BASC and Mandatory Testing

[David63]

Oh dedr six pointer, so determined to attack me / BASC you have made a real blunder

I have not been the one arguing the difference between deer managers and wildlife officers.

I have never questioned on this thread who advises SNH

Again I have not made any comment on ex BASC staff who have moved to other employers such as SNH

So why are you claiming that I have and have got my facts wrong - pot, kettle, black....

Oh and now you have edited your post as I guess you realised what a muck up you had made!! What a joke!

My points 1-4 above remain -

EDIT - Yes six pointer your posts could be more accurate if you bothered to check your facts before you make unsubstantiated allegations

 

[EssBee]

A mentor is a responsible experienced person of good character capable of supervising someone.
In my case I was contacted by the firearms applicant ( friend of a friend).
I don't think it is a legal requirement but it certainly eases the application through the system.
Liability remains with the shooter who should be insured BASC insurance would cover this. Make sure that insurance is in place before you mentor anyone.
Your details will be placed on the applicants FAC e.g. " stalking when supervised by blah, blah.
Eventually this will be removed from the applicants FAC when YOU inform the police that you have supervised and are confident that the applicant is competent.
Your police force will check your details on record and decide if you are a suitable person.
In my instance with 15-20 years stalking experience, in various parts of the UK a DMQ and qualified RCO this was enough and the police agreed to me as a Mentor.
I helped the guy select his rifle, ensured that he zeroed it correctly and got some shooting practice on a local /club range. Showed him how to build high-seats and position them in his woodland with a suitable backstop.
As far as charging is concerned I would never charge anyone - if payment is involved then it could become a license to print money with all sorts of dodgy deals being done.

I now have a lifelong friend.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

Contrary to what you say, I can absolutely confirm that BASC is certainly opposed to post certificate issue compulsory testing, mentoring or some form of clearing prior to certificate holder gaining the right to later become conditioned to stalk for example without 'approved' supervision. And that's a fact!

David

so why doesn't BASC then stick the boot in and challenge the police, represent it's members who are crippled by difficult conditions and actually help the thousands of members that get fobbed off with the line 'sorry there's nothing BASC can do about it'.

Is that because it's really easy to pretend there's nothing that can be done about it?

 

[David63]

Paul,
I am surprised that you are not aware that typically conditions on FAC cannot be appealed against, they can’t be challenged in court i.e there is no legal appeal.

So what can we do?…well we go to the Ch Constable to complain about these daft conditions, the Ch Constable demands to see the records from the firearms department, and sees there are no complaints from the certificate holders about these conditions…so the Ch Constable comes back to us to ask why we are complaining, if the certificate holders in their force are not!!

So based on the fact there is no legal appeal, and that there are few if any formal complaints - exactly what can BASC -do? Far form you assupmption that BASC simply ' pretend there's nothing that can be done about it' as you wrongly put it .

David

EDIT ps - if anyone is interested the case that made it not possible to appeal conditions was in the case of R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland [1998].

 

[goldeneve frise]

so why doesn't BASC then stick the boot in and challenge the police, represent it's members who are crippled by difficult conditions and actually help the thousands of members that get fobbed off with the line 'sorry there's nothing BASC can do about it'.

Is that because it's really easy to pretend there's nothing that can be done about it?

Why can't the members themselves just say no to the mentoring conditions and or dsc1 and tell the police to stick to the home office guidelines. I totally agree some people with no firearms experience should have some form of training

 

[goldeneve frise]

Who trains the trainers and what level should they reach to become trainers, if it ever was to become mandatory

 

[crouch valley]

David All credit to you for taking such a bashing and coming back with some truthful Facts and keeping your cool when you probably could be doing something better on a Sunday. SP it is quite obvious from this post and others before you are Anti BASC why not give it a rest. How are we meant to win the battle against the anti shooting brigade when there are some people hell bent on stirring things between our selves its very sad.

 

[lister]

just applied for my ticket it is up to me to make a formal complaint if I am un happy with police service yes it is a service
makes me cringe when I here people say do not want to rock the boat
lister

 

[EssBee]

Well goldeneve frise,
You could try telling your issuing authority to stick it where the Sun don't shine or go to your Ombudsman and complain about the process (but not the result). The reaction could be interesting - let me know how you get on!!
Remember you more flies with honey that you do with vinegar!
I'm definitely not of the "brown nose club" but I can see the Issuing Authority's point of view. I've always found it useful to ask the police how the issue can be resolved - usually they will come up with feasible options if it means you get the result you want the try it. If an applicant wants a rifle the police want to know that some basic principles will be taught either via a course or with a mentor.
They will not dish out FACs willy nilly even club shooters have to undertake 6 months probationary membership of a shooting club. As an experienced shooter if I change from one club to another I still have to do a probationary period. If I don't use a rifle at a range within a 12 month period,the police may require me to dispose of it - no justification to have the rifle.

As a representative body BASC will protect shooters best interests with advice and direct contact with police authorities where appropriate. But we have to accept that there are some issues the organisation cannot resolve.

 

[6pointer]

David if you look at my last post you will see they were in fact questions that you again have not answered.

Gerarad ask about deer Panels and BDS/BASC http://www.snh.gov.uk/search-results/?q=deer panels -site:http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/

Also it was sated that i was incorrect and Gerarad only new of one Deer managers /Wildlife manager that came from BASC . I would suggest some one else finds out the facts. http://www.snh.gov.uk/snh-for-you/deer-managers/


Again i will say all we want is a fair and transparent process through the inevitable change here in Scotland.

If i was given a choice which might happen in 2014 i would choose a complete mandatory competence over a mandatory competency delivered by the current voluntary sector. BASC/BDS.

Please do not take my post personnel David i do Applaud you for coming on and putting the case forward for BASC.

May i also ask if you personally think it is acceptable that the same company or companies should do all the training and then carry out the assessment.?

 

[goldeneve frise]

Well goldeneve frise,
You could try telling your issuing authority to stick it where the Sun don't shine or go to your Ombudsman and complain about the process (but not the result). The reaction could be interesting - let me know how you get on!!
Remember you more flies with honey that you do with vinegar!
I'm definitely not of the "brown nose club" but I can see the Issuing Authority's point of view. I've always found it useful to ask the police how the issue can be resolved - usually they will come up with feasible options if it means you get the result you want the try it. If an applicant wants a rifle the police want to know that some basic principles will be taught either via a course or with a mentor.
They will not dish out FACs willy nilly even club shooters have to undertake 6 months probationary membership of a shooting club. As an experienced shooter if I change from one club to another I still have to do a probationary period. If I don't use a rifle at a range within a 12 month period,the police may require me to dispose of it - no justification to have the rifle.

As a representative body BASC will protect shooters best interests with advice and direct contact with police authorities where appropriate. But we have to accept that there are some issues the organisation cannot resolve.

Seeing as I have a open I don't think I will need to challenge anything at the moment, and I did say it should be the applicant that should challenge these conditions before they end up on a certain by reading the home office guidance

 

[Paul at Fechan]

Paul,
I am surprised that you are not aware that typically conditions on FAC cannot be appealed against, they can’t be challenged in court i.e there is no legal appeal.

So what can we do?…well we go to the Ch Constable to complain about these daft conditions, the Ch Constable demands to see the records from the firearms department, and sees there are no complaints from the certificate holders about these conditions…so the Ch Constable comes back to us to ask why we are complaining, if the certificate holders in their force are not!!

So based on the fact there is no legal appeal, and that there are few if any formal complaints - exactly what can BASC -do? Far form you assupmption that BASC simply ' pretend there's nothing that can be done about it' as you wrongly put it .

David

EDIT ps - if anyone is interested the case that made it not possible to appeal conditions was in the case of R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland [1998].

David, I so wrongly put a lot of things in your book but can you prove that I'm actually wrong with case evidence from BASC activities on behalf of members. You preach a multitude of great (praise the BASC Lords!) achievements but what has actually be done? What can you do regarding conditions I asked (you said nothing positive to aid members by the way).....

How about you do your bloody best to improve a members individual situation rather than bugger all!!, get it in black and white on behalf of a member what they would have to do to satisfy any criteria set for the removal of difficult conditions. Is that too much....? Perhaps if a letter from the FLO and confirmation from BASC on a clear path to more workable conditioning had arrived for many ex BASC members, this would have been money well spent for many!

where's your case evidence that BASC have helped anyone that wasn't just a no brainer case. Is there a string of heartwarming stories where BASC team members fought .... (and won that is) for the rights of those disadvantaged by the might of authority. If it's not a clear cut case you don't get involved... plenty of people on here now mainly SACS members will attest to that!!

I could easily canvas for you and put together an extended reply of all the people who feel that BASC has let them down and why. This could be used to perhaps better understand the frustrations of former members who have left for other organisations.

edit,

I totally agree that throwing money away when a case can't be won, changed made or improved would be foolish. That's not my angle on this

 

[Paul at Fechan]

Why can't the members themselves just say no to the mentoring conditions and or dsc1 and tell the police to stick to the home office guidelines. I totally agree some people with no firearms experience should have some form of training

The vast majority of certificate holders are not confident in their own knowledge and strength in dealing with police or 'authority'. Most turn to either their organisations or experienced persons for advice. If their organisations say there's nothing we can do then they're stuck right into the hopeless corner. The police need to be satisfied a 'condition' should be removed

I've trained and or assessed a lot of people now specifically so they can get a letter that describes them in my opinion as 'experienced' enough to 'go it alone'.

 

[David63]

Paul,
Firstly, we put guidance for members, and indeed others, on the BASC web site – there are two guidance sheets here on additional conditions, please have a read and then feel free to ask me if there is anything you feel is missing.
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/guidance-and-fact-sheets.cfm

Secondly there is no ‘one stop shop’ for tackling conditions because there are so many – something ACPO are very aware of and may well do something about – let’s hope so for all our sakes.

Consequently conditions need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. However the basic point remains, if a certificate holder is not happy with the condition then say so, make your case and make it in writing. If people accept the condition without complaint it makes our job , or indeed the job of a lawyer very hard indeed when the certificate holder later decides they don’t like it!

I am also happy to review the details of cases, and I would also remind you that the SACS legal insurance policy, just like any legal expenses policy, will only come into play IF there is a better than 50% chance of winning the case, given that there is not statutory right to appeal a condition on a FAC….

So given that you questions now are far removed from the original post, i.e. the false allegation that BASC votes for compulsory testing, if you want to push this point further, preferably without resorting to childish swearing , then please do so on a separate thread.

David

 

[Paul at Fechan]

false allegation? you jest. Your word says it isn't, so you're the word of BASC, wow that's heavy.

Well is BASC is 100% against compulsary testing (and lets just agree now it is) in any shape or form applicable to the grant, removal of conditioning or conditioning to hunt any quarry in the UK, I sincerely hope that when the time comes BASC will throw the might of it's resources into preventing such a change in Scotland.....

I don't see my questions above as off topic but as relevant tangents, they must be certainly difficult for the word of BASC to answer it seems when you deflect away from them.

 

[Shabz]

Evening David!

Even you must admit that there are ethical implications of fighting against a proposed mandatory level of training and providing the self same training. Surely?

I'm a tree surgeon, I survey trees for safety issues. I also remove or prune trees. I will not survey a tree and then prescribe works which I do myself. It's unethical. It's a conflict of interest. Do you see where I'm heading here??

 

[Cut+Squirt]

Paul O
Well chilled thanks and I did not take any offence what so ever at your post, thought you asked a perfectly good and legit question. Hope my answer was taken in the same context.

Afternoon Shabz,
Thanks for clarifying your point, I think for now you and I will have to agree to disagree about compulsory testing prior to grant of FAC.

Based on reviewing and managing almost 1000 shooting related insurance claims, I would not say these is a problem with firearms safety anywhere in the UK at this time.

The vast majority of accidents resulting from a shooting activity are relatively small property damage claims, shot telephone or power lines, the odd sheep , pig, cow or horse shot by mistake, even had one case of a chemical loo from a stalkers caravan tipped into the fresh water supply of a small village once…

Very few claims result in personal injury, and to be honest the average number of incidents has fallen slightly over the last 15 years.

Shooting related accidents are so low that compulsory testing or training at grantis unlikely to prevent them. LAmost all accidents are caused by expereinced shoters.

Six pointer, so its OK for the Government to set standards provided these standards don’t come from any suggestions made by BASC or BDS…

wow more unfounded and unproven accusations against BASC, just as you started with eh with accusing us of pushing for compulsory testing, and now you claim that BASC is setting itself up in Scotland to make £100’000’s out of testing…your evidence please – not just theory and rhetoric but cold hard facts…

To the best of my knowledge Colin Sheddon is not head of the Scottish Parliament so can’t make any final say over legislation in Scotland. And if SNH and or the Scottish Parliament will not listen to the organisations you choose to support, don’t blame BASC!

I wonder who your independent advisors will be, and how they can advise the Scottish Parliament, if as you say, the Government should make these decisions without any outside influence – tricky…

Best wishes
David

I'm not a great lover of BASC mate, and no longer with you guys for my stalking insurance, choosing to support the SGA for the last couple of years . . . . I don't deny however that you are a regular on the SD answering questions and sticking your head above the parapet, so praise where praise is due . . well done !!!

 

[6pointer]

I agree Shabz i teach people to drive and we do have an input into how tests are conducted but have no say in the tests or the results. Also all the examiners are graded the same no super examiners. Sam as instructors all hold the badge of competence no super " i am a DSA DVLA approved " special we are all the same. Instructors cannot examine . Examiners cant instruct its a conflict of interest and leads to corruption at every level.

 

[David63]

Paul,
It is a totally false allegation that BASC has voted for compulsory testing at any meeting involving deer stalking in Scotland, itis a simple as that. Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is none. Now let’smove on.

In Scotland we have consistently spoken out against compulsory testing as I have already said, and will continue to do so. I trust all other organisations will do exactly the same.

Turning to conditions; there are many different conditions the Chief Officers may place on a certificate, not just conditions about training.

As I said, once a person has accepted the condition onto their certificate there is no statutory right of appeal, so then as you say in post 113, the police need to be satisfied a 'condition' should be removed. So what can an organisation do but advise that the conditions which the certificate holder has fully accepted without complaint are met?

It is important that shooters are aware of the issues surrounding conditions, particularly Section 10.35 of Firearms Law: Guidance to the police(Home Office 2002) says that the chief officer may impose extra conditions “if he feels that they are necessary to ensure effective operation of the firearms controls and minimise risk to public safety”.

“Public safety” must not be extended to include restrictions on the shooting of certain legal quarry species. Public safety relates to the holders competence to take asafe shot when using a firearm over land. This assessment is dealt with at initial grant.

If more shooters made that point at the time when they go for renewal or variation,and the ‘threat of conditions’ come into play because you now want to shoot deer on the land you have been shooting over for many years for example, it would help. This could form the basis for a simple letter of ‘complaint’ to the police if they try to force a condition on you simply based on the quarry you want to shoot.

As I said earlier, if there were such complaints lodged it would make our job alot easier, as I say if there are no complaints the Chief Officer does not see a problem and will not change their policy!

IndividualChief Officers are not permitted by law to have blanket policies. This is establishedby the case of R –v- Wakefield Crown Court, ex parte Oldfield.

I would advise people to read the pdf’s on conditions on the BASC web site, whichcan be found on the link I posted above.

I hope this is helpful

Sabz,
BASC is only one of many providers of training on deer stalking, and of course we offer a range of other training opportunities too.

How you run your business is entirely up to you, of course but ifI were a tree surgeon, a plumber, a gas fitter, a motor mechanic and someone asked me to check out their trees, central heating, gas boiler, motor car, I would be happy to give a full report with recommendations of what if anything needs to be done and a price for the job. I would not be insulted in the client then looked to get other quotes from other suppliers.

I see no conflict of interest or any ethical issue about being a voluntary training provider and fighting against compulsory testing..

Cadex,
Good morning, thanks for the comments, much appreciated.

David

 

[Peterm]

Well I got charged £1 a shot. I am not bothered about this or asking for a refund. I just think you should be clear that you charge for ammunition on the DSC1.

Who, where and when - you should not have been charged