BASC and ACPO

[Steppenwolf]

BASC did not and does not endorse any suggestion that shooters are not trustworthy, nor was it ever ACPO's intention to suggest this, and the new letter from ACPO makes this more clear.

 

 

I think both you BASC and ACPO themselves must make better comments in the future or make sure that the media print statements correctly. It could be a matter that both BASC and ACPO made some statements and the media being anti-gun as always has taken them out of context.

 

Personally I blame ACPO. If there was always a policy about visiting home owners where intelligence suggests concern while at the same time anyone can call either 101 and 999, then nothing really has changed. Instead due to grandstanding ACPO has probably made some in the general population fearful of shootes due to thier statements linking us to terrorism and also saying that our security was up to no good.

[David BASC]

Panoma1 - BASC's position on lead shot remains the same - and we have overtly criticised the latest attack on lead shot see here: http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/wildlife-conference-guidelines-on-lead-ammunition-flawed/

 

grrlark - hit the nail on the head!

[CharlieT]

I am saddened that BASC (of which I am a member) have the audacity to belittle this particular CA initiative. To do so does the BASC no favors whatsoever, it would have been far better to aplaud the CA initiative as a job well done..........all tastes of sour grapes to me.

 

Like you David, I am a member of both the BASC and the CA amongst others. However, unlike you, I aplaud the CA's actions and I for one, will not be cancelling my subscription.

Incidently, did you, as a CA member, use their link to lobby your MP ?

[panoma1]

Panoma1 - BASC's position on lead shot remains the same - and we have overtly criticised the latest attack on lead shot see here: http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/wildlife-conference-guidelines-on-lead-ammunition-flawed/

 

grrlark - hit the nail on the head!

 

Thanks David BASC, but you have not answered my specific enquiries regarding BASC's representation on the LAG?

[David BASC]

Charlie, I will applaud any action by any org that benefits shooting, but as I said above I think grrclark hit the nail on the head

 

As to my personal renewal , well time will tell, the latest DD payment has just gone out

 

I do not tend to use emails to lobby my MP but I go to see him personally as I have for many years - he knows well my position and love of shooting & conservation

 

If people prefer to use emails then that's fine by me of course, indeed tomorrow we will be launching our new web section to lobby prospective parliamentary candidates to secure their views on shooting. My PP I will contact directly, the others I will use email

[David BASC]

LAG are in the writing of their report stage now as far as I know, discussion and debate over

 

Barney was on the main group to represent shooters, before him it was Rob Gray if you recall

[wymberley]

 

 

Having said all that, it seems that absolutely every organisation around shooting has its vociferous critics, the rank and file of subscribers always want to throw stones and point a finger as to how it should be done better, but curiously don't seem to to wish to promote themselves to take a more active role.

The logical extension to that would be that we (the general public) should all stand for election as MPs but we don't; we rely on those we elect to act in our best interests. Sadly, we're often let down.

[grrclark]

The logical extension to that would be that we (the general public) should all stand for election as MPs but we don't; we rely on those we elect to act in our best interests. Sadly, we're often let down.

It is one extension to that certainly, however the opportunity to actively get engaged is multiple, you don't have to just barrack from the sidelines.

 

Ultimately it comes down to personal choice, if you feel something better works for you then support it, if nothing works and you feel strongly enough then do it yourself; if you have cogent reason and can articulate that well enough then others will follow you

Edited November 11, 2014 by grrclark

[sako751sg]

I am saddened that BASC (of which I am a member) have the audacity to belittle this particular CA initiative. To do so does the BASC no favors whatsoever, it would have been far better to aplaud the CA initiative as a job well done..........all tastes of sour grapes to me.

 

Like you David, I am a member of both the BASC and the CA amongst others. However, unlike you, I aplaud the CA's actions and I for one, will not be cancelling my subscription.

Incidently, did you, as a CA member, use their link to lobby your MP ?

Absolutely!

[panoma1]

LAG are in the writing of their report stage now as far as I know, discussion and debate over

 

Barney was on the main group to represent shooters, before him it was Rob Gray if you recall

David BASC please advise, Who is Barney? And who is Rob Gray? Are/were they employees of BASC? Who currently represents BASC and its members on the LAG please?

 

This is the group who's report will be very influential on the future use (or banning) of lead shot in the UK, so it is not of little consequence!

 

P1

[David BASC]

Pannoma - sorry I should have been more clear. Barney is the head of the CA, Rob used to be their campaigns director and ex editor of Shooting Times. I have never met Barney but I knew Rob well, he was a very good man indeed

 

 

Sako and Charlie - not sour grapes and sorry if it comes over that way, simple fact was BASC were concerned that previous comments in the letter currently circulating had implied that visits could be random. With other shooting organisations particularly those which are members of the umbrella group the British Shooting Sports Council we have sought clarification and a new and clearer letter.

 

That new letter was released today

 

David

[aris]

David,

 

Why is the first response to this issue by BASC on this forum? Surely you saw the discussions and the questions and doubts about BASC regarding this?

 

To me this thread seems like damage control after the fact.

[panoma1]

Pannoma - sorry I should have been more clear. Barney is the head of the CA, Rob used to be their campaigns director and ex editor of Shooting Times. I have never met Barney but I knew Rob well, he was a very good man indeed

 

 

Sako and Charlie - not sour grapes and sorry if it comes over that way, simple fact was BASC were concerned that previous comments in the letter currently circulating had implied that visits could be random. With other shooting organisations particularly those which are members of the umbrella group the British Shooting Sports Council we have sought clarification and a new and clearer letter.

 

That new letter was released today

 

David[/quote

 

 

 

 

So finally it seems we are there David! From your answers I can only conclude that BASC has neither now nor never has had employee representation on and consequently never contributed directly to the arguments within the Lead Ammunition Group? This being the case BASC have it appears, abdicated responsibility for the fate of lead shot to employees of the CA? ..........and a former BASC employee who is neither accountable nor answerable to anyone?...........And of course our enemies, in this case...........the WWT and RSPB?

[Saffa]

David it does seem that this is a classic case where a lot of people think that it is better to be seen doing something quickly otherwise people assume that you (BASC) are being complacent.

 

I take an alternative view on this, I would far rather that the right thing be done instead of rushing to be seen to do something (anything) and making a pig's ear out of it.

 

From what I have seen of the situation so far the CA rushed to do something quickly and in so doing made a subtle, but significant error in respect to the wording that was used in the joint letter with ACPO and this could have led to a much poorer outcome for firearms holders.

 

I also think that the furore around the initial press release from ACPO was actually very limited to the shooting community itself, I honestly don't believe that there has been any particular damage done to shooting by the initial press release, in fact I think that it will have barely registered in the public conscience at all. The anti shooting groups will not have been emboldened by this, they are fervently anti shooting anyway and the general public are mostly ambivalent towards shooting unless there is a mass media interest story. There was time to get the facts right and address any problems, it didn't need an overly heated and instant reaction, but there obviously was an appetite for such in the shooting community that the CA satisfied.

 

Unfortunately we are very much becoming a society that is driven by media sound bites and headlines and we give very little consideration to whether it is accurate or worthwhile, so long as it is loud. The reaction from many of the shooting fraternity to the CA letter highlights that perfectly, they are championed by some for doing something quickly and it matters not if the actions were just background noise and the quality poor. We see this from politicians all the time, not least for the calls for tighter gun controls from certain Labour MP's very recently.

 

Like the vast majority of all minority interest groups the shooting community has a big chip on it's shoulder, much of that may have genuine foundation post Dunblane, but none the less it can be a very narrow viewpoint and one from a 'victims' perspective. That leads to heightened and more exaggerated reactions.

 

I do wonder if there is a possibility for a multi-channel communications approach from BASC? In this case the shooting community obviously did need a faster response from their representative body, as can be seen from the reaction of contributors to this thread, even if that was just a positioning statement to the shooting community itself highlighting what the plan of action was and then a more detailed public facing statement issued to the press, etc issued later.

 

Obviously there are challenges around how to manage a multi-channel approach, but social media tools can help a great deal in this respect. There is perhaps a perception that the BASC organisation in the ivory tower is a little bit removed from the ordinary shooter, the feedback on this forum seems to suggest that the BASC voice is not always reflective of the voices of those on the ground. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, the opinions voiced on forums tend to be more polarised as people obviously feel strongly enough to make their point publicly, but perception ultimately becomes reality.

 

Having said all that, it seems that absolutely every organisation around shooting has its vociferous critics, the rank and file of subscribers always want to throw stones and point a finger as to how it should be done better, but curiously don't seem to to wish to promote themselves to take a more active role.

+1

[David BASC]

Panoma1 - the members of LAG have been in the public domain for years, its hardly a revelation. BASC were involved in the primary evidence groups, the Chairman of LAG asked the CA to come on board in the main group. Shooting organisations have been very well represented in the main LAG group and groups working on primary evidence, its not just down to BASC, but organisations working together - that is a good thing isn't it?

 

LAG are not there to make any final decision on lead but to review the health and environmental impacts of lead shot and make evidence based suggestions to DEFRA. DEFRA will then propose what to do, if anything. Once DEFA makes its proposal, what ever it is, the organisations will be fully engaged in lobbying.

 

aris - I explained above what BASC has done, the timings and why

 

David

[panoma1]

Panoma1 - the members of LAG have been in the public domain for years, its hardly a revelation. BASC were involved in the primary evidence groups, the Chairman of LAG asked the CA to come on board in the main group. Shooting organisations have been very well represented in the main LAG group and groups working on primary evidence, its not just down to BASC, but organisations working together - that is a good thing isn't it?

 

LAG are not there to make any final decision on lead but to review the health and environmental impacts of lead shot and make evidence based suggestions to DEFRA. DEFRA will then propose what to do, if anything. Once DEFA makes its proposal, what ever it is, the organisations will be fully engaged in lobbying.

 

aris - I explained above what BASC has done, the timings and why

 

David

 

BASC are self proclaimed experts on all things shooting but cannot influence anything if they are not there to influence things! I bet the WWT and RSPB are at every meeting contributing 'evidence' and supporting one another in their agenda to get lead shot banned? Whilst the 'voice of shooting' is silent because they are absent and therefore cannot challenge our enemies probable misinformation, skewed reports, and misinterpreted data! which if repeated enough times will become accepted as fact! and consequently be Included as such in the final report! any decisions as to the future of lead shot will probably be based on the LAG recommendations!

If the report recommends a further ban on lead shot? will it not be too late for BASC to contest the report findings and it's so call 'evidence'

[Scully]

The logical extension to that would be that we (the general public) should all stand for election as MPs but we don't; we rely on those we elect to act in our best interests. Sadly, we're often let down.

Exactly. And the same logic dictates that if I feel let down by one particular party, then rather than try and join that party and influence policy from within (which is akin to emptying lake Windermere with a bucket) I give my support elsewhere.

[grrclark]

Exactly. And the same logic dictates that if I feel let down by one particular party, then rather than try and join that party and influence policy from within (which is akin to emptying lake Windermere with a bucket) I give my support elsewhere.

 

You shouldn't underestimate the value and force of an individuals personality it they have strong cause, motivation and passion.

 

I respect you for having the courage of your convictions and making that public, it's the luxury of choice. If enough people feel the same way the effect will be felt, but in any respect if you are happier with your current representation then as an individual I guess that is what counts most

[Scully]

 

You shouldn't underestimate the value and force of an individuals personality it they have strong cause, motivation and passion.

 

I respect you for having the courage of your convictions and making that public, it's the luxury of choice. If enough people feel the same way the effect will be felt, but in any respect if you are happier with your current representation then as an individual I guess that is what counts most

I can assure you I don't underestimate the value of an individuals personality, and if BASC should indeed get a Farrage type figurehead who will rock a few boats then I'll rejoin and willingly double my subscriptions. BASC would carp themselves at the thought of a figurehead who actively seeked confrontation in the fight against injustice and a biased agenda. They have lost sight of what is important to many shooters and if our shooting organisations had any real influence or were indeed taken seriously by government agencies then they would surely have been consulted prior to the 'latest initiative'. They weren't. They weren't even given a thought, which simply highlights the regard with which us and our representatives are held.

I am under no illusions about how much influence our organisations have, but my money is better off at the moment with an organisation that even though slight in numbers when compared to BASC will at least get up off its aris and confront unwarranted and oft underhanded practice on a day to day basis.

[Rst1990]

David,

 

Why is the first response to this issue by BASC on this forum? Surely you saw the discussions and the questions and doubts about BASC regarding this?

 

To me this thread seems like damage control after the fact.

+1

I myself have seen the discussions etc and have not seen any response from your self, as normally we see activity by yourself. It makes poss new shooters think before they sign up with basc after seeing all the negative comments from this forum.

[bakerboy]

Where is the response to this issue question, or in fact any comment by the "other" shooting organisations?

 

We are very lucky to have David on board, he does a very good job for us all no matter what is thrown at him.

 

Keep up the good work David, I for one really appreciate everything you do.

[mossberg-operator]

Why can't we have ONE united shooting organisation to represent our interests? All this bitching makes us weaker....

[grrclark]

Well said Bakerboy.

 

I go back to my earlier point, there is an awful lot of backslapping for the CA for their initial approach, but was it actually merited, did it have the requisite quality, or was it just a bit of pitch fork waving grandstanding noise that actually did very little to advance anything?

 

From what I see the impact was the crime stoppers number was dropped, so a good thing at face value, but likely of very little consequence at all.

 

The other thing was that the re-issued letter actually weakened the case of the shooter because it relaxed the reasons to justify a knock on the door from the police, very subtle but significantly more impact than getting rid of a number that no one actually knows.

 

BASC maybe didn't wave and rattle their pitchfork to satisfy the clamour from some of the shooting community, but thankfully they did keep their eye on the detail and when all the initial furore dies down that is what really counts.

 

Better in my opinion to take a little bit of time and do the right thing instead of going up like a puff of powder just to be seen to be doing something.

[aris]

Well said Bakerboy.

 

I go back to my earlier point, there is an awful lot of backslapping for the CA for their initial approach, but was it actually merited, did it have the requisite quality, or was it just a bit of pitch fork waving grandstanding noise that actually did very little to advance anything?

 

From what I see the impact was the crime stoppers number was dropped, so a good thing at face value, but likely of very little consequence at all.

 

The other thing was that the re-issued letter actually weakened the case of the shooter because it relaxed the reasons to justify a knock on the door from the police, very subtle but significantly more impact than getting rid of a number that no one actually knows.

 

BASC maybe didn't wave and rattle their pitchfork to satisfy the clamour from some of the shooting community, but thankfully they did keep their eye on the detail and when all the initial furore dies down that is what really counts.

 

Better in my opinion to take a little bit of time and do the right thing instead of going up like a puff of powder just to be seen to be doing something.

 

If they were working behind the scenes, what they didn't do was communicate this fact with their members. All we saw was a news bulletin from BASC saying that these were the changes to the guidance - comply. Huge threads here on PW - calling out BASC - yet still no comment or reply. In fact the silence was resounding as usually we do get a response to such issues, particularly when BASC is mentioned.

[David BASC]

Fair enough comment aris,