mick miller Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 None of this of course detracts from the fact that it looks like old Swifty's shafted us all. I wonder what polarised his opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Маскировка. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 None of this of course detracts from the fact that it looks like old Swifty's shafted us all. I wonder what polarised his opinion? who knows ? mayb£ it was som£thing we hav£nt b££n told about? mayb£ pr£ssur£ from £urop£? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Y£s, I susp£ct you ar£ corr£ct. Th£ phras£ poach£r turn£d gam£k££p£r springs into my h£ad. So, now that it seems there are no longer any shooting organisations that can prevent the inevitable outlawing of lead (let's face it if a government can ban anything to do with guns, they will as a default position), I guess it's really going to be a case of shooting becoming priced out of the hands of the ordinary man and becoming a sport of the wealthy and landed gentry. Sounds perfect for some sectors of society I suppose... Edited February 11, 2015 by mick miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) On the company thing ...There is The British Association for Shooting & Conservation ltd, often referred to as BASC - that's, us the membership organisation - John Swift is not a Director. BASC ltd has never traded, we own it to stop someone else trading as BASC, I believe John Swift was a director. BASC Direct limited is not dormant, its only just started trading, John Swift is not a director. Thanks David. So far as BASC Ltd is concerned John Swift is still listed as CEO and Director, your Philippa Bursey is the company secretary. If this is to protect the trading name then the question is answered, but unfortunately John Swift is still a Director and listed as CEO of a company wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Ltd (Membership/Parent Company). This is maybe a moot point, but it does throw a shadow of doubt around comments distancing BASC from John Swift. In his legal responsibilities as a listed director he is still linked to the parent company. He may or may not receive an emolument or disbursement for this service. To avoid any confusion in this area BASC (parent company) could appoint an alternate Director to BASC Ltd as is their right and remove any possible inference of conflict of interest. His role in BASC Ltd does not infer that he has any sort of responsibilities or influence in the business, just that he is linked and signs off the annual accounts filing for BASC Ltd. Edited February 11, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 who knows ? mayb£ it was som£thing we hav£nt b££n told about? mayb£ pr£ssur£ from £urop£? Nah, just twigged. The cartridge makers and RFDs arranged the FoI request and then leaked it. As a result we'll all start panic buying, up will go the prices, they'll make a killing and clear their shelves of old stock. Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 That's not a lot of good if you cannot, legally, use it though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 None of this of course detracts from the fact that it looks like old Swifty's shafted us all. I wonder what polarised his opinion? If you go back to day 1 in the debacle his advisors were saying it was pointless and how best to loose the "battle". This though a bit see through was the best result for basc to distance themselves. My dd like many will be cancelled when the ban comes in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I don't know how often the records are updated to be honest, a delay is such is probably why he is still listed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 If you go back to day 1 in the debacle his advisors were saying it was pointless and how best to loose the "battle". This though a bit see through was the best result for basc to distance themselves. My dd like many will be cancelled when the ban comes in Well, I'm considering the same at renewal now. I wonder who I could use for shooting insurance for the limited time that the option to shoot is still affordable to me? I don't want to use SACS maybe the CA offer shooting insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I guess that is is pertinent that the work of LAG is only relevant to England and Defra only has policy responsibility for England. The Food Standards Agency has a UK wide remit. The UK government will of course inform the devolved responsibilities, but there is the potential of a situation where lead shot could be banned in entirety in England, but Scotland may decide to stick with the current rules governing the use of lead shot. Given that the rules are different now it is an entirely feasible situation. With the apparent anti gun stance taken by the current Scottish government they could use it as a catalyst for further change and follow suit with any decision in England, but despite what they say publicly they also know that a significant contribution to the Scottish rural economy comes from country sports. Interesting times ahead in any respect. Edited February 11, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) That's not a lot of good if you cannot, legally, use it though is it? No, you're right. That's the trouble with conspiracy theories (even lighthearted ones) - they're usually flawed and often turn round and bite you on the backside. I for one do not think that BASC has done anything wrong - ill advised and guilty of inertia perhaps/definitely. Faults and/or apparent irregularities can be found in any organisation which is suddenly and without warning put under a microscope. Until/unless it is discovered who actually wrote the e-mail and why and also who initiated the FoI request and why, then we're all stumbling around bouncing off the walls in the dark. Edited February 11, 2015 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I shall be bringing this up at my syndicate's AGM in a fortnight. We current have BASC Syndicate membership and cover. Well, I'm considering the same at renewal now. I wonder who I could use for shooting insurance for the limited time that the option to shoot is still affordable to me? I don't want to use SACS maybe the CA offer shooting insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Let me know who you decide to go for. One thing is for sure though, should a ban on lead shot and ammunition (take note rifle and target shooters) put in place, there'll be a huge number of folk who currently pay the subs and in turn wages at Marford Mill giving the sport up for good. Interesting times ahead indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) For the sake of discussion BASC's stance on this, as quoted is "no sound evidence, no change" and as yet they have not seen any evidence to change that opinion. As BASC can only attempt to influence the outcome for pushing for a position of 'no change' then their statement cannot be a guarantee around any new legislation adopted or otherwise, it is only a guarantee of their stance in this issue. Likewise RSPB or WWT can only influence the case for change, they cannot promise that either. The findings of the LAG group have to remain confidential until such times as Defra/FSA have made an evaluation, so strictly BASC will not see the conclusion of the LAG group until such time as it has been digested and released for publication. Whether that is true or otherwise it has to be the publicly stated case. If the findings of the LAG group are overwhelming in terms of the argument to impose a lead ban, i.e. they provide sound evidence, then BASC can legitimately claim that it has still lived by their promise to the members. It would be justified in this approach as well, given that the remit of the LAG is to evaluate any reasonable evidence available to it and is therefor in the de-facto position of being the eminent investigative body in this field. No matter what the protestations of the members are, BASC has to stand by scientific evidence otherwise any credibility is lost. This may of course mean a commercial disaster for BASC if the membership numbers collapse, but it is a fine line which they tread. In defence of BASC none of the other representative bodies are offering anything substantive either, just rhetoric. I am a member of the GWCT too and have dropped a note to the regional director to ask for their position on this latest news, but I suspect I will be referred back to the Lead Shot Q&A on their website and that doesn't say much at all. The terms of reference for submission of evidence or information to LAG is that is must be capable of standing scrutiny through a peer review, so it has to have credibility of sound scientific reasoning and basis of approach. The experience of an individual, or even a group of individuals in a field shooting pigeons (as an example), would not count as credible although it may be very worthy. Gunsmoke, if you believe that you have carried out work that could be considered evidential then you need to speak to a body that will help you qualify that by assessing the validity of your work through scientific analysis. It has to be evidential and fact based and completely objective. If the shooting press are reluctant to support you in this then you need to find an academic body who might pick this up. It might be worth dropping a note to rural based universities or colleges, equally it could be worth speaking to well healed landowners to see if they would sponsor this type of activity. I guess you could even look to setup a crowd funded activity the likes of Crowdfunder.co.uk or kickstarter.co.uk. This may offer an injection of funds to secure the services of an academic institution or other body to look at any specific area of study. Given the sensitivity of this subject and the wide ranging impact then it may prove to be a fruitful endeavour. I think that any efforts of the wider shooting community would be better served by pursuing this type of approach rather than throwing rocks at our shooting organisations, no matter how justified we feel that might be. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the impact of lead ammunition, or otherwise, to start this type of activity myself, but will happily lend any support where I can to those that do have the requisite knowledge. Edited February 11, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 No, you're right. That's the trouble with conspiracy theories (even lighthearted ones) - they're usually flawed and often turn round and bite you on the backside. I for one do not think that BASC has done anything wrong - ill advised and guilty of inertia perhaps/definitely. Faults and/or apparent irregularities can be found in any organisation which is suddenly and without warning put under a microscope. Until/unless it is discovered who actually wrote the e-mail and why and also who initiated the FoI request and why, then we're all stumbling around bouncing off the walls in the dark. I agree with that, I don't believe there is any impropriety at BASC, but when a bright light is shone on them and when the searcher has the benefit of additional information it is easy to look at past decisions or statements in an entirely different context to how they originally appeared. Especially true if the person using the bright light has an agenda or bias. It is also easy to assume a level of responsibility for BASC that doesn't exist, i.e. that they do have the power of considerable influence. They may be the loudest voice in shooting, but that matters not a jot if the person you are shouting at does not want to listen. Is it a case of misplaced faith by the members in what the organisation can achieve or is it a case of hyperbole in the rhetoric of the organisation itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Gunsmoke, if you believe that you have carried out work that could be considered evidential then you need to speak to a body that will help you qualify that by assessing the validity of your work through scientific analysis. It has to be evidential and fact based and completely objective. If the shooting press are reluctant to support you in this then you need to find an academic body who might pick this up. It might be worth dropping a note to rural based universities or colleges, equally it could be worth speaking to well healed landowners to see if they would sponsor this type of activity. I guess you could even look to setup a crowd funded activity the likes of Crowdfunder.co.uk or kickstarter.co.uk. This may offer an injection of funds to secure the services of an academic institution or other body to look at any specific area of study. Given the sensitivity of this subject and the wide ranging impact then it may prove to be a fruitful endeavour. I think that any efforts of the wider shooting community would be better served by pursuing this type of approach rather than throwing rocks at our shooting organisations, no matter how justified we feel that might be. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the impact of lead ammunition, or otherwise, to start this type of activity myself, but will happily lend any support where I can to those that do have the requisite knowledge. Wise words, my review of the so-called scientific papers is my own and by just reading through them you see the faults. Yes, we need independent research one we all can rely on. I would like to see the GWCT do the research. What we have had up to date is the WWT and RSPB with the help of BASC producing paper on top of paper to force feed the LAG committee. I've only tried to put an alternative view so we do not just take things as read. I believe the LAG will come out with a view that there is a consensus between a number of scientists that ...... I believe they will say lead is harmful and therefore should be banned. As for throwing stones, I did not know what to do but I had to do something. What do you do when you find something is wrong and try and put it right but no one will listen? We have a fight on our hands and I do not think there is going to be anyone the help us. I've set up the Save Our lead Shot campaign and its a start. PS If they ban lead they are going the have to ban Potatoes too! Potatoes have higher lead levels than game meat. Edited February 11, 2015 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Gunsmoke, there was no criticism implied in me talking about throwing rocks so if any offence was caused it wasn't intended. What I meant was that people of a like mind venting off on PW will not change anything in itself, but sometimes that still needs to happen. You are spot on, you need to have the courage of your convictions and shout about the things you believe in. The truth is that lead can be harmful, I don't think there is any dispute in that and so it is an easy cause to build support around and that battle has already been won many years ago, at least in terms of the accepted wisdom by the majority of people. So in that respect it was always going to have to be a harder fight to overcome the wide held emotive argument in the context of shooting. Do you have a link to your Save Our Lead Shot campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Is it a case of misplaced faith by the members in what the organisation can achieve or is it a case of hyperbole in the rhetoric of the organisation itself? It could be argued that it is the case of the former being caused by the latter. As David BASC has already collected some pointers, it might just be beneficial if he added this one of yours to his list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Dear All As promised - the Q&A is here: http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/lead-ammunition-your-questions-answers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Do you have a link to your Save Our Lead Shot campaign? The Save Our lead Shot campaign is only on facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/386424074747289/ I have lots of information on there, please read lead shot-gate parts I and 2, then work your way through the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desiato Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 As I see it the Anglo Eurasian Wildbird Agreement(AEWA)was bought about by Europe purely to prevent waterfowl from ingesting lead in their wetland habitat....that is what Scotland and NI got!!.........in England and Wales using lead shot over wetlands was also banned in line with the AEWA....however the English and Welsh Governments went further, not only did they ban lead shot over wetlands they also made the ban species specific and made it illegal to use lead shot for shooting geese and ducks anywhere in England and Wales, where were the groups that represent shooting when this happened? why/how did they let this to happen?By our representative organisations allowing this uncalled for and unnecessary species specific element to pass into law probably marked the beginning of the end for lead shot?.........ask yourselves, if it is wrong (it must be because they made it illegal?) to shoot geese and duck with lead shot, how is it right to shoot other birds/animals with lead shot?Now we are facing a complete ban on using lead ammunition, the only people to blame are our representative shooting organisations who again failed, for whatever reason to protect shooting interests?And what do BASC do? allow an unaccountable former employee and stand by whilst representatives from other organisations fight our corner, BASC have no representatives hence no voice on the Lead ammunition group, so how can they argue for the retention of lead shot and thereby protect shooting interests when we all know the purpose of the LAG is to give a forum for the WWT and RSPB to push for a ban lead shot!Why do I continually feel we have been shafted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Gunsmoke, thanks for posting the link to your campaign. Having read through the documents suggested I would not be confident of gaining any backing for the cause as it is too subjective. In order to gain momentum and backing there would have to be objective evidence that is compelling enough to encourage people to get involved and fight the cause. Just now it is much more emotional, which is understandable, but emotion will not win out in an argument with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desiato Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 The reason Panoma 1 " continually feels as if he's been shafted " is because he along with the rest of us have been, firstly the position we now find ourselves in should never have come about ( Question what are organisations were doing?) , hindsight perhaps but true nonetheless. We are now being led towards a ban without fight or evidence by what appear to be our toothless shooting organisations. One has to question whether we had and or have the right representation on the LAG , it is my feeling that the position of the Gun Trade Association along with the BASC may well be somewhat more self serving than they would care to admit. Without wishing to be too pessimistic , I have the distinct impression that the Die is now cast. I do sincerely hope that none of the above turns out to be correct , but I have my doubts. On the bright side should all make for an interesting National Shooting Show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Question for David BASC. I am not one of the serial BASC bashers on here, in fact I've been more of a flag waver truth be known! But I am really struggling to get my head around one thing in all of this. Why did BASC defer to CA to represent shooting interests on the LAG? I'm sure CA are a fine organization but they are not solely focused on shooting. If ever there was a time and place for the largest shooting organisation to step up to the plate and represent us this was it? Why did you decide not to do so? Edited February 11, 2015 by Blunderbuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts