You could also just say its a business based decision, if the legal cover was costing X and only be use Y amount of times then it may not have been cost effective, whereas using in house funds at their own discretion makes more sense as a business
BASC - fighting your corner on firearms
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Possibly, but is that not the idea of insurance we pay for it, but never hope we need it
I didn't read it as a new initiative for 2023, simply an update for members of what the fighting fund is used for.
"Since, 2020 Fighting Fund headlines have centred around our work on various legal challenges, including gamebird release and general licence legal challenges in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. While this is important to our community, it does not reflect the importance of the Fighting Fund for the individual member"
My reading is that this was available to members since the fund was set up in 2020, but is clearly only my assumption - hopefully Connor can clarify.
Given that 40 members have had assistance of the fund thus far, I didn't imagine that to have occurred over the last few days.
Oh yeah 100% though it becomes harder to complain about if people weren't using itPossibly, but is that not the idea of insurance we pay for it, but never hope we need it
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
100 % agree, as Ive stated , its a good sound decision, why they didnt CLEARLY state this after the insurance was removed in 2020 is a mystery.
If they had , I like many others may have stayed with them.
If its not new , they why are they announcing/re stating it now , perhaps Conor would like to clarify ?
Lets ask ourselves a simple question, did YOU know about the fighting fund being used to fight individual members legal battles ?
If you didnt, then I think you have your answer.
From legal cover as part of membership to no legal cover as part of membership back to legal cover as part of membership - A classic 'U' turn if ever there was one. I am surprised you cant see that without me pointing it out in detail
In 2020 I noted that BASC removed a specific legal cover member benefit. Currently, that removal remains.
In 2020 BASC introduced a fighting fund covering a wide variety of issues for which it could be utilised. That remains in place.
I understand why you see a U-turn, however that does not mean there has been one.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Good to see that the article has brought greater clarity to misunderstandings and misinformation on this. The Fighting Fund is used for many things including helping members, as explained in the article, and the annual reports. The ref to 40 individuals will be this year alone. Thank you for the positive feedback and hopefully we will see more communications from BASC with examples of how we help individuals on the firearms front. However, its also important that when members have concerns about something new (or old) that they contact us directly - one of the best way of gaining an understanding is speaking to us. Old school perhaps. But invariably helpful IMHO.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
So could you clarify Conor, how many individual members were helped by the fighting fund in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 ?
The so-called fighting fund at that time was unallocated and potentially for use with legal actions according to BASC - it was not then, even in part, hypothecated to firearms issues - to try and suggest otherwise is incorrect-----or find me a 2020 reference to the so - called fighting funding including defending legal complaints - immediately after BASC had said (and above) there was little use made of the legal insurance - now we are quoted 40 examples but not from 2020 - mixing messages usually results in confusion and misrepresentation. See above question. (Rewulf)
This 'help' given by BASC also must be legal help, to qualify as replacing an abandoned legal policy, not just talking to FEO's about something - if we are being truthful here it has to include LEGAL representation. I would be amazed, if BASC, not known for Swift actions (excuse the pun) immediately re-instated a [policy by another means which it had just abandoned, justifying the latter because it was 'little used', twice a year I think it was.
Good to see that the article has brought greater clarity to misunderstandings and misinformation on this. I would say only to BASC's advantage. some are easily led.
Last edited:
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
I tried looking for the original page, and encountered a problem.
BASC launches legal ‘Fighting Fund’ - BASC
Seven-figure fund will set BASC on “a new path” to promoting and protecting shooting, our community and the countryside.
basc.org.uk
Just to see if if mentions legal help, but its err, gone.
There is however a new page , with new 'fighting fund' logo
The BASC fighting fund
Everything you need to know about the BASC fighting fund – launched to protect shooting.
basc.org.uk
It still says nothing about fighting your individual legal cases/legal bills ect, but Im pretty sure this line has been added to the new page.
Recently BASC defended shooting against:
- attempts to restrict airguns.
- attempts to prevent young people shooting.
- a ban on snaring.
- a ban on the release of gamebirds.
- restrictions on what can be shot through general licences.
- restrictions on firearms licensing on medical grounds.
I would have thought the statement which 'appears to have been added', as you say is rather difficult to achieve as it would not necessarily involve legal representations per se but more a specialist medical opinion perhaps.I tried looking for the original page, and encountered a problem.
BASC launches legal ‘Fighting Fund’ - BASC
Seven-figure fund will set BASC on “a new path” to promoting and protecting shooting, our community and the countryside.
Just to see if if mentions legal help, but its err, gone.
There is however a new page , with new 'fighting fund' logo
The BASC fighting fund
Everything you need to know about the BASC fighting fund – launched to protect shooting.
It still says nothing about fighting your individual legal cases/legal bills ect, but Im pretty sure this line has been added to the new page.
Recently BASC defended shooting against:
- attempts to restrict airguns.
- attempts to prevent young people shooting.
- a ban on snaring.
- a ban on the release of gamebirds.
- restrictions on what can be shot through general licences.
- restrictions on firearms licensing on medical grounds.
Still, let us hope its not needed and BASC "will defend shooting" against other things like a new form of medical using the 'fighting fund'. It would be difficult to try and make a 'new initiative' out of this.
I really don't get the problem here, people have been spouting how the removal of the insurance is this massive tragedy and then when they clarify that they can cover certain scenarios it's a massive conspiracy. For those of us that are basc members and those that are interested in joining them it's useful having someone that comes on here and shares details of what they are doing / what their position on things are and then when have to sift through pages of the same negativity time and time again, even when they do something positive
A specific legal protection policy was discontinued in 2020.
Connor's opening post on this thread states "legal support for members", clearly utilising the fighting fund. If you took the time to actually read the linked article it clearly states that there were no restrictions on how the fund could be used.
I still fail to see any U-turn. Try reading the article.
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
The legal expenses policy extension was only extant for a few years (five, maybe? I can't remember). It wasn't part of the original insurance package. It was brought in without a commensurate increase in membership fees, I recall. It was tried, but it didn't work as well as hoped - it got increasingly costly and restrictive due to insurance market issues, so it was scrapped and replaced with something better. So what?
Last edited:
No restrictions on how the fund could be used (prior to this latest announcement) as you put it is NOT, repeat NOT allowing use for personal legal problems. in the use of funds, specific approval via the wording of how it may be used is the norm, (financial regulations etc. which is why little of the fund was used at all.
It was a "u" turn in the sense that Whitefront says it was "replaced with something better" but later and discretionary and not the same as 'protection by right of membership' - no criteria have since published yet a major announcement, and you are suggesting this has been the case since 2020 ? It doesn't ring true I am afraid.
We are in danger here of moving to insulting comments which I will not do.
You have your view which I respect and I will have mine which I also expect you to respect..
Thank you
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I recall other organisations introducing LEI and removing it. The introduction was applauded. The removal was met with little comment on here. In essence, whatever BASC does, a vocal minority on here bash BASC. It is what it is. Maybe they could set up and admin their own forum 'BASC Bashers Anonymous' and then fall out with each other. Time is finite and precious and the challenges for shooting are aplenty. We need a serious and mature approach to deal with those challenges. Let's not devote our precious spare time to the time wasters in our midst.
Brighty3006
Well-Known Member
Been with b.a.s.c as long as I can remember. Does everything I need
Similar threads
