Judicial Review - Commonplace Remedy

Greymaster

Well-Known Member
Just had another look at the BASC accounts for year ended 31/12/2018 available here:


For 2018, total income was £12,196K of which £10,165K was Member Subscriptions (an increase of £484K). Did members notice any improvement in delivery of safeguarding shooter's interest worth that extra £484K? - thought not).

Wages all in costs were £4,718K compared with £4,102K in 2017. That's an increase of £616K, so you know where more than the growth in member subs was spent. Anybody notice increased effectiveness in safeguarding shooter's interests for that extra £616K payroll cost increase? - thought not.

Wages represented 46.4% of total member subs in 2018, up from 42.7% in 2017. Anybody notice increased effectiveness in safeguarding shooter's interests for that extra % share of an increased member subs pool? - thought not.

The BASC has £10,653K cash at the bank, and £14,732K total current assets including that cash. Current liabilities are were £8,077K, so net current assets (or liquidity) was £6,655K. YES, that is a surplus of cash and quickly liquidated assets such as investments of over £6M after current liabilities are deducted.

We shall have to conclude that BASC is not a truly representative shooter's organisation, putting every penny towards safeguarding the interests of shooters. Its successes can be listed on a postage stamp, and its failures can be written on a banqueting table tablecloth. What is it then? Well with 46.4% of member subs going a wages it seems to be a benevolent fund for retired police and army officers, and a jobs for the old boys club. These are the people getting a good return on their time spent being ineffective and being at the top table. With 5 political officers adding upwards of £250K p.a. (a very conservative estimate based only on projected salaries and not benefits such as cars and expenses), the divergence between costs and effectiveness can only increase.

Would anyone argue that a £100K investment in a JR against the "no medical report/no grant-renewal" innovation is not eminently affordable?
 

TomDeer

Well-Known Member
Jimbo, can you spell out what you consider the objective benefits of the NGO over BASC to be? I'm just conscious that occasionally this kind of topic can be an "anything but BASC"
I think it’s difficult to nominate any of the organisations for overall competence,so I can only list those I’ve joined and their strengths as they appear to me:

SACS - small organisation but ability to speak direct to the organ grinder, and good personal advice on FAC matters when I needed it. Plus the offer of direct intervention if I didn’t achieve the result I wanted.

CA - impressive political clout as witnessed during the Offensive Weapons Bill reading when they forced a commitment from the HO to commence the Firearms Licensing Consultation. Details here.

NGO - another small organisation but willing to go in to bat for members as per the JR against NE for refusal to issue licences for buzzard control.

That’s it. The one organisation that I was previously a staunch member of is the one in question. It has to my mind has let shooting down repeatedly - as with the medical evidence scheme, by being ‘instrumental’ (their word not mine) in it’s formulation apparently without analysis of where it could (and did) go wrong. And to add insult to injury ‘welcoming’ it, as it often does with anything detrimental to shooters.
Thanks Orion. It looks like they all contain parts that one would want to see being exhibited by a representative body for the interests of shooters. Any chance we could have such a body? ;)
 

jimbo1984

Well-Known Member
Jimbo, can you spell out what you consider the objective benefits of the NGO over BASC to be? I'm just conscious that occasionally this kind of topic can be an "anything but BASC"

Thanks Orion. It looks like they all contain parts that one would want to see being exhibited by a representative body for the interests of shooters. Any chance we could have such a body? ;)
The NGO has been the only org to go for a judicial review and stand up for shooting in that manner , coupled with the fact that they have a vested interest in not seeing shooting banned and I think that’s pretty much good enough . ( basc have a fair bit squirrelled away to retrain as something else when they take our firearms )
 

TomDeer

Well-Known Member
Any chief constable seeking to defend against a JR will have to justify the expense to his P&C Commissioner who would have to approve the expenditure.
Whilst this is correct, public sector bodies don't always seem apply the same considerations that most businesses or individuals might on these matters.

I have seen some public sector bodies occasionally stand by completely indefensible positions unless and until a Court corrected them - seemingly because it was more politically expedient to maintain an indefensible position than to be sensible and reverse it.

If they fight it all the way and lose, they can tell the local community "we fought your corner but the Court found against us". A CC and P&C Commissioner, one of whom faces re-election, will not necessarily be above such considerations. Any resulting adverse legal costs just seem to get lost in the background noise - as long as it's not too messy.

None of the above is a reason why one of the representative bodies shouldn't take a fight on the point though.
 

TomDeer

Well-Known Member
The NGO has been the only org to go for a judicial review and stand up for shooting in that manner , coupled with the fact that they have a vested interest in not seeing shooting banned and I think that’s pretty much good enough . ( basc have a fair bit squirrelled away to retrain as something else when they take our firearms )
Makes sense Jimbo.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
BASC is the British Leyland of shooting representatives only not quite as good.
Anyone who joins or stays with BASC is supporting the demise of shooting, simply because they do nothing to stem the flow of restrictive shooting legislation.
They simply wait for the last big failure to be a year or sold old and then firmly state - "thats" history i.e. the last two Chief Executives, one there for night on 30 years !
The longer this goes on without action after promising they would act and asking for cases, just hastens the time when next they can say "thats history".

"BASC isn't like the real world outside", this they say 'inside' and believe it.
 

Top