Whitebridges Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Scully said: Why? Because now him and Avery and their cronies have told all their supporters and the general public, that the shooting community has banned them because the shooting community has lots to hide, and in the face of a ban of him and Avery, who can now deny it? Yes, ( unless we DO have something to hide ) we should welcome him. What are the alternatives? Do YOU think we have something to hide? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, stupid or otherwise, but how do we refute his allegations ( stupid or otherwise ) with facts unless we debate with him in front of an audience? According to CJ it was all set up. We blew a golden opportunity to take the initiative. Firstly, I respect your point of view Scully. There may be a few positives in what you are saying. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus agreeing to your point of view does there? The majority of us join shooting and conservation groups such as the BASC and look towards the senior managers of these vital and critical organisations to make correct decisions. It is not about muddying the waters it's about togetherness. You asked this Q: Do YOU think we have something to hide? A: An emphatic NO !!! Shooting is very necessary to the wellbeing of the land, countryside providing home grown food for the people of this country. One day Packham will host a meeting with our shooting fraternity and will get shot down in flames. Please toe the line. 7 minutes ago, islandgun said: Having packam at the gamefair would be like having a KKK member at rapping gig.. surely it would be better to ignore the little ------ [he doesn't like ignore] then put provable counter claims out on social media........put simply dont do anything he wants at any time, ever Spoken like a true Norfolkman ! Well said sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 The ban which in my opinion was correct could have been followed with the opportunity (once again) to debate all their concerns/lies and the reasoning behind their ban at a place and time convenient to all and to be put out in all the media including the offer of a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, Scully said: The criticism is well warranted, and totally justifiable given the case put forward by CJ. He ‘offered’ the opportunity, and was shot down in flames by three of our biggest organisations applying pressure on the game fair organisers. He is justifiably critical and angry. A massive massive own goal. Incredible. In your opinion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, islandgun said: Having packam at the gamefair would be like having a KKK member at rapping gig.. surely it would be better to ignore the little ------ [he doesn't like ignore] then put provable counter claims out on social media........put simply dont do anything he wants at any time, ever Not really. We ignore WJ and their agenda at our peril. We can put out provable counter claims on social media until the cows come home, but who is going to do it? The CA? BASC? NGO? Even if they were willing to do it, all it is is their word against his. To get us together on a platform and film ‘his every move ‘ as CJ put it, would attract a huge audience because of Packhams huge following and status as a celebrity. Just look at the responses on here whoever he spouts something if you want an example, or look at the debate we’re having now! I have friends who have no interest in shooting at all; they think he is the best thing since sliced bread because of Springwatch etc, and I constantly find myself having to inform them of the real nature of nature and filling in the gaps he often ( deliberately ?) leaves in his monologues. Just what on Earth are we afraid of? He has our shooting organisations running around like headless chickens! It’s embarrassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scully said: To get us together on a platform and film ‘his every move ‘ as CJ put it, would attract a huge audience because of Packhams huge following and status as a celebrity. But it must be away from a live audience or they (and I can hear them now) will claim intimidation and (as they always do ) play the "I am a victim and threatened by the nasty brigade" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobbyathome Posted July 30, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 the benefit for me that packham was banned is two fold firstly he didnt get paid to turn up and if people protest against him in general and it is seen in the public then he will have to have a debate with someone with a bit of knowledge and common sense and secondly and more important he was not there so someone didnt thump the **** because sooner or later that will happen then we will as a shooting community suffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scully said: Not really. We ignore WJ and their agenda at our peril. We can put out provable counter claims on social media until the cows come home, but who is going to do it? The CA? BASC? NGO? Even if they were willing to do it, all it is is their word against his. To get us together on a platform and film ‘his every move ‘ as CJ put it, would attract a huge audience because of Packhams huge following and status as a celebrity. Just look at the responses on here whoever he spouts something if you want an example, or look at the debate we’re having now! I have friends who have no interest in shooting at all; they think he is the best thing since sliced bread because of Springwatch etc, and I constantly find myself having to inform them of the real nature of nature and filling in the gaps he often ( deliberately ?) leaves in his monologues. Just what on Earth are we afraid of? He has our shooting organisations running around like headless chickens! It’s embarrassing. I dont think he should be ignored, far from it. he should be attacked and rubbished at all times but not in a way that fits in with his own agenda..give him nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 17 minutes ago, Whitebridges said: Firstly, I respect your point of view Scully. There may be a few positives in what you are saying. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus agreeing to your point of view does there? The majority of us join shooting and conservation groups such as the BASC and look towards the senior managers of these vital and critical organisations to make correct decisions. It is not about muddying the waters it's about togetherness. You asked this Q: Do YOU think we have something to hide? A: An emphatic NO !!! Shooting is very necessary to the wellbeing of the land, countryside providing home grown food for the people of this country. One day Packham will host a meeting with our shooting fraternity and will get shot down in flames. Please toe the line. Spoken like a true Norfolkman ! Well said sir. Firstly, being in a minority doesn't make my opinion any less worthy than those of the majority. Shooters are a minority remember. Yes, we do look towards our organisations to make the correct decisions, but that in itself is no guarantee that they do. Our organisations have run away and hid. Shooting is NOT 'very necessary to the wellbeing of the land', nor does it 'provide home grown food for the people of this country.' If it were and did, we would neither be in a minority nor struggling to survive. Shooting is an expendable pastime, nothing more nor less. To claim otherwise is frankly naive. Packham will not 'host' a meeting with the shooting fraternity. Avery may, even on his own, but Packham, never, not on his own. He has proved this with his refusal to entertain the presence of BASC at the ITV Good Morning Britain studio. I agree they may collectively be shown up for what they are, but shot down in flames? Never in a month of Sundays. You toe the line if you want. I'm an adult and will do as I please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 As has been said, if Packham will not enter a public debate this should be spread widely in the public domain as often as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said: But it must be away from a live audience or they (and I can hear them now) will claim intimidation and (as they always do ) play the "I am a victim and threatened by the nasty brigade" Both sides can have their own film crews present, therefore ensuring no claims of biased editing. The pending Panorama programme wasn't filmed in front of a live audience, do you believe that will ensure its impartiality? 12 minutes ago, nobbyathome said: the benefit for me that packham was banned is two fold firstly he didnt get paid to turn up and if people protest against him in general and it is seen in the public then he will have to have a debate with someone with a bit of knowledge and common sense and secondly and more important he was not there so someone didnt thump the **** because sooner or later that will happen then we will as a shooting community suffer Was he offered payment to turn up? If someone thumps him then that is assault, and they would ave more to lose than he does. To assault people like this is playing right into their hands, as we all know. Yet another massive own goal. Are we really that pathetic? 6 minutes ago, Good shot? said: As has been said, if Packham will not enter a public debate this should be spread widely in the public domain as often as possible. But he was going to, it was our shooting organisations which denied him the chance. That is what this entire thread is about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 Was this supposed to be a proper debate or just an opportunity for him to air his views and be shouted down at a game fair. I am talking about a proper debate conducted in a controlled unbiased manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Scully said: Both sides can have their own film crews present, therefore ensuring no claims of biased editing. The pending Panorama programme wasn't filmed in front of a live audience, do you believe that will ensure its impartiality? I was not talking about impartiality, I was suspecting "playing the intimidation card" in front of what would have been a hostile audience and getting sympathy from the masses(ref crows on gate which I still believe was his own supporters). No audience, no card to play. Two film crews are essential as you say. An the panorama program is far from impartial, it's the BBC and their agenda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Good shot? said: Was this supposed to be a proper debate or just an opportunity for him to air his views and be shouted down at a game fair. I am talking about a proper debate conducted in a controlled unbiased manner. A proper debate, between him, Avery and Tiernan. Have you not viewed the film presented by CJ, explaining it all in full? I can see why he is angry, considering the time and effort he put in negotiating the debate. 8 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said: I was not talking about impartiality, I was suspecting "playing the intimidation card" in front of what would have been a hostile audience and getting sympathy from the masses(ref crows on gate which I still believe was his own supporters). No audience, no card to play. Two film crews are essential as you say. An the panorama program is far from impartial, it's the BBC and their agenda I don’t really understand how WJ would feel intimidated, or really understand what you mean ‘playing the intimidation card’ given they were all willing ( and had agreed ) to take part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 I have not seen the film. Do you have link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 If the event had gone forward, and something we all fear could happen, had happened, shooting would be the loser big time! And have scored a massive own goal for inviting him!........ Quote, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day, but he who is battle slain, can never rise to fight again"...... Oliver Goldsmith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, Good shot? said: I have not seen the film. Do you have link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, panoma1 said: If the event had gone forward, and something we all fear could happen, had happened, shooting would be the loser big time! And have scored a massive own goal for inviting him!........ Quote, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day, but he who is battle slain, can never rise to fight again"...... Oliver Goldsmith. I don't fear it at all. CJ had organised security as he states in his film. Now our organisations have chickened out we'll never know what the outcome would be, will we? Nothing ventured nothing gained. Did we fight and run away, or just run away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scully said: I don't fear it at all. CJ had organised security as he states in his film. Now our organisations have chickened out we'll never know what the outcome would be, will we? Nothing ventured nothing gained. Did we fight and run away, or just run away? You don't fear it because you will not be held responsible or accountable if things had gone ****shaped! With what's at stake, a failure to identify and acknowledge the possible dangers and a "gung ho" attitude, is not what was required, a considered decision and cool head was! Forget the debate....It needed just one "damaging" incident, and the reputation of shooting was down the pan! Packham et al would make sure of that!......if this happened someone will be held accountable....but it won't be you! And all could have been lost, just because CJ wanted him challenged at the time, and in the place that obviously suited (they would not have agreed if it didnt) them. However you want to describe it, shooting hasn't risked "shooting its bolt" (pun intended!) and is still there, reputation intact, to fight another day! Edited July 30, 2019 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, panoma1 said: You don't fear it because you will not be held responsible or accountable if things had gone ****shaped! With what's at stake, a failure to identify and acknowledge the possible dangers and a "gung ho" attitude, is not what was required, a considered decision and cool head was! Forget the debate....It needed just one "damaging" incident, and the reputation of shooting was down the pan! Packham et al would make sure of that!......if this happened someone will be held accountable....but it won't be you! And all could have been lost, just because CJ wanted him challenged at the time, and in the place that obviously suited (they would not have agreed if it didnt) them. However you want to describe it, shooting hasn't risked "shooting its bolt" (pun intended!) and is still there, reputation intact, to fight another day! You’re basing your argument on what ‘could have happened’ as if it were a foregone conclusion, but we’ll never know because our organisations chickened out. If our shooting organisations base all future possible debates on the basis of ‘what could go wrong’ then we’re never going to get anywhere. What sort of professional organisation bases its policies on a fear of ‘what could go wrong?’ We didn’t ‘score a massive own goal by inviting him’ as you suggest we may have, because we did that by banning him! That’s what actually happened, not what ‘could have happened!’ Anyhow, a film with Rachel Weiss is about to start, so that’s me done for tonight...maybe. 🙂 Edited July 30, 2019 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scully said: Firstly, being in a minority doesn't make my opinion any less worthy than those of the majority. Shooters are a minority remember. Yes, we do look towards our organisations to make the correct decisions, but that in itself is no guarantee that they do. Our organisations have run away and hid. Shooting is NOT 'very necessary to the wellbeing of the land', nor does it 'provide home grown food for the people of this country.' If it were and did, we would neither be in a minority nor struggling to survive. Shooting is an expendable pastime, nothing more nor less. To claim otherwise is frankly naive. Packham will not 'host' a meeting with the shooting fraternity. Avery may, even on his own, but Packham, never, not on his own. He has proved this with his refusal to entertain the presence of BASC at the ITV Good Morning Britain studio. I agree they may collectively be shown up for what they are, but shot down in flames? Never in a month of Sundays. You toe the line if you want. I'm an adult and will do as I please. You talk with a lot of spirit and authority and yet you have absolutely NONE ! You have shouted at me twice so take some of the same. The way you talk makes me spit. It's as though you're going to hand your guns in and join the anti's, prey tell? Go on then be an activist, join the other side and pick the flowers in the meadow. I guess you're over the age of 18 but with a very low IQ. Edited July 30, 2019 by Whitebridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Scully said: You’re basing your argument on what ‘could have happened’ as if it were a foregone conclusion, but we’ll never know because our organisations chickened out. If our shooting organisations base all future possible debates on the basis of ‘what could go wrong’ then we’re never going to get anywhere. What sort of professional organisation bases its policies on a fear of ‘what could go wrong?’ We didn’t ‘score a massive own goal by inviting him’ as you suggest we may have, because we did that by banning him! That’s what actually happened, not what ‘could have happened!’ Anyhow, a film with Rachel Weiss is about to start, so that’s me done for tonight...maybe. 🙂 Are you not basing your argument on what you think could have happened, as if was a forgone conclusion too? As you say it didn't happen so we will never know! It's not fear it's called assessing and reacting to the situation! Jump in "gung ho" without doing so, and that's when a massive own goal could be scored! Did I suggest we may have "scored a massive own goal by inviting him"? Or suggest we may have scored a massive own goal if we invited him and it went wrong? Enjoy the film! Edited July 30, 2019 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Whitebridges said: You talk with a lot of spirit and authority and yet you have absolutely NONE ! You have shouted at me twice so take some of the same. The way you talk makes me spit. It's as though you're going to hand your guns in and join the anti's, prey tell? Go on then be an activist, join the other side and pick the flowers in the meadow. I guess you're over the age of 18 but with a very low IQ. I’ve never claimed to have any authority nor have I ‘shouted’ at you as far as I’m aware. The use of capitals is for emphasis on a word; in place of italics, as I’m on my phone; if I were shouting I would use capitals throughout. The rest of your post adds nothing to the topic but confusion, as I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have no idea why you think I would hand in my guns nor why I would join the antis! Edited July 30, 2019 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, panoma1 said: Are you not basing your argument on what you think could have happened, as if was a forgone conclusion too? As you say it didn't happen so we will never know! It's not fear it's called assessing and reacting to the situation! Jump in "gung ho" without doing so, and that's when a massive own goal could be scored! Did I suggest we may have "scored a massive own goal by inviting him"? Or suggest we may have scored a massive own goal if we invited him and it went wrong? Enjoy the film! No, my argument is based on what CJ claims 'could have happened' if we'd had the chance to talk with him as he suggests in the film....'we could have asked him...etc etc etc'. CJ had done all the assessing, and gone to greta lengths to organise the debate, including security, which WJ had ( to the extent they were willing to come ) expressed their satisfaction with as far as I'm aware. 2 hours ago, panoma1 said: If the event had gone forward, and something we all fear could happen, had happened, shooting would be the loser big time! And have scored a massive own goal for inviting him!........ Yes, I think you did suggest it. Its a poor film. Edited July 30, 2019 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 Scully you make some good points. We have to be open in what we do and base our actions on facts. Hiding in the shadows and hoping it all goes away is not the way to win an argument or even maintain what we do. I do however think that we need to look closer at what we do, when and how we do it and to some extent the GL fiasco has required that. I think we should look at our sport in it's entirety and see where we can improve what we do and how we do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 6 hours ago, Scully said: BIG BIG mistake in my opinion. Like I said in another thread, him and his mates will milk this for all it's worth. Why are we so afraid of him? Avery already done it, peice in the rags about how he was cancelled on.. 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.