Sir Barney white-Spunner Quits LAG

[scotslad]

Grrr, dunno if it would help u but my local MP is Mundell the lone solo Tory in Scotland If u emailed or posted me a copy i could hand it into to him if thats any good to u? (Or would i b better 'borrowing it' and putting my name address onit so it's a constituant?)

Pass his office quite often

 

Good letter thou

[grrclark]

Scotslad, more than happy if you 'borrow' a copy and put your name to it.

 

Would be better coming from one of his constituents I think.

[grrclark]

 

I note that this post is against the rules of Pigeon Watch as it personally names the individuals. If I post comment on here that break the rules they are removed, yet this comment has not.

 

One rule for us and one rule for them.

GS there are very often messages on PW that have names attached, as I had spoken to both of you by pm before I simply thought it more personable.

 

No conspiracies, honest

[gunsmoke]

GS there are very often messages on PW that have names attached, as I had spoken to both of you by pm before I simply thought it more personable.

 

No conspiracies, honest

 

I'm sorry it just seemed odd, its not against you personally. The last time I had a fight on PW with BASC staff they ended up naming me to try and shut me up. that really worked did it.

[Beardo]

no need for the paranoia! we can't read every post in real time to moderate, we do have day jobs!

[CharlieT]

no need for the paranoia!

 

Quite so, people often refer to me by name, but then I supose that was fathers intention.

[panoma1]

Quite a coincidence that magistrates in Northallerton have chucked out a case brought by the RSPB, against a grouse moor keeper citing 'abuse of process' which would have denied the defendant a fair trial as the reason!

Isn't that what the LAG have and are doing?................And who are the protectionist members of the LAG?

[grrclark]

I have received a response from DEFRA to the email I sent them a few days ago, page 1 of this thread. I didn't expect to receive a particularly revealing reply and I was not disappointed. In respect to the disclaimer on their email that their response is intended to be for myself and not for wider distribution I will not copy and paste, but in summary they say:

 

The LAG group is independent of government and therefor DEFRA have no authority to intervene in its governance or processes so they cannot comment on any questions in relation to that.

 

The final report has been submitted to DEFRA and the FSA from the LAG chairman and whilst DEFRA will consider the content of that report they have made it very clear that they are under no obligation to be bound by the content of that or act upon any recommendations.

 

I shall write back to them to ask them for some details about the process of due diligence that they will follow in respect to evaluating the contents and shall update this thread as appropriate.

 

I also wrote to the LAG asking some questions in respect to the final report, but no response as yet.

 

Please let's not re-hash or re-cover old ground in this thread as it will simply get locked and it saves the mod's the hassle of having to be nursemaids to us grown ups

[panoma1]

It is telling that the organisations (RSPB and WWT) who are proven to be anti-lead (and allegedly anti live quarry shooting) were the ones which lobbied DEFRA (and the FSA?) for a LAG group to be set up, and they (the RSPB and WWT) provided the initial "evidence' in the form of a non scientific (and non peer reviewed) report written by, yes you've guessed, the RSPB and the WWT!

This 'report' was subsequently released prematurely and without agreement to the media in an obvious attempt to scaremonger and influence a negative response regarding the use of lead ammunition.

 

Recently various members of the LAG have resigned citing the conduct of the anti lead RSPB and WWT and the partiality of LAG chair John Swift (who it transpires has long supported getting rid of lead ammunition) because they were not in agreement with the way things were being steamrollered through despite objections being raised (and ignored!) as described in Sir BW-S resignation letter.

 

So the LAG now consists solely of anti lead biased organisations (RSPB and WWT, together with an anti lead biased Chair) who now have a clear field to if they choose, cook up and submit a one sided, anti lead report to DEFRA and the FSA that is highly likely to contain conclusions based on bias, exaggeration, deliberate misinformation and opinion rather than a real scientific evidence led conclusion........that lead shot should be totally banned, phased out or subject to further restrictions?

 

It's like one team claiming to have won a football cup final after they hid their opponents boots so the other team couldnt play!

 

It is my opinion that the conduct of the RSPB, WWT and the LAG chair as reported is a very serious perversion of process, designed to fit an agenda, and should their report result in further restrictions by DEFRA on the use of lead shot, shootings representative organisations should together challenge these restrictions through the courts.

[grrclark]

Panoma1, in my response to Defra I have covered the points you raise specifically.

 

I have asked for them to give me information around the process they will follow to scrutinise the LAG recommendations to establish the validity of the final report and the competency of any scientific evaluations that led to the recommendations, this being most pertinent in view of the recent Norwegian and Austrian statements in respect to lead ammunition.

 

I hope that I get a confidence inspiring response.

[wymberley]

Simply as an aside; the BASC logo has now been removed from the LAG web-site (again).

[grrclark]

As Defra have stated in their reply to me that the final report has been submitted presumably the LAG is now no more, unless they may be asked to consider something else or the report is returned for some reason!

 

Hopefully I get a response to my email to the LAG too.

[wymberley]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no requirement for any evidence submitted to have been peer reviewed. One reason for the report to be returned would be that if Defra concluded that something in the report would not stand up to such and consequently further research is required. This is detailed in the 3rd bullet point under 'OUTPUTS' in the Group's Terms of Reference.

[grrclark]

I have asked Defra some more specific questions about that too, although I don't expect them to answer in particular detail I have asked specifically about how they will undertake a scientific evaluation.

 

It is no wonder that government costs so much to run when you have a dedicated group undertake a specific exercise, over years, and then the government agency have to re-visit everything that was done because the specialist group made a complete hash of it.

[RossEM]

It is also worrying that the processes of these working groups are evidently so open to abuse. I wonder if past working groups have submitted biased reports that have led to undemocratic and unjust changes of British law?

[RossEM]

Panoma1, in my response to Defra I have covered the points you raise specifically.

 

I have asked for them to give me information around the process they will follow to scrutinise the LAG recommendations to establish the validity of the final report and the competency of any scientific evaluations that led to the recommendations, this being most pertinent in view of the recent Norwegian and Austrian statements in respect to lead ammunition.

 

I hope that I get a confidence inspiring response.

I'm really glad you've asked those questions.

 

What is infuriating to me is that the shooting organisations formerly sitting on the LAG - and BASC - haven't done the same. Their silence is incomprehensible. There should have been a joint statement in the shooting press and to members by email by now!!

 

All concerned within the shooting community desperately need some clarity on the subject, and we need a joint plan for the future - if Defra & FSA reject the LAG report, there will be further attempts to ban lead shot through the AEWA.

[Scully]

It is also worrying that the processes of these working groups are evidently so open to abuse. I wonder if past working groups have submitted biased reports that have led to undemocratic and unjust changes of British law?

When it comes to UK firearms legislation there are several which have come into being purely on the basis of nothing more than political expediency despite reports that there is no basis for them, and another shortly to become so in Scotland, but those are for another thread.

I can think of one or two outside firearms legislation also, so there may be countless examples.

[Pothunter]

I have received a response from DEFRA to the email I sent them a few days ago, page 1 of this thread... I will not copy and paste, but in summary they say:

 

...The final report has been submitted to DEFRA and the FSA from the LAG chairman and whilst DEFRA will consider the content of that report they have made it very clear that they are under no obligation to be bound by the content of that or act upon any recommendations.

 

 

This is government-speak for "don't worry; we're not planning to take any notice of this report".

 

In order to stiffen their resolve, though, the most practical thing people on here can do is is adapt grrclark's letter and send it to their MP (House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA), or, if you can be bothered, go and see them at a surgery (some you make an appointment; some you just turn up; a very small minority don't hold them. Times/arrangements on their websites).

 

The three DEFRA Ministers now are:

 

Liz Truss - South West Norfolk

George Eustice - Cambourne, Redruth and Hayle (sp?)

Rory Stewart - Penrith and the Border

 

If you live in any of these constituencies, then definitely go and badger them at a surgery if you care about this.

 

BASC et al will be lobbying civil servants behind the scenes. Despite what you might think reading PW sometimes, the shooting organisations in general and BASC in particular are extremely professional and effective lobbyists, especially when we have a Tory government.

 

I don't have any inside info about the LAG report, indeed haven't even followed it closely, but on the basis of the main events and the government's tone, I would be very surprised if anything came of it.

[grrclark]

Pothunter, I agree that what was written in the response by Defra to me was pretty much as you suggest.

 

I get the feeling that the whole LAG committee is a way to appease the serial complainers and those with a clearly advertised agenda to disrupt shooting, that way the government cannot be accused of disregarding the will of organisations with large numbers of supporters such as RSPB and WWT.

 

In making any announcement on lead ammunition the government can say to the RSPB et al, that we gave careful consideration to your thoughts and concerns, we actively supported the LAG group and gave you 5 years, etc to make clear your concerns and back that up with rigorous scientific evaluation, but there was still a lack of clearly compelling evidence, blah, blah, blah.

 

Of course the same scenario could be pointed towards the shooting organisations should the government decide to ban lead, but I genuinely don't believe that they will. Having said that we should all continue to voice our concern around any further change in legislation to our respective MP's and not be complacent.

 

I also agree with you that BASC will be lobbying behind the scenes, as will the other organisations of course, but each of us can play out part by making our voices heard individually.