Desiato Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I think you may find they dont - its interesting that the CA comment I posted confirms "leaked Wildlife and Wetland Trust documents have revealed exactly how extensive that campaign is, were set on their conclusions before LAG was even formed as, it now seems, was its Chairman. [/size] This comment alone suggests that, although ridiculed for it Gunsmoke has been correct. If this statement is true and I have no evidence to suggest it isnt, then JS was fixed in his views, now revealed, whilst CE of BASC. You tell me how BASC can fight a ban realistically when its CE was 'set on his conclusions before the LAG was formed'. I am afraid all that follows will be damage limitation in one form or another. BASC is a business - it will treat this as a 'setback', its easy however to see it as a betrayal by the organisation which still says 'no evidence-no ban' - shame the former CE wasnt 'on-message'. I would largely concur with your comments, however I do believe there were or are those within BASC who were aware of his bias long before the onset of the LAG. The whole situation rather reminds me of the Ban on Hunting in so much that if we keep saying the same thing ( No evidence - No ban) the challenge will disappear, I hope in this instance the result is not the same!.My final comment would be this , As a member of most of our representative organisations, I am beginning to feel rather " Unrepresented" , it may be time that they are reminded of there responsibilities towards There members! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 The whole subject of the possible ban, or restriction, of the use of lead ammunition is a major issue for all shooters. Sensible debate and analysis of what action we should, or could, be taking is very important. Devoting 24 pages almost entirely of heaping criticism on the BASC, for the apparent role of their ex CEO in the whole matter, is not very positive or fair. I see what you are saying Cranfield. However action man at the the Countryside Alliance Mr A Blackmore is so much more on the front foot. BASC should be leading and getting this whole thing chucked out. It's been going on for an age. It's costing money and LAG needs to be disbanded. Utter waste of money, so substance and no remote chance of any change or delivery . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Has anyone thought of emailing the Chair of the LAG himself and asking him the questions they are asking the BASC, or put to him the accusations they are laying at BACS's door ? This whole debate might take a more credible turn if they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Has anyone thought of emailing the Chair of the LAG himself and asking him the questions they are asking the BASC, or put to him the accusations they are laying at BACS's door ? This whole debate might take a more credible turn if they have. I hope you are not going to close this thread down? This is one of the only places where free debate can take place. other forums have delete any comment regarding the LAG emails. By stopping this thread you will only prove one of the theories some members of pigeon watch have that BASC run Pigeon Watch. I hope this is top true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 You may be waiting a long time for this!, I believe they are very much on the back foot with this , for the last 10 yrs they have played political games with this issue instead of concentrating on a Robust defence , it would appear to have returned and bitten them on the **** , this will not be the first or last time they get a shooting topic wrong ( Remember The Raised Cages Debacle ) . I will be extremely interested to see how they deal with this over the coming weeks and months. I actually feel BASC were the only ones making sense in that whole carry on, and were regularly mis quoted or quoted out of context as it suited other organisations to imply that BASC were wanting an outright ban which wasn't actually the case,(think i'm right in saying basc wanted an icreased minimum sized crate with no enrichment, everyone else just wanted to chuck some astro turf in and a couple of branches; surley defeats the purpose of have laying cages anyway? a clean sterile environment, branches and asro turf would just harbour bacteria) and i'm sure they will have benefited in membership numbers. Basc really don't help themselves at times, sometimes u actually feel they are setting them selfs up to fail (even employing a non shooter as CE no matter how good his cv is) shooters are a generally simple bunch it is not rocket science to keep most of us happy most of the time. Even the recent greylag geese/GL basc could off easily objected to it just to save face knowing full well it would not of made a single bit of difference to there inclusion on the GL but keeping ur members onside. Really not rocket science But while i'm no conspiracy theorist it does seem very strange how these emails have came to light and wot question was asked for the FOI, i have absolutely zero trust in some of the other 'conservation' charities on the LAG and it would not surprise me 1 bit if they have released this to torpedeo/create the wrong headlines/sound bites to suit there needs, esp if things are either going against them (unlikey althou Norway is good for us) or the most likely outcome no real evidence of any harm/need to change. Pretty much normal behaviour for them, say 1 thing in the group but releasing/leaking mis information to there pet tabloid press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Has anyone thought of emailing the Chair of the LAG himself and asking him the questions they are asking the BASC, or put to him the accusations they are laying at BACS's door ? This whole debate might take a more credible turn if they have. My view would be that the debate is fair, since the CA's CE's comment that this all goes back 5 years to when JS was CE at BASC. To me that means that unless BASC distances itself completely from JS and his views and calls for the LAG to be disbanded or re-Chaired, there still appears to be some historic connection which has not been severed. C. Graffius attends FACE for BASC does he not, JS is treasurer I believe (from linkedin) - perhaps some comment here might be relevant? I wont talk about other aspects of F.A.C.E. It is also interesting that CA's experts see no relevant data in the LAG papers to justify a ban, so where, when he was CE of BASC, did JS get converted to the views of the WWT and RSPB ? Even DEFRA have commented on JS's leaks but not BASC. I havent seen anything coming back on that, or have I missed it? Can no-one bottom why this happened, went unnoticed, is being allowed to continue - I feel sure many orgs members feel heartened by their org's stances, some wont be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I hope you are not going to close this thread down? This is one of the only places where free debate can take place. other forums have delete any comment regarding the LAG emails. By stopping this thread you will only prove one of the theories some members of pigeon watch have that BASC run Pigeon Watch. I hope this is top true. What a daft statement . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 What a daft statement . One of the most daft I've seen on here and that's some going.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I hope you are not going to close this thread down? This is one of the only places where free debate can take place. other forums have delete any comment regarding the LAG emails. By stopping this thread you will only prove one of the theories some members of pigeon watch have that BASC run Pigeon Watch. I hope this is top true. This Forum is moderated without fear or favour, if you have any problems with that, I would remind you that you are not obligated to visit. Perhaps other Forums are removing this debate because they are concerned it is just being turned into a BASC bashing exercise, by the usual suspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Pretty much normal behaviour for them, say 1 thing in the group but releasing/leaking mis information to there pet tabloid press You make some very valid points in your post, however to call the emails leaked or mis information is wrong. The emails where not leaked, there where obtained by FOI and where true emails for the LAG to defra FACT! It is reported to be from John Swift to defra, this has not been denied. Mis information? how can it be mis information if it is factual and true. it is just information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 But who initiated the FOI request ? Someone asked for their disclosure after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 But who initiated the FOI request ? Someone asked for their disclosure after all That is the burning question. If we knew that then everything could be put into perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 This Forum is moderated without fear or favour, if you have any problems with that, I would remind you that you are not obligated to visit. Perhaps other Forums are removing this debate because they are concerned it is just being turned into a BASC bashing exercise, by the usual suspects I would be very happy with that statement without the prejudicial four words at the end of it. Would you call Peter Osborne (Telegraph), the Hacked Off campaign, the usual suspects. I know I dont have to visit by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 This is not a who done it, it would be interesting to know who got the emails first and who requested the FOI for them BUT I do not think we should spend a lot of time over it. The emails are as they say, for the Horse's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Who says "for the horses mouth" It's not a phrase I have heard before Typo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Who says "for the horses mouth" It's not a phrase I have heard before Typo? Probably but you get the drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Who says "for the horses mouth" It's not a phrase I have heard before Typo? From? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (straight) from the horse's mouth Fig. from an authoritative or dependable source. (See also .) I know it's true! I heard it straight from the horse's mouth! This comesstraight from the horse's mouth, so it has to be believed. Alright, I typed it wrong, should have been straight from the horses mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (straight) from the horse's mouth Fig. from an authoritative or dependable source. (See also .) I know it's true! I heard it straight from the horse's mouth! This comesstraight from the horse's mouth, so it has to be believed. Alright, I typed it wrong, should have been straight from the horses mouth. it's about time you got something wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Head of RSPB. http://markavery.info/2015/02/11/basc-wriggling-gwct-silent-interesting/ Here's another one: www.markavery.info/2015/02/10/leadfree-future/ See the final sentence - is he thinking that the LAG Final report is imminent? Dangerous man I fancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Has anyone here themselves looked at the science and if so, what does it say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I Has anyone here themselves looked at the science and if so, what does it say? I've looked at the science, a lot of the papers are available online, I just google'd and found some of them, they are listed on the LAG web site although the larger list that was first up there has been removed. I've added my articles to the forum before and I have four to read, Lead shot-gate parts 1 & 2, Much to do about nothing, looking at the Norwegian report on lead in blood levels and Potential hazard from very bad so-called scientific research looking at the WWT report on lead in game meat. The WWT report I was told by BASC staff was proof of the dangers of using lead shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I I've looked at the science, a lot of the papers are available online, I just google'd and found some of them, they are listed on the LAG web site although the larger list that was first up there has been removed. I've added my articles to the forum before and I have four to read, Lead shot-gate parts 1 & 2, Much to do about nothing, looking at the Norwegian report on lead in blood levels and Potential hazard from very bad so-called scientific research looking at the WWT report on lead in game meat. The WWT report I was told by BASC staff was proof of the dangers of using lead shot. Why is the WWT report bad science? (Genuine question in case you're wondering.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I've added my articles to my worddpress blog ianthegun.wordpress.com Glenshooter why is it bad science? It is only my view, The tests of lead in game meat where done after adding wine and cider. they do not record the lead level of the wine or cider. I do not know if the wine or cider had lead in them at all but reports on wine and cider have shown they can contain lead. And don't talk to me about the WWT/BASC Compliance report that never even past peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I've added my articles to my worddpress blog ianthegun.wordpress.com Glenshooter why is it bad science? It is only my view, The tests of lead in game meat where done after adding wine and cider. they do not record the lead level of the wine or cider. I do not know if the wine or cider had lead in them at all but reports on wine and cider have shown they can contain lead. And don't talk to me about the WWT/BASC Compliance report that never even past peer review. Thanks. I'll have a look later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts