BASC January 2024 podcast - voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting

[Conor O'Gorman]

The January 2024 episode of BASC's podcast is now live - focusing on the voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. Click the link below to listen to the various interviews on this topic.

https://basc.org.uk/podcast/

[Smudger687]

Some quite misleading/misinformed statements on this podcast regarding steel shot:

07:00 - "If you go up at least one shot size [with steel] as you did before [with lead] you have the same kinetic energy and penetration as you would with a lead alternative"

Not sure if he meant "same kinetic energy and penetration as you would with lead", but either way it's incorrect - George Konetes at The New Hunter's Guide channel on youtube compared the gel penetration of steel 2's and BB's against bismuth #2's, and the bismuth penetrated substantially deeper than either of the steel options (https://youtu.be/j-dQU2tYVzU). Any cursory investigation into the penetration figures from any ballistic calculator will give similar results. I'm also somewhat suprised that BASC continues to say that a less dense material will penetrate as or more deeply than a more dense material - if this were true, TSS would be the worst shot material on the planet. It's simply not true.

07:09 - "The thing with steel shot is it's lighter, so you get more shot per gram in a cartridge. Some say this is negated by going up one shot size, but actually it isn't, there is still more shot"

This is misleading. It can be true that, due to lead's density, the full case volume of a lead cartridge is not utilised, with excess space being taken up with various fillers and crush sections. In these instances, a lead cartridge that is only partially filled can have a lower pellet count than a steel cartridge containing larger pellets that is loaded to the brim with a full cup wad, but this is not universally true.

For any given case volume, you will only be able to fit x number of pellets into it, regardless of pellet material, eg if a wad/hull will take 215 lead pellets at 3.05mm (US size 5), it will take 215 steel pellets at 3.05mm. Those 215 lead pellets will have a mass of about 36 grams, whereas 215 steel pellets have a mass of about 25 grams. The problem is that you would need to use much bigger pellets to get close to the same performance of those 3.05mm lead pellets; taking BASC's advice of moving up just one shot size to a size 4 (3.25mm), the maximum number of pellets you could fit in the same cartridge is going to be about 168 (totalling 25 grams), and the reality is that steel 4's don't match the performance of lead 5's. You'd probably need to go up to at least steel 3's, possibly even as high as steel 1's to match the performance of the lead pellets, in which case you'd get a paltry 135 and 90 pellets in the same cartridge.

I'd be keen to know that, if by some miracle, TSS suddenly became affordable for common usage, would BASC be telling people that the lower pellet count per gram would be detrimental and that they should stick with steel shot?

07:28 - "And on top of that, steel shot patterns tighter than lead"

Not always, higher antimony (harder) lead shot frequently matches or exceeds steel shot. Richard Atkins demonstrated this quite conclusively in his article of 2022 (https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/steel-vs-lead-cartridges-a-pattern-emerges-131291/), where he compares the patterns obtained from a 32g 6 load (actually more like a 32g 5.5) in lead to a 32g 4 load in steel through cylinder, quarter and half choke. He found that:

1. The pellet count was higher in the lead cartridge (imagine my surprise).
2. The lead cartridge put a higher percentage of pellets in a 30 inch circle at 30 and 40 yards through cylinder and quarter choke (and was only marginally pipped by steel at those same ranges with half choke).
3. The lead cartridge put a higher number of pellets in the 30 inch circle at 30 and 40 yards through all chokes tested (cylinder, quarter and half).

If he wanted to use 3/4, full or super full, he could do that with the lead cartridge and those numbers and percentages would increase even more, something that can't [officially] be done with the steel cartridge.

BASC do themselves no favours when they (in my opinion) knowingly spread half-truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face. 

Edited January 2 by Smudger687

[Gordon R]

I have listened to the entire podcast. I didn't really find it objective and it seemed to be an advert for steel shot.

The proposal is to ban lead shot for target shooting, but not for rifles on a suitable range. I assume this refers to clay shooting or practical shotgun. The reasoning being the potential risk posed by lead ammunition to human health and the environment. It made no attempt to spell out what these risks were in clay shooting, but mentioned safeguarding the increasing market for wildlife food.

Clay shooting got  a brief mention at the end when one enthusiast proclaimed they were shooting clays at 55 yards.

Ricochets using steel shot were dismissed with a few truly bland comments about a bad shot being a bad shot, with lead or steel.

In short, I found it amateurish.

 

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

focusing on the voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. Click the link below to listen to the various interviews on this topic.

Shouldn’t BASC in the interests of consistency not drop its voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting position now that its stance is reputedly to be an opposition to further restriction on lead shot use.The naivety of holding on to both positions to me parallels the car crash interview that Prince Andrew was involved in where he was convinced he could talk his way out of accusations by relying on ever more bizarre statements. At least put some meat on the bones of the voluntary move away from lead if you opt to retain it by championing exemptions that would enable vintage shotguns to continue to use lead.

[rbrowning2]

Having read the comments i am not even going to listen to the podcast, yet more BASC propaganda on steel shot.

Another issue with steel shot which always gets conveniently forgotten is the increased noise, report from the gun that potentially could have a serious consequence for many clay grounds.

 

[Gordon R]

The clay shooting aspect seems to be ignored. I originally thought the voluntary phasing out was for live game shooting, but the podcast suggests that this also applies to clays / practical shotguns etc. The exemptions appear to be air rifles and rifles on ranges.

I am unclear as to why airguns are exempt - I'm not suggesting they should be banned from lead shot - I assume it is volume.

[Konor]

23 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The clay shooting aspect seems to be ignored. I originally thought the voluntary phasing out was for live game shooting, but the podcast suggests that this also applies to clays / practical shotguns etc. The exemptions appear to be air rifles and rifles on ranges.

I am unclear as to why airguns are exempt - I'm not suggesting they should be banned from lead shot - I assume it is volume.

I just had my Mk 38 trap gun Teague choked and steel shot (hp)proofed to future proof it for my clay shooting. My MK 60 will have its 3/4 bored out to 3/8 if steel shot becomes necessary for clay shooting too. I think the case stated for the exclusion of air rifles from a lead ban was estimated volume/weight in tonnage put into the environment .As the arguments become more political I’m less inclined to read them.

[Scully]

What a bloody mess!
I haven’t listened to it all yet, but so far BASC apparently are opposed to further lead shot restrictions, and discuss ‘resistance’ by those opposed to the ‘inevitable’ transition. 🤷‍♂️
 

[Fil]

12 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

Having read the comments i am not even going to listen to the podcast, yet more BASC propaganda on steel shot.

Another issue with steel shot which always gets conveniently forgotten is the increased noise, report from the gun that potentially could have a serious consequence for many clay grounds.

 

I feel the same as you. BASC propaganda as well as noise. Also felt recoil in my light weight game guns. Also another factor with steel shot is rust in game meat. It was my first comment to BASC when they were grooming us with the "new" Eley vip eco steel cartridge for game. BASC and their loyal followers told me not to be so silly. Guess what, earlier in the year a local game dealer rejected a load of pigeons from a friend of a friend due to rusty pellets in the meat. Another person told me the same story who does not know my friends friend but also knows the game dealer so I feel it is true. Also because I have it from a reliable source that some pheasants from an estate were also rejected due to rust. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

21 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Some quite misleading/misinformed statements on this podcast regarding steel shot:

07:00 - "If you go up at least one shot size [with steel] as you did before [with lead] you have the same kinetic energy and penetration as you would with a lead alternative"

Not sure if he meant "same kinetic energy and penetration as you would with lead", but either way it's incorrect - George Konetes at The New Hunter's Guide channel on youtube compared the gel penetration of steel 2's and BB's against bismuth #2's, and the bismuth penetrated substantially deeper than either of the steel options (https://youtu.be/j-dQU2tYVzU). Any cursory investigation into the penetration figures from any ballistic calculator will give similar results. I'm also somewhat suprised that BASC continues to say that a less dense material will penetrate as or more deeply than a more dense material - if this were true, TSS would be the worst shot material on the planet. It's simply not true.

07:09 - "The thing with steel shot is it's lighter, so you get more shot per gram in a cartridge. Some say this is negated by going up one shot size, but actually it isn't, there is still more shot"

This is misleading. It can be true that, due to lead's density, the full case volume of a lead cartridge is not utilised, with excess space being taken up with various fillers and crush sections. In these instances, a lead cartridge that is only partially filled can have a lower pellet count than a steel cartridge containing larger pellets that is loaded to the brim with a full cup wad, but this is not universally true.

For any given case volume, you will only be able to fit x number of pellets into it, regardless of pellet material, eg if a wad/hull will take 215 lead pellets at 3.05mm (US size 5), it will take 215 steel pellets at 3.05mm. Those 215 lead pellets will have a mass of about 36 grams, whereas 215 steel pellets have a mass of about 25 grams. The problem is that you would need to use much bigger pellets to get close to the same performance of those 3.05mm lead pellets; taking BASC's advice of moving up just one shot size to a size 4 (3.25mm), the maximum number of pellets you could fit in the same cartridge is going to be about 168 (totalling 25 grams), and the reality is that steel 4's don't match the performance of lead 5's. You'd probably need to go up to at least steel 3's, possibly even as high as steel 1's to match the performance of the lead pellets, in which case you'd get a paltry 135 and 90 pellets in the same cartridge.

I'd be keen to know that, if by some miracle, TSS suddenly became affordable for common usage, would BASC be telling people that the lower pellet count per gram would be detrimental and that they should stick with steel shot?

07:28 - "And on top of that, steel shot patterns tighter than lead"

Not always, higher antimony (harder) lead shot frequently matches or exceeds steel shot. Richard Atkins demonstrated this quite conclusively in his article of 2022 (https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/steel-vs-lead-cartridges-a-pattern-emerges-131291/), where he compares the patterns obtained from a 32g 6 load (actually more like a 32g 5.5) in lead to a 32g 4 load in steel through cylinder, quarter and half choke. He found that:

1. The pellet count was higher in the lead cartridge (imagine my surprise).
2. The lead cartridge put a higher percentage of pellets in a 30 inch circle at 30 and 40 yards through cylinder and quarter choke (and was only marginally pipped by steel at those same ranges with half choke).
3. The lead cartridge put a higher number of pellets in the 30 inch circle at 30 and 40 yards through all chokes tested (cylinder, quarter and half).

If he wanted to use 3/4, full or super full, he could do that with the lead cartridge and those numbers and percentages would increase even more, something that can't [officially] be done with the steel cartridge.

BASC do themselves no favours when they (in my opinion) knowingly spread half-truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face. 

Thanks for the feedback which I have passed onto colleagues. I appreciate you have your own opinion as per the above but that does not necessarily mean you are right as an individual and that the collective expertise and experience at BASC is wrong - but in either case to then make the leap to publish your assertion on this Forum that BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. 

[Konor]

1 minute ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

to publish your assertion on this Forum that BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. 

There’s a lot of it going about 

[Weihrauch17]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks for the feedback which I have passed onto colleagues. I appreciate you have your own opinion as per the above but that does not necessarily mean you are right as an individual and that the collective expertise and experience at BASC is wrong - but in either case to then make the leap to publish your assertion on this Forum that BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. 

You really can't help yourself can you.  You portray an awful picture of BASC arrogance but probably the correct one.  What experience and expertise actively proposes a ban on Lead and then declares it is opposed to it, you are totally bonkers to our detriment.

Edited January 2 by Weihrauch17

[Smudger687]

13 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks for the feedback which I have passed onto colleagues. I appreciate you have your own opinion as per the above but that does not necessarily mean you are right as an individual and that the collective expertise and experience at BASC is wrong - but in either case to then make the leap to publish your assertion on this Forum that BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. 

Respectfully Conor, my last letter to the BASC magazine (submitted at your behest, I might add) was met with a dismissive response from the same Terry Behan. I felt that he had not replied in good faith and was not at all interested in what I had to say. As such, I do not believe that Terry Behan (and BASC by extension) are playing straight with us; his latest appearance on the podcast has done nothing to disabuse me of this belief.

How is it that such a seemingly knowledgeable, senior BASC representative, with access to all the wealth of experience and expertise of BASC, continues to disseminate information which is demonstrably false?

Either he is ignorant, or he is knowingly spreading untruths. If the former, he shouldn't be the Head of the sustainable ammunition group. If the latter, then the most obvious motive (in my opinion) is that he's trying to save face over the handling of the transition to non-tox, and downplaying any issues associated with it. 

Could you please let me know which colleagues you've passed my comments on to, as I'd be grateful if they could find the time to publicly respond to my objections. All too often the phrase "Thanks for your comments which I've passed onto colleagues" just serves to deaden a particular line of inquiry and I'd rather not let BASC off the hook for this one. 

Thanks. 

[Gordon R]

Smudger687 - don't hold your breath. That said, you might get an invite to a telephone chat. 

I note that the individual points that you make are not answered. Merely brushed aside - unworthy of point by point rebuttal?

Quote

the most obvious motive (in my opinion) is that he's trying to save face over the handling of the transition to non-tox, and downplaying any issues associated with it. 

Perish the thought. 🙂

[Fil]

11 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Respectfully Conor, my last letter to the BASC magazine (submitted at your behest, I might add) was met with a dismissive response from the same Terry Behan. I felt that he had not replied in good faith and was not at all interested in what I had to say. As such, I do not believe that Terry Behan (and BASC by extension) are playing straight with us; his latest appearance on the podcast has done nothing to disabuse me of this belief.

How is it that such a seemingly knowledgeable, senior BASC representative, with access to all the wealth of experience and expertise of BASC, continues to disseminate information which is demonstrably false?

Either he is ignorant, or he is knowingly spreading untruths. If the former, he shouldn't be the Head of the sustainable ammunition group. If the latter, then the most obvious motive (in my opinion) is that he's trying to save face over the handling of the transition to non-tox, and downplaying any issues associated with it. 

Could you please let me know which colleagues you've passed my comments on to, as I'd be grateful if they could find the time to publicly respond to my objections. All too often the phrase "Thanks for your comments which I've passed onto colleagues" just serves to deaden a particular line of inquiry and I'd rather not let BASC off the hook for this one. 

Thanks. 

I was arrogantly slapped down one time too many by them when I  was questioning early on about affects of rust in meat with steel shot or kept pointing out that that Eley VIP Pro Eco wad cartridge they so gleefully paraded around at the time as our saviour is NOT suitable for use in ANY nitro proofed gun as they first declared. 'You don't know what you are talking about' was one reply. (I'm a gunmaker) There are now alleged cases of game being rejected due to rusty shot in meat.  I also kept persevering over a couple of days back then pointing out to various reps on FB that the information they are giving is incorrect and in fact dangerous. I was slapped down again until I pointed out that 70mm cartridges are not suitable for use in 65mm chambered guns. A lot of us still shoot 65mm chambered guns so that cartridge is definitely NOT suitable for ANY gun that is nitro proofed. The posts on social media were quickly removed. I then cancelled my membership. I appreciate where BASC is coming from in trying to future proof our sport but any questioning, resistance, or objections including the non believers are treated like covid deniers or anti vaxers it feels. The arrogance towards some of its members was eye opening to say the least. Good luck to them. They'll not see my money again. There are other field sports societies that fight our corner who will happily take my money. 

My one last say in this: How can an organisation which have been saying for many, many years that it opposes any further restrictions in lead shot (following the lead ban on wildfowl) and can see no reason why to ban lead shot suddenly wake up Monday morning and say that lead is bad we need to go lead free.

Edited January 3 by Fil
sshpelling

[Smudger687]

4 minutes ago, Fil said:

I was arrogantly slapped down one time too many by them when I  was questioning early on about affects of rust in meat with steel shot or kept pointing out that that Eley VIP Pro Eco wad cartridge they so gleefully paraded around at the time as our saviour is NOT suitable for use in ANY nitro proofed gun as they first declared. 'You don't know what you are talking about' was one reply. (I'm a gunmaker) There are now alleged cases of game being rejected due to rusty shot in meat.  I also kept persevering over a couple of days back then pointing out to various reps on FB that the information they are giving is incorrect and in fact dangerous. I was slapped down again until I pointed out that 70mm cartridges are not suitable for use in 65mm chambered guns. A lot of us still shoot 65mm chambered guns so that cartridge is definitely NOT suitable for ANY gun that is nitro proofed. The posts on social media were quickly removed. I then cancelled my membership. I appreciate where BASC is coming from in trying to future proof our sport but any questioning, resistance, or objections including the non believers are treated like covid deniers or anti vaxers it feels. The arrogance towards some of its members was eye opening to say the least. Good luck to them. They'll not see my money again. There are other field sports societies that fight our corner who will happily take my money. 

My one last say in this: How can an organisation which have been saying for many, many years that it opposes any further restrictions in lead shot (following the lead ban on wildfowl) and can see no reason why to ban lead shot suddenly wake up Monday morning and say that lead is bad we need to go lead free.

It's a pity, because BASC do indeed do some good work, but they've really let themselves (and us) down over the move to steel.

BASC are not playing straight with us, this whole idea that if you move up one or two shot sizes in steel then you'll get equivalent (or better) performance than with lead is a complete fantasy. US size 5 in lead will out-penetrate steel 2's at 50 yards, even with a lower muzzle velocity (https://randywakeman.com/KentBismuthvsLead.htm - table 2). Steel can definitely work, but only when the shooter stops thinking of steel shot as if it were lead.

I'd also like to pre-emptively address a point that may get rolled out, namely that when feathers are laid over a gel block, a bigger steel pellet can penetrate more deeply into the block than a smaller lead pellet. As far as I understand it, this is because once a pellet gets balled up in a feather, its surface area increases dramatically, and at that point the greater mass of the steel pellet carries the pellet/feather ball more deeply that the smaller lead pellet/feather ball. 

The problem is that feather balling completely kills penetration, whether it's a steel pellet or a lead pellet. A balled up lead pellet (unless it's a big pellet) isn't going to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vital organs, much like how a balled up steel pellet won't either. It's still the pellets that don't ball up, penetrating deeply enough to reach the vital organs, that do all the heavy lifting. 

It always makes me laugh that, when hevishot, tungsten-15 and tungsten-18 were released that, unlike steel, they didn't need a relentless PR campaign to convince shooters that they were the dog's nuts - field reports were suficient to demonstrate that the denser shot performed exceptionally well. 

[Ultrastu]

As far as I've always understood  how a bird or any quarry for that matter is taken- is due to the impact velocity and the sectional density of the projectile to carry the pellet the depth required to impart enough energy and velocity to the vitals. So a very fast pellet with enough mass  will penetrate  deep enough .with shot guns  this is required multiple  times, so a high pellet count on target is required to make up the general lack or precision. 

It therefore makes perfect sense that a cartridge load that has many many small  but very dense pellets landing on target at range and a fast speed  will kill way better than the opposite scenario of a lower pellet count ,wide spread , moving slower at range (even if they are larger ) with a lower sectional density  .

The first is an excellent example of no 9 shot tss shot (they kill crazy well ) 

The second is a no 4 shot steel load .

Which don't kill as well .

it's not difficult  science .

Obviously  lead sits in the middle and has always been the best compromise  .

 

[Old farrier]

15 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks for the feedback which I have passed onto colleagues. I appreciate you have your own opinion as per the above but that does not necessarily mean you are right as an individual and that the collective expertise and experience at BASC is wrong - but in either case to then make the leap to publish your assertion on this Forum that BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. 

Could you please tell us who is correct?

obviously with the science to back it up 

simple question either Basc podcast or smudger 687 

 

[HantsRob]

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 I appreciate you have your own opinion as per the above but that does not necessarily mean you are right as an individual and that the collective expertise and experience at BASC is wrong 

Currently you state his is opinion and your words read that your collective expertise and experience is fact. 

Is it possible Dr Smudger (genuinely a Dr also) could be giving an opinion based on facts and research?
Is it possible you are passing on information given to you in good faith as fact, but may not be correct? As BASC is a professional body with collective expertise, could you kindly share the validated research to show that your data is factually correct?
BASC collective experience is, in its own right, opinions only. Experiences is opinions, unless documented and validated. I believe Smudger has given references to results, which is far greater than experience/opinions.

I would like to see the data that formulates the data in your podcast, as otherwise I would suggest your comment it is wholely inappropriate is incorrect unless your rebuttal is data to the contrary, of a higher standing and provenance.

Your comment was reading relatively ok but without information. "BASC is "knowingly spread [ing] half truths and incorrect information in an attempt to save face" is wholly inappropriate. " may be a fair comment by you, I will give you that, but you can only state that with evidence to show his comments were inaccurate. As for wholly inappropriate, you would also have to assume for that to be a fair comment that he was wittingly and knowingly trying to deceive a forum. He has however given an opinion, based on facts, documented and shared. I believe he is just asking for the same.

[Conor O'Gorman]

I have noted the comments above, thank you for that, and would recommend that people listen to the podcast and make their own judgements. It is both informative and interesting. Here is the link again to Ep 43:

https://basc.org.uk/podcast/

[Newbie to this]

[Gordon R]

Quote

I have noted the comments above, thank you for that, and would recommend that people listen to the podcast and make their own judgements.

Conor - surely it isn't a matter of judgement. It should be fact based. If BASC are disputing what Smudger687 has posted, can we have a point by point rebuttal?

I listened to the podcast and found it contained very few figures / facts that were backed up. It sounded more like a boys club chat down at the pub, where everyone loved steel shot and no-one let facts cloud the issue.

Edited January 4 by Gordon R

[udderlyoffroad]

I listened yesterday in the truck whilst doing a tip / scrap metal run, so I didn't give it the attention that say @smudger did, with presumably notebook, pen and time stamps handy.

Whilst I understand the sentiment that 80-90 % of shooters will be absolutely fine with steel, I do think the tone came across as somewhat dismissive.  It's a podcast; you have time to do a deep-dive, no need to say "that's all we've got time for".

Anyway, this thread is all rather academic, am sure the HSE will inevitably adopt the precautionary principle (viz. ban everything), while the EU REACH organisation will not.  The only question in my mind is how the supply chain issues/ongoing wars will affect the availability of suitable product here.

 

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I have noted the comments above, thank you for that, and would recommend that people listen to the podcast and make their own judgements.

Conor I can only assume from your last two posts that your remit is to refrain from commenting on any points raised on the forum. This seems a bizarre situation but I can only assume that you are not qualified to comment on technical aspects of the ballistics of non lead ammunition.

Would it therefore be possible to arrange to have a BASC representative qualified to comment on the points raised on the forum address  those points raised in the interests of clarification as it does seem that there is some confusion over the veracity of the information being supplied.

I’m sure you would want both BASC members and non members of the pigeonwatch  shooting community to have the benefit of the extensive collective expertise at BASC’s disposal which along with contributions from the more technically minded on the pigeon watch forum should make for an informative discussion and will hopefully answer all the points raised which you have unfortunately been potentially unqualified to respond to.Should you manage to organise this it would go a long way to shedding light on what has become quite a complex issue and will hopefully provide much sought after clarification.

Edited January 3 by Konor

[holloway]

21 minutes ago, Konor said:

Conor I can only assume from your last two posts that your remit is to refrain from commenting on any points raised on the forum. This seems a bizarre situation but I can only assume that you are not qualified to comment on technical aspects of the ballistics of non lead ammunition.

Would it therefore be possible to arrange to have a BASC representative qualified to comment on the points raised on the forum address  those points raised in the interests of clarification as it does seem that there is some confusion over the veracity of the information being supplied.

I’m sure you would want both BASC members and non members of the pigeonwatch  shooting community to have the benefit of the extensive collective expertise at BASC’s disposal which along with contributions from the more technically minded on the pigeon watch forum should make for an informative discussion and will hopefully answer all the points raised which you have unfortunately been potentially unqualified to respond to.Should you manage to organise this it would go a long way to shedding light on what has become quite a complex issue and will hopefully provide much sought after clarification.

To be fair most of us lost interest ages ago as we can make our own minds up .