panoma1

If the police attended the scene on his complaint and were satisfied there was no offence committed and you were carrying out your lawful business, surely it follows that the anti was guilty of wasting police time, by making a vexatious complaint? Is this not an offence? Could you not turn the tables on him by making a complaint against him?

Ok harnser/whitebridges et al I'm bored with this now it's too predictable! So can we return, as per the PW house rules to this threads "topic of conversation " ie. the lead ammunition group.............cos corries on the goggle box just now! LOL

Mate of yours then? figures

Oh dear!! it did! never mind!........ Harnser....what's a snidi?

+1

Unless I have missed it can you also confirm that BASC's position remains unchanged in that it will not countenance changes that are not proportionate to any proven evidence based risk? Sorry for asking yet another question! I hope I have not typed this in a DEMANDING, rude, sarcastic and what was it? self important fashion, and I hope it doesn't attract the same vitriolic response from the people who regularly post in your and BASC's defence! I admit that the above comment could possibly be construed as Sarcasm!

Because sensationalism (shock horror!) sells newspapers? The RSPB constantly flood the media with inaccuracies, misinformation and contradictions..........to the hierarchy of this organisation "the end justifies the means" to further their agenda and achieve their aims.

David BASC I have asked questions on this thread for all to see, and requested you answer them, they are there for all to see, but you refuse to do so....I will not repeat them nor continue requesting you to answer them......as I see it a waste of my time! As for your/BASC's apologists they appear more interested in defending you and BASC by attacking me that standing up and entering an adult debate on an important issue with the potential to adversely affect shooters and shooting in the future......I will be diverted and respond no more to personal baiting...........and will follow the topic in question and only respond to this and where I feel appropriate.

Re-read your post no 108 again......you implied my attitude was somehow wrong and/or at fault, you accused me of being sarcastic, rude and having a self important sense of entitlement, all your words! This is name calling and personally insulting to me because none of it is true...... but I don't suppose you care as I'm pretty sure that was your intention when you wrote it!

This is getting quite pithy isn't it? in answer...... 1) An apologist is a defender by argument 2) I didn't play any card it is a fact that members (including yourself as a member) pay your wages 3) I aint interested in your worktime providing it is spent working for your employers. 4) If you are working for BASC during your worktime you are there to serve your employer 5) Very commendable, but you are a shooter too so why wouldn't you? 6) Thanks for the clarification 7) so am I.......waiting for you to answer my questions that is!

You are entitled to your opinion grrclark but I have not resorted to name calling and personal insults, but you and blunderbuss and (by his support) yellow bear have, can I suggest that if you haven't got anything constructive to say relating to the topic on which we are supposed to be commenting.....you should consider butting out!

Apologist.....definition...........a defender by argument......

I wish I didn't keep coming across questions!! but.......... One of David BASC apologists maintains David BASC comes on here as an employee of BASC but does not deserve to be asked searching questions relating to BASC issues because......what is it grrclark in your response to me? it amounts to Hectoring and badgering by self appointed vigorous examiners and barrack room lawyers? Your words! Then another David BASC apologist posts ......that David BASC posted, quote "well after 5pm, long after I'd have been out of the office door" intimating that David BASC does post during the working day, which is easily proven by checking the time of his postings! The third David BASC apologist maintains that David BASC posts in his own time? (presumably because of this as an individual) again easily proved or disproven by checking the times of his postings. If David posts in his own time then there may be a case for jumping to his defence.....but if David BASC posts when he is being paid by BASC (or more correctly BASC members) then he is fair game! Come on David BASC please clarify! are you representing BASC on BASC's time.........or yourself on your own or BASC's time? I apologise David BASC this is not a personal attack on you, it is me defending myself against those who would try to intimidate and attack me because I asked for answers to probing questions from you as an employee of BASC....

Then perhaps David should just come on here as David....... not David BASC?

David, If the "Chief Scientific Advisor" to which you refer is Dr J H? I asked similar questions of him at the Last Welsh Wildfowling conference in Caersws many years ago and similarly........got no answers!

Blunderbuss and Yellow Bear, My postings have not been a personal attack on David BASC (unlike yours on me) nor were they designed to be sarcastic or rude, they may have shown a bit of irritation as I feel I have asked relevant questions of someone who is employed by BASC and feel I have not had a satisfactory reply. You appear to feel compelled to rush to David's defence rather than find out information from him that could have serious implications for the future of shooting, I wonder why? David does not need to be patronised by you nor need your protection, he is a grown man and can as you have seen hold his own in any debate. And yes Yellow Bear I am a BASC member, as I was previous to that a WAGBI member.

Likewise I politely asked you to address the questions I have already posted on this thread as you have not done fully so far, and you come back asking me to repeat these questions!? I can only conclude that this is a tactic to waste my time repeating myself? David if you don't wish to answer them simply say so You have made statements and given partial answers to my questions on this thread, to which I have asked further questions, which you have again failed to address fully, why do you refer me to google when BASC were involved in the discussions/negotiations in question as in your own words they "have done tons more than anyone else on this issue" you are David from BASC, therefore do you not have the answers via BASC? David we are getting nowhere so unless you relent and attempt to answer my concerns there seems little point in continuing this debate.

David I have already posted my questions! they all end with a question mark! I asked you to address them and you come back with a request that I relist them! They are already there so why? Quote "Even after the 1995 AEWA sign up in the UK we kept on fighting, not least of all because during this time there was continuing strong pressure ion the UK government from those who were advocating a total ban" unquote. Who were "those advocating a total ban"? The protectionists such as the RSPB and the WWT et al? .........ie. the same organisations presently sitting on the LAG? What was the basis of their arguement advocating a total ban at that time? It must have been persuasive because it was partly successful in that over and above compliance with the AEWA requirements, the species specific ban on shooting ducks and geese with lead came into being! P1

Glad to hear it David! What makes you think that a total ban on lead shot in the UK would have happened in the late 90's? For what reason was the government persuing a complete ban on lead shot in the UK in the late 90's? Why? How and what did BASC do to prevent this alleged attempt to totally ban lead shot in the UK in the late 90's? If there is a low level of compliance with the present lead shot restrictions, that is because of ignorance, or people can't see the purpose of or a reason for the ban, but mainly because of lack of enforcement!.....why do you think so many people are using a phone whilst driving? Yep! because of lack of enforcement they don't think they will be caught! I submit there are very high levels of compliance on the coast because Wildfowlers can identify. (not neccesarily agree with though) what the ban is trying to achieve........inland, you are getting lower levels of compliance because shooters cannot see why the law says you can shoot a Pheasant over land with lead but you can't shoot a duck or goose with lead.....and frankly nor can I! Since the Government have unfairly and I believe without scientific reason/evidence banned (been allowed to?) the use of lead shot to shoot wildfowl anywhere in England and Wales how can we defend using lead shot to shoot anything else anywhere? David I feel you have been selective in addressing the questions I have posted throughout this thread, I would be grateful if you would be good enough to go back through them and attempt to do so.......as I consider the possibility of a complete ban on the use of lead shot as the most serious threat shooting currently faces. P1

David I qoute from your post#93 "Over and above this, as we all know, wildfowl will also inhabit other areas inland, and these areas also need protection from spent lead shot deposition" If this is BASC's position I fear they have already accepted a total ban on lead shot!

If it's "not about the shot that kills the bird ( duck or geese) but about the shot that misses and ends up in the environment" why is it illegal to shoot duck and geese with lead shot but not Pheasant, Grouse, Partridge, Pigeon, Clays etc. etc. etc? It all lands in the environment! As I said when this unfair species specific element of the lead shot ban came into law, all other shooting with lead shot was in the firing line....Did not our representatives see this? Did our representatives not understand the implications of this? Did our representatives not argue it? Did our representatives not ask/demand to know why? Did our representatives not appeal or ask for a judicial review? Or, I hate to ask but was it that our representatives were not up to the job?

So it appears we both don't know then David! But arn't you curious? Doesn't someone at BASC actually know/care enough to provide an answer? I will repeat.....if it's wrong (how/why is it wrong?) to shoot wildfowl with lead shot (presumably it must be because they banned it!!!) how can it be right to shoot other birds and animals with lead shot? Shootings position on lead shot has in my opinion been made untenable because this unfair species specific ban was allowed to pass into law! P1

David, site specific is in line with AEWA , species specific is not! Shooting duck or geese inland over stubbles or other fields with lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the ingestion of lead shot by wildfowl over wetlands! Therefore it is not asked for nor a requirement in order to comply with AEWA..........so there must be another reason to make shooting wildfowl with lead shot illegal? That's what I would like an answer to......surely BASC should have contemporaneous notes from the meetings at the time that disclose the reason for this, assuming they were present? P1

And I will try again simplistically, an oversize hard wad in an undersize bore will require cosiderably more pressure (especially when the wad has little or no give in it) to push ithe wad up the bore than a correctly sized wad up a nominal (normal sized) bore, yes? the wad and charge is pushed up the bore by the combustion and consequent expansion of gasses caused by the ignition of the powder by the firing of the primer, can we agree that? It is this added pressure (caused by an oversize wad or an undersize bore, or both!) that can lead to ring bulges occurring in the area of greatest resistance ie. the area just in front of the choke constriction! a stronger primer can increase this pressure considerably. I posted on this topic not to personally attack you but because I think your advice is wrong I still do, I think anyone who follows it is putting themselves (especially newcomers to reloading) in danger of injury, my advice is to err on the side of caution. That is my last word on the matter, others can decide who is right or who is wrong? Stay safe! P1

No David I do not think your post #83 does answer my question! Why did "it (?) looked to restrict lead shot use inland where these species were most likely to be found"? Ingestion of lead shot is one thing killing a duck with lead by shooting it is a different issue altogether! How does your quote (above) in inverted commas explain why?