day, as a members organisation we are governed by the will of the members.

Re the claim made on three 'last resort' polices, it would be an interesting point I agree, and would spark some debate among the underwriters as under UK law at the moment there is a window of just 90 days for one or the other to accept liability.

David
 

So yes we do try to work with other organisations ,but its important that we all retain our own identity in my view.
Why? Apart for keeping certain people in certain jobs. I can see little advantage to this currently divergent mix of concerned organisations. Politics is all about numbers the greater the number of potential voters you can influence the greater your political bargain power and the greater the over all influence with the politicians. Cost saving would be made, there by increasing spendable resource for that all important winning of the hearts and mind of the general public etc etc.

Mergers have been suggested in the past, BASC and BFSS, CPSA, NSRA, NRA for example and all have come to naught
Why. I have it on good authority that the main obstacles to those proposals lay very much within BASC.

At the end of the day, as a members organisation we are governed by the will of the members.
As we all know that is a rather simplistic view of the reality. Its a subject that has been discussed at great length on here and elsewhere with as yet no satisfactory conclusion.
 
Hi Doc,

Yes I agree that having a strong political campaign / voice is vital, that is why it is one of BASC five key objectives.

That is why BASC rand the biggest internet pro shooting campaign ever seen on the run up to the last election election.

That is why BASC orchestrated the biggest ever response to a Home Affairs Select Committee consultation ever

That is what BASC set up and provides the secretarial for the All party Group on shooting & Conservation…

It is often useful to fight on several fronts, and having several key orgnisations doing this can be of great benefit.

Also, think about it, do all shooters want to belong to just one organization? No, evidently they do not, if they did all shooters would be joining one of the current orgnisations and leaving all the others, this is not happening, the market wants freedom of choice.

As to the merger between BFSS and BASC, I was at that AGM were you?

You will recall that one person spent a considerable amount of money advertising in the shooting media for months to encourage BASC members to vote for a merger, and BASC do NOT do anything to stop this.

You may remember perhaps that a properly formatted proposal for merger was put to the AGM and that this was circulated to all BASC members before the AGM.

At the AGM and the proposer, seconder and others were given the free and full opportunity to put their case to the membership..

The future of the merger was in the hands of the members of BASC, and it’s the members that voted against it – suggest you check your source of ‘good authority’ yet another unfounded accusation against BASC by you Doc…getting to be a bit of a habit!

Remember, BASC is not me, or the CEO, or even the senior management team…BASC is the 130,000 plus members – all of whom have a vote, and all of whom elect from their own number the BASC Council who set BASC policy.

BASC has a written constitution as to how its governed, this is far from being simplistic as you put it!

David
 
frenchieboy - as is usual, the topic of your thread got a wee bittie sidetracked. If you are still searching you might take a peek at the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Blunt and to the point - men of years of keepering and stalking, professional experience running the show and they get their say into parliament too.
You get insured - CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC LIABILITY. INDEMNITY LIMIT IS £10,000,000
 
Thanks for all of the advice that was offered to me. Just to put this one to bed (for me) I have made my decision and joined the S.A.C.S. - I made this choice because it seemed to offer reasonable insurance cover and (Like most other similar organisations) it included a "legal advice" type of package (Which I might be neding the way Lancashire Firearms Office are playing about with my application for a variation). The thing that finally swung it was the fact that I was invited to enter a photographic competition last year and won £250 for second prize so I thought that joining was a good way to thank them!
 
Why do these threads always end up a BASC bashing exercise from the usual critics.

i have been with BASC for many years and while they are not perfect I am very happy with there performance.
Willie
 
Regardless of your views on the BASC, at least David is a member of SD and is prepared to deal with queries & comments raised on through this forum. BASC isn't perfect, but I believe David deserves some recognition for the fact that he is prepared to put his head above the parapet on a regular basis.

Perhaps people who are insured with the other associations could contact them to advise them of this thread and give them the ability to specify exactly what their membership entails like David has done. Assuming they consider a forum like this worthy of their time that is...
well the short version of my opinion is +1 for Moonraker68 and MJ75

The long version is as follows

As boring as this may be for the long timers as a new comer with the same decision to make in the future I find it useful to be able to get the “current” opinions on what has been an ongoing and long term debate.

For a newcomer sorting through the merits of the various organisations and their “real” agendas is going to take some doing. My uninformed, new comer casual observations are as follows.

I became aware of Countryside Alliance about the same time as I joined here.
Signing up to their mailing list seemed like a no brainer. They appeared to be the obvious choice as the “one stop” solution i.e. the one group that had the best interests of all aspects of the country side at its heart. One strong, cohesive organisation was exactly what was needed to protect the our field sports from the antis and government erosion.

It was clear that amongst their interests was the support of fox hunting.
Its some thing that I’m not that keen on but I freely admit a) I have conflicting interests in other sports such as falconry and b) I don’t know enough about it to have an informed opinion.

Being a live and let live sort of chap I didn’t see it as being significant enough for me to pass the CA over and if I decided to join them and developed a violent objection to the practice I could always seek change from within.

In the time that’s followed, rightly or wrongly, the Countryside Alliance has given me the impression that its a “Fox and hounds” organisation that has a passing interest in “other stuff”. I base this purely on the amount of space it devotes to various subjects in its updates. I admit this might be driven purely by the issues that have been current during that time, never the less that’s how it comes across to me. Had I known that at the start I probably wouldn’t have joined the list. I’m continuing to monitor them and time will tell whether they’re what they claim to be, its not looking good.

I find it telling how under represented the various shooting bodies are on here.
Its probably a cross between the sheer number of such forums and the time consuming and thankless nature of the task. One in which a poorly chosen phrase, or tired & off hand comment will be deliberately misrepresented by some and spark a tirade of negative and destructive comment.

None of this is new, it happens in all sports. Its why manufacturers rarely frequent such venues unless they control them. After all who needs it?

For the most part we don’t make unsolicited posts about how happy we are. We tend to only voice our opinions when we’re unhappy. As a result most of the traffic that’s dealt with is highly polarised in opinion and oft times rude and aggressive.
None the less being present is a necessary requirement if an organisation wants current and perspective members to think that they give a damn.

I find it telling that the only relevant organisation represented on the forum is BASC.

I haven’t been around long enough to have insight to the historical issues being discussed, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the information presented against BASC. I can see that a number of the comments have been vague and unspecific at best, there’s even been an accusation of being deceptive and telling lies, well perhaps its just me but, I find that a bit strongly worded. I find it noteworthy that Dave’s responses have been measured, polite and easily verifiable.

You don’t have agree with the answer that you get but you do have respect that time was taken to address your concerns in a timely, courteous and straight forward manner. Further more David voluntarily offered to look into the possibility of past unsatisfactory service that a member received. What’s not to like about any of that?

Within any group of people misunderstanding and confusion can occur, events and details misinterpreted, its the manner in which such things are resolved that defines an individual or organisation. There will be always be strongly held opposing views but the facts will eventually be verifiable for those who care to check.

Any individual and or organisation that would knowingly present dishonest information in a public arena will undermine its credibility and that isn’t sustainable unless your surname begins with a P and you work for the BBC. It would be an appalling business model, guaranteed to cost reputation so why would you do such a thing? Isn’t it more likely to be a case of crossed wires?

You can tell a lot about an organisation by the way its people handle themselves.
BASCs looking pretty good to me right now but then again, on here it is a one horse race.
 
This is the stock answer from BASC (below) in relation to any current issues regarding medical fees, Licensing departments, offensive weapons bill, shooting on public land in Wales, etc. etc.
hence why members maybe more than slightly disillusioned with the way the cases is handled from an organization that gets the subscriptions from over 150.000 members. and employs a staff of 150.

BASC will consider the long-term implications of today’s decision before making further comment.




150 Key Achievements of BASC

In the last 15 years, we have

. Successfully lobbied to change and clarify the law in a number of areas, such as for the lending of shotguns, expired certificates (which will be automatically extended), and expanding ammunition (which now no longer holds prohibited status

. Been a key voice in support of shooting, in talks with the government and the police, with regard to several important areas, including medical involvement in licensing and modernising the firearms licensing process.

Campaigned tirelessly against regulation which is not evidence-based. Most recently, we are challenging proposals to ban ownership of .50 calibre and other rifles.

29. Supported a project on the game meat supply chain in Wales. BASC provided key research for this project including via survey research, and BASC staff chaired and sat on the project advisory group
That's just been blown out of the water then !!!!!!:banghead:


The most irrelevant achievement on the list of 150 must be this one ::
20. Successfully mobilised the shooting fraternity to oppose WHSmith’s attempt to restrict sales of shooting magazines to over 14s only.:rofl::rofl:
whoopee. welcome to the nanny state
I'm not aware of any under 14 year olds that spend their own pocket money on a £4.80 shooting magazine
 
Back
Top