No logic to lead ban

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 

Having a chat on the phone is not mutually exclusive to replying to queries on this forum. I have spoken with many PW members over the years and continue to engage on the forum with those same members also. I suggest we start with a phone call given your recent comments on this topic. 

As you have started this topic on the forum I find it a bit bizarre that you feel it appropriate to opt to respond to points either I or others have made regarding your thread in a private phone call. Surely the point of the forum is to discuss issues openly. It would seem more appropriate that you should address the issues you have raised on the forum ,and members responses to those issues, by responding on the forum, after all if you are to be considered the voice of shooting then you have to speak up. If you wish to raise any points with me that you feel you cannot share on the forum then apologies I prefer that people are held accountable for their statements and I feel private phone calls run contrary to this.

Should you wish to use a private phone call to apologise regarding labelling me as a belligerent BASC basher in a past locked thread and which claim you were consequently unable to substantiate then there is no need to apologise, the opportunity has passed.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Konor

[Gordon R]

It seems to be the preferred method of dealing with awkward questions. The offer of a phone call to maybe smooth things over.

I have had the same offer. My view is that it would be pointless and a bit insulting to others who have raised concerns about the contradictory posts. 

[Konor]

21 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

It seems to be the preferred method of dealing with awkward questions

And at the same time turning a blind eye to the concerns raised in this and past threads. Private phone calls ? No thank you we deserve better, honesty and accountability would be a good start.

[ShootingEgg]

3 minutes ago, Konor said:

And at the same time turning a blind eye to the concerns raised in this and past threads. Private phone calls ? No thank you we deserve better, honesty and accountability would be a good start.

 

28 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

It seems to be the preferred method of dealing with awkward questions. The offer of a phone call to maybe smooth things over.

I have had the same offer. My view is that it would be pointless and a bit insulting to others who have raised concerns about the contradictory posts. 

Or you could accept the offer and talk on the phone. Why is the offer of a chat offensive?!?! Maybe don't moan and groan about the org then shy away from a phone conversation, probably an adult conversation about your concerns that will then give you answers.. or no answers at all. But can't really complain after the offer of a call to discuss your individual concerns 

 

[Gordon R]

ShootingEgg 

Why can an answer be given in a private telephone call, but not on the Forum, where Conor himself raised the issue? What happens then? Do I, Konor or anyone else relay the answer to the Forum? How would anyone know it was an honest account?

No-one is shying away from a phone call, but what exactly is the point of one if the answer cannot be given? 

[Konor]

10 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

 

Or you could accept the offer and talk on the phone. Why is the offer of a chat offensive?!?! Maybe don't moan and groan about the org then shy away from a phone conversation, probably an adult conversation about your concerns that will then give you answers.. or no answers at all. But can't really complain after the offer of a call to discuss your individual concerns 

 

The whole point of a forum is an open discussion of points raised. The offer of a private chat for starters creates the impression that such a discussion will clarify the issues with no evidence that it has. As the issues have been raised by Conor himself on a shooting forum surely etiquette dictates that those issues are debated on the forum. I did not say or believe that the suggestion is offensive rather that it is not appropriate under the circumstances.

[ShootingEgg]

Nothing stopping said conversation points being bought back. But agree Conor could type a reply, but I guess he was trying to offer the conversation via a call. I'd imagine he is a tad busy as we all are and may find a call easier than a reply on to the forum 🤷🏼‍♂️

I have worked with basc in the past and had good dealings. I know others have not. Don't rule out a chat though. It may bring answers.

As for the lead ban it's been a complete mess from the off, how many years have all of us drank water from lead pipes. Shot at pheasant over a pond that's then not allowed if shooting duck over the same pond ( if on a flight the steel, unless fired in to the water, will fly on by!)

[Konor]

12 hours ago, Konor said:

As an aside I would be obliged if we could stick to debating the points raised and refrain from personal attack as it only serves to confuse and is a source of diversion that allows some contributors to avoid sticking to debating the issues raised. It would be even better if those disagreeing with points made address all the points in each post ,concede common ground where it exists and not go down the road of cherry picking a couple of points made in order to strongly disagree which inevitably leads to personal attack

It appears to me that the offer of a private chat is merely

“a source of diversion that allows some contributors to avoid sticking to debating the issues raised”

as I stated in an earlier post. 
 

[Gordon R]

ShootingEgg - I don't recall anyone saying the offer of a chat was offensive. Perhaps you could explain where that came from.

I said a phone call might be "a bit insulting to others who have raised concerns about the contradictory posts." Other members might not be happy that a couple of other members could be told the answer in private, but the rest of the Forum members were not permitted to know.

PS- it would need to be a remarkably short telephone conversation to be faster than a one minute post. Suggested short posts could be :-

1. BASC is totally against a lead ban.

2. BASC is in favour of a phasing out of lead, followed by a complete ban..

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

I'd imagine he is a tad busy as we all are and may find a call easier than a reply on to the forum 🤷🏼‍♂️

If that is the case Conor is more than capable of stating it himself rather than have other posters second guess his motivation in not addressing the points raised on his own thread.I’d imagine it would take no longer to reply on the forum than to do so via a private phone call but Conor consistently avoids replying to issues raised and seems to cherry pick what he chooses to reply to.

The point of the forum is to debate the issues and allow everyone equal voice in raising concerns. Private phone calls can silence that debate and I’m not willing to use private phone chats to investigate my concerns and the concerns of other posters on this or any other thread.

I think I’ve made my position clear ,time for others to do likewise.

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

My view is that it would be pointless and a bit insulting to others who have raised concerns about the contradictory posts

My bad you said insulting 

[Gordon R]

ShootingEgg - no problem.

I would be genuinely interested in why you think the matter could be better dealt with by one, two or several more members having a private conversation with Conor, rather than him simply posting the answer. 

It is a simple issue - feel free to correct my assessment of the situation.

At various points BASC have volunteered a phasing out of lead shot, whilst claiming to be against a lead ban. Which is it?

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

At various points BASC have volunteered a phasing out of lead shot, whilst claiming to be against a lead ban. Which is it?

It’s as straight forward as that and the shooting community deserve an honest reply to that question and the other points raised as a consequence of the threat of a lead ban. The only people qualified to give answers and clarification are BASC. and as we have seen here not one of the points raised so far ,at least by myself, has merited a specific response. This is  one more example of a failure to answer  the issues raised by pigeonwatch members surrounding what is probably the greatest proposed change in the last hundred years to sport shooting in the UK.

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2024 by Konor
Addition

[Scully]

I phoned Conor on invitation to do so early last year. 

We discussed our mutual frustrations and he seems a canny enough bloke, but nothing was resolved. 
BASC in my opinion are between a rock and a hard place ; on the one hand they have a wage paying membership to appease, but on the other, have to try and influence snake oil salesmen whom they have no real power over and who are pursuing a political agenda. 
Saying all that BASC wanted the job. They are the self proclaimed ‘voice of shooting’. Attempts to appease a few with a private phone call regarding matters posted on a public shooting forum, isn’t going to cut it. 

[Gordon R]

I rest my case.

[Cranfield]

There are many members that support Konor's comments and would like clarification from BASC.
Posting on the Forum is the best way for BASC to respond, I am sure Conor doesn't want everyone phoning him (then he would be very busy).

[ShootingEgg]

14 hours ago, Gordon R said:

ShootingEgg - no problem.

I would be genuinely interested in why you think the matter could be better dealt with by one, two or several more members having a private conversation with Conor, rather than him simply posting the answer. 

It is a simple issue - feel free to correct my assessment of the situation.

At various points BASC have volunteered a phasing out of lead shot, whilst claiming to be against a lead ban. Which is it?

I am in no way saying that a phone call would fix anything, and I too would like to see a response. But I also feel that it is a way of you and konor being able to voice your thoughts to Basc. Please don't take my posts in a negative way, just feel the more we are able to get our thoughts across the better, also the more information they then have to go to the fight with.

I do agree saying no to the ban then okay let's phase it out volunteering the suggestion is very strange, maybe it's a case of they feel this is a fight that's lost so get the best out of a bad situation??

[Red696]

The first question that keeps forming in my head, is, why do people still pay money to BASC?

I quit sending them money years ago, they are nothing more than a business, and a business that rips off it’s own customers.  They do not lobby for the benefit of ALL, in fact they don’t seem to even lobby for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, Red696 said:

The first question that keeps forming in my head, is, why do people still pay money to BASC?

I quit sending them money years ago, they are nothing more than a business, and a business that rips off it’s own customers.  They do not lobby for the benefit of ALL, in fact they don’t seem to even lobby for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

As an aside from the lead debate - I would respectfully disagree re BASC ripping off its customers. You only have to get involved with the youth coaching side and you will see massive gains, almost entirely funded by BASC. When you witness a child grinning from ear to ear after smashing their first clay……..?! Imagine this scene playing out thousands of times a year up and down the country, and you may have an idea of how big a program this is. For example, at last year’s Scout jamboree, they coached over 1,700 children in a week! That was only one event out of many. 

I can understand disgruntlement re the lead issue (although decency and respect seem to be lacking at times), however I don’t see a great deal ripping off to be fair. 

[Red696]

4 minutes ago, Fellside said:

As an aside from the lead debate - I would respectfully disagree re BASC ripping off its customers. You only have to get involved with the youth coaching side and you will see massive gains, almost entirely funded by BASC. When you witness a child grinning from ear to ear after smashing their first clay……..?! Imagine this scene playing out thousands of times a year up and down the country, and you may have an idea of how big a program this is. For example, at last year’s Scout jamboree, they coached over 1,700 children in a week! That was only one event out of many. 

I can understand disgruntlement re the lead issue (although decency and respect seem to be lacking at times), however I don’t see a great deal ripping off to be fair. 

Call me cycnical…. 1700 prospective customers for what outlay?  How many on the payroll turn up to set up & carry out the coaching? vs how many on the payroll ‘selling’ membership.
 

And there is a lot more to shooting than ‘clays’ ( a sport I’ve recently taken up 😁 ), as a life long Airgunner BASC has done diddly other than class Airgunners as 2nd class to the posh Game shooting fraternity.

BASC take plenty, give little, and blow smoke.

[ShootingEgg]

11 minutes ago, Fellside said:

When you witness a child grinning from ear to ear after smashing their first clay…

Used to run young shot days with James Green from BASC and we did clays, pheasant drive, walk round the shoot, prep a bird, then a duck flight. From smashing a clay to dropping a pheasant and/or a duck the kids loved it.... 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thanks @ShootingEgg for the reasoned comments. 

@Konor  the offer of a phone call remains - there seems a lot of issues to discuss - and some of them appear personal in nature also - all best done over the phone and not here.

As for the other comments from a few others I do wonder whether they have read BASC's consultation response let alone a summary of it. To expect me to spend hours on PW addressing queries from people that appear not to have had the common courtesy to read the information provided in the OP is a bit much. I am happy to address any genuine queries and have done so in this thread already.

Please read the summary on the webpage linked below (final para may address any confusion) and then at the end of the webpage are two downloads which includes much detail and context around the whole topic.

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-hse-lead-ammunition-consultation/ 

[harkom]

42 minutes ago, Red696 said:

The first question that keeps forming in my head, is, why do people still pay money to BASC?

I quit sending them money years ago, they are nothing more than a business, and a business that rips off it’s own customers.  They do not lobby for the benefit of ALL, in fact they don’t seem to even lobby for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

Absolutely.

However BSAC has a longstanding "stranglehold" on wild fowling clubs and such whereby "membership" fee is extracted as a necessary part of admission. Better value memberships can be obtained eg SACS, but these other organisations have not been deemed acceptable. Then of course the club committees of wildfowling clubs have a certain number of old codgers with "Life" membership of BSAC ...and needless to say they will not countenance any alteration to the status quo. In this day and age of "freedom of choice " ...this is anathema.

[ShootingEgg]

How has this yet again become a place for people to just be negative about an Org who are on the shooters side. Might as well just do a massive amnesty and give up shooting all together if that's everyone's attitude. 

 

[Red696]

11 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

How has this yet again become a place for people to just be negative about an Org who are on the shooters side. Might as well just do a massive amnesty and give up shooting all together if that's everyone's attitude. 

 

 “Org who are on the shooters side” now that is all the proof anyone needs that ‘selling’ works.

A Lincoln was correct:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”