CPSA new logo

[clayman]

Certain sports, mostly water based, are exempt from the travel requirement - so sailing / rowing etc are based away from the Olympic village, but the committee has decided shooting is not one of the ones where ideal facilities can be chosen away from the travel requirement, so Woolwich and Dartford remain the only choices. Dartford only gets into the travel distance with water transport across the Thames, and the objection is that water travel will upset the equilibrium of shooters ( sea sickness across the Thames??) so Dartford is struggling even on the travel requirements. Despite sterling efforts by the CPSA on the basis that Woolwich will need massive barriers to interrupt the shot beyond the target range ( there is not 275 m of safety distance and therefore high interruption barriers are needed), the O C is still adamant thats where it will be. I believe the calculation is that the barrier needs to be 60ft high to guarantee no overshooting.

[Mungler]

I see all the issues neatly ducked and just more top brass CPSA rhetoric.

 

Wouldn't have expected anything different.

[MC]

Certain sports are exempt,

 

And they happen to be the ones that could be held in london. Sailing canoeing rowing or isn't the Thames wet enough.

 

Shooting however needs decent facilities, danger areas etc. So lets put that in a built up area.

 

The CPSA are not bothered about the lasting legacy, they are only intersted in now. I find it very starnge that Bisley is too far from london for the olympics but wasn't too far from Manchester for the Commonwealth Games in 2002.

 

It goes far deeper than the olympic comittee, It surely is being run by cowards whio want to please the public. And by building something just for the games and then knocking it down is showing that they do not support shooting.

 

There is a superb letter in the Shooting Times this week asking why if the CPSA has over 25,000 members why is there only 9,700 signatures on the E petition to get the shooting held at Bisley.

[clayman]

One problem is that the National Governing Body that Sport England recognizes is not the CPSA. It is in fact the BTSF, as the govt does not distinguish between the different TYPES of shooting - clay shooting is lumped in with small bore, full bore, muzzle loading etc in the British Target Sports Federation. This does not have a personal membership, its membership is that of the specialist bodies - viz CPSA, NRA, NSRA etc. As constituent of this, the CPSA is not even representative of the UK, only England. The shooting voice is very fragmented ( hence the NATTS initiative to provide a single umbrella organization that holds the collective voices of the memberships of all the organizations).

 

While this fragmentation exists, and the CPSA represents such small numbers, the Olympic Committee is going to refernce ISSF with a multi-national profile, rather than the CPSA. ISSF will not be concerned about legacy, only that the layout is correct and rules adhered to.

 

The CPSA is doing what they can, but with only 25,000 members the voice is small and the resources limited.

 

So many say they don't join the CPSA because it provides them with nothing, overlooking that the CPSA needs both members and money to address the political lobby on issues such as the Olympics / noise / planning / and the anti's in general. The strap line of the CPSA is "The Future of Our Sport" . They have helped keep the sport alive and without them the sport would be more difficult to participate in - so they should be supported by membership simply so they can keep lobbying against increased legislation and poor decisions such as that of the O C.

 

As far as venue comparisons go, Martin should consider that sailing needs open water without shipping in it = Cowes or similar ( Thames to narrow and busy), sculling need specialist facilities such as those at Nottingham, canoing needs rapids ( any around London Bridge ??).

 

I'm not defending the O C, as I believe the Nuthamspead proposal was the best of all ( Bisley is actually quite a tight venue for further development), and I'd love to see a legacy, so anywhere has to be better than Woolwich - but I do think that correspondents who have no knowledge of the full extent of work the CPSA has been doing opposing the Woolwich proposal for at least two years now should not accuse the CPSA of not trying. Unfortunately, from the O C's point of view, the CPSA is a small group of amateur shooters that represent neither the UK as a whole, nor Target Shooting sports as a whole. The result is despite all efforts, as a pressure group in this issue, they have little clout.

 

Clayman

[Suffolk shooter]

Right lets get this right, Water borne sports need open water without shipping, yet its been decided that running the sailing out of WEYMOUTH is the closest they could do to the Olympic host city of London. ME thinks the OC didn't try to hard on that one now did they. QEII reservoir, Walthamstow, Wrasbury to name but a few in the immediate vicinity. Failing that there is always the home of british water sports at Holme pierrepont near Nottingham (Closer than Weymouth, easier to get to, larger facilities). So why should Shooting be any different. Its like the winter olympics, the host cities don't actually tend to be places where the events are held as the need for Mountains and snow don't coincide with good city building places.

 

On the basis you have mentioned Clayman, then Sydney would have had to have built a new shooting facility at Homebush rather than all the way out the otherside of Liverpool to accomplish the distance you mention. If the powers that be want to lie to get their own way (Reminds me of school playground temper tantrums, "Its my ball and you can't play") then they really ought to be a bit more imaginative than to think we won't check on these things.

 

I think its a total load of B******T dreamt up by the OC and other organisations about the Bisley fiasco and obviously has nothing to do with the fact that Bisley stated that the OC could hold the Shooting sports there, provided the british government allowed our home shooters to train in the country they represent with their own weapons in reference to handgun competitions. Government didn't back down so Bisley didn't either hence the need to spend £17million (More than double that by the year 2012) on building a new facility which will end up being scrapped the minute the games are finished.

 

Hmmm, now then does the british public currently believe the british government when it comes to A ) the taxpayers money and B ) when it comes to shooting

 

SS

Edited March 22, 2008 by Suffolk shooter

[DramaQueen]

I wouldnt say I dislike it, I wouldnt want anymore of the members money squandered in dreaming up a new one.

I don't dislike the old one either, as the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

Just another waste of money like the name change.

 

Bemused

 

Sarah

[Axe]

Looks more like something NASA would approve of.

[clayman]

Over the years the logo have got nicknames

 

there was the Beer mat

 

then the orange blob

 

The outgoing one is "The badge"

 

so whats this new one - the sputnik ??

 

Clayman

[sodit]

Sputnik! how about horse manure instead (to put it politely)

[InGen]

being someone who makes graphics myself i can say i like it. looks clean and modern and colors go well together.

[clayman]

Well, it looks like about equal numbers like and dislike it, but by far the majority feel it is unnecessary and a waste of time and resources.

 

Seems that the Logo is only for Championships, sponsorship events, and only for one year.