Konor

I'm glad you took the time to say that. You take for granted that Conor and BASC have the same capacity for critical thinking but they seem to think that the podcast is so good that it should be lauded as such on a public forum and that they sincerely think that they will somehow gain approval for their actions with this quality of work. I think it must be a result of working in a non critical echo chamber. Come on BASC sort this out.

And with that information gained from interacting with members on the forum what insights have you gained ? That your “science based “ reality has not been accepted by the majority of the forum perhaps or is it that you secretly have overwhelming support but for reasons unknown it is not being reflected in the responses to your posts. I acknowledge your refusal to respond to my questions and points raised. When you were interviewed for your position at BASC did you think it would be in your best interests if questioned on your ability to represent initiatives proposed by BASC that you would state ignoring questions, insulting members,inventing false scenarios all while maintaining a level of pomposity would have been considered an answer that would ensure you secured the post. Surely BASC must be monitoring your contributions to this forum after so many have been locked. Do BASC support your conduct on this and other threads or do they consider that your posts will have no repercussions on BASC’s reputation. I have worked with BASC representatives just over 20 years ago, their ability to gain the support of wildfowlers while possibly not without criticism was light years ahead of what I am witnessing now. The common thread causing significant criticism then and is now was that some employees failed to create a rapport through their manner and failed to represent the members/shooters views. I suggest that you are guilty of both and in doing so are doing a disservice to BASC. Unless of course you are the new face of BASC and representative of their values in which case that is a bigger problem. While we should be fighting opponents of fieldsports we are fighting each other surely a preposterous state of affairs. The vocal minority want all shooting banned the use of lead and the small percentage of birds succumbing to poisoning, if in reality that is occurring inland, is an irrelevance to them they are only using that possibility along with your support to end quarry shooting completely. Do you seriously think forum members are coming on here just to personally attack you because of some grudge they are nursing no they are speaking out in the defence of shooting sports the sad thing is that you continually fail to acknowledge it. You are of greater use to the anti fieldsports enthusiasts if you continue down the road you are on. i can only hope that your continued presence on here is not being funded by BASC and that your “contributions “are being made in your own time

Do you honestly consider that the opposition to your political propaganda is due to one person with multiple accounts when you have had virtually zero support for your stance and non compliance runs at 93%. Utterly delusional. You should apply some critical thinking before you respond. Not only have you received a sound thrashing each time you post you're muddled thinking you are in danger of bringing the credibility of BASC into question by association. You've already been advised to stop digging perhaps BASC should take away your spade

Do you have figures to substantiate that claim ? I was under the impression that non compliance was running at 90% plus.

Well said 👍

Conor I understand your choice/need to portray me as a belligerent BASC basher as it conveniently permits you to abstain from answering the questions raised and the points put forward. This failure to confront those issues hints at a lack of robustness in the path BASC has chosen to “defend” shooting. I would contend that that “defence “will prove to be to the detriment of grass roots shooters. Private phone calls will contribute nothing and are merely used to wilfully mislead those reading the forum that the problem lies in getting people to understand rather than the approach you are taking is wrong. You have a political objective to achieve those that find fault in your reasoning and justification are an obstacle to achieving that. The emotive language you use to convince us is more fitting on an anti fieldsports forum yet ironically the majority of your support is in the best interests of commercial shooting.

The offer to answer the questions raised on this and the last thread remains open.

Figures to substantiate. ?? I was under the impression that there was a 90% plus non compliance. Has BASCs promotion of non lead shot been responsible for a massive turn around in the take up of non toxic shot use that I was unaware of ? Surely you should be publicising the figures to celebrate your achievement and encourage more compliance if that’s even possible. Or are they just looking but not buying ?

When that day comes Conor all the organisations responsible especially “the voice of shooting” will regret covering their ears and ignoring those who predicted the demise of grass roots shooting. Of course there wii be no accountability and countless excuses to deflect attention from those responsible.

Predictable and yet again a demonstration of an inability to respond to concerns regarding the approach BASC is taking to protect the interests of shooters. Once the ranks of grass shooters are thinned out and recruitment to shooting sports decimated by the agreement that it is so harmful to the environment how long do you think excessive commercial shooting will last ? Another question for you to ignore Conor. By the way Conor you have failed to engage ,as you call it ,full stop. When the questions are an inconvenience to the agenda you are pushing you scuttle off. It’s a PR nightmare for you. You have to convince occasional shooters that it is in their best interests to use an arguably inferior ammunition when their use of it probably has no significant environmental impact and is not designed to be used in the majority of their guns and at the same time defend the interests of commercial shoots and their income yet also convince them to move away from lead but as far as I can see your success in the latter can be measured in single figure percentage points. I don’t feel sorry for you and your predicament ,I think there is an element of “only following orders” but I have no sympathy for that.

Accountability is an inconvenience in politics but I’m sure you will agree a necessity. The Information you are supplying is not free from bias and is better seen in a context. That that is an inconvenience is I accept not to your liking . Do you have a link to the data supporting this statement. I would have expected that if the deposition of lead is so great ie the. “ minefields for the poor wee partridge chicks “that you have already referred to that in light of the realisation that only one piece of lead shot will bring about their demise that there would be no pheasants or partridges surviving. Surely if you believe the statement you have just made there is no justification for a voluntary lead ban that you are promoting. Surely only an immediate lead ban is sufficient to protect those “poor wee chicks “ so that we get the opportunity to shoot them. You do realise that your failure to call for an immediate ban is jeopardising the livelihood of commercial shoots that are relying on there being hundreds of thousands of birds available to provide their income. Are BASC willing to compensate all those shoots for the loss of revenue due to these single bits of shot when as “the voice of shooting “they should have been screaming out the necessity for a. total lead ban to protect the interests of those shooters ,sorry ,suppliers of shooting.

After the last fiasco I won’t be following this one . I can’t imagine in the space of a few hours that there has been any developments that would have me alter my view that BASC works in the best interests of BASC not grass roots shooters. Unless there has been a sudden change in policy and BASC have decided to focus on hotspot areas responsible for the vast majority of lead deposited then it’s just more of the same politically motivated propaganda on the shortcomings of lead and the superiority of steel shot. Thankfully the transition away from lead is voluntary and I can continue to use my vintage shotguns with the ammunition they were designed and regulated to be used with. Thanks BASC for your acceptance that less than 10% compliance with the voluntary move away from lead is sufficient to allow us to continue as we please.I would have thought with the overwhelming evidence that lead is so toxic that you would have called for an immediate ban but there you go ,very unexpected. Regarding unexpected I thought after the last anti lead shot thread Conor that you might be a bit too embarrassed to show face but ever the politician up you pop. so many parallels with our current crop of politicians perhaps there’s something in the water besides lead.

The problem is not my misunderstanding of your position within the BASC organisation as is plainly obvious from reading my posts. It has been your refusal to engage in debate on a thread that you started and consequently your post falsely stating that you had answered all straightforward questions.on the thread when clearly you had not.Need I spell it out further. Instead of attempting to deflect attention away from your posts perhaps you should acknowledge your behaviour and try to be accountable for the opinions that you have expressed.

Again no facing up to your requirement to be accountable. Your conduct on this thread does not encourage me to follow your advice. Although I am a long standing BASC member only the conditions of my wildfowling club membership is keeping me on board. I am well aware of the relevant information surrounding the lead debate despite your obvious doubts. I genuinely have no belief that BASC is acting in my best interests. If it was possible to bring it sufficient pressure to bear perhaps they would but I'm afraid I have insufficient time and placed my faith in my representatives to act on my behalf as part of their salaried remit.

As I stated earlier the point of debating on an open forum is to air the views and concerns of members on the forum in order to have the responses to those views open to all to comment on in an effort to have fair representation in any ongoing discussion. My refusal to engage in a phone call is not personal it is in the interests of accountability and accountability and openness in debate is not well served in private phone calls. I am disappointed that you chose not to answer my questions which I think indicates you are not open to representing my views and also that you seem resistant to accepting responsibility for the posts you have made. I do not however have any over riding personal ill feeling towards you though I feel that at times your conduct has merited it I appreciate that you are not an anonymous contributor on the forum and that you may have a responsibility to reflect only certain views as dictated by the position you hold at work but I am not prepared to accept that you should expect me to limit expressing my views on the forum.

This is not an attempt to have the last word but I can assure you that attempting to put forward my point of view has not been a pleasant experience and has taken up much of my free time , hence my earlier decision to opt out, and has only been possible as I am on annual leave from work. Unfortunately for all concerned ,and I include those irritated by the tone of the thread brought about largely by frustration , the quest to have straight forward answers to genuine questions has led us to where we are now. That Conor decided to make the false statement he did was entirely his choice the decision to hold him accountable for that choice was mine.

12.7k views, so a substantial number of people did not concur with you London Best. This issue is by far the largest hurdle that has faced shooting sports in my lifetime. It is important that the views of those greatly affected by the decisions made in its regard are heard and that they reflect the strength of opinion held. Would you not consider that a a balanced fair view.

If you read my post you will see that I am not telling him to retire from the forum I’m stating that I think it’s time he should retire, a personal opinion not a command. The policies of his employer were not what I was disagreeing with, it was the false statement he made and his personal decision to ignore the points I raised on the thread along with his dismissive attitude. You are free to support that behaviour but by criticising it I am indicating that I consider it unacceptable. I’m sure as I stated earlier that Conor will brush it off but just as you are holding me to account for my posts so I am holding Conor to account for his. Perhaps by kicking back at what is being pushed through and the all or nothing stance of BASC and others there can be a space created for those that enjoy using vintage guns to do so fully with minimal environmental impact.Nothing will be achieved by blindly agreeing with policies that you consider unfair. At no point did Conor address the failing to consider the potential negotiation of a change to non toxic shot only in areas responsible for the greatest by far deposition of lead shot and assessing the impact of doing so before accepting a legislated lead ban. My disagreeing was not on a personal level and although his ignoring of the points I was making was frustrating this whole escapade would have been resolved had he as he falsely stated “always answered straightforward questions” I’m sorry if by taking him to task for falsely claiming that has upset you but surely there is a need for accountability ,trying to ensure that can be unpleasant but necessary. How many threads have unresolved issues that are constantly referred back to because the nature of the discussion was subjective and no agreement could be found this is not one of those cases and I think I have taken the time to explain why I think that is so. As an aside David / BASC was a regular contributor too.

I’ve got a few O levels myself so perhaps it’s not an even match 😂

He is probably a bright academic but his reliance on a political line rather than open honest debate in his posts handicapped him. I agree he dug a deep hole but like most of his ilk I’m sure he’ll brush it off as of no consequence and continue on the same path. Is that not the way of all politicians. Very little accountability.

I agree reservedly with your comments Gordon R but frankly his arrogance and pompous manner brought about his downfall. He continued to act the role of an untrustworthy politician favouring to ignore the issues and straightforward questions preferring instead to focus on deflection and selecting to engage only with issues that favour his agenda. I think most others on the forum when questioned address the issues raised and aren’t afraid to inhabit the grey area where no one is fully correct and that postings will be subjective to a greater or lesser extent. The quality of posting on the forum demonstrates the inherent honesty of the average poster on the forum. Conor failed to match that honesty in his posts.His false insistence that he always answered straightforward questions was his downfall. No apologies ,no answers and therefore no credibility. I feel sorry that his behaviour led him to this point but I think it’s an example of the danger in continually failing to address issues raised in a straightforward manner , questioning the integrity of fellow posters and underestimating the average poster on the forum.

I think the perception that Conor will reveal information on a private phone call that will somehow explain the car crash that is the voluntary move away from lead shot and his behaviour/posts on this thread is wishful thinking on his part.

I see no purpose in phoning you Conor as I have already stated on a few occasions. The forum is a means of open debate and that is what you are choosing to engage with , if you are not willing to answer questions on the forum then what is the purpose of your participation. Your failure to address the issues I have raised speaks volumes unfortunately. Hopefully you will learn from it but your track record indicates that is unlikely. Incidentally your arrogance in failing to take responsibility for your previous posts speaks volumes about your character and the appropriateness of you taking any moral high ground on subjects under discussion on the forum.

Conor my best advice to you is “If you find yourself in a hole stop digging” Do you really think it appropriate to request a private phone call to “discuss my concerns” under the circumstances ? I think an apology to the forum would be more appropriate. My main concern is that I find you untrustworthy and no private phone call will undo the concerns that have led to that conclusion. Perhaps you should ponder on my posts and consider your position.