wymberley Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 No comment one way or t'other, but. There is an opinion that there is no chance that the shooting associations would never amalgamate although there is also opinion that this would be advantageous. So, is there an alternative? How about a committee set up which would remain largely 'dormant' until such time as a concerted joint effort was required in the event of any specific future threat. It would, perhaps, be made up of a small number of each organisations' council members and be funded on a pro rata basis of any one association's membership. Meeting perhaps regularly but infrequently to ensure that everything was in place for immediate joint action as deemed necessary. It would mean that some subscription income of each organisation would have to be diverted from other work to fund this. It would probably be quite small but never the less it would mean that the existing members are yet again forking out on behalf of those who prefer a free ride. This aspect I do have an opinion on, emphatically so, but perhaps that is better kept for yet another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 I think it is a great idea althou i'd probbly go a stage further and use it more for education/PR, going to Uni's (concentrsting on environmental/boilogy/ecology courses and jornolism), newspapers etc and getting them out onto shoots to see just how much good we do for conservation possibly for a go at clays/simulated drive/rifle range to give them an idea that guns are no more dangerous than many other things when used carefully, plus a dog demo etc. Even if every org put £5 on subs i would be quite happy, as it is lack of understanding by the non shooting majority (fuelled by bad reporting) that is shooting biggest problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 How about a committee set up which would remain largely 'dormant' until such time as a concerted joint effort was required in the event of any specific future threat. It would, perhaps, be made up of a small number of each organisations' council members and be funded on a pro rata basis of any one association's membership. Meeting perhaps regularly but infrequently to ensure that everything was in place for immediate joint action as deemed necessary. Good idea, but I think every organization involved should have the same amount of representatives, so no one organization could have an advantage making them the voice of shooting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 What would this Joint Association Committee do that the BSSC don't? http://www.bssc.org.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 i've just had a look at the BSSC site and see no mention of lead/lag,i may of missed it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Good idea, but I think every organization involved should have the same amount of representatives, so no one organization could have an advantage making them the voice of shooting... Yep. i've just had a look at the BSSC site and see no mention of lead/lag,i may of missed it! Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffin Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 The last thing we want is one organisation sounds great but do you really want no choice. Choice of people to move helps keep many on there toes so to speak. We have had many debates on this forum re election would you have not wanted a choice. i am a give up nothing fight for everything guy and lets get some things back. Many years ago one of BASC Regional Directors said to me you must realize shooting will be banned all BASC is doing is slowing that process down. That was a disastrous comment made me realize that to many are not fighting for shooting because shootings in the blood just doing a job. The best thing thats hit shooting lately has been Firearms UK because they fight for all without putting anyone down and I do not think any paid staff. Everything BASC does should have a question "how is this going to protect sporting shooting" if it is not do not do it, to much time spent rearranging the deck chairs whilst the ship sinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 So the idea is to set up BSSC 2 that focusses on lead or just add lead to the BSSC agenda? Then there's already the joint venture by all the organisations to defend lead...more duplication on the cards, I hope not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 If the shooting organisations started going on the offensive and stopped placating and trying to work with these untrustworthy anti shooting pressure groups which we all know doesn't and won't work! (remember Chamberlain waving a bit of paper proclaiming '"peace in our time"? Just prior to a world war?) then perhaps shooting would support and trust our representative bodies with the future of our sport! If they want our trust perhaps keeping us informed, asking our opinion before making decisions (the LAG and General licence issues for example) and including ordinary shooters in deciding the way forward, may deliver this? The lead shot debate is from what I can glean from the little information we are given! turning (elsewhere in Europe) towards a 'no further restriction neccesary' position, this despite the scare tactics and other deliberate misinformation peddled by shooting's opponents........its about time we drove this advantage home to the anti shooting extremists! ........They are on the run, why are shootings representatives apparantly sitting on their hands and allowing our enemies to regroup and fight on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) As far as I know, all the organisations are run by elected members, who are there as a cross section of the membership to represent their interests and all the organisations, to a greater of lesser extent, communicate with their membership via web sits, magazine and email newsletters So back to the point of this thread, what would a joint association committee achieve, that the BSSC could not? Edited June 9, 2015 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffin Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 The BASC elected members been quite on here talking about Lead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 This thread is not about BASC it's about a joint association committee and what it may achieve, although I feel BSSC is best placed......there are already three threads on lead do we really need a fourth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) I find it quite telling that despite the claims made on the BSSC website, it has published nothing regarding the proposals to ban lead (yes, it is being raised again because it is a perfect example of something that one would think the BSSC should be heavily involved with) despite claiming to "...work closely with..." DEFRA under its "Seeking Fairer Legislation" section. It contains no news in fact of anything much that's been happening for almost a year (last press release was July 2014 and even then it was just about them appointing an new Chairman), so it has to be asked "how effective or proactive is the BSSC?". Perhaps they inform member organisations more regularly than their website suggests but with the lack of a concerted campaign, I doubt their effectiveness for this specific issue. It would appear that individually, disparate organisations are actually tabling issues as they happen and depending on the relevance to each organisation's membership. Once central committees are formed, motivations change and there is an argument that protectionism of timing of release of information or differences of opinion on how many issues are to be handled and prioritised can sometimes get in the way of progress. I think that if anything, the role of the BSSC should be to rally individual organisations to lobby DEFRA on certain issues as more might be achieved, rather than having one top heavy organisation which doesn't actually seem to achieve a lot due to the day jobs of its individual members. I may be being a tad unfair because the BSSC has achieved some goals, particularly wrt to firearms licensing but the detail over use, threats from other organisations etc seems to have passed them by. What can the BSSC achieve that individual organisations cannot? Individual organisations have more individual resource to properly manage their campaigns. I think that steering committees are a useful resource for the sharing of information and for looking into the mechanisms of existing legislation improvement, but fighting a proactive battle that demands resource, intelligence (ie research, establishing goals and setting up game plans then acting on them, reviewing as necessary and progression to the end gioals) would appear not to be appropriate to the BSSC. This might be better achieved by a dedicated organisation funded by membership donations with the express purpose of fighting this one piece of PC liberal politic madness by the environmentally unaware that make up the aggressive and bemusing control aims of the RSPB and WWT. If they stuck to what mattered most to their true remits, instead of political manipulation to achieve their undemocratic goals, there'd be no need for this. If the BSSC are to be effective, then perhaps their role needs to be modified to actively pursue the campaigns voted on by individual member organisations and that should include press releases, media dealings, regularlity of meetings and how lobbying of individual issues is to be handled rather than to meet so infrequently. A one-stop-shop for the UK's shooting population to go to for information on everything current and proposed. Edited June 9, 2015 by Savhmr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 This thread is not about BASC it's about a joint association committee and what it may achieve, although I feel BSSC is best placed......there are already three threads on lead do we really need a fourth? Nope! the thread is about why some feel we may need a joint association committee, which I feel I covered in post #9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Ok fair enough, so again what could this joint committee deliver that BSSC could not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Ok fair enough, so again what could this joint committee deliver that BSSC could not? Dunno what they could deliver! How can we know? but perhaps they could be proactive instead of reactive or no- active? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.