Johnson and LEAD SHOT what are our organisations BASC and Etc. doing post 6 June confidence vote?

[enfieldspares]

Can BASC and other organisations NOW ask members in rural and other Conservative held constituencies to write directly to their MPs asking Mr Johnson to throw out all the HSE UK REACH lead proposals? BASC and the CPSA and etc will all have lists of members and can all write to their members with suggestions for a letter. This is something that the organisations need to consider.

I have sent this to CPSA (I am a member) and will post their reply. If anyone is a member of the Countryside Alliance and any other such as the NRA, NSRA and Etc. can they do likewise so that we can all see what our organisations are doing to proactively regarding lobbying MPs to then lobby Mr Johnson to get this thrown out from the top down rather than from, as at present, the bottom up?

Quote

Can CPSA and other organisations NOW ask members in rural and other Conservative held constituencies to write directly to their MPs asking Mr Johnson to throw out all the HSE UK REACH lead proposals? You at CPSA and etc will all have lists of members and can all write to their members with suggestions for a template for such a letter. This is something that the organisations need to consider. I joined the CPSA as they didn't sign the voluntary lead ban letter so foolishly promoted by BASC. Please do not let me down and please, consider a round robin email to ALL your members as suggested.

Edited June 8, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Whitebridges]

I'd be very willingly to write to my MP about chucking out any lead ban. Hopefully an appropriately drafted letter will become available soon. Following this thread with interest.  

[RyanMc]

Following

[scarecrow243]

BASC  hahahaha fat chance they don't help at all that's why i left them years ago

[udderlyoffroad]

56 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

If anyone is a member of the Countryside Alliance and any other such as the NRA, NSRA and Etc. can they do likewise so that we can all see what our organisations are doing to proactively regarding lobbying MPs to then lobby Mr Johnson

That's not how lobbying works!!

It is not done publicly.  It is done behind the scenes, and out of view of the public.

We would be far better off responding to the consultation, explaining, with facts to back up our arguments, why the proposal is bad.   Rather than sending 'template' letters to MPs that will be easily recognised as such and cosigned to the digital dustbin.

[Fellside]

I appreciate that this is not how lobbying works - but enfieldspares is on the right track. The idea just needs to be refined - not thrown out. There is an excellent opportunity here following the recent ‘confidence vote’. 

Who are the known ‘no confidence’ MPs - i.e those who went public? Out of those, which ones are against a lead shot ban? They could be appeased and brought back in to the fold via policy change. Johnson will be working hard behind the scenes to win over these nay sayers…..?!

[Newbie to this]

@Conor O'Gorman?

[holloway]

Have they discovered that lead isn’t toxic after all ?

[Scully]

2 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Can BASC and other organisations NOW ask members in rural and other Conservative held constituencies to write directly to their MPs asking Mr Johnson to throw out all the HSE UK REACH lead proposals? BASC and the CPSA and etc will all have lists of members and can all write to their members with suggestions for a letter. This is something that the organisations need to consider.

I have sent this to CPSA (I am a member) and will post their reply. If anyone is a member of the Countryside Alliance and any other such as the NRA, NSRA and Etc. can they do likewise so that we can all see what our organisations are doing to proactively regarding lobbying MPs to then lobby Mr Johnson to get this thrown out from the top down rather than from, as at present, the bottom up?

Do you really not understand the agenda behind this, particularly that of our shooting organisations? 
For commercial shooting to survive, the product it produces needs a buyer, and if those buyers won’t buy it because they can’t sell it, then the industry will collapse. 
If commercial driven shooting goes, such as pheasant, partridge, grouse, then what is left are easy pickings; and before anyone starts banging on about  pest control being a necessity, it isn’t; and even if it were as crucial as some claim, you’ll still be left with non toxic anyhow because the HSE, FSA, and environmentalists are all over this like a rash. 

 

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, Fellside said:

I appreciate that this is not how lobbying works - but enfieldspares is on the right track. The idea just needs to be refined - not thrown out. There is an excellent opportunity here following the recent ‘confidence vote’. 

Who are the known ‘no confidence’ MPs - i.e those who went public? Out of those, which ones are against a lead shot ban? They could be appeased and brought back in to the fold via policy change. Johnson will be working hard behind the scenes to win over these nay sayers…..?!

Thank you.

Rees-Mogg let us remember lead the move to ditch the .50 calibre rifle ban. I think that input to MPs may be if use. And as to those saying the only way is by responding to the HSE Survey well NOTHING of what you write there will be read by any MP will it? Respond to the Survey, yes, but also better to then send a version of that to you MP also.

[enfieldspares]

3 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

That's not how lobbying works!!

It is not done publicly.  It is done behind the scenes, and out of view of the public.

 

Like it was in 1988 with the failed lobbying to stop the ban on self-loading rifles?

Or like it was with the failed lobbying in 1996 to stop the ban on handguns?

Yeah. We could do with trying it the same again then.

Maybe third time lucky eh? Just like this.

Not funny for those who were there like my late grandfather a Lieutenant in 2nd KOYLI on 1st July 1916 in the first wave. But it makes the point re others comments on "lobbying". It didn't work in '88, it didn't work in '96. But you expect it to work now? 

Edited June 8, 2022 by enfieldspares

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Do you really not understand the agenda behind this, particularly that of our shooting organisations? 
For commercial shooting to survive, the product it produces needs a buyer, and if those buyers won’t buy it because they can’t sell it, then the industry will collapse. 
 

Well I care as much about the big bag buys putting down thirty, forty, fifty thousand birds as they do about me. As they were quite happy to see me go under the bus rather than state in their "terms and conditions" that guns use non-lead shot. So because they cared more about the money than about self-policing their own operation everybody else goes under the bus? IF commercial shooting goes then so be it and the land they once leased is abandoned by them then it will perhaps become available to the small syndicate and such like. Good!

 

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Well I care as much about the big bag buys putting down thirty, forty, fifty thousand birds as they do about me. As they were quite happy to see me go under the bus rather than state in their "terms and conditions" that guns use non-lead shot. So because they cared more about the money than about self-policing their own operation everybody else goes under the bus? IF commercial shooting goes then so be it and the land they once leased is abandoned by them then it will perhaps become available to the small syndicate and such like. Good!

 

The organisations don’t care about you me or anyone else as individuals! They care about survival! They’re a business, and if shooting goes so do they, can you not see that! 
They will side with that which gives them the best chance of survival, and that is the industry that is commercial driven shooting; the rest of us can sink or swim or simply get dragged along, they don’t care. 
If commercial shooting goes because they continue shooting birds with lead, then why would there be any smaller syndicates? Much of the game bird suppliers will be finished; how many can survive with the amount of outlay they have put into the business by supplying 300 here, 500 there, 250 to such and such? They deal in multiples of thousands! 
Who will you sell them to? Remember, game dealers won’t be buying them because they CAN’T SELL THEM!  Can you give them away? We only put down 300 each year and last season had a return of 150, and still struggled to move them on. 

And even if some game suppliers survive, you will STILL be shooting with non toxic shot because of the environment! 
You know it’s nonsense , and I know it’s nonsense, but it’s not about making sense, it’s about business, and in any business consumers call the shots. 
No one in business produces a product no one wants. 
 

[Fellside]

There’s nothing wrong with the big commercial shoots (or indeed anyone who sells game) being restricted to steel - as market demand dictates. However, if there was a Ministry of Common Sense (?), only game to be sold would need to be lead free. 

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Fellside said:

There’s nothing wrong with the big commercial shoots (or indeed anyone who sells game) being restricted to steel - as market demand dictates. However, if there was a Ministry of Common Sense (?), only game to be sold would need to be lead free. 

Makes sense to me, but then I’m not an environmentalist. 🙂

[Fellside]

It’s interesting that New Zealand have reviewed the science re terrestrial lead shot - they are actually pretty switched on in terms of environmental policy. They have concluded that the use of lead shot for game shooting (non-wetlands) may continue unrestricted - citing insufficient genuine evidence for change. 

[Scully]

Just now, Fellside said:

It’s interesting that New Zealand have reviewed the science re terrestrial lead shot - they are actually pretty switched on in terms of environmental policy. They have concluded that the use of lead shot for game shooting (non-wetlands) may continue unrestricted - citing insufficient genuine evidence for change. 

Didn’t Norway ban lead and have now gone back to it? 

[udderlyoffroad]

57 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Like it was in 1988 with the failed lobbying to stop the ban on self-loading rifles?

Or like it was with the failed lobbying in 1996 to stop the ban on handguns?

Yeah. We could do with trying it the same again then.

Maybe third time lucky eh? Just like this.

You appear to be suggesting, Cap’n Darling, that the previous bans happened because lobbying – which we’re never told about – didn’t happen?  How could you possibly know?  Please do share your insider information.

In any case, these were political knee-jerk reactions of legislation drafted by the government at the time and voted for by parliament. 

In this case, parliament has nothing to do with it, save for giving the HSE sweeping powers over REACH.  Perhaps we should try fighting this battle, not last year's battle.

What we really shouldn't do, again, is spend the whole time squabbling, or letting people get away with the I'm-alright-Jack attitude that apparently so many shooters were guilty of following the last 2 bans.  Everyone must respond, or at the very least be a member of an organisation who responds, and then, following the likely ignoral thereof by the HSE, THEN is the time to write to your MP.  The average MP will not be interested in an on-going consultation by a governmental agency. 

I'd even hazard a guess that this is indeed the reason why your 'round robin' emails from the organisations hasn't yet asked you to write to parliamentarians, rather respond to the consultations.  You do read your weekly email from your org of choice, don't you?

[Pushandpull]

There is money available in "fighting funds". Can we not simply award consultancy funding (bungs) where it will do the most good ? That seems to be how the world works these days.

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You appear to be suggesting, Cap’n Darling, that the previous bans happened because lobbying – which we’re never told about – didn’t happen?  How could you possibly know?  Please do share your insider information.

 

Thank you. Lobbying did happen. And, as said, failed. Same people used in 1996 as in 1988. Shooters were specifically told NOT to write to MPs, to "maintain a dignified silence" to leave it to the lobbyists. And that method failed.

The British Shooting Sports Council used a lobbying company in 1988. The company was called "Advocacy". It was after all a long time ago. There for sure was a press conference arranged at which when these lobbyists said that some self-loading rifles like the Garand and the SLR might be allowed a female reporter stood up, asked, "So what's the difference?" and brought the meeting down with loud laughter all around.

And I wasn't a Captain and stop calling me "darling" in public! Shhsh! People will talk! LOL!

Edited June 8, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Didn’t Norway ban lead and have now gone back to it? 

Yes they certainly did. 

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You appear to be suggesting, Cap’n Darling, that the previous bans happened because lobbying – which we’re never told about – didn’t happen?  How could you possibly know?  Please do share your insider information.

In any case, these were political knee-jerk reactions of legislation drafted by the government at the time and voted for by parliament. 

In this case, parliament has nothing to do with it, save for giving the HSE sweeping powers over REACH.  Perhaps we should try fighting this battle, not last year's battle.

What we really shouldn't do, again, is spend the whole time squabbling, or letting people get away with the I'm-alright-Jack attitude that apparently so many shooters were guilty of following the last 2 bans.  Everyone must respond, or at the very least be a member of an organisation who responds, and then, following the likely ignoral thereof by the HSE, THEN is the time to write to your MP.  The average MP will not be interested in an on-going consultation by a governmental agency. 

I'd even hazard a guess that this is indeed the reason why your 'round robin' emails from the organisations hasn't yet asked you to write to parliamentarians, rather respond to the consultations.  You do read your weekly email from your org of choice, don't you?

There is a danger that the so called public consultation is little more than a formality - ‘process’ being seen to be done while the decision has already been made. It is certainly worth overwhelming the consultation with well reasoned objections, to counteract the HSE’s heavily bias report. This may possibly raise questions and debate.  However, there is nothing at all wrong with building political pressure in parallel via MPs and lobbyists etc. 

In the best case scenario, and this is entirely wishful thinking, the HSE will cease to exist in its current format, and the lead debacle could be shelved. Certainly large scale civil service changes and cost cutting are imminent for sure. What shape they will take however is anyone’s guess. 

[51/50]

Something else to think about...

 

If,according to the HSE & FSA etc,there are no safe levels of lead because it is such a health hazard why do they allow our drinking water & food processing water to be treated with flouride that is a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry which amongst other nasties contains LEAD,mercury & arsenic,they do not treat our water with pharmaceutical grade flouride because that's way too expensive.

I personally cannot prove this,i am no scientist but i would like to see trustworthy scientific tests carried out to prove this to be correct or incorrect,if proven to be correct surely it would give the shooting fraternity some decent ammunition (pardon the pun!) in the fight against an outright lead ban?

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by 51/50

[Dave at kelton]

I have a few comments on this thread and all the others about this subject.

Firstly before you comment please read HSE report….all 227 pages of it. Don’t rely on what you have read or heard from others.

Secondly, don’t leave everyone else to make your case, do it for yourself. If you are going to leave it to the shooting organisations don’t complain about the result in due course.

Lastly, don’t assume a template response will have any traction as it will be seen for what it is. If you are going to comment make evidence based representations in your own words.

By all means lobby MP’s although I rather feel that they have other things on their agendas at present!

 

[Fellside]

47 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

I have a few comments on this thread and all the others about this subject.

Firstly before you comment please read HSE report….all 227 pages of it. Don’t rely on what you have read or heard from others.

Secondly, don’t leave everyone else to make your case, do it for yourself. If you are going to leave it to the shooting organisations don’t complain about the result in due course.

Lastly, don’t assume a template response will have any traction as it will be seen for what it is. If you are going to comment make evidence based representations in your own words.

By all means lobby MP’s although I rather feel that they have other things on their agendas at present!

 

Good points well made. However please bear in mind the HSE report relies, in part, upon biased data generated by certain interests shall we say. Junk science and wild guestimates in places. It would seem that the HSE have poorly evaluated much of the so called science and it’s source.