JonathanL Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Why not Nikk , the Tories have by far the worst track record when it comes to bringing in new laws to reduce shooting. Almost all the new anti shooting laws in the last 60 years has come in unde a Tory Govenment. Quite right. The whole party thing is a bit oif a red herring. Don't vote for a candidate based on what their party says - vote for them based on their beliefs and views. If a candidate is a true-blue Tory who is pro-shooting then vote for them. If the candidate is ultra-lefty Labour and is pro-shooting them vote for him. Simple as that. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) EDM's are totally pointless. Small time rent-a-mouth organisations like Animal Aid big up EDM's as being significant but they aren't. When was the last time anyone ever heard of an EDM resulting in a change to the law. The only real purpose they serve is to get an idea of what certain MP's views may be on a matter. To be honest I think we are putting far too much effort into worrying about Animal Aid. They are a tiny organisation with probably no money to speak of. They have no power to do anything and very little opportunity influence anyone who is worth influencing. If they want to waste what little money they have doing pointless rubbish like this them let them get on with it. J. I agree about Animal Aid being a small and probably poorly funded organisation. Maybe someone on here who has access to the companies house database could check out there last accounts? It only costs £1 but I don't have an account with them. The company number is 1787309 http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk//index.shtml Edited October 22, 2012 by poontang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiedenny Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I agree that animal aid are taken as seriously as homeotherapy and I agree the general public would always see through a game to eat pro shooting leaflet. But we need to start somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Rhetorical question: Is the fact that we, as a collection of shooting individuals, feel the need to plan a counter measure an indication of the lack of faith in what our representitive organisations are doing? Yes, they lobby MPs and the like but those MPs are fickle beings and the majority of them will write a manifesto that gets them elected. If they will get a few votes by going anti-shooting, many of them would do it. I agree that Joe and Jo Public are the key. In my opinion, Cookery TV programmes promoting game as a food source have done more for our cause in recent years than MPs and possibly even than some shooting representitive organisations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I agree with most of that, but it doesn't mean we can't collectively (and individually) still achieve things. I've personally converted a lot of people to the idea of shooting and eating game and field food, and I know for a fact they would, in a typical 'dinner party' scenario, defend me and my fellow shooters, when before they would have kept quiet. Converting neutrals is what will have the best effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 To be honest I think we are putting far too much effort into worrying about Animal Aid. They are a tiny organisation with probably no money to speak of. They have no power to do anything and very little opportunity influence anyone who is worth influencing. If they want to waste what little money they have doing pointless rubbish like this them let them get on with it. Whilst I agree with the EDM bit, I do think Animal Aid have had an effect out of all proportion to their size. It has been suggested that their 'gunning for children' campaign is what prompted Smiths recent policy, probably because of supporters writing to Smiths. So indirectly because of their actions, the public are starting to equate shooting with porn or corruption of children, given legitimacy perhaps in their minds by the actions of a 'respected' high street retailer. In the grand scheme of things getting a shooting rag authorised at till is no big deal, but its part of the insidious drip, drip approach of these people to demonise and marginalise us in the minds of the public. I think it is dangerous to ignore them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Whilst I agree with the EDM bit, I do think Animal Aid have had an effect out of all proportion to their size. It has been suggested that their 'gunning for children' campaign is what prompted Smiths recent policy, probably because of supporters writing to Smiths. So indirectly because of their actions, the public are starting to equate shooting with porn or corruption of children, given legitimacy perhaps in their minds by the actions of a 'respected' high street retailer. In the grand scheme of things getting a shooting rag authorised at till is no big deal, but its part of the insidious drip, drip approach of these people to demonise and marginalise us in the minds of the public. I think it is dangerous to ignore them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I agree with most of that, but it doesn't mean we can't collectively (and individually) still achieve things. I've personally converted a lot of people to the idea of shooting and eating game and field food, and I know for a fact they would, in a typical 'dinner party' scenario, defend me and my fellow shooters, when before they would have kept quiet. Converting neutrals is what will have the best effect. True, true. I too have often gone on personal campaigns with non-shooting friends to good effect. I suppose I was thinking of a reaching a mass audience rather than the more personal approach. And the fact that our shooting organisations tend to tackle ONLY parliament rather than parliament and the general public. The game to eat scheme is a great one but I feel it is too narrowly targetted at people who already eat game. The leaflets / recipes should be on butchers counters across the country promoting game eating. Chef demos should be in Sainsbury and Tesco and not just game fairs. I agree we should have both mass and personal targetting but I feel that the moment we only have one - the personal one you outline. This is a great thread. A meaningful debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Whilst I agree with the EDM bit, I do think Animal Aid have had an effect out of all proportion to their size. It has been suggested that their 'gunning for children' campaign is what prompted Smiths recent policy, probably because of supporters writing to Smiths. So indirectly because of their actions, the public are starting to equate shooting with porn or corruption of children, given legitimacy perhaps in their minds by the actions of a 'respected' high street retailer. In the grand scheme of things getting a shooting rag authorised at till is no big deal, but its part of the insidious drip, drip approach of these people to demonise and marginalise us in the minds of the public. I think it is dangerous to ignore them. It didn't. WHS have said that the policy has been in place for years and I see no reason to disbelieve that. It seems that it is mere coincidence that the issue has come to light. It may have come to light because of Animal Aid's campaign but the campaign didn't make it happen. To be honest, I think that AA's campaign may just back-fire on them. It has brought the policy to light and WHS is not copping flak for it. We might find that they may end up pulling their policy now that it's been pointed out to them that it is formulated on an incorrect understanding of the law and of shooting in general. That will mean that AA has wasted lots of money achieving the precise opposite of what it intended. I'm not saying that people like this should be ignored just that we shouldn't afford them more respect and creedence that they deserve. J. Edited October 22, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonwolf444 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ill Pay! And i believe you pay your membership to help the collective voice of shooting whilst continueing to voice your own. Paying your memebership and hoping that is enough for BASC to work of to effectively show the voice of the shooting community is as detrimental to shooting as doing nothing. The times where shooting is a sport engrained in british society is gone. These activists want to remove any kind of aceptance of shooting by the general polulation and instill their skewed moral system on us. In such times when the government supposedly has better things to be dealing with, anti's can voice their opinions which politicials may take as fact, passing this legislation will create a great deal of popluar support, and the government at this time can use things like this to divert attention away from things they are not fixing. Which is why it is more important than ever for us to stand up for what we believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 ..... And both the shooting organisations and shooters as individuals need to step up to the mark more than they are currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonwolf444 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 amazing that organisations have magaged to do with only monetary support from most Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) It didn't. WHS have said that the policy has been in place for years and I see no reason to disbelieve that. It seems that it is mere coincidence that the issue has come to light. It may have come to light because of Animal Aid's campaign but the campaign didn't make it happen. Sorry you're wrong. There HAS been a RECENT deliberate change in policy (within the last few weeks) to actively block purchases of Shooting magazines at self checkout tills until authorised by a grown up. This wasn't the case before whatever Smiths might say. I know this because I have been buying Shooting Times every week from WH Smiths on Paddington station for years, usually at the Self service till and have never needed authorisation. About a fortnight ago I did the same at Waterloo and an 'age restricted' alert flashed up requiring a staff member to authorise my purchase. A day later the news broke on here and in the shooting press that this had just started to happen at branches all over the country. If this was their policy before, they certainly weren't enforcing it. The Daily Telegraph article also suggests this was inspired by the Animal Aid campaign. Not quite a smoking gun ('scuse the pun), but Smiths started doing this around the time the AA rent-a-mob were encouraging their followers to write to all and sundry on the subject. Edited October 22, 2012 by Blunderbuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Game shooters are the first easy target in their long-term plan, they would love to get legislation passed on a populist rabble-rousing anti-toffs vote which will enable them to hit their real target - the chicken producers. Of course, they can't go straight for them, Joe Public likes his 2 for £5 Tesco chickens and cheap takeaway curries, but when the legislation is passed Joe Public will be stuffed. Sadly Joe Public is too thick to realise the thin end of a wedge when it's pointing straight at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Sadly Joe Public is too thick to realise the thin end of a wedge when it's pointing straight at him. I'm not sure Joe Public is thick. Just ill informed. The silent voting masses have been allowed to lose the connection between meat and dead animal flesh. Some even feel supermarket meat is not made from real animals (badly treated animals at that.) Traditional butchers shops prevented any such nonsense with huge slabs of meat being recogniseably bits of lamb pig or cow. Supermarket fishmongers display whole dead fish but draw the line at other meats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I took my four year old son to the Love Food fair at Newark park in Gloucestershire the weekend before last and he sat at a butchers block and skinned two rabbits (with a bit of help). He drew a huge crowd who were all commenting on how good/interesting/brave/fascinating/a bit gross but we ought to know etc etc it all was. Now these were not 'country' people, OK most of them weren't North London Metrosexuals either, but they were just ordinary families up for a day out. Most of the stalls were selling pretty non-gory stuff like bread, cheese etc. My point is that it doesn't take much to get the neutrals on board. A line must be drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I took my four year old son to the Love Food fair at Newark park in Gloucestershire the weekend before last and he sat at a butchers block and skinned two rabbits (with a bit of help). He drew a huge crowd who were all commenting on how good/interesting/brave/fascinating/a bit gross but we ought to know etc etc it all was. Now these were not 'country' people, OK most of them weren't North London Metrosexuals either, but they were just ordinary families up for a day out. Most of the stalls were selling pretty non-gory stuff like bread, cheese etc. My point is that it doesn't take much to get the neutrals on board. A line must be drawn. Good for him! Those who saw him will remember that longer than they will remember the contents of any Animal Aid leaflet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I agree about Animal Aid being a small and probably poorly funded organisation. Maybe someone on here who has access to the companies house database could check out there last accounts? It only costs £1 but I don't have an account with them. The company number is 1787309 http://www.companies...uk//index.shtml turnover has increased considerably in the last 4 years, money coming from somewhere! Whilst I agree with the EDM bit, I do think Animal Aid have had an effect out of all proportion to their size. It has been suggested that their 'gunning for children' campaign is what prompted Smiths recent policy, probably because of supporters writing to Smiths. So indirectly because of their actions, the public are starting to equate shooting with porn or corruption of children, given legitimacy perhaps in their minds by the actions of a 'respected' high street retailer. In the grand scheme of things getting a shooting rag authorised at till is no big deal, but its part of the insidious drip, drip approach of these people to demonise and marginalise us in the minds of the public. I think it is dangerous to ignore them. good point, they have managed to have a negative impact on our interests, albeit a minor one, underestimate these nut-cases at our cost - high level proactive colaboration amongst all fieldsports organisations is what is needed. for anyone who uses twitter - interesting keeping an eye on what they do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Keep your friends close but your enemies closer It can't be that difficult to keep an eye on the foe via the internet (twitter, facebook etc) Edited October 22, 2012 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 turnover has increased considerably in the last 4 years, money coming from somewhere! Interesting. What sort of figures are we talking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottonseed Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Put it in an envelope without a stamp and mail it back to the ***** at Animal Aid. Job done! Edited October 22, 2012 by Cottonseed 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.