Jump to content

Sir Barney white-Spunner Quits LAG


Recommended Posts

Sir Barney White-Spunner quits LAG

 

The full and unabridged copy of Countryside Alliance executive chairman Sir Barney White-Spunner's resignation from the Lead Ammunition Group

 

Sir Barney White-Spunner has resigned from the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG), citing a “lost confidence” in the group chairman John Swift.

The LAG was set up under in April 2010 at the behest of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the RSPB, to advise Defra on any risks to wildlife, human health and livestock from the use of lead ammunition, and how to mitigate them, with their findings expected to be published in a paper later this year.

For the full report, pick up this week’s edition (May 27) of Shooting Times.

Below is the full text of Sir Barney’s resignation letter:

I have, further to submitting my 172 detailed comments of evidence and process on your draft Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) Report, been reflecting on how you came to write a draft that is so very far from reflecting the LAG’s discussions. I find that your draft is subjective and draws incorrect conclusions from what evidence the LAG has agreed. More seriously, many of those conclusions are based on evidence that the LAG has simply not agreed and which you are now presenting to us as a fait accompli.

 

You have my detailed points but I object in particular to your drawing conclusions from the Sub Group paper “Evaluation of the Risks to Human Health”. I and three other members of the LAG have pointed out repeatedly that we cannot accept a paper on such a potentially serious issue unless it is written by professionally medically qualified experts; neither of the authors is a medical professional let alone a human toxicologist. One works for the RSPB and the other for the Wetlands and Wildlife Trust. Whilst both are eminent in their chosen fields, and whilst I accept Professor Levy’s oversight role, the fact remains that for such an important paper not to be authored by fully qualified medical professionals questions the whole basis of your process. The LAG has never accepted this paper and nor can it.

 

Secondly, I have consistently pointed out that I agreed with the first “Evaluation of the Risks to Wildlife” paper, written by Dr Alastair Leake and Dr John Harradine, as did four other members of the group. I did not agree with commissioning a second paper which was also, like the Human Health paper, written by Dr Debbie Pain and Professor Rhys Green. Neither did I agree with the preparation of a so called consensus paper which relied disproportionately on this second paper and which, again, has never actually been agreed by the full group. Your draft is therefore based almost entirely on the opinions of two people, both of whom have previously stated their intention to have lead shot banned.

 

I also object strongly to the way you have misrepresented the conclusions of the Risk Mitigation Sub Group which I chaired. My view was that, given the lack of any agreed evidence to the contrary, the most the LAG should be recommending to DEFRA and the FSA was a series of measures based on improved advice and possibly labelling and stricter implementation of the existing ban on the use of lead on wildfowl in England and Wales and over wetlands in Scotland and N Ireland. I pointed out that this concurred with the current reversal of a previously imposed ban in Norway and with the current view in Brussels.

 

I am also disappointed that you have not chosen to disclose to the whole group those to whom you shared an early draft of your paper (your e mail of 18th December refers). Maybe if you had then we could have started to sort out some of this. I find it strange that we have been copied comments on your draft from some members of the LAG but not others. Subsequently I regard your intention to hold the final LAG meeting on a date when three key members of the group are unable to attend as hardly conducive to genuinely addressing their concerns.

 

Taken together, these abuses of process mean that your draft is so flawed that I cannot agree to it forming the basis of any final report. It is based on papers that have not been accepted and with which I and other LAG colleagues profoundly disagree. Consequently I have no confidence that any final report you produce will reflect my misgivings; in the two years I have served on the group my views and interventions have not been accepted. I regret that I have lost confidence in your chairmanship and must therefore resign.

 

I would be grateful if you would record on your final report that I could no longer serve as the representative of the shooting community on the LAG because of my profound disagreement with the way process has been conducted. I will also write to The Secretary of State in similar terms. Neither I nor the Countryside Alliance will be walking away from this issue. Given the failure of the LAG process we will be consulting with the shooting community, other representative shooting groups and public bodies as to the best way to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He ain't the first to quit!

 

To be honest these revelations are nothing new, the WWT and RSPB have tried to force their own agendas through the LAG since its inception, by circumventing due process, by leaking biased "reports" (which they wrote!) containing unscientific "evidence" and "conclusions" in order to influence public opinion against lead shot, they have ignored questions and critism of their conduct/unfounded claims from pro shooting interests when it didn't suit them to address them, they have not produced any real evidence based scientific reports to indicate further regulation of the use of lead shot is neccesary, and have been allowed to get away with it by what is alleged to be a biased and/or weak chair with an apparantly anti lead personal agenda himself!

 

This is the game!..........Lies, cheating, misinformation, personal agendas and corruption "the end justifies the means" politics.........I bet shooting interests felt they needed a bath after being in a room with these people!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BASC statement on the resignation of theshooting organisations’ representative from the Lead Ammunition Group

The elected Council of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) supports the decision of Sir Barney White-Spunner, the representative of the shooting associations, to resign from the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG). The group was formed in 2010 to advise Defra on the use of lead ammunition.


BASC chairman Alan Jarrett said; “BASC Council has always insisted that the LAG process should be coherent, consistent, clear and unbiased. We were disappointed that this has not been the case and BASC Council has voted to withdraw support from the group. We remain committed to working with Defra/FSA to ensure that an entirely evidence based approach is followed.”


We understand that other members of the LAG have also resigned.


You can read more information on BASC’s view of the LAG process in this article from BASC chief executive Richard Ali, published in Shooting Times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a good army man Barney leads from the front, 5 out of 9 of the LAG members have resigned, CA, GTA, GWCT, Game Dealers Association and CLA.

 

I hope these mean the LAG is now died in the water.

Edited by gunsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH this worries me a little. What if LAG is not disbanded, and they continue to steamroller their prejudiced opinions through as fact. Where are our shooting organisations then? I appreciate Sir Barney's position, it had become somewhat untenable, but if he could not influence from inside, how will he do it from outside?

 

On the other hand, if it does mean the end of LAG as we know it, and a return to common sense, I will get the celebrations under way forthwith :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH this worries me a little. What if LAG is not disbanded, and they continue to steamroller their prejudiced opinions through as fact. Where are our shooting organisations then? I appreciate Sir Barney's position, it had become somewhat untenable, but if he could not influence from inside, how will he do it from outside?

 

On the other hand, if it does mean the end of LAG as we know it, and a return to common sense, I will get the celebrations under way forthwith :)

I can't see how the LAG can continue to operate now because it can't come up with a report as per its remit without all the members contributing and taking part!

 

So it seems what's left of the LAG including its chair has lost all credibility and therefore is a dead duck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a good army man Barney leads from the front, 5 out of 9 of the LAG members have resigned, CA, GTA, GWCT, Game Dealers Association and CLA.

 

I hope these mean the LAG is now died in the water.

 

So do I but resignations from the board just means they cannot vote or take action from within.

 

Has it fallen apart so that nobody will take it seriously? It might not have and now the minority voice just gets louder.......

 

The report was written/drafted before S BWS resigned. It worries me TBH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So do I but resignations from the board just means they cannot vote or take action from within.

 

Has it fallen apart so that nobody will take it seriously? It might not have and now the minority voice just gets louder.......

 

The report was written/drafted before S BWS resigned. It worries me TBH

 

my point exactly, but better expressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't panic. If the jury can't reach a majority decision let alone a unanimous one then the only option is a retrial. We've got another 5 years judging by the previous performance.

What's the point? The Norwegians have repealed the ban on lead shot, the EU are not interested in any further restrictions on lead shot, concluding that there is no compelling or persuasive scientific evidence it is or was necessary!

 

Just a waste of money reconstituting the LAG!

 

I think the pro shooting organisations should now go on the attack and claim compensation for the time and resources they have been forced to expend (waste) protecting lead shot against the anti lead shot organisations who made them defend lead shot based on spurious allegations contained in a biased, unproven and unscientific report written in house by employees of the RSPB and WWT themselves!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point? The Norwegians have repealed the ban on lead shot, the EU are not interested in any further restrictions on lead shot, concluding that there is no compelling or persuasive scientific evidence it is or was necessary!

 

Just a waste of money reconstituting the LAG!

 

I think the pro shooting organisations should now go on the attack and claim compensation for the time and resources they have been forced to expend (waste) protecting lead shot against the anti lead shot organisations who made them defend lead shot based on spurious allegations contained in a biased, unproven and unscientific report written in house by employees of the RSPB and WWT themselves!

Agree entirely - just tried to inject a little humour into an absolute pathetic situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point? The Norwegians have repealed the ban on lead shot, the EU are not interested in any further restrictions on lead shot, concluding that there is no compelling or persuasive scientific evidence it is or was necessary!

 

Just a waste of money reconstituting the LAG!

 

I think the pro shooting organisations should now go on the attack and claim compensation for the time and resources they have been forced to expend (waste) protecting lead shot against the anti lead shot organisations who made them defend lead shot based on spurious allegations contained in a biased, unproven and unscientific report written in house by employees of the RSPB and WWT themselves!

 

Totally agree with u

 

But i do still find it slightly worrying as sussex said earlier we are now completely out in the cold.

Has the RSPB not recently been attempting to praise shooting,jjust trying to lure us in before booting us where it hurts. Cannae be trusted, to many hidden or even public agenda's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BWS's letter is the most comprehensively scathing, revealing, frank and thorough document that is likely to be produced from the LAG process.

 

No, it's not a shame he's resigned. No matter what their views on lead shot, how could any stakeholder continue to sit in isolation on a group that is rife with that level of corruption? Well, it is now more plain than ever that the RSPB & WWT representatives are intent to divert, disinform and sabotage due process for their own means. Who among us would be happy to put their signature to a report that was not a transparent and factual representation of the issues in question? This not unreasonable principle obviously has made BWS's position untenable and unsupported (especially as the rest of the pro-lead representatives had scuttled off - I would expect better of the GWCT, incidentally.) It would be great if one of the newspapers picks up the story and reveals all with the help of the FOI act.

The salient point of this development is that BWS has now unequivocally stated that the LAG has neither sought nor received any kind of professional medical evidence of the potential effects of lead shot ingestion to human health. This is proof that John Swift, along with the RSPB and WWT representatives are/were complicit in compiling the Chairman's Report without the inclusion of full evidential content. I do hope that the SoS picks up on this and that the LAG is subsequently disbanded, with the remaining members receiving a significant b********* and the Chairman's report headed for the dustbin.

 

Along with the complete lack of medical evidence, I find it incredible that it was apparently beyond the remit of the LAG to acquire impartial, peer-reviewed evidence of the potential effects of lead shot ingestion to wildlife. Reports from opposing sides are bound to be biased, one way or another. This is yet another example of John Swift's murky incompetence. The less he has to do with BASC the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BWS's letter is the most comprehensively scathing, revealing, frank and thorough document that is likely to be produced from the LAG process.

 

No, it's not a shame he's resigned. No matter what their views on lead shot, how could any stakeholder continue to sit in isolation on a group that is rife with that level of corruption? Well, it is now more plain than ever that the RSPB & WWT representatives are intent to divert, disinform and sabotage due process for their own means. Who among us would be happy to put their signature to a report that was not a transparent and factual representation of the issues in question? This not unreasonable principle obviously has made BWS's position untenable and unsupported (especially as the rest of the pro-lead representatives had scuttled off - I would expect better of the GWCT, incidentally.) It would be great if one of the newspapers picks up the story and reveals all with the help of the FOI act.

The salient point of this development is that BWS has now unequivocally stated that the LAG has neither sought nor received any kind of professional medical evidence of the potential effects of lead shot ingestion to human health. This is proof that John Swift, along with the RSPB and WWT representatives are/were complicit in compiling the Chairman's Report without the inclusion of full evidential content. I do hope that the SoS picks up on this and that the LAG is subsequently disbanded, with the remaining members receiving a significant ********** and the Chairman's report headed for the dustbin.

 

Along with the complete lack of medical evidence, I find it incredible that it was apparently beyond the remit of the LAG to acquire impartial, peer-reviewed evidence of the potential effects of lead shot ingestion to wildlife. Reports from opposing sides are bound to be biased, one way or another. This is yet another example of John Swift's murky incompetence. The less he has to do with BASC the better.

 

A top post if i may say so.

 

White-Spunner is a Knight of the Realm and probably put in situ for good reason. We all know that RSPB stands for Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

 

I have a hunch that "Royal" is no longer appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read through the post on here. now some of you understand why I kept up the campaign all this time.

 

Its not over, John Swift could still come out with a report to ban lead. He is now campaigning to have rifle bullets lead free. He is on the Deer Initiative as a trustee and he's been to meeting reporting on the work of the LAG. I believe they will trying and get lead bullets banned. The FC are testing Copper Bullets with a view to ban lead on all FC land. John Swift said at the DI meeting that they have found in test that the Copper Bullets have to be going at the right speed to open.

 

When using copper bullets, to get them to open when they hit the animal, they can not be too fast or to slow, the get the right velocity to get the bullet to open you have to be, not to close and not too far away.

 

So a copper bullet is a goldilocks bullet, it has to be just right.

Edited by gunsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that this push for copper bullets is coming from the FC. I wonder what their motive is? Is copper not harder than lead? Is copper kinder to trees? I don't see it being any better or worse than lead if you happen to find a stray bullet in the tree you are cutting with a chainsaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://markavery.info/2015/05/27/lag-cope/

 

This is the only piece that I've found on the matter outside of the country sports media and in the public domain. The content is hardly surprising. Where's our input?

 

I wrote Lead Shot-gate for countryman's weekly in 2010 after John Swift came to a Deer Initiative meeting and his opening line was "there is lead in the food chain we have to find ways to reduce it" I then wrote "much to do about nothing" and "Potential hazard from very bad so-called scientific research" but by then the green blob shooting organisation had lobbied editors to stop my articles being printed. They have managed to stop all talk about the LAG, playing, I believe on the apathy of shooters.

 

I believe the plan was for the green blob organisations to first show that there was non-compliance with the lead ban, so we got the Compliance report from the WWT and BASC, remember all the stick I got from BASC on this forum over my posts. That was through the Lead Shot steering group then onto the LAG.

 

John Swift hand pick its members, some of the shooting organisation that wanted to be involved where rejected by the chairman. At one point the CA member before Barney White-Spunner on the committee never went to any meetings.

 

The green blob organisations backed by John Swift tried to get non-peer review papers into the report, the compliance report of the WWT/BASC could have been one of them.

 

The LAG was going to and may still, come out with a recommendation for the total lead ban, you only have to read the emails between John Swift and Defra and john swift's leaving comments to the BASC AGM to see this was on the cards.

Edited by gunsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunsmoke, if I remember rightly I have in the past criticised your views on BASC and steel shot, but let me just say I think you're dead right on John Swift. Not sure if I can swallow the conspiracy theory but something definitely stinks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunsmoke, if I remember rightly I have in the past criticised your views on BASC and steel shot, but let me just say I think you're dead right on John Swift. Not sure if I can swallow the conspiracy theory but something definitely stinks...

Yep. I've mentioned this on here before but a few years ago now a couple of mates and me attended a BASC evening at The Shepherds Inn in Carlisle.

Despite claiming he would be using lead for as long as it was legal to do so, he amazed quite a few people with his seemingly amused rebuttal of those who asked where all the dead lead poisoned wildfowl were that some were claiming to find in significant numbers, by answering their question with another and smiling quite smugly at Robert Bucknell while saying wild creatures die in huge numbers on a daily basis but nature does a very good job of disposing of them, but then struggled for a reply when one old boy stated the obvious by saying 'well those who reckon lead is poisoning ducks don't seem to have any problems finding them'. Even Mr Bucknell had the good grace to look embarrassed and shift in his seat.

It was a very uncomfortable discussion in which Swift did a very poor job of convincing or assuring those there that shooting was in good hands to be honest, and I came away with the feeling that something was very wrong. I cringe to think that I helped pay his salary for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...