BASC logo removed

[CharlieT]

 

David,

 

Interesting you mention the meetings BASC have attended. as looking at the list of attendees for each of the 8 meetings BASC only seem to have had someone 'round the table' on one occasion (John Harradine at the 8th meeting). Obviously John Swift as chairman has been in attendance but as has been made quite clear he has remained totally impartial, and unable to contribute to proceedings.

 

It comes as no shock to me that WWT and RSPB have had delegates attend all 8 meetings.

 

You stated earlier that... '

Shooting has been very well represented on the LAG from a range of organisations and their representatives, this has, as it should be, been a team effort'.

 

Whilst I wouldn't disagree that shooting has been fairly well represented on the LAG and a 'team effort' approach seems to have been adopted, I do find it strange that BASC, as the largest shooting organisation in the UK, haven't had a participating presence during the 'round the table' proceedings.

 

Delegates are not there to represent "their organization", rather they are there to represent their stakeholder group. Hence BWS sits to represent shooting interests rather than the CA.

 

1. Welcome and introductions

1.1. The Group welcomed Sir Barney White-Spunner, who replaces Mr Rob Gray in representing the shooting stakeholder interest and also Mr Mark Tufnell, who replaces Martin Jamieson for the farming and landowner stakeholder interest.

1.2. The Group was reminded that the member’s main role is to represent their stakeholder interest group as distinct from individual organisations.

 

Whilst not detracting from the good works the CA do, I am a member, I too am intrigued as to why the CA and not BASC are representing shooting interests.

[poontang]

 

 

 

Whilst not detracting from the good works the CA do, I am a member, I too am intrigued as to why the CA and not BASC are representing shooting interests.

 

 

I'm sure if the CA asked BASC to take the lead in trying to repeal the Hunting Act most fox hunters would wonder what the heck was going on!?

[David BASC]

John asked the CA to put up a representative, probably because it may well have been questioned if they were excluded. But to be honest you are best asking John.

 

As I said earlier, and as Charlie has reiterated, Barney is there representing shooting not just the CA. Communication between the shooting organisations on this issue has got a lot better since 2010, and in the context of the LAG I personally don’t think we should be too bothered about whether its someone from the CA or BASC sitting at the top table, we are all working together on this.

 

David

[Kes]

David,

you have stated that all other organisations were late coming to the 'feast' with lead - John Swift is an independent (although his expenses are funded by BASC) so has NO SAY over the membership of the group. He has stressed his independence (why BASC funds his 'expenses' I do not know in this context - why not DEFRA since they asked him)

However, it would seem a BASC rep on the group would have been more logical and a simple, sensible thing to do, given the forces arrayed against shooting, Questions were inevitably going to be asked and not just by Gunsmoke. It seems an unnecessary slip to me and perhaps we cant afford even those in this debate? No need to answer

[kent]

John asked the CA to put up a representative, probably because it may well have been questioned if they were excluded. But to be honest you are best asking John.

 

As I said earlier, and as Charlie has reiterated, Barney is there representing shooting not just the CA. Communication between the shooting organisations on this issue has got a lot better since 2010, and in the context of the LAG I personally don’t think we should be too bothered about whether its someone from the CA or BASC sitting at the top table, we are all working together on this.

 

David

 

Thank goodness we can bring the different bodies together on such things, hopefully we can reach the day when all can work together daily to co-ordinate efforts rather than try and poach each others members for their own coffers. The money spent on such campaigns is money wasted IMO.

[David BASC]

Just to confirm that the Chair does have the authority to select members of the group, take a look at the terms of reference of the LAG. This also confirms that members of the main group are there to represent their sectors as Charlie and I have said.

 

 

Yes working together on key issues is very valuable.

 

 

David

[Kes]

So David, the Ex CEO of BASC (for forty years, give or take) whose expenses are paid for by BASC membership, who decides to go Independent, then selects a body, other than that he should know has been involved since the beginning of the debate on lead and has achieved so much to delay the implementation of a ban ?

I stand by my doubts that this was the best thing to do, even supposing, as one must, that the INDIVIDUAL from the CA had something significant to contribute.

 

edit punctuation.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Kes

[wymberley]

To lose one logo may be regarded as a misfortune: To lose one logo and representation...................

 

With apologies.

[David BASC]

Kes, John was still BASC CEO when the LAG was set up in 2010, he retired from BASC early 2013.

[overandunder2012]

 

 

Conspiracy theories are jolly exciting are they not, just get me started on moon landings, or JFK.... but rarely accurate, or proven in the end eh? Still passes the time for some while others get on and deal in the cold hard facts of the real world...

moon landings, or JFK nice return serve its an oldie but a goodie

Edited December 19, 2013 by overandunder2012

[Kes]

Kes, John was still BASC CEO when the LAG was set up in 2010, he retired from BASC early 2013.

David,

Thanks for that, he was the BASC CEO and BASC rep until he retired in June 2013 and THEN? HE chose another organisation to represent shooting.

Not the one with the most members.

Not the one which had been involved (through him).

Not the one which had done so much to stop a ban (under his leadership).

Not the one (who paid his expenses).

Not the one he must have felt stood the best chance of continuing his good work.

Not the one best placed to thwart the agendas of the WWT and RSPB therefore.

I am not interested in conspiracy theories - leave that to others but just answer me this - why would you do what he did ?

Anyone would see it as somewhat counter-intuitive.

[anser2]

NO

 

Some on here seem to be talking a load of rubbish. God its as bad as "reds under the bed " back in the 1950s.

[Kes]

And some never question anything. I find questions, with no obvious answers a source of interest - no more.

The 'reds under the bed' was a little earlier and mainly in the USA I thought, although there was Profumo, not to mention the Cambridge 3/4, ending with Blunt. I wonder how they were found?

[David BASC]

Kes,

 

I don't know if you are deliberately getting the facts wrong in order to try and goad me into a reaction or if you genuinely have not listened to what I, and indeed others, have said already or is it simply that you have not bothered to look at the information on the LAG web site?

 

• John did not select a rep from the CA to sit on the LAG after he retired, but from day 1 back in 2010.
• The CA rep was there to represent the shooters, and liaised with the leaders of other shooting organisations
• John Swift, as Chairman and John Harradine between them probably have more experience on lead in shooting, the politics of lead in shooting in the UK and overseas than anyone else in the UK, do you honestly think that the two of them and the rep from the CA did not talk together outside of LAG meetings?!?
• Do you honestly believe that John Swift could not take an active role in the meetings based on his massive experience just because he was chairman? Surely not! Of course he could comment, based on his extensive experience!

David

[kent]

I don't envy you David

[Kes]

David - why should I goad you personally, if goaded you feel - I am not remotely interested in that but it is an insight to know you feel that in the circumstances?

 

I have read everything on the website and am making inroads into the 150 ish references in the primary evidence report (initially to DEFRA).

 

I am now clear that CA was there from the start, and I was therefore mistaken in my assumption that JS installed them after he retired, apologies for that error - I havent been following the LAG until recently.

 

The key issue for me now (and if I have mistaken this then forgive me), is BASC was therefore never represented on the LAG. It was always and only the CA representing shooters.

.

Edit to add for clarity: Apart from JS who felt it necessary to stress he would make it clear to BASC that having retired, he was truly acting independently.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Kes

[David BASC]

Thanks for the apology and for clearing the air, much appreciated.

 

I reiterate that Barney is, and David Taylor before him and Rob Grey before that were, there to represent the interests of shooters not just the shooters that are in their organisation, and liaised with other shooting organisations all the way through; just as the GTA rep is there to represent the gun trade in total and not just members of the GTA.

 

In my view, as LAG started it made sense that as the Ch Exec of BASC was the Chair, then to take a senior person from the next largest organisation with an interest in shooting was a good idea, others may disagree of course.

 

 

May I respectfully request that if you have further questions about how the main group was selected and structured as it was, then this question is best directed to the Chairman of the LAG?

 

David

[Cranfield]

This topic has been allowed to remain, although the main questions have been answered satisfactorily and repeatedly.

Lets give it a rest now and if any individual member wishes to have personal dialogue with DavidBASC, then perhaps they can contact him by PM, or email.

[Kes]

Fair enough Cranfield, I for one just wanted to know the detail. Getting under the skin of the subject doesnt mean getting under other peoples skin. If I do have further questions, as the detail unfolds I will, as David BASC suggests, contact Mr Swift directly. Reading the Primary Evidence is a somewhat unnerving experience and I am sure further reassurance would be helpful.