Sir Barney white-Spunner Quits LAG

[RossEM]

I cringe that I'm helping to pay his pension

[TWAG]

RossEM

You are not paying his pension. That would've been paid for before he retired. It doesn't work that way!

[RossEM]

Quite right - well I'm cringing that I paid his pension before he retired

[norfolk dumpling]

Can't believe he's tried to stitch us up. Read several articles leading up to the latest revelation and wondered if it was he who was being victimised now the truth is out his shooting invites will dry up. Why - has he turned the other way?

[gunsmoke]

Can't believe he's tried to stitch us up. Read several articles leading up to the latest revelation and wondered if it was he who was being victimised now the truth is out his shooting invites will dry up. Why - has he turned the other way?

 

He has not turned, as you put it, this has always been the plan, ban lead for wildfowling but first they had to ban lead for fishing, at the time I was working for I M Crudgington's in Bath and one of the guys in the fishing section told me that the recommendation was to ban lead lures, not lead shot. BUT they could not ban lead lures then move on the wildfowling so it had to be split lead shot. Then wildfowling lead ban, now the rest of shooting including rifles.

 

The evidence they used to ban split lead split was the same evidence that was use for the wildfowling ban. Same Xrays and photos and papers.

 

They have now had time to produce more so-called research papers, mostly published in odd ball American web sites and not peer reviewed. these are the papers that Barney White-Spunner is talking about.

 

To add to the mix there is the WWT/BASC compliance report. another paper not peer reviewed and referred to in LAG minutes already.

 

I tried to have the Compliance removed from the UK Face reply to the EU Commissioners, with no luck, BASC fought me big time on that one. I even got phone calls trying to shut me up.

 

Thats when I know they believed all the **** science around the lead and steel shot issue. I have not trust in BASC anymore, they are going to have to go along way to convince me they have changed and now working for their members.

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by gunsmoke

[RossEM]

The compliance report was clearly cobblers and I can't believe the organisation that I pay to fight for me put their name to it. At best it's incompetence, at worst it's sabotage.

[gunsmoke]

The compliance report was clearly cobblers and I can't believe the organisation that I pay to fight for me put their name to it. At best it's incompetence, at worst it's sabotage.

 

Now your beginning to understand, remember BASC where paid by the WWT for their work on that compliance report. I do not think it is incompetence, they know what they where doing.

[Scully]

So if you have been privy to all this info' GS, how come those other organisations on the LAG, like the CA etc, have been going along with all this for all the years it has been ongoing, up until now? How come they haven't been privy to the same info' that you have? Or have they?

I'm not trying to pick fault with your argument, I'm merely trying to understand what has clearly become one monumental ****up (stitch up?) for UK shooters.

I can understand why an organisation would deceive its membership to go along with an agenda for the 'common good', and thereby ensure the survival of that organisation (if that is indeed what is happening) but find it hard to believe why other organisations on the same panel would equally go along with it and then quit at the final hurdle if they have been privy to the same info' you claim to have.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scully

[Whitebridges]

Maybe Shifty Swifty just fancies a knighthood for killing lead and bringing in steel. .......for services to conservation.

[RossEM]

So if you have been privy to all this info' GS, how come those other organisations on the LAG, like the CA etc, have been going along with all this for all the years it has been ongoing, up until now? How come they haven't been privy to the same info' that you have? Or have they?

I'm not trying to pick fault with your argument, I'm merely trying to understand what has clearly become one monumental ****up (stitch up?) for UK shooters.

I can understand why an organisation would deceive its membership to go along with an agenda for the 'common good', and thereby ensure the survival of that organisation (if that is indeed what is happening) but find it hard to believe why other organisations on the same panel would equally go along with it and then quit at the final hurdle if they have been privy to the same info' you claim to have.

It's pretty obvious that BWS (representing the CA) remained on the panel until he was dead sure that RSPB/WWT/Swift were going to subvert the process and there was nothing he could do to change that. I'm not sure why the GWCT and others dropped out earlier, but perhaps it was for similar reasons. I now know for a fact that SACS were declined membership by JS. The whole thing stinks.

[gunsmoke]

It's pretty obvious that BWS (representing the CA) remained on the panel until he was dead sure that RSPB/WWT/Swift were going to subvert the process and there was nothing he could do to change that. I'm not sure why the GWCT and others dropped out earlier, but perhaps it was for similar reasons. I now know for a fact that SACS were declined membership by JS. The whole thing stinks.

 

I'm told the NGO where also denied membership by John Swift.

[Scully]

 

I'm told the NGO where also denied membership by John Swift.

That wouldn't surprise me; I have it on good authority that when Lindsay Waddell told Swift (then head of BASC) after following a big rift in policy decision making, some BASC members ( gamekeepers ) were leaving to form their own organisation to represent themselves better, Swift pompously told them they wouldn't 'last five minutes'.

[Guest stevo]

Maybe a few well aimed emails at the media would force the lid off this dodgy can of worms . Would also force all of the shooting orgs to clarifiy there position .

[Scully]

Maybe a few well aimed emails at the media would force the lid off this dodgy can of worms . Would also force all of the shooting orgs to clarifiy there position .

That's not a bad idea at all.

[wymberley]

Well, I for one have had enough. I've just this minute e-mailed my MP to find out when his next local 'surgery' is or if there is a local party official (his agent, whoever) that I can speak to that is in a position to ensure that my concerns are duly forwarded. While I wait for an answer, I'm sharpening the end of my pointy stick.

[Scully]

Well, I for one have had enough. I've just this minute e-mailed my MP to find out when his next local 'surgery' is or if there is a local party official (his agent, whoever) that I can speak to that is in a position to ensure that my concerns are duly forwarded. While I wait for an answer, I'm sharpening the end of my pointy stick.

Ok, I will email Debbie Payne at WWT, the NGO and the The Times or Telegraph sometime today; see what sort of a response we get.

[grrclark]

I have emailed Defra on this subject, email is copied below, as any communication to the secretary of state , Elizabeth Truss, in respect to her responsibilities in this area have to go via Defra. Anybody who lives in south west Norfolk might try and capitalise by asking questions at her constituency surgery.

 

I will also drop a note via the Scottish Conservative party, of which I am a member, to see if there is a conduit there to any ministers.

 

To whom it may concern,

I have read with some alarm over the last 6 to 12 months of what seems to be a high level of discord within the Lead Ammunition Group which is setup to give recommendations to DEFRA and the FSA in respect to the safety and continued use, or otherwise, of lead ammunition.

Most recently the representative for the shooting associations on the LAG, Sir Barney White-Spunner, has resigned his position citing the partiality of the chair of the LAG committee, John Swift, and the probity of his direction of this group. There is strong criticism directed toward the output of the group which in particular highlights a potential partisan approach and partiality in the construction of some the commissioned research and the further assemblage of other existing research in respect to this topic.

In addition there has been criticism directed towards the approach being taken by the LAG from respected and credible organisations such as the GWCT who are also participants in the process.

This coupled with the release of emails, with some redactions, on the basis of an FOI approach which seems to infer a pre-ordained outcome for this group prior to the dissemination of any final conclusions sanctioned by all participants in the process. These emails highlighted discourse between John Swift and persons unknown within DEFRA in respect to what could be considered or interpreted as a fait accompli, at least so far as to what the LAG recommendations may be.

My understanding is that there has been a relatively large-scale resignation from the process by many of the key contributors, yet the committee is still appearing to convene with an intention of putting forward final recommendations. I struggle to understand what mandate the committee can have without full representation from all sides and given that there has not been a publication of final recommendations to the LAG group, by the admission of members of the LAG, these recommendations cannot now have cross group agreement or approval.

Obviously, I imagine, the output of this committee will be subject to further scrutiny and consideration by DEFRA and the FSA before, I would hope, any decisive action is taken, however i am keen to understand what the current situation is in terms of the viability and credibility of a potentially influential group that is evidently fractured. I have severe doubts toward the validity and veracity of any information put forward from a process that seems to have a manifest failure in achieving any sort of impartiality.

I do appreciate that until publication from the LAG is formally made then there is a great deal of conjecture and DEFRA will be unable, and accordingly would be unwise, to comment in full, however I do believe that it would be appropriate to make comment in respect to the evident disharmony within the LAG committee, the recent resignation of Sir Barney White-Spunner and other members and also what process and due diligence will be followed by DEFRA in any scientific evaluation of the LAG output given the very real concern around the agenda of John Swift and the other members of the LAG who have an openly stated agenda against lead, political and otherwise.

Can you you give me any sort of response in relation to the issues raised within my email?

Sincerely

Graham

Edited June 2, 2015 by grrclark

[gunsmoke]

grrclark Great letter but why not ask for the LAG to be closed down. who can they produce a final report if 5 out of 9 of the LAG members have resigned, is it not now died in the water.

[Scully]

Have contacted the NGO but finding it difficult to contact Debbie Payne via the WWT so may have to try direct.

[wymberley]

but why not ask for the LAG to be closed down.

Not a good idea. You are asking Defra to do something that is their decision alone to make.

 

Not only is that a great letter, but it is professionally written in a language that politicians understand and will relate to. Your objective is achieved with subtlety in the penultimate paragraph.

 

Graham,

Thanks heavens you're on our side.

[grrclark]

***, I think it would be inappropriate to ask them to take an action based on what is effectively 2nd or 3rd hand word of mouth, besides sometimes it is better to leave the smelly parcel exposed to the world so everyone can appreciate how smelly it really is.

 

***, thanks for the kind words, I was conscious that asking for any sort of official response based on conjecture would meet a very swift end, as it should, but in attempting to focus on the issue of something that is rather more identifiable it lessens the ability to wriggle out of giving any sort of meaningful reply. In saying that I don't think I will get anything particularly revealing in reply, but it maybe opens the door to more discussion.

[Scully]

I have tried to write to the Telegraph 'front desk' as it were, not to ask anything in particular other than ask if they were aware of the crisis within the LAG, or indeed if they were aware of its existence, and outlined its mandate, the recent resignations and the organisations which were involved including the FSA and DEFRA, on the reasoning they may sit up and take notice when government departments were mentioned rather that minority shooting groups, but am struggling to send it to any other source than Facebook etc via their own website.

I may have to write to the letters column directly instead. Still, plenty more to go at yet.

[RossEM]

Fantastic letter Mr Clark.

[gunsmoke]

***, I think it would be inappropriate to ask them to take an action based on what is effectively 2nd or 3rd hand word of mouth, besides sometimes it is better to leave the smelly parcel exposed to the world so everyone can appreciate how smelly it really is.

 

***, thanks for the kind words, I was conscious that asking for any sort of official response based on conjecture would meet a very swift end, as it should, but in attempting to focus on the issue of something that is rather more identifiable it lessens the ability to wriggle out of giving any sort of meaningful reply. In saying that I don't think I will get anything particularly revealing in reply, but it maybe opens the door to more discussion.

 

I note that this post is against the rules of Pigeon Watch as it personally names the individuals. If I post comment on here that break the rules they are removed, yet this comment has not.

 

One rule for us and one rule for them.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Beardo
no need for the paranoia! we can't read every post in real time to moderate!

[wymberley]

 

I note that this post is against the rules of Pigeon Watch as it personally names the individuals. If I post comment on here that break the rules they are removed, yet this comment has not.

 

One rule for us and one rule for them.

?

Who us, who them?