Lead Ammunition Group Minutes of 13th (final?) Meeting

[Scully]

The link will not open and comes up as "bad gateway"

Strange, works fine for me. Not being too PC savvy I'm afraid I can't help.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Scully

[RossEM]

The LAG Chairman's Report has had it's initial release and has been circulated to a select few today, including a friend of mine. That's all I know at the moment, other than to say its content is almost certainly as we expected.

[wymberley]

The latest minutes are on the site. Haven't read it all but it does appear that Defra have decided a peer review is necessary which will further delay publication.

[panoma1]

It isn't the LAG any longer, it is the BLSG (ban lead shot group) now! And they certainly don't appear to be happy at having their findings peer reviewed!

How can DEFRA allow this BLSG to continue to masquerade as the LAG? It has no credability as it is now merely a ban lead shot pressure group!

[panoma1]

It isn't the LAG any longer, it is the BLSG (ban lead shot group) now! And they certainly don't appear to be happy at having their findings peer reviewed!

How can DEFRA allow this BLSG to continue to masquerade as the LAG? It has no credability as it is now merely a ban lead shot pressure group!

From the e-newsletter I have just received, It seems Tim Bonner and the CA agree with me!

[Scully]

I have received this also; the 'letter' makes interesting reading as it is still peddling the claim that 'it is almost a certainty' that thousands of children are being put at risk from eating lead shot game, despite these claims (originally from the WWT's Debra Payne) being shown to be highly exaggerated.

I really am very curious to know just what it is that has turned Swift from being a shooting body representative to what he is now. Has he been coerced by some means or persons into finding in favour of a certain outcome to suit a certain agenda? I find it all very strange indeed.

[stavvy]

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/LAG-Letter-to-SoS-Environment-030615_Redacted.pdf?ct=t%28141023_e_newsletter10_23_2014%29&mc_cid=748446552e&mc_eid=88e812e5e0

 

Guns on Pegs have just posted the above link on Facebook, I hope it works here

 

John Swifts final report covering letter to Elizabeth Truss MP. Makes for awful reading...

Edited September 10, 2015 by stavvy

[David BASC]

BASC' point of view on the letter; http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/statement-by-alan-jarrett-on-a-letter-from-the-chairman-of-the-lead-ammunition-group/

 

David

[panoma1]

David, Do you not think that BASC and all shooting organisations should now challenge the continuation of the so called Lead Ammunition Group, the LAG did not exist from the moment the non anti lead side resigned! From that moment it ceased to be the LAG and became the BLSG which is now exclusively made up of the former (what is widely acknowledged as the anti lead side) members of the LAG that remain, and consequently is now merely an anti lead lobby/pressure group!

The report Swift presented the the FSA and DEFRA cannot be the work of the LAG because the LAG no longer existed when the report was presented, due to the refusal to accept the findings of the report by and the consequent resignation of what is widely seen as the pro lead side of the LAG prior to the reports finalisation and subsequent presentation.

 

I find it totally unacceptable that the anti lead side can continue to masquerade as the LAG and despite the obvious one sidedness of the new so called LAG........apparently with the agreement of DEFRA and the FSA! .......and consequently they have an unchallenged voice in the ear of those who will decide the future of lead shot!

 

Can DEFRA and the FSA not see the bias of the BLSG? If not they only have to look at where the meetings of the group are currently held....the WWT HQ at Slimbridge, where the anti lead pressure/lobby group was spawned!

 

On the basis of the above, surely any future decisions that point to further restriction on lead shot would be challengable through the courts?

[panoma1]

I have received this also; the 'letter' makes interesting reading as it is still peddling the claim that 'it is almost a certainty' that thousands of children are being put at risk from eating lead shot game, despite these claims (originally from the WWT's Debra Payne) being shown to be highly exaggerated.

I really am very curious to know just what it is that has turned Swift from being a shooting body representative to what he is now. Has he been coerced by some means or persons into finding in favour of a certain outcome to suit a certain agenda? I find it all very strange indeed.

 

Judging from his apparantly turncoat actions, a nice, cushy, well paid non executive roll with the RSPB and/or WWT, To supplement the meagre pension we provided him with, one might speculate? Edited September 10, 2015 by panoma1

[lister22]

lord swift perhaps

[neutron619]

The problem with all of this, which will never get mentioned, is that it's not the government's job to tell me whether or not I should take the risk of eating lead-shot game or feeding it to my children.

 

John Swift et al could be right - I don't honestly know. Lead shot could indeed be responsible for brain damage, bone disease, poisoned animals, ISIS, the Spice Girls, or all the evil in the world, but it's up to me whether I want to take the risk of eating it or not.

 

I get to choose whether to drive my car slowly and carefully or fast and dangerously and either way, if I crash, I take the consequences. Likewise, I could choose to drink myself paralytic or take loads of drugs and I might or might not survive, but it's my responsibility whether I do or not.

 

I don't believe that the amount of lead we take in via shooting is anywhere near as significant as we're told. If I've got a problem with lead exposure, it'll be because I spent 5 years in my teens messing around with electronics and soldering and probably inhaled more oxidised lead over that time than I'll ever eat in game. Perhaps I've lost one point of IQ because I did? Well, in the grand scheme of things, a clever person losing 1 point of IQ will still be clever and a stupid person losing 1 point of IQ will still be stupid.

 

Is it really enough to care about? Do we not think that working long hours, or having a toddler to look after, or having a good night out with the lads, or any one of a whole list of "socially acceptable" things we might do, doesn't leave us far more mentally inhibited? My boy was born in 2014 which means I haven't had a good night's sleep in nearly two years. Could I solve quadratic equations, play an instrument or complete an IQ test now, the way I could before he arrived? Not likely. Is a drop in IQ because I'm slightly lead-poisoned going to make the blindest bit of difference, given all the other factors involved? Not a chance.

 

Let's take another point the BLSG makes: I don't personally believe that 100,000 birds a year are dying because we shoot lead shot into the environment. I'm sure some do. If there 100,000 are dying though, where are they? Or are they simply talking about the number of birds all the folk on PW shoot and kill for the sake of crop protection? Where are all the (apparently much larger number) who are poisoned with "sub-lethal" quantities of lead? Shouldn't they all be wandering around unsteadily or flying around erratically for all to see? Where are all the lead-poisoned carnivores eating all of these poisoned birds? Shouldn't they also be unsteady on their feet? Or are they being eaten too? By what? And are those creatures accumulating all this lead? What happens to them?

 

I'm just fed up with it all. I'm sure BASC are going to commission some research papers or somehow show that lead isn't as bad for us or birds as Swift et al say it is and then someone else will commission some more to say the opposite. Then the government minister who doesn't have an opinion, or care, or want the problem will write legislation to ban shot and that will be that - but only to get the problem out of her in-tray and into someone else's. Why is nobody arguing "it's borderline, so let the individual decide"?

 

The problem is that like so many of these believers (and that's what they are: if the evidence said lead cured cancer they'd still want it banned to protect their precious birds / "the children!" / whatever) is that it doesn't matter how big or small the risk is - they believe it's too great for anyone to be allowed to take it, because their fear about it prevents them from taking it personally (or undermines their professional reputation).

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this all came about because some bigwig in the RSPB had to refuse the grouse at a posh restaurant thirty years ago because he was scared eating a lead pellet might make him impotent for the whore he'd hired for the evening sitting opposite him. (Ok, I jest, but from tiny acorns do oak trees grow...) Why am I permitted to risk immediate death by going out and drinking myself stupid, or cancer from smoking 60 per day, but not take the (tiny by comparison) risk of eating a couple of shot pigeons a month?

 

In my view we need BASC, the CA and all the other organisations to stop trying to find evidence that it's this good for us or this bad for us and getting bogged down in the minutiae. Rather, we need them to start arguing that, because we shooters are (obviously) not dropping at 10 per week from eating what we shoot and because most of us have never seen a lead-poisoned bird in our lives (and let's face it, some of us see a lot more wildfowl than most twitchers, let alone the average townie), that the risk to human health is small enough that it has to be up to the individual to take it or not. It's a question of having the freedom to take a small risk and not being prohibited from doing so by an interfering and uninformed legal system populated by a bunch of fearful, worrisome nannies.

 

Rant over.

Edited September 11, 2015 by neutron619

[Underdog]

Best rant ever. Well said.

 

Let's not forget all the lead water pipes to family homes still in use!!!

 

Stock up lads.

[stavvy]

^^^ what a great post, pleasure to read neutron619

[mudpatten]

It appear that the cunning plan to derail the LAG and destroy it`s credibility progresses apace.

[Savhmr]

The trouble seems to be that DEFRA has taken these numpties far too seriously. Their whole approach and their evidence base really warrants derision, nothing more nothing less. As Neutron says, the evidence claims are hysteria wrapped up in pseudo scientific claptrap, which are as yet unproven. The use of children in the stats claims is a cynical and not very clever ploy to put DEFRA and the shooting community onto some sort of back-footed guilt trip. They need to either prove their claims or be told to sling their collective politically motivated hooks. Until the government can be persuaded to treat the Ban lobby with the lack of credibility that they deserve, the lobby will certainly wish to gain momentum, so the gloves are off. Hopefully can rely on the BASC and the CA et al to increase the pressure, sledgehammer and nut needed.

[RossEM]

I'd love to see JS do an interview to explain his actions.

[panoma1]

I'd love to see JS do an interview to explain his actions.

 

Depends who's interviewing him! He's reputed to be slipperier that a greased pig on ice! Edited September 15, 2015 by panoma1

[wymberley]

Just had an e-mail which gives an idea that Sir Barney White-Spunner did us even more of a favour than we might have initially realised. Because there was no disagreement, it was possible to introduce the existing non toxic shot legislation by a Statutory Instrument. Now Sir B has rocked the boat and there is no agreement across the board, not only has Defra to decide which of the two sides to back, in the event that they accept the Swift case, then because of these differing points of view the same process is not available and any change to the legislation will require Parliamentary debate and due process. Consequently, apart from casting doubt about the validity of the LAG findings, if nothing else, Sir Barney and the other 'renegades' have bought us a considerable delay in any possible change.

[neutron619]

*Hat tip to Sir Barney*

 

Methinks our membership fees may have been paid to a very clever lawyer but in this case, it seems to have paid off.

[mudpatten]

It`ll be interesting to, at some point in the distant future, find out what part John Swift really played in this.

[wymberley]

It`ll be interesting to, at some point in the distant future, find out what part John Swift really played in this.

Are you inferring, perhaps, that it'll take more than four columns to explain?

[rjimmer]

Yonks ago I remember seeing a TV program telling how early settlers in America accumulated quantities of lead shot somewhere in their bodies, due to eating lots of shot meat, but i can't remember any mention of lead poisoning.

[subsonicnat]

Just had an e-mail which gives an idea that Sir Barney White-Spunner did us even more of a favour than we might have initially realised. Because there was no disagreement, it was possible to introduce the existing non toxic shot legislation by a Statutory Instrument. Now Sir B has rocked the boat and there is no agreement across the board, not only has Defra to decide which of the two sides to back, in the event that they accept the Swift case, then because of these differing points of view the same process is not available and any change to the legislation will require Parliamentary debate and due process. Consequently, apart from casting doubt about the validity of the LAG findings, if nothing else, Sir Barney and the other 'renegades' have bought us a considerable delay in any possible change.

Thanks For That Mate.

[McSpredder]

Apologies in advance for the length of this screed. I looked through the documents on the LAG website, and found the arrogance of certain group members, and the apparent disregard for normal scientific reporting procedures, to be truly shocking.

 

The LAG was set up after Mark Avery (RSPB) and Deborah Pain (WWT) wrote to the Secretary of State attacking the work of the Food Standards Agency and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. They said the FSA and VLA assessments contained flaws and were not sufficiently rigorous, and the letter was clearly intended to imply incompetence and/or negligence on the part of FSA and VLA staff.

 

One might expect reputable scientists to back up such a serious allegation with data that had itself been subject to rigorous assessment. In contrast, Avery and Pain explicitly sought to influence the Secretary of State through use of their own UNPUBLISHED results. Were they presenting results that had NOT been subject to rigorous scientific peer review, whilst attacking FSA and LVA staff for lack of scientific rigour? One would hope not, because such a two-faced approach would seem like thoroughly disgraceful and unprofessional conduct.

 

Were FSA and VLA invited to agree that their work was flawed and insufficiently rigorous, and to make suitable amendments? Or did Avery and Pain go behind the backs of the people involved, and send their written attack straight to the Secretary of State, ultimate boss of those FSA and VLA staff? That would have been an distinctly unpleasant and devious way of working.

 

Several members resigned from LAG in early 2015 because they felt the group was failing to act in an appropriate manner. Minutes of a meeting held shortly afterwards (26 May 2015) say the remaining members “agreed and strongly felt that the complete LAG findings should be made public relatively soon” but do not contain even a single mention of any proposal to arrange peer review before publication. Was scientific rigour being downplayed in favour of speed? And if so, why?

 

Minutes of the next meeting (13 Aug 2015) say “There was full support for the principle of peer review”, but this is followed immediately by more than a page, and over 620 words, of comments about how difficult it would be to achieve. At the very top of the list was concern was that peer review might delay publication. It certainly looks as though scientific scrutiny was something the remaining LAG members would have preferred to avoid, and that the top priority was to get their version adopted as an official publication before anybody else could have a chance to point out possible deficiencies. Somewhat grudging support for that important scientific principle of peer review, wouldn’t you say?

 

Can we even be sure which LAG members were themselves scientifically competent? Mark Avery, formerly a member of the group, is now saying on his web page “Most of the detail of the report will be too technical for most of us to get our heads around anyway.” Are the words “too technical for most of us” an admission that he himself is not competent to understand the detail? Or does he just mean he considers it will be too technical for most of YOU, choosing those words in order to demonstrate his contempt for the readers and puff up his own importance? That might be in character, remembering his track record of writing disdainfully about the work of the FSA and VLA, in the course of promoting his own work.

 

In the case of some members, it is not at all clear how far their involvement in this group has amounted to science (impartial investigation and reporting), rather than to advocacy (employing their skills and resources to promote a pre-held personal opinion, or the stance of an organisation or employer). It matters not a jot that an individual may have been awarded qualifications and honours, published papers, attained membership of leaned societies, etc – advocacy is not science.

 

There is no reason why a scientist should not become involved in advocacy from time to time, provided that is made absolutely clear at all times. But if that person acts as an advocate whilst pretending to be an impartial scientist, he or she is nothing more than a charlatan.