Jump to content

Guys And Gals, A Favour Please


wymberley
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Update:

 

"Good evening,
 
Some 4 weeks ago I was told that my proposed petition was being checked and this could take nearly a week but currently the department was somewhat busy and that this might take a little longer. However, this has now dragged on somewhat and consequently, I would ask if an update is possible.
 
Kind regards,"
 
What are these civil servants up to? This is taking nearly as long as trying to get the (now) one year free TV licence I'm entitled to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to understand why you think such a petition would be a good thing.

Crowd funding is not the sole preserve of charitable giving, it is a brilliantly effective vessel to provide funding to a multitude of worthwhile endeavours, only some of which may be for lobbying or of political motivation

In this instance you find it upsetting that those who don’t share your opinions can pool resources to fund a campaign against what you stand for, because you believe it oppressive, but here are you trying to enact something that would deny others the opportunity to back what they stand for.  The definition of trying to oppress others.

No sense of hypocrisy?

Would you be so fervently against crowd funding if it was being done in favour of a judicial revue against the bureaucracy of the firearm licensing regime or if it was in support of some other pro-shooting campaign?  Are you averse to any of the shooting or conservation organisations looking for funding to support their campaigns?  Every single one of them have and continue to use crowd funding.

What if it was a crowd funding campaign to support individual litigious action by a family member who had been shafted by a bank or some other organisation that your pockets were not deep enough to fund the fight?

If I recall correctly there was a chap on PW 2 or 3 years back that was asking for support from others to fund his fight to get his guns back, were you against that?

Were you against the requests on PW to crowd fund organisations who were fighting a potential ban on lead ammunition during that whole debacle?

I despise myopic and self interested approaches such as this, a hugely narrow and blinkered consideration for entirely conceited reasons.

Your petition will fail and it deserves to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Arthritis playing up is it?

Nope.

Just as I have very limited tolerance for the likes of polarised campaign groups such as Wild Justice, my tolerance is also equally limited to polarised initiatives such as you have suggested, simply explained my reasoning why that is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I fail to see why packam needs to get crowd funding,  his personal wealth apparently extends to about 4 million and its a cause he is passionate about ! . I noticed the other day they only deduct costs such as travel and stamps etc from the charity he has set up. Is it dont put your money where your mouth is, or is it just good publicity for the cause/self

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, islandgun said:

 I fail to see why packam needs to get crowd funding,  his personal wealth apparently extends to about 4 million and its a cause he is passionate about ! . I noticed the other day they only deduct costs such as travel and stamps etc from the charity he has set up. Is it dont put your money where your mouth is, or is it just good publicity for the cause/self

As WJ is a small limited company with few assets and they are not employees if they lose a case it does not hit them in the pocket.  One reason why the organisations may be loath to go to law as a lost case could destroy them financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

As WJ is a small limited company with few assets and they are not employees if they lose a case it does not hit them in the pocket.  One reason why the organisations may be loath to go to law as a lost case could destroy them financially.

Cheers. So as a limited company or charity,  people are able to use crowd funding to prosecute others without fear of loosing money if the case goes against them. Similarly if  established organisations such as BASC or the song bird survivals orgs wanted to prosecute WJ for instance, and lost they could loose vast sums of money or become bankrupt ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, islandgun said:

Cheers. So as a limited company or charity,  people are able to use crowd funding to prosecute others without fear of loosing money if the case goes against them. Similarly if  established organisations such as BASC or the song bird survivals orgs wanted to prosecute WJ for instance, and lost they could loose vast sums of money or become bankrupt ? 

That is my take on the situation - I may be wrong as on other occasions but it seems right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Cheers. So as a limited company or charity,  people are able to use crowd funding to prosecute others without fear of loosing money if the case goes against them. Similarly if  established organisations such as BASC or the song bird survivals orgs wanted to prosecute WJ for instance, and lost they could loose vast sums of money or become bankrupt ? 

My reading of it too.

As per Flashman’s suggestion if the shooting/hunting community established a campaign group similar to WJ, but with limited liabilities and used crowd sourced funding to operate they could act with a freedom not afforded to BASC or GWCT, etc.

Those involved in a crowd funding campaign have no particular liability in the case of an award against the organisation they are backing, unless they are seen to be excessively influencing activities, i.e. you put in a whopping big donation in exchange to be part of the campaign groups organisation and you define the strategy, approach, etc.

The big question is what would such a campaign group attack and how would they go about it?

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Flashman said:

The blood sports community should use the same process to defend shooting and campaigning against the people targeting blood sports in the UK.

Much to grrclark's disgust/dismay I suspect, I tend to disagree. Two wrongs do not make a right. Crowd-funding is supposed to be for charitable causes/deeds - pro bono. To my mind, any funds collected which are be used to the detriment of others in any shape or form does not so qualify. This can be compounded when should any action be deemed inappropriate those adversely affected can possibly have no recompense. This is not fair and if it's not fair it's neither right nor just. grrclark can aim as much vitriol at me as he wishes - it is of no consequence. I can not avoid thinking that this system is going to be increasingly abused without some form of legislation - I am aware that in fact some does exist - being introduced and particularly that aimed to protect and ensure that those found to be unjustly wronged are granted the means with which to obtain appropriate recompense. In short, I can see this ending in tears in view of the increasingly greedy attitudes prevailing today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wymberley said:

Much to grrclark's disgust/dismay I suspect, I tend to disagree. Two wrongs do not make a right. Crowd-funding is supposed to be for charitable causes/deeds - pro bono. To my mind, any funds collected which are be used to the detriment of others in any shape or form does not so qualify. This can be compounded when should any action be deemed inappropriate those adversely affected can possibly have no recompense. This is not fair and if it's not fair it's neither right nor just. grrclark can aim as much vitriol at me as he wishes - it is of no consequence. I can not avoid thinking that this system is going to be increasingly abused without some form of legislation - I am aware that in fact some does exist - being introduced and particularly that aimed to protect and ensure that those found to be unjustly wronged are granted the means with which to obtain appropriate recompense. In short, I can see this ending in tears in view of the increasingly greedy attitudes prevailing today.

Who said crowd funding was only to be used for charitable ends?

The advent of crowd sourced funding online is just an extension of what has been going on for ever via other mechanisms.

For example trade union membership subscriptions, until only recently, had by default a ‘donation’ to the labour party, that is crowd funding for wholly political means.

Every person that ever shook a charity can at you is crowd funding and there are hundreds of charities that are nothing other than a political campaigning vessel.

There is no vitriol directed at you from me, simply some challenging questions and a highlighted lack of tolerance on my part for narrow minded knee jerk consideration, that is precisely why we have some ludicrous legislation in this country including those around firearms and knives.

The parliamentary petition process was not designed or intended to be used as a tool to the detriment of others either, yet you are advocating its use for exactly that; to deny others the opportunity to raise funds for a cause in which they believe.

Again I would ask you, can you not see the hypocrisy of your position?

It is maybe a different shape of stick that you are trying to wield to deny others their opportunities, but the principle of what you advocate is exactly the same as you are protesting about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Flashman said:

The blood sports community should use the same process to defend shooting and campaigning against the people targeting blood sports in the UK.

I see that the already have you buying into their agenda.

It's Field Sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I see that the already have you buying into their agenda.

It's Field Sports.

Some say six and some say half a dozen.

The fact is that field sports is killing stuff no matter how we choose to spin that. Sure “blood sports” is more emotive, but that is exactly what it is.

By the same token of semantics of language, should we call pigeon shooting a field ‘sport’ when our legitimacy for shooting doos is pest control.

That was the very argument of WJ, we were dressing up ‘sport’ as something else to legitimise our activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Some say six and some say half a dozen.

The fact is that field sports is killing stuff no matter how we choose to spin that. Sure “blood sports” is more emotive, but that is exactly what it is.

By the same token of semantics of language, should we call pigeon shooting a field ‘sport’ when our legitimacy for shooting doos is pest control.

That was the very argument of WJ, we were dressing up ‘sport’ as something else to legitimise our activities.

Clay pigeon is a 'field sport' as is FT and HFT , you could define many other things to do with country pursuits as a field sport, all of them not involving the 'blood' of any animals.
Its an emotive subject because as soon as a gun gets mentioned, most people who know NOTHING about such things, visualise the death of  small creatures .
Ive lost count of the times Ive asked people to have a go at clays, and theyve balked because they dont want to kill anything !

People like packham feed this ignorance, and play down the conservation, sporting and pest control side of gun use, painting a picture of 'gun nuts' rampaging across the countryside blasting away at anything that moves.

He has a massive advantage in his publicity drive to ban ALL fieldsports, and that is the ignorance of the masses that know nothing about the countryside, or guns in general, besides what he tells them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Clay pigeon is a 'field sport' as is FT and HFT , you could define many other things to do with country pursuits as a field sport, all of them not involving the 'blood' of any animals.
Its an emotive subject because as soon as a gun gets mentioned, most people who know NOTHING about such things, visualise the death of  small creatures .
Ive lost count of the times Ive asked people to have a go at clays, and theyve balked because they dont want to kill anything !

People like packham feed this ignorance, and play down the conservation, sporting and pest control side of gun use, painting a picture of 'gun nuts' rampaging across the countryside blasting away at anything that moves.

He has a massive advantage in his publicity drive to ban ALL fieldsports, and that is the ignorance of the masses that know nothing about the countryside, or guns in general, besides what he tells them.

But he’s not advocating the stopping of clay pigeon shooting or banning guns, his arguments are 100% around blood sports to use the emotive term.

Sure other anti gun campaigners will ride on the coat tails of his campaign, but we shouldn’t conflate arguments.

If you argue on a wider premise using extended assumptions, i.e. CP is really trying to ban guns then you will lose any debate.  You might believe he is, but he has never made a statement to that effect.

You have to argue the point at hand, he does want to ban blood sports, i.e. the killing of animals for fun/enjoyment/entertainment/call it what you will.

If we attempt to extend our argument in order to justify our approach that by stopping the killing of stuff for fun we will lose our guns then we do look like blood thirsty gun nuts.

The fact is we do have to justify killing animals, that is straightforward when it comes to pest or vermin control, nobody wants the thought of pigeon or rat poop in their loaf of bread.

Predator control is straightforward when it’s innocent wee fledlings getting scoffed by big hungry crows or magpies, but less so when it’s reared pheasants that we are protecting that are only there so we can have fun killing them.

If we conflate all our arguments into one big one then it becomes increasingly difficult to argue a consistent position, hence why the anti blood sport community do exactly that.

They conflate egotistical Instagram posters posing selfies with dead giraffes with people shooting bags of a dozen woodies, it’s all killing stuff right?!

We know it’s a world apart and both can be strongly argued on their respective merits, but it is not a singular argument.

When it comes to trying to influence a strong single argument will win every single time versus a nuanced and multilayered argument.  You use that to your advantage regularly, even if it’s not a considered approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

My reading of it too.

As per Flashman’s suggestion if the shooting/hunting community established a campaign group similar to WJ, but with limited liabilities and used crowd sourced funding to operate they could act with a freedom not afforded to BASC or GWCT, etc.

Those involved in a crowd funding campaign have no particular liability in the case of an award against the organisation they are backing, unless they are seen to be excessively influencing activities, i.e. you put in a whopping big donation in exchange to be part of the campaign groups organisation and you define the strategy, approach, etc.

The big question is what would such a campaign group attack and how would they go about it?

I have real fears that their plans for re-wilding moorland would be devastating to ALL the animals that have evolved to live in the moor that has been managed for the last thousand years,  both due to habitat loss and the inevitable wildfires that would follow.. I would like to see an in depth study undertaken by an unbiased organisation instead of those under the influence of the ban field sports brigade..  So yes a group could attack WJ over their unscientific hate campaign and i for one would be happy to donate some of my hard earned to get that going. All we need is a catchy title, a lisp. and endless tv time.

Wicken Fen Cambridgeshire is a famous/classic  example of a SSSI where in Victorian times, it was found that it was only special because of the reed cutting management, . the first conservationists decided to re wild but quickly found that they were loosing species without the management regime.

Edited by islandgun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, islandgun said:

I have real fears that their plans for re-wilding moorland would be devastating to ALL the animals that have evolved to live in the moor that has been managed for the last thousand years,  both due to habitat loss and the inevitable wildfires that would follow.. I would like to see an in depth study undertaken by an unbiased organisation instead of those under the influence of the ban field sports brigade..  So yes a group could attack WJ over their unscientific hate campaign and i for one would be happy to donate some of my hard earned to get that going. All we need is a catchy title, a lisp. and endless tv time.

Wicken Fen Cambridgeshire is a famous/classic  example of a SSSI where in Victorian times, it was found that it was only special because of the reed cutting management, . the first conservationists decided to re wild but quickly found that were loosing species without the management regime.

Agree wholeheartedly with all of that and I suspect that it would be relatively straightforward to get airtime with such a cause too.  It also emotionally balances with the re-wilding arguments.

To date most anti re-wilding arguments have been based on the detrimental effect to livestock, agriculture or relatively niche human interest and they lose out in emotional stakes compared to impressive alpha predators.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, grrclark said:

When it comes to trying to influence a strong single argument will win every single time versus a nuanced and multilayered argument.  You use that to your advantage regularly, even if it’s not a considered approach. 

I understand what you are saying, but when you are trying to argue with a man that has mass media at his disposal, you can NEVER win the argument.

Because he has that mass appeal, he also has the opportunity for mass crowd funding, and if it came to votes, hes going to blow any field sports lobby out the water.

I know you have addressed Wymberleys petition effort, but packham has the bit between his teeth now, his recent forays into crowd funded legal territory, has given him and his wild justice cronies a battle plan, and its one that could become all too successful.
Thats why I mentioned non blood field sports, first he will come for the hunters, then he will come after anything that can be used to hunt.

His followers, many of whom have never seen a lapwing 🙄, will support whatever he wants to do, because it sounds like the right thing to do, and everyone knows hunters are bad , they kill lions and giraffes ect ect.

Whatever field sports you do or support , a united front is essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...