BASC AGM

[Mickeydredd]

BUT WHO TOO !!!!!!!! THE OTHERS SEEM TO BE SAT ON THEIR HANDS.. perhaps they're frightened of getting something wrong or don't know what to do...

they are too scared of all the SGA/NGO/etc bashing threads that would get posted on here......

 

[Roestalker39]

they are too scared of all the SGA/NGO/etc bashing threads that would get posted on here......

Nooooooo it’s only bashing when it’s basc bud , when it’s anyone else it’s helpful honesty ..... and fact !

 

[Ladygun]

The trouble is that the formation of the medical panel is a result of previous mistakes many of which appear to have been as a result of BASC not nailing down a proper agreement and then not re-acting strongly when things started to go wrong. There should never have been a need for a medical panel if the right steps had been taken. Medical practioners are actually allowed not to do certain procedures on matters of conscience, termination of pregnancy being one of the more well known, but if they do have problems of conscience they are obliged to put the patient into contact with a practioner who does not have the same feelings, the people on council didn't and still don't seem to understand that were levers that could have been used and weren't. Things like this don't impress and it seems that very often we are promised "jam tomorrow" but I would have hoped we had moved on from there. I was more than a little annoyed when having gone through the rigmarole of registering for the AGM and being told that I had completed all the steps found I couldn't log in for the AGM. I am afraid so many things seem not to work at the Mill in the interests of members. I have taken the trouble to attend quite a few AGMs and they just seem to be a stage managed exercise that is run for the convenience of management. I know that our shoot, which for years has always insured through BASC is now discussing going elsewhere for insurance because of what is seen as a catalogue of mis-steps by BASC. The ongoing sorry saga over the way lead has been treated doesn't help either, we were promised no loss of lead without a cost effective efficient replacement. I see that the loss of lead will be used as a tool to beat us. It is known that the substitutes for lead generally are ballistically less efficient and also the fact that it doesn't distort to shed energy for added lethality will be used by saying that we are happy to hunt with a second best product so we are cruel people who care little for our quarry.

David.

Thank you David for your comprehensive reply. Before I was elected 5 years ago, BASC spent two years in meetings with the BMA, police and Home Office and produced an agreement that GPs would at no cost check the medical record for relevant conditions and mark it so the GP would be aware their patient was a certificate holder during any future consultations. Within months, the BMA had reneged on the deal. The GP is the only participant in certification who does not legally have to participate, and BASC has looked at ways of changing this but we don’t make the laws and the Government is not too keen on taking on doctors, for obvious reasons. You are correct that the GMC rules that it is incumbent on doctors not to leave a patient with nowhere else to turn, and the origin of this, but clearly there is a huge difference between a desperate woman with an unwanted pregnancy and a person who wants to own a firearm. A better argument is that GPs should do the work in the interests of public safety, which the GMC imprecations cover. Having had the odd run-in with the GMC myself I am not sure they would accept the argument though (and I have never been in the BMA either).
I’m sorry there was a glitch logging into the AGM, technology can be unreliable and with the pandemic it was either cyberspace or not at all. Regarding legal expenses insurance, one in every £9 of members’ money every year and rising was going on one in 2000 members, and we could not justify spending £1million premiums and more every year, indefinitely. Apart from escalating premiums, the limits of the indemnity were being significantly attenuated by the insurers. All the other components of BASC insurance are still there. It’s worth pointing out that I’m personally acquainted with a couple of people who drew on their legal expenses indemnity and there was a happy ending, so if it had been even faintly feasible to retain it I would have been all in favour.
Not an expert on non-lead but having been clued up by a senior rep of the Denmark hunters and looking at the big picture a five year voluntary phase out (voluntary being the operative word) does not seem all that toxic. There are ballistic and power issues but none of them seems insuperable - unlike a Government/EU imposed outright ban. I shoot steel all the time and do better with it than lead in general, like everything else one gets used to it.
A very major change which Council made before the election is ringfencing a seven figure sum, which covers the range £1million to £9,999,999, to fight the ‘lawfare’ being waged by Wild Justice and their allies, and to challenge and to hold to account bodies like Natural England when they impose irrational decisions upon the shooting community, general licences and wildfowling consent being really difficult at the moment. These sorts of issues have escalated considerably in the five years since I was first elected, and are not going to go away any time soon. That’s why I argued as well as I could for the appointment of political staff country wide last year, with Martyn Jones, successfully.
I’m sorry that BASC as an organisation takes so much flak, but respecfully point out that if no-one funds it then there will be no opposition. The same attaches to the other countryside organisations.
Have you thought of standing for Council, I did and look what happened.....

 

[Kalahari]

Thank you David for your comprehensive reply. Before I was elected 5 years ago, BASC spent two years in meetings with the BMA, police and Home Office and produced an agreement that GPs would at no cost check the medical record for relevant conditions and mark it so the GP would be aware their patient was a certificate holder during any future consultations. Within months, the BMA had reneged on the deal. The GP is the only participant in certification who does not legally have to participate, and BASC has looked at ways of changing this but we don’t make the laws and the Government is not too keen on taking on doctors, for obvious reasons. You are correct that the GMC rules that it is incumbent on doctors not to leave a patient with nowhere else to turn, and the origin of this, but clearly there is a huge difference between a desperate woman with an unwanted pregnancy and a person who wants to own a firearm. A better argument is that GPs should do the work in the interests of public safety, which the GMC imprecations cover. Having had the odd run-in with the GMC myself I am not sure they would accept the argument though (and I have never been in the BMA either).
I’m sorry there was a glitch logging into the AGM, technology can be unreliable and with the pandemic it was either cyberspace or not at all. Regarding legal expenses insurance, one in every £9 of members’ money every year and rising was going on one in 2000 members, and we could not justify spending £1million premiums and more every year, indefinitely. Apart from escalating premiums, the limits of the indemnity were being significantly attenuated by the insurers. All the other components of BASC insurance are still there. It’s worth pointing out that I’m personally acquainted with a couple of people who drew on their legal expenses indemnity and there was a happy ending, so if it had been even faintly feasible to retain it I would have been all in favour.
Not an expert on non-lead but having been clued up by a senior rep of the Denmark hunters and looking at the big picture a five year voluntary phase out (voluntary being the operative word) does not seem all that toxic. There are ballistic and power issues but none of them seems insuperable - unlike a Government/EU imposed outright ban. I shoot steel all the time and do better with it than lead in general, like everything else one gets used to it.
A very major change which Council made before the election is ringfencing a seven figure sum, which covers the range £1million to £9,999,999, to fight the ‘lawfare’ being waged by Wild Justice and their allies, and to challenge and to hold to account bodies like Natural England when they impose irrational decisions upon the shooting community, general licences and wildfowling consent being really difficult at the moment. These sorts of issues have escalated considerably in the five years since I was first elected, and are not going to go away any time soon. That’s why I argued as well as I could for the appointment of political staff country wide last year, with Martyn Jones, successfully.
I’m sorry that BASC as an organisation takes so much flak, but respecfully point out that if no-one funds it then there will be no opposition. The same attaches to the other countryside organisations.
Have you thought of standing for Council, I did and look what happened.....

If you actually read my posts you might just have noticed I did stand for council but was not elected. This is nobody's fault but mine, but the fact you didn't notice I wonder what else you might have missed in the lots of years you have sat on council.

Also there is something wrong with cancelling part of the benefits at very short notice. Surely the honest thing to do would be to roll it on to the individuals renewal date rather than an abrupt cancellation. After all people have signed up for the benefit for the whole year and and paid for it and surely are entitled to benefit from it for the duration of that year.

David.

 

[Roestalker39]

I’m sorry that BASC as an organisation takes so much flak, but respecfully point out that if no-one funds it then there will be no opposition. The same attaches to the other countryside organisations.
Have you thought of standing for Council, I did and look what happened.....

Do you genuinely believe basc offers “ opposition “????

 

[Dalua]

Before I was elected 5 years ago, BASC spent two years in meetings with the BMA, police and Home Office and produced an agreement that GPs would at no cost check the medical record for relevant conditions and mark it so the GP would be aware their patient was a certificate holder during any future consultations. Within months, the BMA had reneged on the deal. The GP is the only participant in certification who does not legally have to participate, and BASC has looked at ways of changing this but we don’t make the laws and the Government is not too keen on taking on doctors, for obvious reasons.

You say BASC don't make the laws - which they don't. However, they seem to have been a party to the agreement above, which effectively undermined the long-established (since 1920, in fact) praactice that applicants should pay only the statutory fee for certificates.
It did this by agreeing that although the GPs would carry out the initial check at no cost, the applicant would pay for subsequent reports if any were needed because e.g. they had a relevant condition of some kind.

That is the injured principle that BASC seems inadvertently to have helped sideline, and which they should be striving to put right. When it is once again clear that the costs associated with administration of certificates fall, with the exception of the applicants' statutory fees, to the police I would anticipate that the police will be given money to pay the GPs a reasonable fee for their time, and all will be well.

 

[Mickeydredd]

Also there is something wrong with cancelling part of the benefits at very short notice. Surely the honest thing to do would be to roll it on to the individuals renewal date rather than an abrupt cancellation. After all people have signed up for the benefit for the whole year and and paid for it and surely are entitled to benefit from it for the duration of that year.
David.

Surely that is impossible, the insurance premium is an annual payment for BASC not a separate payment on behalf of each member on their renewal date?

 

[Kalahari]

Surely that is impossible, the insurance premium is an annual payment for BASC not a separate payment on behalf of each member on their renewal date?

I take your point, but the fact is that when the offer was made it was part of the annual package on offer so there is surely some obligation to fulfil the terms of the offer?

David.

 

[Gsd99]

Do you genuinely believe basc offers “ opposition “????

All fart, no poo!

 

[kes]

The answer is quite simply then - BASC is the 'opposition'.
Doctors are to blame for reneging on a deal that wasn't happening (10 year certs).
Steel is as good as lead shot and when the NGO challenged NE over buzzard culling and refusing licences and won, BASC weren't able to see a problem.
No explanation of how BASC can be seen to be the opposition when all it does is capitulate or select the wrong staff, giving ammunition to the 'opposition'?
No agreement that BASC was involved really in Medicals discussion and allowed the ball to fall through their fingers.
Lead is not really an issue - " There are ballistic and power issues but none of them seems insuperable" so nothing to do with atomic weights or anything a load more powder wont cure, old guns are cast off. Both above puns intended.
The Huge (maybe) fighting fund is not what it was said to be the other times it was rolled out.
Nothing about BASC fills me with Joy and the fact that a Council member has said all that above is proof positive (if it were needed) and symptomatic of a lack of understanding at the highest level.

I've shot lead and steel myself the latter is not comparable to lead at ranges less than 30 yds and then inferior and a tennis racquet would be a good substitute.
I will no longer engage with these desperate attempts to legitimise and laud the indefensible.
I don't suppose the Council Papers which recommended dropping legal insurance are available to the membership maybe the first calculations and the correct ones?
The emphasis on 'voluntary', as in lead ban is shockingly duplicitous BASC either insist lead is a hazard or they dont. Weasel words.

 

[nic531]

Theres plenty in that post I could disagree with you on, but Ill pick this one in particular.
They manage to send out a magazine to all its members, the fact its at least 50 % advertising is irrelevant , they use email extensively, and have a huge website, are you seriously telling me, they couldnt organise some kind of voting system for those that wished to use it ? Even if it was via text message !
Which brings me to the next bit , voting for council members, have YOU ever voted ? I havent , and have never seen any instructions on how to.
THATS how important BASC considers membership participation .

Its not a club , Im not sure its an organisation for shooters anymore, its a business , one that is putting profits first, and service second.

I find it hard to believe that you have never received anything regarding voting or instructions on how to..... I receive a letter each year with details of candidates (as does the wife as our personal membership is joint), a voting form, links to the website where i can vote online if I do not wish to attend or vote by post. I also receive info via email and further letters as secretary of an affiliated club. Is it that you have inadvertently ticked a never contact me ever button somewhere??? I am primarily a Wildfowler and within wildfowling we have the same issue with voting. Incessant whinges that there are few wildfowlers on council, but when one stands, they get very few votes.... the other year a lady was voted in with a small number of votes, i think it was 3-4,000. but the beat the two wildfowlers!.... pathetic numbers from an organisation of 150,000+ and about 8,000 wildfowlers in the country. However it is indicative of the amount of shooters that want to pay and have everything done for them with no other input. This is often evidenced also in work parties etc when the vast majority are conspicuous in their apathy.


By the way I know it is emotive to say legal cover has been removed, but it is only the cover in regards to licence renewal and revocation issues, which was only brought in a few years back: 5 or so I think. You still have cover should you have personal injury claim or public liability claim and need legal protection ( and as with ALL insurances, you have a valid case... a point that a large amount of people on various forums fail to grasp, even though it has always been the case for all insurances).

 

[terrier1]

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.

Still waiting for an answer to the question Conor.

 

[Rewulf]

By the way I know it is emotive to say legal cover has been removed, but it is only the cover in regards to licence renewal and revocation issues, which was only brought in a few years back: 5 or so I think. You still have cover should you have personal injury claim or public liability claim and need legal protection ( and as with ALL insurances, you have a valid case... a point that a large amount of people on various forums fail to grasp, even though it has always been the case for all insurances).

Its not 'emotive' , its a FACT !
What is that , some kind of double speak to try and make out it doesnt really matter ?
It obviously does matter, to many of us , unless you are also trying to suggest we just like to come on forums and have a BASC bash ?

You can look at it in several ways, to some , it was an important part of the insurance package, something we PAID for.
To others , it might be the straw that broke the camels back in the performance of BASC.
You are suggesting in a roundabout , doublespeak kind of way, that we wont really notice its gone, that it doesnt really matter...
Im suggesting its a sign that BASC are out of touch with general membership if they thought that no one would notice, care , or complain...

The 'excuse' they have used is that its not used enough, and is too expensive, would it have been too much to have it as an added option, or to raise membership costs to compensate ?
What happens when they remove personal accident, because 'no one uses it enough' or 'it costs too much' ?

Emotive ? No its just a simple question of economics, when your shop puts it prices up , or it doesnt stock the items you require, you have 2 options.
Stick with it and pay more/ go without.

Or shop elsewhere.

 

[nic531]

It is inaccurate to blanket state that legal cover has gone, it has not. When i read a lot of the posts it appears that some people are believing it has... By emotive I mean it is being said in the same way as banner headlines in the tabloids are emotive and rarely completely accurate. It is not double speak, just making a comment that one part of the cover that was recently has been removed. Yes that may effect all in that they are now not getting as much and a few that will need help with a licensing issue above and beyond what the firearms dept can do.
I do not think that no-one will notice, care or complain. I do think that BASC's PR dept are crap at putting things across. However would i want my costs increased to cover it ... no. But i never joined BASC for the insurance, admittedly I have 3 memberships (that get rebated) due to being in wildfowling clubs and syndicates that are affiliated, but i am a personal member because I believe that despite its faults its the best option we have to fight the anti's....... not just in legal action but in many ways. politically, generation of habitat, assisting in positive publicity of shooting, advice on legislation, firearms dept for advice, all of which I have seen/used.
I do also think that they are between the devil and the deep blue sea with some of the more vocal.... i still have people bringing up arguments from the 90's that BASC let us down....

 

[Ladygun]

Still waiting for an answer to the question Conor.

What medical company?

 

[terrier1]

What medical company?

I believe you call it a panel you set up to deal with the need for uncooperative doctors not wanting dealing with medical letters for SGC/FAC at £50 a go. Can I ask why you are fighting Conors battles for him. As I require the answer from him.

 

[jer]

It is inaccurate to blanket state that legal cover has gone, it has not. When i read a lot of the posts it appears that some people are believing it has... By emotive I mean it is being said in the same way as banner headlines in the tabloids are emotive and rarely completely accurate. It is not double speak, just making a comment that one part of the cover that was recently has been removed. Yes that may effect all in that they are now not getting as much and a few that will need help with a licensing issue above and beyond what the firearms dept can do.
I do not think that no-one will notice, care or complain. I do think that BASC's PR dept are crap at putting things across. However would i want my costs increased to cover it ... no. But i never joined BASC for the insurance, admittedly I have 3 memberships (that get rebated) due to being in wildfowling clubs and syndicates that are affiliated, but i am a personal member because I believe that despite its faults its the best option we have to fight the anti's....... not just in legal action but in many ways. politically, generation of habitat, assisting in positive publicity of shooting, advice on legislation, firearms dept for advice, all of which I have seen/used.
I do also think that they are between the devil and the deep blue sea with some of the more vocal.... i still have people bringing up arguments from the 90's that BASC let us down....

I think you either misunderstand or choose to ignore how important the legal cover in question is. The fact that the other covers remain in place is a given, but removing legal cover in regard to challenges from licensing departments effectively gives some of them free reign to cause all sorts of mischief knowing that most of us do not have the resources to engage a legal team to review and counter challenge. Be honest and admit there is a huge difference in the way different authorities choose to apply licensing law and often to the detriment of licence holders and that is precisely why most are complaining. As far as BASC being crap at putting things over is concerned it looks more like they don’t care how they are perceived and just do whatever they feel like without regard to how their actions affect others, the lead ban being a good example. They undoubtedly do some good things but they are making an absolute mess of some very important things and that is not good enough.

 

[Ladygun]

I believe you call it a panel you set up to deal with the need for uncooperative doctors not wanting dealing with medical letters for SGC/FAC at £50 a go. Can I ask why you are fighting Conors battles for him. As I require the answer from him.

Just on the same side....as I am on the list of BASC members who are doctors who are willing to do this work for members when their own GP refuses or charges a lot or delays. Any fee is agreed between the doctor member and the applicant member. BASC funded the administrative resource to set up the list, which is available to members through contacting the BASC firearms team. There is no money making enterprise for BASC. When I do a letter for a member I have to pay my typist but otherwise am glad to give something back to the shooting community. As for how the situation arose, I posted the other day with an explanation. Happy to expand if you wish.

 

[terrier1]

Just on the same side....as I am on the list of BASC members who are doctors who are willing to do this work for members when their own GP refuses or charges a lot or delays. Any fee is agreed between the doctor member and the applicant member. BASC funded the administrative resource to set up the list, which is available to members through contacting the BASC firearms team. There is no money making enterprise for BASC. When I do a letter for a member I have to pay my typist but otherwise am glad to give something back uestto the shooting community. As for how the situation arose, I posted the other day with an explanation. Happy to expand if you wish.

I am still waiting for CONOR to answer my question. And who said any thing about a money making enterprise I think you must have a guilty conscience.

 

[Ladygun]

I am still waiting for CONOR to answer my question. And who said any thing about a money making enterprise I think you must have a guilty conscience.

Oh I do not think so, I was intrigued by your referring to is as a ‘company’, that’s all.