FLAG / SSAI Respresentation with DOJ

Bananaman

Hypothetically speaking, If I was undergoing a range of tests with a Doctor and when the most important one was due - which I had been told the entire time was the most difficult and required the most finesse and I arrived that day to find a new guy standing there asking me to sit down so we could discuss my history - I would at the very least be frightened.

I'm sure both of them are well qualified to be a doctor and both of them have got all the relevant experience to be able to do whatever it is and the first guy will have briefed the second guy quite well BUT I can guarantee you my confidence would have been shattered.

I will be confiused as to why the change happened.
I will be disappointed not to have been told it was going to happen - after all he was my doctor
I will be apprehensive as I have no experience of the new guy
I will probably leg it.

Is that not also the case here?

B'Man

V Bull

65 signatures out of 327 people that have viewed this thread............!!!!!

Not a great sign of support ..............

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

I am not saying that Declan Keogh would not have been a good choice, but suggesting that whoever has been chosen is not a good choice is an insult to them and the people who chose them.

Indeed. Dose not evidence confidence does it?

Rew

V Bull wrote: »

65 signatures out of 244 people that have viewed this thread............!!!!!

Not a great sign of support ..............

Dont read in to that too much the views could be the same person 3 or 4 times over.

rrpc

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Indeed. Dose not evidence confidence does it?

On the part of whom?

alan123

What a mess.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I will be confiused as to why the change happened.
I will be disappointed not to have been told it was going to happen - after all he was my doctor
I will be apprehensive as I have no experience of the new guy
I will probably leg it.

Is that not also the case here?

B'Man

I don't know, I'm not your doctor

However, I also don't know who's been talking to the DoJ on behalf of the SSAI in the last year or so since the Firearms Act was proposed. If you remember the debacle over the firearms licence fees, you'd have to ask who exactly dropped the ball there.

And make no mistake, the ball was dropped. It was only action on all our parts that caused that particular proposal to be shelved.

So.... I'm not sure if your first doctor lost the x-rays, got removed from the register or ran off with his secretary....

Bananaman

Did FLAG not get the ball rolling to reverse that decision?

I seem to remember http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53018564&postcount=1

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

On the part of whom?

The great unwashed:D oh erm and the apparent lack of judgement by the committee

FLAG

rrpc wrote: »

I don't know, I'm not your doctor

However, I also don't know who's been talking to the DoJ on behalf of the SSAI in the last year or so since the Firearms Act was proposed. If you remember the debacle over the firearms licence fees, you'd have to ask who exactly dropped the ball there.

And make no mistake, the ball was dropped. It was only action on all our parts that caused that particular proposal to be shelved.

So.... I'm not sure if your first doctor lost the x-rays, got removed from the register or ran off with his secretary....

Folks

So for the information of all and sundry

I cannot help but get in here to clarify who has been talking to DOJ in the last year and that has been myself on behalf of FLAG and Terry Martin, Declan Cahill of the SSAI also accompanied us to the meeting in question. It was at that meetings with DOJ where I raised the issue of the license fee increases and we were informed that they had already been set by the Department of Finance, a search of the finance bill that PM confirmed the worst and that same afternoon I contacted Des Crofton who was unaware of the license increases, we worked closely together to bring the issue to the point where the minister agreed to set up the consultative panel, we even made national TV Pobal (one sunday evening) the rest is history.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...64&postcount=1

All meetings that we had were reported back to the SSAI

Lets not muddy the water here again.

The intent at the next SSAI AGM was to change the FLAG name from "action" to Advisory, certainly that’s the way it has been for the last three years. Comments recorded in the house of the Oireachtas is testimony to the respect we gained from the department during the consultative process and the formation of the current and soon to be implemented legislation.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Did FLAG not get the ball rolling to reverse that decision?

I seem to remember http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53018564&postcount=1

And I don't just remember this, I posted it myself.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53026955&postcount=52

Same thread, bit further on and in the next post Declan agrees that the ball was dropped.

I take RRPC's point we should have seen this in February, but then again all shooting organisations should have been consulted directly by Finance, we have lobbied Finance since 1998 for a change to the cost of a second rifle and now the same with pistols.......clearly to no effect.

That was the single most important change in the last year and it was missed. It's still on the statute books by the way, so if we are going to dodge that particular bullet we'd be better spending our time writing to the organisations involved in our sports and advising them as to the threats facing us instead of bitching about who gets to devote their spare time to these meetings.

The existence of this Panel and the full representation it gives us is one of the best things that has happened for this sport... ever.

The moaning and sniping as a result makes me despair. Better if we got nothing

Bananaman

the full representation it gives us

From my own point of view some of the sports I partake in
in particular Dynamic shooting are not yet represented.
Last I heard (last week) IPSA had not yet received their invitation.

I have heard plenty of people state that they either could or would not support other disciplines (IPSA as an example declared that they WOULD support shooting on the whole)

Under those circumstances I was happy that Declan/FLAG would provide a voice of reason without prejudice or vested interest in anything but the promotion of shooting sports and not any particular discipline.

For example - as you have pointed out earlier NTSA have a seat on the panel (although I thought they were a member of SSAI and hence already represented) - some of their committee members have stated in the past that they are restricted from supporting other disciplines. I believe they are consitutionally opposed to IPSC. Even when the license fee debacle was in full swing they were still issuing press releases calling for the license fees changes to be reversed for OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms. I, for one, felt all warm and fuzzy.

So as you can imagine I would like to know that I have some impartial representation on the panel.
I thought I had it. Now I dunno what is going on.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

From my own point of view some of the sports I partake in
in particular Dynamic shooting are not yet represented.
Last I heard (last week) IPSA had not yet received their invitation.

I have heard plenty of people state that they either could or would not support other disciplines (IPSA as an example declared that they WOULD support shooting on the whole)

Under those circumstances I was happy that Declan/FLAG would provide a voice of reason without prejudice or vested interest in anything but the promotion of shooting sports and not any particular discipline.

I can only point you to the terms of reference Bananaman. Most of them are relatively sports indifferent and as such would not cause any divergence of interests.

For example - as you have pointed out earlier NTSA have a seat on the panel (although I thought they were a member of SSAI and hence already represented) - some of their committee members have stated in the past that they are restricted from supporting other disciplines. I believe they are consitutionally opposed to IPSC. Even when the license fee debacle was in full swing they were still issuing press releases calling for the license fees changes to be reversed for OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms. I, for one, felt all warm and fuzzy.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation there. Sparks pointed out that the NTSA had no role in speaking for other bodies, and that all of us speaking seperately was the same if not better than all speaking together prividing the message was the same (which it was - no mention was made in the press release about OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms as you put it). The GAA have no role in speaking for the IRFU, and their members would be more than a little miffed if they did so. In fact if the NTSA represented itself as speaking for the NASRC, they would surely get and deserve a flea in their ear for it.

The NTSA is not constututionally opposed to IPSC. This has been stated over and over again, and been continually misrepresented. The ISSF to which the NTSA belong is opposed to it's member federations being associated with practical shooting which is a completely different thing. I know for a fact that some members of the NTSA take part in practical shooting and there is no problem with that.

So as you can imagine I would like to know that I have some impartial representation on the panel.
I thought I had it. Now I dunno what is going on.
B'Man

I fail to understand your reasoning. You had representation under the SSAI in the form of Declan Keogh, you now have it under the SSAI in the form of someone else. You don't know who that is, but you insist that it couldn't be better than Declan and therefore you are unrepresented.

You'll forgive me if I'm slightly underwhelmed by your logic.

le_Chacal

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

Any comments on the bizzare decision by the SSAI to dispense with the services of the FLAG respresentative namely Mr. Declan Keogh.
From what I can see, this organisation (FLAG), has negotiated on behalf of the shooting community, very successfully for a number of years. From my personal dealings, I can state that without their tireless intervention and expertise we would not have Pistols, Full bore rifles etc.

They also laid the groundwork for the initial court cases!

have yoou ever heard of the nargc or other bodies that were involved in gegoitations.

i heard that the pope is looking for anotheer saint

le_Chacal

Rovi wrote: »

Indeed.:(

Personal statement: I have no connection with either SSAI or FLAG, other than being an ordinary member of an organisation with representation on SSAI.


FLAG/Declan have done sterling work on behalf of Irish shooters over the years, so it does appear on the surface of it to be somewhat puzzling that they haven't been put forward for this particular process, but most of us here aren't in a position to comment unless we were part of the decision making process, in which case I strongly suspect we'd be bound to confidentiality.

Perhaps I'm wrong and all this can be discussed in public. If so, I look forward to definitive clarification.


Let the games begin


...

Anyhow...
The thing is, whatever the reasons for this decision (and opinions on their validity will be coloured by the viewpoint of the beholder), I'm sure any and all discussions/debates/votes on this matter will be confidential and can't be discussed in public.
So, unless someone privy to the decision process wishes to break confidentiality, I don't expect to see anything definitive emerge from this thread.

why not in public is it a secret society..... I'm sure any and all discussions/debates/votes on this matter will be confidential .....is this so the meembers wont know what is going on.

Ned Muldhoon

ok lads, we're now getting bogged down with rhetoric. As I see it, the question is simple. Why has Mr. Keogh been replaced on the consultative panel? I can see no logic in this.

Over the past number of years, I have had numerous occaisons to consult with the SSAI on various topics. Without fail, Mr. Keogh was the one who answered all questions, provided relevant information and gave unlimited time and assistance in getting a number of projects off the ground - all of which were to the benfit of the shooting community in my area (sporting shotgun, hunters, rifle and pistol etc).

Now, if the SSAI proports to speak on my behalf (and others affiliated) I would like to know the who, why, etc. This appears to me to be a simple, democratic request! Transparency of operation and motive is required.

le_Chacal

FLAG wrote: »

Folks

I will only add the following to this thread at this time.

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view. Being the FLAG representative since it's inception in 2001 and having stepped back from the committee of the SSAI has allowed me to represent the sport in an impartial manner looking after all interests. I have not done this alone there have been many contributors, a lot of people deserve credit, but now is not the time to be glory hunting, we have our sport to look after, no matter what your interests, air-soft, target shooting, hunting, pistol shooting, plinking, we need a cohesive group not a fragmented rabble!

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

Declan Keogh
Chairman FLAG

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.
dirty washin why not! it did not stop you blagging two clubs and their members sofar on boa**s this year.

is this the flag waving the pole. if you get my drift....
who is in charge ssai and its members or flag .... democracy!
who are the people on the commitee of flag ...names pleaseor is it a one man band:eek:

rrpc

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

ok lads, we're now getting bogged down with rhetoric. As I see it, the question is simple. Why has Mr. Keogh been replaced on the consultative panel? I can see no logic in this.

As far as I can understand, the SSAI were asked to send a representative to the Panel. Mr. Keogh is not a member of the SSAI but co-opted to a subcommittee called FLAG. He was never on the panel because the panel has not convened yet.

..... Without fail, Mr. Keogh was the one who answered all questions, provided relevant information and gave unlimited time and assistance in getting a number of projects off the ground - all of which were to the benfit of the shooting community in my area (sporting shotgun, hunters, rifle and pistol etc).

As have I and many others in the community who gave their time willingly in the interests of their sport. I'm not requesting a place on the panel, because I trust the organisations who represent me to do the job they were elected to do.

Now, if the SSAI proports to speak on my behalf (and others affiliated) I would like to know the who, why, etc. This appears to me to be a simple, democratic request! Transparency of operation and motive is required.

And presumably the decision was reached in a democratic manner. I'd expect that an announcement to that effect would be published on their website the same as the NTSA made their announcement on the NTSA one and Countryside Alliance etc. etc.

We don't know when the SSAI made their decision, but seeing as this thread appeared today, it must have been fairly recently, so allow them a little time to make their announcements.

Ned Muldhoon

Le Chacal, Can we please stay with the tabled topic. Off topic and deviations from the item at hand such as this will not help.

rrpc

The NARGC website (which has been down for a long time) does not mention the FCP either. Does anyone know if they are going to be represented?

le_Chacal

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

So this was an SSAI decision? In light of the recent posting (thanks Alan123), I have to say I am appalled that the SSAI have taken this decision and would request that it is immediately reversed.

Can the SSAI respond with their side of this debacle?

As far as I (and most shooters) are concerned, my interests have been represented by Mr. Declan Keogh & Mr. T. E. Martin, through FLAG which is a sub committee of the SSAI.

We currently have a number of bodies representing all disciplines, we cannot afford another fractious event now. I believe that this is exactly what will happen if this situation is not resolved (either by the reinstatement of Mr. Keogh or a sufficiently plausable explanation from the SSAI on their actions)

both people mentioned in the above were dismissed from a south dublin club for missconduct to say the least. i dont want them representing me

Sparks

FLAG wrote: »

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view.

I assure you, in my case it does not.
From long experience, I am personally quite happy that FLAG will not represent anyone on the FCP. I do not believe FLAG's past history would permit any right-thinking person with all the facts at their disposal to believe that FLAG could represent the interests of the shooting community as a whole, nor do I personally believe that FLAG would do so. I tried for years to work with FLAG only to be constantly refused any cooperation or information whilst FLAG merrily made statements in the name of the NTSA at the time that I was the NTSA's PRO and therefore responsible for such public statements. That alone would have led me to believe that FLAG has no place on the FCP, but it is not alone. There have been many incidents over the years, and Declan's posts on this board alone are sufficient to illustrate the point, that have convinced me that FLAG would not even represent a level head on the FCP, let alone one which we could trust to represent our interests to the standard we all require.

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

Indeed, and yet Declan, you've been writing open emails on the subject to all in your address book. Shall I quote them here for full disclosure?

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

I note with irony the complaint about procedures in the SSAI from the man who deliberately ignored the NRPAI constitution, rules, voting rights and members in order to change that body's name and structure to form the SSAI, and who constantly held the position from then on that complaints about this were without merit.

The intent at the next SSAI AGM was to change the FLAG name from "action" to Advisory, certainly that’s the way it has been for the last three years. Comments recorded in the house of the Oireachtas is testimony to the respect we gained from the department during the consultative process and the formation of the current and soon to be implemented legislation.

And comments in the Irish Shooters Digest from the people you've cited as having worked closely with - and from whose successes you have taken credit - are testimony to the acrimony your methods and statements have created over the years.

I invite anyone with the wish to learn more of the style in which they would be represented to search for FLAG's past comments on this board. I believe that they would be more than sufficient to convince anyone that however this decision was made, it will have positive end results for our community as a whole.

Ned Muldhoon

rrpc, fair point on allowing time for an SSAI statement! but since the DOJ are already forming proposals / policy, is this not a little late in the day to be introducing new faces?

I am quite aware you, and other SSAI officers, have given very generously of you time and expertise. I wished to make the point that from my experience Mr. Keogh was of singular assistance to myself and a large number of others and has served the shooting community tirelessly over a number of years.

I am not aware of any other SSAI representatives that have been to as many meetings with the DOJ and whose views on policy would be as well received and respected. Again, I may be wrong.

Since I have no knowledge of the internal politics of the SSAI (I accept that!) I will not comment any further on said policy until a statement is released. I just wish to make a point that this decision appears to be gross insanity and does require clarification as soon as possible.

Regards,

N

bullets

I "Dont" want to see this thread locked.

As a shooter that has nothing do do with hunting or serious sports shooting
and knows none of the people or history involved with
meeting and discussions between the DOJ and shooting bodies
and representatives my main source of information with reagards
to what the hell is going to happen with regards to restrictions and
licence fees etc mainly comes from these boards.

I'd like to be able to read here whats going on and whos saying what
and how it may effect me in the future being a casual shooter and gun owner.

With that said I would like to be able to read the thread without
people getting personal with each other and starting the usual
tit for tat narky comments that happens on nearly all boards.

~B

le_Chacal

FLAG wrote: »

Folks

I will only add the following to this thread at this time.

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view. Being the FLAG representative since it's inception in 2001 and having stepped back from the committee of the SSAI has allowed me to represent the sport in an impartial manner looking after all interests. I have not done this alone there have been many contributors, a lot of people deserve credit, but now is not the time to be glory hunting, we have our sport to look after, no matter what your interests, air-soft, target shooting, hunting, pistol shooting, plinking, we need a cohesive group not a fragmented rabble!

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

Declan Keogh
Chairman FLAG

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

i seeem to remember simular quotes being used on an other tread by someone using an other name

rrpc

le_Chacal wrote: »

i seeem to remember simular quotes being used on an other tread by someone using an other name

Le Chacal

Could you snip your quotes a bit? You've quoted FLAG's post in it's entirety and then requoted bits of it twice now, which kind of defeats the purpose of the quote button

No offence now, just really hard to read.;)

le_Chacal

Sparks wrote: »

I assure you, in my case it does not.
From long experience, I am personally quite happy that FLAG will not represent anyone on the FCP. I do not believe FLAG's past history would permit any right-thinking person with all the facts at their disposal to believe that FLAG could represent the interests of the shooting community as a whole, nor do I personally believe that FLAG would do so. I tried for years to work with FLAG only to be constantly refused any cooperation or information whilst FLAG merrily made statements in the name of the NTSA at the time that I was the NTSA's PRO and therefore responsible for such public statements. That alone would have led me to believe that FLAG has no place on the FCP, but it is not alone. There have been many incidents over the years, and Declan's posts on this board alone are sufficient to illustrate the point, that have convinced me that FLAG would not even represent a level head on the FCP, let alone one which we could trust to represent our interests to the standard we all require.



Indeed, and yet Declan, you've been writing open emails on the subject to all in your address book. Shall I quote them here for full disclosure?


I note with irony the complaint about procedures in the SSAI from the man who deliberately ignored the NRPAI constitution, rules, voting rights and members in order to change that body's name and structure to form the SSAI, and who constantly held the position from then on that complaints about this were without merit.


And comments in the Irish Shooters Digest from the people you've cited as having worked closely with - and from whose successes you have taken credit - are testimony to the acrimony your methods and statements have created over the years.

I invite anyone with the wish to learn more of the style in which they would be represented to search for FLAG's past comments on this board. I believe that they would be more than sufficient to convince anyone that however this decision was made, it will have positive end results for our community as a whole.

I note with irony the complaint about procedures in the SSAI from the man who deliberately ignored the NRPAI constitution, rules, voting rights and members in order to change that body's name and structure to form the SSAI, and who constantly held the position from then on that complaints about this were without merit.

not the first time

le_chacal
The person dk was unanimously dismissed from our club for refusing to attend an emergency meeting to answer certain question and to abide by the rules and constitution that he supplied to the Club, as a member of the SSAI, at the club foundation.

le_Chacal

rrpc wrote: »

Le Chacal

Could you snip your quotes a bit? You've quoted FLAG's post in it's entirety and then requoted bits of it twice now, which kind of defeats the purpose of the quote button

No offence now, just really hard to read.;)

immm sorry:o

Ned Muldhoon

Starting to regret I started this thread now as it appears to be degenerating into a personal attack on an individual. If we cannot adhere to civil discussion, I would ask a moderator to close this thread as it going nowhere.

If a contributor wishes to make remarks on anothers character - please start another thread and do not attempt to hijack this with supposition and conjecture.

Sparks

Ned, you opened the can of worms, presumably after reading the same email I received - where Declan circulated the minutes of the SSAI meeting where the decision he's talking about was made. Minutes that, last I asked, were not public domain information and were certainly not for distribution to non-SSAI personnel. I don't particularly agree with that policy, but Declan was one of its proponents - his willingness to throw it away the moment it causes him some imagined personal loss is further unneeded evidence that the outcome of this whole process is the right one.

As to supposition and conjecture, I have not yet read one single unverifiable fact. And frankly, most of the posters in here have shown admirable restraint in confining their complaints to that which are easily verifiable.

Again, I ask you to search over Declan's past posts here as evidence as to why he should not represent anyone to anyone ever again, especially threads like The Sandbox, How to derail a thread with a personal dispute - in particular this post with 28 questions for Declan that are still unanswered, including:a very relevant question asking why Declan purposely and deliberately sought to discredit the NTSA in the eyes of the Sports Council, thus attacking the NTSA's sole source of funding despite the NTSA at that time trying very hard to work with Declan - and also FLAG Mandate, where he happily identifies the SSAI as being the body in charge of FLAG - and thus within whose purview it is to issue instructions to FLAG. Or should the tail wag the dog?