markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I clicked the link to SACS website from Marks post to check on the SACS code of practice or policy on lamping. I couldn't find one. Which may just mean that I didn't try hard enough; or it may mean that they don't have one after 15 years, yet are happy to criticise work produced by BASC for their members use. webber They may not have one thats why i asked about ANY organisations. thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think flexibility is the key. If you dont want to let the police know you are out and say give them your moblie number then fine its up to you. All I would say is (and any police officer reading this please correct me if I am wrong) the police and sporting shooters are not enemies, we are on the same side, the side of the law. A police officer I am sure has much better things to do than to stop you our me when we are out lamping. All the cops I know, including an ARV guy, are far more concerned about trying to prevent real crime that stoping a legit shooter and wasting everyones time. And Mark dont you get the feeling you are loosing the battle here? Take your own advice and look at the forums and look at the association web sites and see what they are doing to keep shooting etc safe. Strikes me you are not happy with any of them, but as a member of SACS maybe you should sit down with Ian and re-write the SCAS policy, stratergy and plan and then take persoanl responsibility to make sure it happens. That should keep you busy for a bit! David I did phone and i will have to revise my earlier estimate of 2-3 mins on the phone to 12-15 mins BUT..I came off the phone with the distinct feeling it was more of a way of keeping an eye on ME, rather than anything else For instance why do they want to know what calibre gun you will be using and what you will be shooting ??They also repeated that EVERY TIME i go shooting they must be informed or i will end up with armed police pointing guns at me!! I also had to phone when i was finished to close the LOG or whatever. On the same side yes,but think the questions about calibre and target species weren't relevant if the whole point is to determin that they do not need to send the A team to "point there guns at me".(that is the third time i have had that phrase off the police this week). So all in all a pain in the backside really and just feels like another hoop rather than working together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicle Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I did phone and i will have to revise my earlier estimate of 2-3 mins on the phone to 12-15 mins BUT..I came off the phone with the distinct feeling it was more of a way of keeping an eye on ME, rather than anything else For instance why do they want to know what calibre gun you will be using and what you will be shooting ??They also repeated that EVERY TIME i go shooting they must be informed or i will end up with armed police pointing guns at me!!I also had to phone when i was finished to close the LOG or whatever. On the same side yes,but think the questions about calibre and target species weren't relevant if the whole point is to determin that they do not need to send the A team to "point there guns at me".(that is the third time i have had that phrase off the police this week). So all in all a pain in the backside really and just feels like another hoop rather than working together. The screen in front of the comms operator will have a set of standard questions that every caller is asked, the more information they have the better. If an office is called to an incident they will want to know what they are potentially walking into so information is key to everyone’s safety. When they ask for your name and address you name will flag up that you are a SGC/FAC holder but it doesn’t say what class or calibre of weapon you hold so this is why they ask the question. I’ll admit it’s always puzzled me why they ask about quarry you’re going after but I suppose that just one of those things we will never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Why would i take advise from a man and an organisation that change there views at the drop of a hat. please. It is known as progress Mark, Things do move on you know, one of the reasons we are able to drive motor cars and fly in planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 ive started to phone up, as its usualy the same bit o' stuff answering the phone. think she quite likes me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Unfortunately we see, in my opinion, Mark is simply going to ignore parts of posts that don’t suit him, and find bits he can start an argument about being awkward and aggressive in the process, which is a shame as it de-rails threads in my opinion. Take the BASC CoP for example, he asked why we changed one line of the wording, I posted that is was through consultation, and he then accuses me / BASC of changing something ‘at the drop of a hat’ When he asks for evidence of what associations have done and I point him in the right direction of where to find the info, he ignores it and says he will not take my advice (I’ve heard that from him before) However, I guess that is just him, so we must all just accept it or ignore it. Moving on, I am sure by now that anyone who is going lamping will know what their local police want them to do, call or not to call. However, I cannot see any need what so ever for shooters to inform the police whenever they go shooting. If any BASC member have issues with police let us know and we will work together to do what we can to sort it out. Same goes of course if you are a member of another organisation, give them a call and ask them to help you. I still think there is merit in working with the police at all levels to work together for fairness and equity in the licensing system and at the operational level of when officers interact with sporting shooters. This is one project BASC will be targeting for 2010 for example on a national basis as well as maintianing our activity responding to individual needs / issues on at a local level. Groundwork is already being done with ACPO and the Home Office, and we have a communication plan to target operational officers with more information on sporting shooting. It will be hard work but I certainly believe it will be well worth it in the end David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Blackbart all you can hope is the more often you do it the more they start to remember you and fill in the questions themselves. The problem you've walked into is that you've asked the question should you phone and they've told you an emphatic yes. That means go out without and you might be walking into problems may not be legal but your firearms team has asked you to so if you fail to then its not going to look good. On another front I'm amazed there are officers patrolling rural areas looking for poachers I'm fairly sure they would be better employed on other forms of rural crime rather than looking for the flash of lamps etc which lets face it is rarely poachers. Round our way they go after the hares in broad daylight in dodgy motors and just move slightly faster than the police reaction time which is usually somewhere between ages and the following day so doesn't take much to stay out of their way. as for wanting to know what claibers you'll be out with its pretty irrelevant as you're law abiding and won't be using them on the police so they don't need to know what they're up against. All strikes me as panic amongst the ranks and giving the nightshift something to do. Calls about poachers that are genuine are usually made by the landowner and he will know if legitimate shooters are out on his land or at least he should do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) If any BASC member have issues with police let us know and we will work together to do what we can to sort it out. David David slightly off topic and in almost all cases I am a big supporter of BASC..... however We have known antis who target any shooting whenever they can, over some time (years) more often than not the Police will not attend to assist disrupted shooters and if they do there seems little they are willing to try to protect legit guns from getting spotlights in the face and abuse over loud hailers. We had what looked like a good case last year and CPS would not press charges over threats and disruption despite anti being on private land and witnessed by 3 people, Personally I would rather see BASC make strong efforts in support of shooting disrupted (there must be a fair bit) with the Police rather than keep putting disproportionate emphasis on the shooters to make all the efforts at all times, now to the point its suggested in some areas they call in before lamping! If plod thinks it’s a crime to be out lamping then fine investigate I for one don’t mind helping with enquires should the need arise, To be honest it would be nice to see plod for a change doing what he should be, finding out what takes place on his patch and by who rather than sat in an office or behind a speed camera, next thing you know poachers will ring in with a false name and all will appear in order.... evening all The only advise I have ever been given is slip your gun and walk away to avoid confrontation…… Antis 1 shooters 0 I guess you know my views on phoning in! Edited October 21, 2009 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 ive started to phone up, as its usualy the same bit o' stuff answering the phone. think she quite likes me. Obviously hasn`t seen you then Martin couldn,t resist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think it is important that when confronted by antis the guns go away ASAP, otherwise I know full well what could happen, and the antis claim they were threatened by a man with a gun!! I agree that we need to get more active with the operational police. And not just BASC. You may see in these weeks ST that the NGO book on firearms and the law (by D Frost and supported by ACPO) has been sent to all police constabularies and WLO’s in the UK. This is excellent work. BASC have already sent our booklets on Sporting Shooters and the police to the same audience, and have delivered several training sessions to the police (more planned) More work will roll out in 2010. All the orgs and indeed those shooters who what to, certainly have a roll to play in working with the police to build up knowledge and dispel prejudice based on ignorance. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) I think it is important that when confronted by antis the guns go away ASAP, otherwise I know full well what could happen, and the antis claim they were threatened by a man with a gun!! I agree that we need to get more active with the operational police. And not just BASC. David David I agree with the action to take, however its job done by anti at that stage and in most case the flight (a lawful activity) has been stopped by just a few, one of my points is this if i shone a light in your face outside Tescos for getting 3 for £10 chickens i would be commiting a public order offence that plod would be happy to chase, if a similar thing happens to me its not so and this must be tackled and in my book its about time we had some effort to defend this area of shooting rather than keep taking a back steps to comply with the whims of plod without getting anything in return I have rights and I want them defended not hurdles put in my path Edited October 21, 2009 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 its wrong pav and in a way why should you put your guns away. were the police better informed they would realise you were conducting a lawful activity and that the fault lay with the anti. Lets face it all they need to do is issue a few asbo's to them banning them from the foreshore and then nick them the second time job done. Do you have rural officers up your way as they seem quite useful round us and actually listen and take on the way things work in the countryside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) its wrong pav and in a way why should you put your guns away. were the police better informed they would realise you were conducting a lawful activity and that the fault lay with the anti. Lets face it all they need to do is issue a few asbo's to them banning them from the foreshore and then nick them the second time job done. Do you have rural officers up your way as they seem quite useful round us and actually listen and take on the way things work in the countryside. we have the broads beat very nice people and totally ineffective..... officer he shone a 3 mil candle power lamp in my eyes and shouted abuse in a loud hailer ... sorry sir no offence has been commited Edited October 21, 2009 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 There is an offence of Agrivated Trespass, and this applies to antis, for example, disrupting shoot or shooters. If the police and not prepared ot take action to prevent a criminal act and or a breach of the peace there is somthing very wrong! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I used to work at a hunt kennels and we were regularly targeted by the hunt sabs as they like to call themselves(i can think of a few better names).On the police actually doing anything it really depended on which officers it was that turned up,some seemed to think they were commiting an offence and others didnt(police "interpreting" the law isnt confined to firearms)I have seen police action ranging from standing smirking saying" what do you want me to do"to actually running after them and rugby tackling them(this one is prefferable )and escorting them off the land by their hair ! The trouble is with fieldsports some coppers know the law and some dont and judging by the recent case of the bloke who went to court for shooting near a road the CPS arent even sure of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Take the BASC CoP for example, he asked why we changed one line of the wording, I posted that is was through consultation, and he then accuses me / BASC of changing something ‘at the drop of a hat’ Pretty significant line though was it not, a line that affected every lamper in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) There is an offence of Agrivated Trespass, and this applies to antis, for example, disrupting shoot or shooters. If the police and not prepared ot take action to prevent a criminal act and or a breach of the peace there is somthing very wrong! David you are right on both counts, and they dont, in Norfolk/Suffolk its Zero be interesting to know of how many complaints about anti disruption are taken to court... do BASC know or have any records on? is ours a isolated case or do many others have problems, is there any register to record anti problems? last year an Anti told my son she would have him killed, then retracted it saying she was sorry, Plod said she would be cautioned she declined, ( Apparently you have to accept a caution) and they let it drop with no other action I spoke with CPS and they said there are so many loop holes for antis to get out its not worth the hassle and if we wanted to try to stop them ASBO was teh way forward One club i am in has a very high level ex BASC man and he is well connected and switched on, he wrote the the local MP ( a shooting man) who wrote to plod who ignored it what can be done Edited October 21, 2009 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Mark is simply going to ignore parts of posts that don’t suit him, and find bits he can start an argument about being awkward and aggressive in the process, Awkward why, because i dint agree to everything you say. aggressive , where have i been aggressive please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Take the BASC CoP for example, he asked why we changed one line of the wording, I posted that is was through consultation, and he then accuses me / BASC of changing something ‘at the drop of a hat’ Pretty significant line though was it not, a line that affected every lamper in the country. Mark, You really aren't making any sense, would you not expect a significant change to a COP to be done through consultation? Or would you prefer that whatever the change is was ignored and BASC didn't tell everyone? Maybe you would have prefered them to knock on the door of every shooter and tell them personally? What is it that you ACTUALLY want? do you want your own personal adviser to everything shooting related for 30 quid a year? or are you just hell bent on not accepting the fact that MAYBE just MAYBE you are in the wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Mark, You really aren't making any sense, would you not expect a significant change to a COP to be done through consultation? Or would you prefer that whatever the change is was ignored and BASC didn't tell everyone? Maybe you would have prefered them to knock on the door of every shooter and tell them personally? What is it that you ACTUALLY want? do you want your own personal adviser to everything shooting related for 30 quid a year? or are you just hell bent on not accepting the fact that MAYBE just MAYBE you are in the wrong? who did they consult, not members as it was a committee meeting. basc are supposed to be a members organisation, yet the decisions effect every one. What is it that you ACTUALLY want? some one to look after the bit we have left wrong about what, are you trying to tell me country sports is as good as it was 30 year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 makes no difference to you though MB as a SACS member not BASC it has no relevance. Get them to issue a COP and adhere to that and let them argue the toss with the police later on you have legal cover now to do so. How as it no relevance to me. because of your association it looks like the old bill may want pre shooting phone calls from everyone going in to a field at night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 How as it no relevance to me. because of your association it looks like the old bill may want pre shooting phone calls from everyone going in to a field at night. why doesn't your organisation fight it then? It doesn't seem to have been made a national requirement and the one force that tried to make it compulsory BASC fought it and they backed down so where does that fit in your conspiracy theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) who did they consult, not members as it was a committee meeting. basc are supposed to be a members organisation, yet the decisions effect every one. What is it that you ACTUALLY want? some one to look after the bit we have left wrong about what, are you trying to tell me country sports is as good as it was 30 year ago. Which is exactly why commitees are elected, to make decisions on our behalf, BASC are a members association which is exactly why they send out ballot papers each year for the council elections and the members can decide who they want to represent them. It is known as a democracy. There are several organisations looking after "the bit we have left" as already posted the general licence has been added to, but you are upset that you cannot shoot a seagull that I doubt you could identify in a flock of birds anyway, and probably had absolutely no interest in wanting to shoot them until someone told you that you couldn't. You are wrong in your assumptions that the world is against you and everyone is conspiring against you. You have had the reasons why and how the Lamping COP was changed yet that is not good enough for Markbivvy and he wants heads on the block for not consulting him personally even though he is not a member of BASC and takes every oppurtunity to take a cheap shot at them. As Al4x has said get the shooters in skirts to come up with a decent COP and stick to that one instead of knocking the others. Edited October 21, 2009 by MC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I will certainly look into the number of cases of AT (if any) that have been taken up, maybe there is a need to push this to shooters AND the police? Mark, the committees at BASC are made up of members! We honestly cannot go out to a full referendum on every issue! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 why doesn't your organisation fight it then? How do you know they are not. It doesn't seem to have been made a national requirement and the one force that tried to make it compulsory BASC fought it and they backed down so where does that fit in your conspiracy theory like dsc you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.